That root cause being the dogma the RCC promotes.

That seems to be the reason our catholic friends here refuse to discuss it openly and honestly.

To truly address the problem, you have to remove some cards. But then...

of some DUers crashing down if they ever stopped defending the catholic church for this and started condemning it instead.

there are some DUers whose world view is based on irrational hatred of the RCC and Catholic DUers.

to criticize sexism, homophobic bigotry and the enabling of child rape is truly mind-boggling. But, as noted, their whole world would fall to pieces if they didn't mount that kind of sad defense of their precious church.

So perhaps there is progress on that front. However, when the RCC says everyone outside the church is going to hell, that's not religious bigotry, but if an atheist points out one example out of thousands of child raping priests, then that is obviously bigotry. The reason being that even if there weren't thousands of child raping priests, the same people would still hate the church, or something like that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=227654

Thanks for the direct post link, I wouldn't have seen that otherwise.

Ah, the poor put-upon believer. Rather than deal with their precious church and its ongoing sex abuse problems, just label anyone who brings it up an "anto-"Catholic bigot.

The chosen church, the idea that the Pope is never wrong when it comes to stating church doctrine, descendants from Peter, the whole idea of the church is so wrong.

Not attitude.

If he has not been able to point t one by now, I'll just chalk it up to more bullshit.

so he is correct but he did not take it far enough

That is the issue at hand as you see it, in your own words.

You'd have at least of modicum of intellectual integrity if you could point to that dogma instead of making snide meta remarks about "defenders".

But you haven't, so you don't.

You do realize that follows the betrayal and arrest of Jess, don't you?

If you actually believe that you just repudiated pretty much the whole of Christianity

Even as a juvenile literary exercise, there must be a modicum of internal, rational consistency which you, or your source have clearly not located.

A rofl smiley is not it.

However, you have simply compounded it. Starting with your tortured inferences about John.

And yes, regardless of whether it's a minority view or not doesn't mean it's wrong, which you conveniently fail to acknowledge.

You might also want to go down the road of citing the majority opinion of mainstream Biblical scholars as some kind of gold standard of not wrongness as that kinda puts the most strongly held doctrine of most Christian denominations, including the RCC, out the window.

This thread went from trotsky's usual offering about child sex abuse, to cleanhippie's usual nonsense about dogma, to my routine calling him on it, to you suggesting that John was having an affair with Jesus.

You do the math. There is certainly no logic to it.

What I actually said was Mark 14:51-52 suggests it. While a guy(in this case Jesus) gets arrested a nude young boy that was with him gets away. Are you actually saying this doesn't suggest something simply because it pains you to much to entertain a possibility that was widespread at the time?

Ignorantly. The word Mark used in that passage was not "boy". Whatever connection you make in your mind between that passage and the OP is, fortunately, entirely in your own mind.

Kinda funny you didn't say so.

Jesus himself referred to his disciples as children, FFS, and John was almost certainly the youngest. So if you really want to pretend everyone but you is ignorant, let's have at it. Impress me with your allegedly vast knowledge.

It means young man.

And no one - literally no one - thinks John was a child when called as a disciple.

Did you actually get that far in your frantic google expertise?

If you want me to start naming names of people who lay out pretty good cases for the ages of the disciples, I'm happy to do that, but I'll give you a chance to improve your google expertise and walk back your "literally no one" ignorance first. Fair enough?
"literally no one"

Now, I will assume you don't realize how far out to sea you've swum or how far from the topic of the thread you've wandered in an attempt to . . . what . . . .make a point?

But since you're there, go ahead. Post the name of every child Apostle.

And despite the pathos you've already exhibited, I doubt you will want a definition of child before answering. I may be wrong though.

I've already named the one apostle for which evidence exists was a child and all I have to do is provide an authoritative source that agrees with it and you're planting a wet one on my hairy ass.

So do we have a deal or not? The time to put up or shut up has arrived, and while I'm quite sure you won't exercise the second option, at least I'll have the satisfaction of another example of you painting yourself into a corner you can't hope to make it out of.

As I fully predicted you would.

Whatever it is, the sound is quite satisfying. YMMV.

But you won't. Because you can't.

Keep posting those smileys though!

The Church is willing to admit to crimes that occurred dozens of years ago.

Things that are still within the statute of limitations? Not so much.

The idea that the institution has changed drastically on that issue seems pretty naive to me.

it always will be, sadly.