just didn't know if it was illegal. Ya sick fuck...

I think this is possibly the worst case of a pleading of ignorance I have ever seen. But, let's say I buy this pathetic excuse for a second. He did know that those priests were breaking their vows of celibacy and it was perverted and it was preying on innocent children. Yet, discipline for breaking their vows was practically non-existent. If they had consensual sex with a man or woman of age, you can bet discipline would have been most harsh.

We've seen them defrock a priest overnight when he declared his love for another man, but they just shuffle these priests. And it's routinely defended, even here.

Maybe they're so used to people believing in fairy tales that they think this bullshit excuse will fly. But then again... Does the bible address this?

Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2016, 06:22 AM - Edit history (1)

That was Reagan's testimony on Iran-contra. It's also a legally accepted form of lying.

The first link has a link to Diocese website that has the complete deposition. Or, at least it did until they took it down.

The second link is quite telling. The church is trying to make this a case of "out of context", but then takes down the whole testimony from their website after it only gets worse for Carlson upon further review.

Shady, slimy lawyers might accept such an explanation but fortunately no one else will.

Couldn't possibly be a deflection from Dawkins' neo-nazi tweet, could it?

why people might use them, various social settings, faux pas, etc.

If you want to discuss me, send me a pm. Otherwise, stop squirming away from the topic.

anf the Men who did that, like this Archbishop, were promoted rather than penalized.

And you compare that to a tweet by Dawkins?

Un-fucking-believable.

I always though that defense of the Church takes priority over everything else. It appears this is still the case.

Now, why do you suppose he put up a two year old story, that has already been discussed in this group. Two years ago.

I know that bashing the RCC is the daily bread in this place. It appears this is still the case. Even with a two year old story.

for enabling child rape?

Your lack of concern on what your Church does is as present as ever.

Ask to your question, ask trotsky. I'm sure he's followed up on what's happened to this man in the last two years. He sounds very concerned. He wouldn't be posting this just to stir shit and blow dog whistles.

and your lack of showing any concern for what has happened.

I only can know a man by his deeds.

And FYI, the Archbishop seems to be doing fine and has suffered no consequences from looking the other way at child molestation.

http://archstl.org/archstl/page/most-reverend-robert-j-carlson

It distresses me, but i couldn't say the same for you.

Especially when your premise is wrong.

What you consider "defense of the church" is no more than dissipating the bullshit and bigotry that is routinely posted here. Go on, Find what you consider "defense of the church" that is not that.

And, yes, I know all about Carlson. His predecessor was much worse. Without Google, do you know who that was and where he is now?

Personally, I don't make decisions abot what distresses me.

Now that that's out of the way, you avoided my question. What do you think prompted trotsky to dredge up and post a two year old article today?

you would have to ask him.

Particularly since you took it upon yourself to reply to that question I putdirectly to him, not with an answer, but with spurious assumptions about me.

I'll ask.

Raymond Leo Burke is an American Cardinal Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He serves as the patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and his previous position was Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, which he held until November 2014.[3] On 26 September 2015, the Vatican accounced that Burke had been re-appointed to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, from which he had been removed in December 2013.

Enlighten me.

He was removed from a pivotal position in the Curia and sent to this figurehead position instead.

Burke is on of the more conservative Cardinals, both on theology and social issues. He was one of the main leaders of the conservative wing during the recent Synod on the Family, which successfully blocked many of the reform programs relating to marriage and sexuality, which the German Conference of Bishops proposed. He certainly can and will cause more harm than blatherng in a deposition, two years ago.

Here's more:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/18/meet-cardinal-raymond-burke-catholicism-s-most-offensive-mansplainer.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12216305

They have both acted from their understanding of the church's doctrinal teachings and procedural rules. Burke is rather a prick about it, but I'm absolutely positive he's acting from deep, personally held beliefs which have been sanctified doctrine for the whole of his life.

and he is still Archbishop and has suffered no repercussions from allowing it.

And yet people still defend this Church.

Was the purpose of this thread to deflect from Dawkins saying something?

Fascinating.

It popped up in the Google headlines for religion. Why?

Dawkins tweets.


Or something.


Yes, seriously.

We care far more about people getting their Dawkins hate on (despite him leading no "church" of atheists or being anything more than one vocal individual) than we do about children being raped and the perpetrators protected. Uh huh.

...I'd say you'll find more atheists hating on DAWSKSINS than you'll find Catholics hating on the Pope.

Just last week he got reamed by PZ Myers (twice) and was disinvited from a conference by Steven Novella. I don't think I've ever seen that happen to any Pope, let alone this one.

...than you will see defending DAKSWNIS!!! and his stupid tweets!

so I thought I'd ask.
Thanks for the clear, straightforward and unambiguous answer.

Sad that we get so used to smoke and mirrors.

What Dawkins says or does has no bearing on me or any other atheist. I don't belong to any organization that he heads, I don't have to listen to anything he says.

A far cry from continuing to give your time, money, and uncritical support to a monolithic institution run by frothing misogynistic, homophobic perverts.

which had not a thing to do wih Dawkins.

How about you refraining from posting about Dawkins until his comments or actions rise to the level of depravity practiced by pedophilic priests and their enablers?

Consider it a challenge.