Posted 1/23/2011 4:16 pm
1. The sex abuse was not "peadophilia" but "ephebophilia". The victims were overwhelmingly post-pubescent males. Not pre-pubescent males. The perpetrators were overwhelmingly homosexual, which explains why it was mostly ephebophilia and not paedophilia.
2. The percentage of priests that are accused of abuse is lower than that of public school teachers, sports coaches, and clergy of other religions, and far below, still, of parents in their own homes. Objectively, statistically, children are much safer with Catholic priests than with their own teachers or parents.
3. Most of the cases happened 15-30 years ago. After that time, the Church started to move to remove these priests, which is why accusations lower to a very few after then.
The media has overblown this issue in a gargantuan fashion, but the facts and statistics do not support their lies.
And again, this happened because of homo priests. Not because they couldn't get married. Would anyone suggest that child abuse among parents and teachers was caused by their marital status?
Celibacy is a unique characteristic of Catholic priests. The media, loathe to blame the true cause, homosexuality in the clergy, have instead chose to focus on celibacy.
Pope Benedict XVI recently declared that homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood, now it remains to be seen that the seminaries (especially in the US) actually follow through with that.
Posted 1/23/2011 4:20 pm
Also, the age-18 barrier for consensual sex is an artificial, false, unnatural barrier that was not in place until very recent years. The vast majority of priest-sex consists of consensual acts between sexually mature boys and sexually immature priests. The scandal is how these boys can corrupt the priests, yet turn around and play "victim" when they fear the disapproval or punishment of some adult who has discovered their sexual activity.
Posted 1/23/2011 4:32 pm
The Left will knock itself out trying to fuck with the Catholic Church. The Church's stance on many issues is antithetical to the anti-human, soul-destroying Liberal agenda, they can't abide Catholics.
Simply put, the Church believes the bedrock of human society is the family, the Left believes it's the State.
Read Orwell's 1984, then Huxley' Brave New World, and report back.
The State commits evil acts for the sake of expediency. It's a stoic entity that will sacrifice the good of the minority for the majority using the cruelest and most base of formulas.
Sure, 2 world wars, millions dead to communist regimes, millions of dead babies to abortion, the destruction of the family, the entertainment industry's obsession with degrading human dignity....yeah, real progress has been made.
However, the Church has launched wars, persecuted witches, and instituted reigns of terror that have been unmatched.
The Islamic religion has done the same.
Unfortunately, by remaining static, and dogmatic, the church cannot really champion human rights. It had no problem condemning blacks to slavery, while at the same time proselytizing them.
Oh, and fiction books are precisely that - fiction. You could have easily used real world examples, you know.
World War 1 was fought on semi-religious lines. World War 2 was World war 1 part 2 - and it was the Christian west and eastern Orthodox versus the Pagan Germans.
A man who owns more bright red Prada shoes than most women -- a man whose job requires him to dress up in colorful robes and prance in front of other men -- a man who owns two cats -- a man who is rarely seen without the company of the young hot priest who has been his "personal assistant" for the last 20 years -- a man who personally instructed dioceses to avoid sharing information with police.
THIS is the man you take as an exemplar of the pro-family, anti-homosexual agenda? My, but you are well and truly brainwashed!
Sometimes, yes, he is. however, he is also funny as hell sometimes. Read Ezekiel, and you just can't help getting the impression that the Lord is just fucking with his head.
Posted 1/23/2011 4:44 pm
Hopefully the human race won't need the 1000 years of development that was lost during the dark ages to survive. Thanks Catholics.
There is absolutely no evidence that he did that. The media has tried to attached a lot of things like that to him personally, but they have yet to come up with anything other than seemingly damning headlines.
The stuff he wears - wiki has a pretty good article on it. It's tradition, and each piece has symbolism attached to it.
The Pope isn't the Church. His office is protected from error, but not the man himself. And it is very rarely that the man declares something infallibly ex-cathedra
Most of the time he's just reminding people of existing teaching. He cannot change or abrogate any of the Church's teaching.
If people chaff because the Pope tells them not to sin, it is because they chaff at Jesus Christ saying the exact same thing. They want to do whatever they want to do and they will come up with any justification for doing so, to include personally attacking the Pope or the clothes he wears.
To that I answer: grow up. Argue against the argument, not the arguer.
This is why we need some old-fashioned kickass popes. No more of these Vatican II fags. We need popes that fuck whores, poison enemies and stand proud for the Church.
