The Pope supports renewal of a Church law that punishes pedos.

Just heard it on CBS Radio News (KMOX-AM). Benedict XVI will renew a Church law which gives bishops more power to punish priests who abuse children sexually.

Any molesting after i have become Gods vessel will be punished, in secret of course.

And it's not 'in secret', either. The law actually requires reportig of suspected abuse to the civil authorities, who are required by law to remain silent about the cases until charges are filed.

He was in it up to his ears. He conspired to commit child sexual abuse by turning a deaf ear to the pedophilia and moving the priests about.

He's every bit as guilty as those priests.

A fair question...

That's certainly demonstrable and verifiable, and not in the least speculative...

:eyes:

They could have videotape of him kicking your dog and you would still likely claim it's "speculative".

Please refrain from further speculation about me and my character/motives.

And you have a vast number of posts on the issue, so if you'd like to do a simple DU search on yourself, you'll see it's not a baseless assertion by any means.

I have many posts about the Church; your mischaracterization of those posts is offensive.

... the outright mischaracterization of both the nature and content of my posts, do you mean?

One criticism of the Catholic Church. Aside from the one regarding the Church's hardline stance against homosexuality.

Say it plainly.

Please give me one criticism of the Catholic Church other than its hardline stance against homosexuality. I don't know how much more plainly it can be said.

You merely reposted the same nonsense.

Or do you not have any? There's no nonsense involved here, and I don't think I can possibly make my request for information any more plain to you without the use of pictures.

So I'll ask, one more time, do you have ANY criticisms of the Catholic Church outside of its hardline stance against homosexuality?

Some I agree wth some I don't. Wht I object to most is beinbg accused of 'defending' the Church when all my posts have done is to provide accurate information about the Church. It is NOT the same thing.

You just keep proving my point. No retraction, no apology.

Your 'point' is as false as the accusations and insinuations about me.

I'm giving you every opportunity to prove me wrong. Just bring up one criticism you have of the Catholic Church aside from its hardline stance against homosexuality. That's all you need to do.

can be easily construed as a defense. Lawyers use it all the time... and a good defense lawyer would certainly hype up the positive and minimize the negative of the person they are defending. Things you do pretty consistently on this subject.

I'm sorry that that upsets some people.

That's very interesting... :crazy:

It's rampant here, vis a vis the Catholic Church.

and I'm thankful for all the great information that can be found here vis a vis the Catholic Church.

And the so-called 'great information' you refer to is about 90% pure horseshit.

:)

:banghead:

:eyes:

Why?

that's why I ask.

I dislike inaccurate information, when it's injected into arguments; that is quite different from 'defending' someone or something, something some DUers don't seem to comprehend.

And the information was not inaccurate... judging by the body of your posts on the subject, it is quite understandable for someone to assume how your arguments will go.

You defend Catholicism and this pope as well as the last one, among other positions you have, with a certain "prove me wrong" attitude. I think that on this subject particularly, the statement that they could have videotape of him kicking your dog and you would still likely claim it's "speculative" is pretty accurate. :shrug:

I frankly don't care whether you think that statement is accurate, or not (specualtion), because I know it isn't (actual knowledge).

defending the Pope? I could start a thread saying that Bush supports children and education because of NCLB. It could read as a simple accurate statement (since it's speculative whether or not Bush actually supports education, I guess), or it could be assumed that I was trying to defend him.

I think it's pretty clear that you started this thread to defend the pope. I'm just not exactly sure why.

Anything else read into it is the reader's assumption.

by the consistency of someone's words. To dispel those assumptions, one would have to take other positions on the subject than an exhaustive litany of praise.

Dispelling myths and profound, rampant, factual ignorance about a subject does not qualify as an 'exhaustive litany of praise'.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

John Paul II stepped in to save his ass is why.

Take it up with MA.

See my post below.

His STATUS/LOCATION isn't stopping them from indicting him - the fact that they don't think they have a case they can prove is.

That's a different issue than the mistaken idea that him going to the Vatican prevents him being indicted.

"The embattled Boston cardinal, Bernard Law, is expected to be replaced and reassigned to a Vatican position in June, the Boston Herald reported Friday, citing unnamed church officials.

The newspaper quoted church sources as saying that Law will be reassigned by Pope John Paul II to an undetermined post before his scheduled deposition in a lawsuit filed against the Boston archdiocese."

http://www.hypocrites.com/article5083.html

Oh, here's another tidbit about Law:

"Cardinal Bernard Law is coming under new criticism for a legal defense alleging that plaintiffs in a lawsuit against him were partly responsible for an allegedly abusive relationship between the Rev. Paul Shanley and a boy. The alleged abuse began in 1983, when the boy was 6."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/29/church-abuse.htm

Blaming a 6 year old for a priest raping him, huh? Gee, how Christian.

by the require to report statute under which he would have been indicted. I think MA has fixed the statute since.

It doesn't matter where the heck Law is at the moment.

The child abuse laws in Massachusetts were very weak at the time the crimes were committed, which makes it very difficult, if not impossible to indict Law.

"I am not surprised there are no indictments because of the way the laws were written," Bergeron said. "But it's unfortunate that, for all intents and purposes, men who agreed to sanction the abuse of children throughout the years cannot be indicted.

Reilly said in April that it would be difficult to indict church supervisors for allowing abusive priests to remain in parish work because of weak child protection laws in Massachusetts when the abuse took place. Reilly came to the same conclusion after the grand jury investigation, according to the report."

Indictment or no indictment doesn't mean a damn thing. Law confessed, in grand jury testimony, to covering up child abuse in his parishes. THAT'S what counts.

You mean the Catholic Church isn't SOLELY responsible?

The fact that Law was unidictable over these allegations due to the weak state laws doesnt excuse the culpability of the Catholic Church in these matters. The facts are that Law actively moved serial abusers around to different parishes rather than have them defrocked or brought before the state for criminal punishment when he was fully aware of their activity. While the fault lies primarily in the hands of the actual abusers, the chain of culpability extends up the ladder as far as knowledge of the abuse went.

It is unbelievable to me (not personally Catholic, though my father is) and to most of the Catholics I know in the state of MA that Law still holds a position of any authority within the Church.

The Church should remove all of those responsible for the coverup, all of those who knew of the activity from within its ranks. Until this is done they will continue to lose support in the US, and particularly in MA.

It's odd that no one's bothered to ask me what I thought; it must be because it's more fun to speclate about what I think, I suppose.

:shrug:

in any way shape or form what your thoughts on the issue were, rather to point out the what i thought was a flaw in your response to the previous post (regarding where culpability ultimately lies in the issue).

That the Vatican continued to defend and cover up the actions of the sick men who perpetrated the abuse makes the Church culpable to a degree in my opinion. I have no idea what your opinion on that is nor would I care to speculate (heck I don't even know if you are Catholic or not!). Anyways, you are correct overall, Law was never going to be indicted and not because of political pressures, but more because there was no legal way to indict him (though I believe that legal loophole has since, thankfully, been closed).

I can only speculate as to why the Vatican chooses to continue to protect him in this matter and nothing I have been able to come up with is a good thing for the leadership of the Catholic Church.

As someone who comes from an extremely devout Catholic family, I followed the case rather closely and I'll never understand how Law continues within the Church.

You were quite respectful in your question, unlike many others, and I snapped at you when I shouldn't have. No one who was not a victim or family member of a victim was more apalled to see Law taking such a prominent part in the mourning period than was I.

Peace.

:hi:

not that it was really required! My grandmother was simply devastated by the behavior of Law and the Vatican during that whole sad episode. I'll be very curious what her take is on the new pope.

http://www.snapnetwork.org/legal_courts/grandjuries_unlikelyto_indict.htm

"Experts say grand juries unlikely to indict Catholic bishops who supervised abusive priests. Several legal experts say that successfully prosecuting a church leader for protecting abusers would be a formidable task, since attorneys would need to prove that a bishop meant to help offenders commit crimes. The details revealed since the abuse crisis erupted in January do not support that theory, they say."

The law is very rigid on this point. Simply covering up the crime of pedophilia isn't enough to indict according to American law.

THAT'S why there has been no indictment. NOT because Law is innocent.

If they thought they COULD indict him, they could certainly do it anyway, regardless of his place in the Vatican.

They simply think there is no way they could convict him. Which could also be done in absentia.

support it being kept secret? If he still supports secrecy, how will we know if the bishops are doing anything about this? Will his version of punishment be moving them around or will it be public excommunication?

Honestly people's complaints aren't that the bishops don't have power to punish them, it's how they choose to punish them by relocating them rather than turning them over to the police.

If that's what his new rule will call for, then good for him. If it's not then it's just more of the same.

Based upon your post, I wager that you don't. Current policy is that ALL cases of abuse be reported to the civil authorities.

Yeah, that's what is being done, alright. With great success, too :sarcasm: in case you didn't know.

I'd enjoy seeing your proof; sarcasm is cheap.

You know it IS being done? You have proof that it IS being done? Our Green Bay diocese has refused to turn over records to the local authorities and said they would do an "internal audit" which is, IMO, *cough* bullshit *cough*

Mahoney has stonewalled as much as possible. Why, one would almost speculate that it was an organized strategy or something.

there are two specific examples of where the new approach you say is the practice of the church is not being done. I would say that the ball is in your court.

And announced at all the masses. Priest's name published in all local media. He's on indefinite leave, forbidden any contact with children. All evidence turned over to county prosecutor's office.

Hard to know whether this guy's guilty or not, but we don't have all the facts; the civil authorities, obviously, aren't talking.

Policies have never been the issue. The issue has been, and continues to be, follow through. The scandal doesn't arise from what the Vatican says, but from waht the bishops do.

The US bishops sex abuse guidelines are vague, weak and only sporadically enforced. Only a tiny minority would oppose maintining the policy, while many would like to see it substantially strengthened.

http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2005_statements/022005_pope_preserve_abuse_law.htm

SNAP is 'Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests' and they really know what's going on and report the truth.

I appreciate the irony. And that's just about the RCC stance on 'punishing' these monsters. That's what is so sad.

to law enforcement. This is just another way to keep the coverup going.

That IS current policy and practice.

When did this policy go into effect? Are the Bishops who don't abide by this policy punished as well when they simply transfer priests out?

IF this is current policy then great. But to deny that either this policy wasn't abided by for a long period of time (if it's always existed), or to claim that this problem didn't exist or wasn't helped along by the actions of some if not many in the church leadership is not exactly true either.

Yes, the Chucrh used to do that, but they no longer do. We also didn't have domestic-battery laws in this cpountry, but we do now. What is the point you are attempting to make?

...for what happened under it's leadership for many, many years. A lot of abuse occurred and a great deal of it was covered up with their help. And even these new laws within the church came with a lot of kicking and screaming and a lot of finger pointing (at the media....at gays....etc.) and very little in the way of genuine contrition.

The point is that people who see this as too little, too late and who may be wary as to the sincerity of their moves on this issue (especially given some of this new pope's quotes on the issue (I believe another poster in this thread provided a decent link) are not being entirely unreasonable.

And point of fact, many of them (myself included) were Catholics for a very long time.

They can't have made a mistake in the past, and be trying to sincerely fix it now?

:shrug:

Thank you for your remarkable insight into my psyche.

:eyes:

This isn't the first thread I've seen you do nothing but mercilessly defend the Catholic Church. But if you DO have any criticisms of the church, please feel free to voice them.

I don't understand what this flame war is about. Then again, I don't 'check up' on every poster I disagree with.

This is starting to look like an inquisition.

A "bullshit" inquisition where I seek out people who give nothing but one-sided answers in defense of someone or something that, in bullshitter's eyes, can do absolutely no wrong.

...and if they are, then good for them.

But again, when the impetus for doing so is that they got caught and called to the mat on this issue, and in the process of doing so they manage to blame many other groups who had nothing to do with these crimes (again...gays, the media, liberals) then you have to understand why many would view these changes with extreme skepticism and be hesitant to give the benefit of the doubt.

... outrage over ante-deluvian law-enforcement and judicial attitudes toward spousal abuse. Rgardless of the impetus, the change is what's MOST important.

....If when those domestic battery laws were passed, if the person selected for attorney general had been someone who had gone on record as saying that domestic violence was caused by women not knowing their place. Or if that person blamed feminism for domestic violence. Would people not be justly skeptical? Were people not justly skeptical when Ashcroft stood up there and said he would uphold all laws even ones that went against his faith? If this Pope not on record as pointing the finger in other directions then the benefit of the doubt would be in order.

Again, if they are changing for the better then fine and dandy. But please don't act like people who are skeptical of such positive change, when such a regressive choice was made for Pope are being outlandish or out of line in their opinions or their skepticism.

The evidence is that it is not. The records and the process are far from transparent, and the 'audits' are a complete whitewash, since there's no opportunity for independent investiation of them. Would you trust a Bush* administration 'investigation' of Bush's lies based on self-reporting and no oversight??

... the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Boy Scouts, the _________? What outside agency does that, Linda?

:shrug:

None of those organizations has the history of covering up pedophilia that the RCC has. I would want those organizations to have total transparency on this issue as well, and full independent investigations. The focus here is on the RCC and the new pope and his role in covering up the pedophile scandal.

Apparently you're out of arguments, since you're setting up straw men.

Pardon me, but the Boy Scouts have had as many pedos as the RCC has, and covered them up just as successfully.

Because you're out of arguments. We're not discussing the Boy Scouts, we're discussing the new pope and his authority and opinion over billions of Catholics worldwide.

If you don't have anything new or relevant to say about the RCC, pedophilia, and the NEW POPE, go on to something else.

I'm out of patience, which is an entirely different thing. Analogies are perfectly acceptable in arguments of this sort, except when *I* use them, apparently.

:eyes:

Have a nice day, Linda.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A fact which remains.

And why is Bernard Law in the Vatican? And the Vatican is actually sheltering a pedophile priest right now - other than Law.

http://www.unknownnews.net/040107pp.html

Catholic Church makes big show of passing alleged "audits" based on voluntary self-reporting

And here's a list of cardinals who are covering up the pedophile scandal AND blame it on the media:

http://www.snapnetwork.org/rome/moraly_unacceptable_candidates.htm

http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/calif/efforts_monitor_priests.htm

The information is given by the church, and there is NO independent investigation of the claims in the information.

I'm surprised that you were so quickly able to follow, read and digest all of the information provided on the website and the links to the various diocese so quickly.

:sarcasm:

bogus. I didn't need to read all the information, just that SNAP finds it bogus. I trust SNAP. I don't trust the RCC.

Of course not...

:eyes:

Here's the truth about those "audits":

The new procedure "essentially ends what already minimal oversight remained" by replacing on-site visits with "self-reporting" on how bishops are handling molestation cases, SNAP claims.

In 2005 and beyond, according to the bishops' new plan, on-site audits will only take place in dioceses that failed audits in 2004. Roughly 90% of the dioceses passed in 2003.

"Anyway you 'spin' it, that is a stark backtracking from an important pledge," SNAP says. "The end result: we'll all just have to take bishops at their word that they are living up to the Charter. No outside person or body will be able to ascertain whether this is in fact true. We're basically back to square one, where we have no choice but to trust in many of the same men whose repeated deceit and misconduct led to the molestation of thousands of innocent Catholic youngsters."

http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_press_releases/2004_press_releases/121304_snap_votf_address_audits.htm

This is exactly like the fox guarding the henhouse. Self reported audits in a corrupt institution have no credibility.

Edited to add link.

Or question the Virgin Birth? Or advocate the use of birth control or condoms?

Like his predecessor did?

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/10149890.htm

He has also defended the Vatican from criticism. At the height of the U.S. church's sex-abuse scandal, he blamed a media conspiracy. "I am personally convinced," he said, "that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the U.S., is a planned campaign."

:eyes:

back to Boston to face the music?

He was also stripped/forced to resign his post as head of the Boston Archdiocese.

"stripped/forced to resign his post as head of the Boston Archdiocese."?

Is that what you call it?
He is now head of the most beautiful church in Rome.
I'd call it a reward.

It WAS punishment to a cardinal, whether you believe it or not.

please punish me!

nt

Yeah, he's got it rough.

make that the weakest AND the most laughable. Next you'll piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.

:hi:

:applause:

nt

the offending teachers around, he would be in jail.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SNAP Press Statement


Statement Regarding New Pope's Plan to
Preserve Sex Abuse Law



(NOTE - Cardinal George, according to the AP, is predicting that Pope Benedict will extend the US church sex abuse guidelines, based on a brief conversation between the two men. See http://newsobserver.com/24hour/world/story/2326609p-10546475c.html)

April 20, 2005

Statement by Peter Isely of Milwaukee WI

SNAP Board Member (414) 429 7259 cell, (414) 963 8617

Extension is fine but what we really need is implementation.

Policies have never been the issue. The issue has been, and continues to be, follow through. The scandal doesn't arise from what the Vatican says, but from waht the bishops do.

http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2005_statements/022005_pope_preserve_abuse_law.htm

Hopefully he'll start with his very good friend, Father Marcial Maciel.

Priestly Sin, Cover-Up
Powerful Cardinal in Vatican Accused of Sexual Abuse Cover-Up
By Brian Ross

April 26 — A trusted ally of Pope John Paul II has been accused of sexually abusing boys a half-century ago at an elite seminary for the Catholic Church.

The alleged victims say the Vatican knew of the allegations against Father Marcial Maciel and chose not to pursue them.
In fact, the pope has continued to praise 82-year-old Maciel, a Mexico native, as an effective leader of Catholic youth, despite detailed allegations sent to the Vatican four years ago saying the man was also a long-time pedophile.

Maciel denies the charges and said the men made them up only after leaving the Legion of Christ.

Maciel is the founder of the little-known but well-connected and well-financed Legion of Christ which has raised millions of dollars for the Church. Operating in the United States and 19 other countries, the Legion of Christ recruits boys as young as 10 years old to leave their families and follow a rigorous course of study to become priests.

When approached by ABCNEWS' Brian Ross in Rome last week with questions of allegations against Father Marcial, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became visibly upset and actually slapped Ross's hand.

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Sexual_Abuse_Allegations_Covered-Up_by_Vatican.htm

... empowers bishops to punish priests over and above whatever punishment the civil authorities meet out.

I assume that means defrocked and excommunicated?

Exactly.

Bishops have no "power". What the fool should do is mandate anyone who is aware of it go to the proper civil authority.

:eyes:

That's why these things come out 30 years later.

You need not aceppt it as a fact, but that refusal does not make it NOT a fact.

Solly's waiting...
:boring:

and turned over a child rapist?

I'm not doubting it's policy and practice, but I would like to see the actual cases where it was the Church calling the police and telling the police they have a child rapist to report.

Not cases where the Church did an internal investigation first and they got to decide whether the case had merit or not...but cases where parents complained to the church and the Church immediately called the police and social workers, who are the only proper authorities in deciding if a crime has taken place..it's not up to the Church to decide if a crime has taken place in other words. They don't have that right in a secular society such as America.

So, if you could give me links or case numbers, I'd appreciate it. I'm sure others would appreciate it as well.

You keep saying it's policy and practice, so it would better serve your argument to have actual cases where the Church turned the child rapist into the police.

That way, a better case can be shown that not only does the policy exist but that the Church has a provable track record of putting that policy into practice.

Anything can be "law", the only thing that counts is if it's actually put into use..

Now, if you feel I should do my own research, that's fine

but since you talk as if you know for an absolute fact the Church has put into practice (actually called the police as a matter of course) the policy of turning child rapist into the police, I just figure you have those cases handy to give out.

It would settle the argument once and for all to show a clear record of the Church calling the police, without hesitation or internal investigation(they aren't qualified to make such a determination anyway), when an accusation has been made ...to the proper secular authorities for determining the matter.

I'm really not arguing with you but you keep demanding facts and proof from others...so I would like to see those cases where the Church actually called the police first...because, like it has been pointed out..policy is one thing... actual implementation is another..

and surely, a report of child rape to the police would yield an actual verifiable police report ... and not just on the blotter...as accusations of child rape always generate a case file..since it has to be investigated.

Glad to see you in such fine form today!

Curiosity got the better of me after reading the entire thread. What can I say? :)

As I'm sure you well know, neither I nor anyone else is likely to be able to do this, unless the person involved has been charged publicly with a crime.

In other words, though you demand proof of others...all you can do is constantly repeat "it's church policy and practice" without really proving the "practice" portion of your claim.

I'm reading the link you posted to Lindacooks, btw. It's a huge site and lots to read but I'll read it all. So far...a whole lot of talk about policy. I'm currently on the part where the auditing company explains it's methodology in conducting the audit.

While I applaud the churches desire to clean itself up and to learn to better police themselves...through screenings of priest and constant vigil...I understand the concerns of those who don't doubt the policy is in place but do doubt the practice is really consistant in any way...

If you take offense to that doubt...and you so obviously do (as evidenced by your defensive remarks when asked about proof...you know, the kind of proof you're demanding of others) then that's all on you.

I

You're asking for proof of something that, by definition, cannot be proved.

simple yes or no question


and the church does keep records, which, according to the auditing company ,John Jay College of Criminal Justice(of the U of NY), they weren't allowed to access those records for the audit/research study...instead a questionaire was handed out to various parishes and was filled out by the priest..Cause I AM reading that report.

and in those church records, might we find where an accusation was made? that's reasonable, no? and according to the 1962 document on handling child rapist within the priesthood, they do keep such records

but the question is...what action was taken when an accusation was made...that's the practice part of the policy people are having concerns with...

I think asking about the "practice" is a fair question in view of people like Cardinal Law...and some others...no, not everyone in the church is about covering up child rape.....but it is fair to say that cover ups have taken place. Cover ups include not reporting to the police and treating the matter internally... and moving priest instead of charging them...especially when it comes out that some of those priest that were moved went on to do the same thing in their new parish

I've not tracked and bookmarked stories to that effect, however, so if this is a game of 'gotcha!', you've got me...

concerned and are not just bashing Catholics or the Holy See because they can. I'm sure some people will just use any excuse to bash any religion...but sometimes people have legitimate concerns about religion and religious leaders. Yes, they don't always express those concerns in a tactful way, free of hyperbole...I'm guilty of that myself...but you don't have to be Catholic to be concerned by this matter and it doesn't mean you hate Catholics either.


I'm not Catholic and never will be...I just don't agree with any of it(or any religion for that matter)...but's that's me and my path. However, as a child I was constantly at the parish house and I adored Father Bob. I'll go to my grave remembering how wonderful that man was and how well he treated everyone. There are good priest...but they aren't the ones that worry me.

I know some people are genuinely concerned about this issue, and I am, as well. What I suppose I object to most of all is the 'nothing will ever be good enough' mindset one so often encounters here at DU regarding this subject. Elsewhere in this thread, I analogized this to the former acceptance of domestic battery, and I think it's a good anaology. No one would argue that domestic abuse was NOT condoned/winked at, but neither would one seriously argue that the law now condones it.

The Church has made, is making and will continue to make serious attempts to address this issue in a new and responsible way; there are likely to be both successes and failures along the way, but my fundamental point is that the 'old way' is being given a well-deserved and long overdue burial.

Peace.

What? For the leader of the catholic population of the world to be one who considers homosexuality to be evil and women to have no positions of power in the church or control over their own bodies? Is that what you mean by "good enough?"

Just a reminder of what the topic is.

:banghead:

... I feel pretty safe in stating what the topic of the thread is.

:eyes:

Can't say the same for other posters, however.

last word, so, go ahead, it's all yours... :eyes:

from going forward as is detailed in this article?:

Vatican Asks Rice to Help With Lawsuit

snip

The suit pending in U.S. District Court in Louisville is one of many sexual abuse claims in recent years that have listed the Holy See among the defendants. Judges generally have dismissed such claims either on First Amendment grounds or because of the immunity that foreign governments enjoy from many kinds of lawsuits. But the Kentucky case is unusual because it is a class-action lawsuit and the Vatican is the sole defendant.


more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5164-2005Mar3.html

are evil and oust them as well?

He's a nazi right-winger who will be dead in a few years.

RL

This is good news that should immediately make a bunch of people feel ashamed of their knee-jerk refusal to do anything but repeat the latest talking points (but somehow I doubt that).


The show here is getting hilarious.

I'm glad you posted this.

:eyes:

election? Why would he deliberately help a fascist retain power?

Could it be.....satan?
:shrug:

prolife to him ='s antiwar AND antiabortion.

reveal a lot of hatred against the Catholic Church. This is GOOD NEWS no matter what church you belong/don't belong to.

Save your act. :nopity:

The Church is not innocent and calling them out on their ills is hardly "hatred". I AM a Catholic and it embarasses me that the church continually acts as if this were 1005 and not 2005.

What I'm saying is that rational criticism has been clouded with hate, even among dissenting Catholics.

So save your snide comments and juvenile icons.

and don't wait until you are forced to issue a "clarification."

Makes for better communication all around.

But thanks for the snippy suggestion.