FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:04 AM) Do you really think that the "Catholic Church apparatus" is any different than the "Catholic Church"? I do. My parents are devout Roman Catholics and are good people. I think the same is generally true about most of the rank and file practicing Catholics. Any priest in a leadership role within the Chuch apparatus who either turned a blined eye or, worse, actively worked to hide the CRIMINAL acts of their fellow priests is criminally negligent and not someone I'd consider to be a moral person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:16 AM) Good to see some Catholics still can think for themselves and not rush to defend the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church merely because it is the Roman Catholic Church, their Roman Catholic Church. Please show me where this was done on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 On the whole has the Catholic Church apparatus done more good than bad? Probably. give me a break... I'm no Catholic Church apologist, but this is ridiculous. Hope has been given to millions of people. Food, shelter and help has been given to even more. I know many good people who happen to be Catholics. This whole thread is a shame. From the Catholics caring about what South Park has to say about them to LCR and Rex's assinine posts. (go figure) The one good thing about this thread is that I've seen some reletively unknown to me posters say some great things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:24 AM) give me a break... I'm no Catholic Church apologist, but this is ridiculous. Hope has been given to millions of people. Food, shelter and help has been given to even more. I know many good people who happen to be Catholics. This whole thread is a shame. From the Catholics caring about what South Park has to say about them to LCR and Rex's assinine posts. (go figure) The one good thing about this thread is that I've seen some reletively unknown to me posters say some great things. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Bottom line for the last 4 decades, if you wanna f*** kids your best bet is to study up on that catechism. Jim, if I didn't like you otherwise, I ask for you to be banned for a week. Before this post, I had flirted with being a dickhead at times, but thanks for showing me what real Jackassery is all about. This is the worst thing I've ever read here at soxtalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:23 AM) Please show me where this was done on this board. It's been done throughout this thread, everytime somebody suggests we should confine our outrage to the 4,050 accused priests and leave the rest of the Church out of it. It takes an amoral, corrupt Church leadership to protect these individuals and to repeatedly reassign them to unknowing new parishes. It also abviously required a lot of lay members to hide their heads in the sand for decades when these allegations popped up, rather than taking church leaders to task over it or leaving the faith in protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:31 AM) Jim, if I didn't like you otherwise, I ask for you to be banned for a week. Before this post, I had flirted with being a dickhead at times, but thanks for showing me what real Jackassery is all about. This is the worst thing I've ever read here at soxtalk. The Truth doesn't change because of your inability to stomach it. Face facts, for the past 40+ years, the Papacy covered up and abetted child rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:31 AM) Jim, if I didn't like you otherwise, I ask for you to be banned for a week. Before this post, I had flirted with being a dickhead at times, but thanks for showing me what real Jackassery is all about. This is the worst thing I've ever read here at soxtalk. I'll forward my post to the Admins and will willingly take the banning as they see fit. In the meantime, prove me wrong by citing another institution – ANY OTHER INSTITUTION – that is as globally positioned and that not only allows known pediphiles to continue service, but actually helps them hide their secrets and shuffles them around when the community gets wise to them. If you cannot, then I believe my comment is valid, if inflamatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:33 AM) It's been done throughout this thread, everytime somebody suggests we should confine our outrage to the 4,050 accused priests and leave the rest of the Church out of it. It takes an amoral, corrupt Church leadership to protect these individuals and to repeatedly reassign them to unknowing new parishes. It also abviously required a lot of lay members to hide their heads in the sand for decades when these allegations popped up, rather than taking church leaders to task over it or leaving the faith in protest. You don't just stop following a belief because some people f***ed up. If someone in the Church does something bad, I don't just walk away from my faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:34 AM) The Truth doesn't change because of your inability to stomach it. Face facts, for the past 40+ years, the Papacy covered up and abetted child rapists. yeah, that must be it... my inability to stomach things. :headshake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 06:22 AM) I do. My parents are devout Roman Catholics and are good people. I think the same is generally true about most of the rank and file practicing Catholics. Any priest in a leadership role within the Chuch apparatus who either turned a blined eye or, worse, actively worked to hide the CRIMINAL acts of their fellow priests is criminally negligent and not someone I'd consider to be a moral person. Aren't any RC who still look to the Church and the Pope for guidance "apologists" by LCR's logic? Or is it somehow okay to look to these criminal, immoral people for spiritual leadership? Recent popes have been directly accused here. Anyone who claims that it is possible to be Roman Catholic while reviling the Pope and the Church's leadership is fooling themselves. They may attend mass and receive Communion, but in reality they're practicing their own private religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:39 AM) I'll forward my post to the Admins and will willingly take the banning as they see fit. In the meantime, prove me wrong by citing another institution – ANY OTHER INSTITUTION – that is as globally positioned and that not only allows known pediphiles to continue service, but actually helps them hide their secrets and shuffles them around when the community gets wise to them. If you cannot, then I believe my comment is valid, if inflamatory. NAMBLA, ACLU, Hollywood, Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar Douche bags, etc... your language is what was offensive to the doctrine and belief of Catholicism and completely ridiculous on every level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:39 AM) You don't just stop following a belief because some people f***ed up. If someone in the Church does something bad, I don't just walk away from my faith. Which I understand and respect, even if I don't agree. If the Episcopalians are willing to schism over gay ministers, I would hope that Roman Catholics of Conscience would seriously consider a formal break with the Vatican. I don't believe it will ever happen, and for that the flock will remain saddled with/haunted by the sins of the father(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:47 AM) NAMBLA, ACLU, Hollywood, Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar Douche bags, etc... your language is what was offensive to the doctrine and belief of Catholicism and completely ridiculous on every level. Now who is being ridiculous? NAMBLA has the reach and the resources to enable and shield pedophiles on the same level as the Church of Rome? And my language was indeed vulgar. I will choose leave it there, and it will probably be deleted and I'll probably get a well-deserved time out. If I talk about priests f***ing kids I'll get tossed, but ironically the priests doing the kid-f***ing never got tossed by their superiors who chose instead to protect them and suppres tthe truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Oh, yeah. PA, what about these enabling Church superiors? Think they might be a teensy bit "ofensive to the doctrine and belief of Catholicism" too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:57 AM) Now who is being ridiculous? NAMBLA has the reach and the resources to enable and shield pedophiles on the same level as the Church of Rome? And my language was indeed vulgar. I will choose leave it there, and it will probably be deleted and I'll probably get a well-deserved time out. If I talk about priests f***ing kids I'll get tossed, but ironically the priests doing the kid-f***ing never got tossed by their superiors who chose instead to protect them and suppres tthe truth. I don't want you to be tossed, for the record. And also on the record, I got tossed for much, much less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:59 AM) Oh, yeah. PA, what about these enabling Church superiors? Think they might be a teensy bit "ofensive to the doctrine and belief of Catholicism" too? This thread has really strayed from what I was originally protesting. However, you're talking to mr. distrust of nearly every aspect of church leadership in the protestant religion. What you're saying isn't wrong. I totally agree. The leadership of any church will have to answer to God for how their flock was treated. I suspect there's a special high rise apartment in hell for priests with daily pineapples inserted in bad places for each of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 02:01 AM) I don't want you to be tossed, for the record. And also on the record, I got tossed for much, much less. Your post reflected you weren't looking for me to get a suspension, s'all good. If I get a suspension, still s'all good. I think I posted something that is vulgar likely to offend the sensibilities of some readers, and to impugn aspects of their chosen faith. The post was intended to do both. I don't believe that rises to the level of a suspendable offense, but it probably makes me an asshole in the estimation of some. I can live with that. Edited January 5, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:07 AM) Your post reflected you weren't looking for me to get a suspension, s'all good. If I get a suspension, still s'all good. I think I posted something that is vulgar likely to offend the sensibilities of some readers, and to impugn aspects of their chosen faith. The post was intended to do both. I don't believe that rises to the level of a suspendable offense, but it probably makes me an asshole in the estimation of some. I can live with that. I think most of us have been around long enough to know you're not really an asshole. Well, not a huuuuuuuge asshole at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 02:09 AM) I think most of us have been around long enough to know you're not really an asshole. Well, not a huuuuuuuge asshole at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 06:16 AM) Bottom line for the last 4 decades, if you wanna f*** kids your best bet is to study up on that catechism. Jim, this is pretty much the worst thing that I have ever read in my life. Now you're gonna get banned for like a week. I hope that it was worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) The word stands for social control. The whole reason priests are unable to marry is because the Church wanted the money from the estates when priests would die. If there were no heirs, the Church would be the only one to get the money. The papacy has been bought and sold numerous times throughout history. (And nice job by the way of completely avoiding the complicit support of the Nazis by the Church...great historical revisionism!) I shouldn't get involved in this debate because it really doesn't interest me much, except that this post is simply not accurate at all. First, the idea that priests are unable to marry comes from the Jewish tradition that high priests were not allowed to engage in any "contact" with their wives the night before entering the Holy of Holies in the temple. After a while it became easier to simply not marry at all. Furthermore, the church had allotted lands for priests and bishops to live on, there was no inheritance. If one joined the priesthood, he left his family and lived elsewhere. You might be right if the son was the oldest, but that was rarely the case. Generally a priest was the youngest and expected no inheritance from his family. Second, the support of the Nazis by the Church was simply because the Nazis were far from Communists. The communists in Russia had thrown religion out and that didn't please the Church. There is no revisionism here at all. At the time, nobody knew what was going on in Germany. I went to a Jesuit university (Marquette), so I may be the victim of some bias, but unless I see something to support the claims you've made I'm sticking to this understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 We have a time out on the field while the officials review the play. Just a reminder people: The Filibuster Are you a republican that gets riled up over those bleeding heart liberals? Or are you a democrat upset with the way Bush and company are running the White House? Well this is the forum for you to rant, rave and try to enlighten. Warning: This forum is not for the faint of heart. Do not come in here if you're not willing to, at times, get into heated arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts