Catholic church bashing

Redleslie2

mrhankey88 wrote:

You liberals on here make me sick.

Yeah the liberals allow nazis and old skool fascists to post (politicallly incorrect) rubbish here day in day out and if someone tells it like it is and points out that they are in fact scum, they get banned. Go figure bollockbrain.

BuffyBot

Hmmmm: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=202295

solas

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=200179
I kinda had to laugh a bit

BuffyBot

He's just a comedy goldmine!

Dinner

I'm sick of all the Church bashing aswell. However I'm not a racist idiot like certain other people.

You bash the church you may as well bash all those who believe in the Catholic Church. I may not like some of its policies but that doesnt mean I get into a huff and go around snorting "I hate the Church, they wont suit the modern ages".

You have your views, I have my views and the Church has its views, anyone that hates the Church because of its views is an idiot.

Not too sure if any of that is at all relevant but I've been wanting to say it for a while now.

the_syco

BuffyBot wrote:

Hmmmm: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=202295

What the Stormfront people think of mrhankey

Posting crap/spamming anothers forum isn't generally a good idea and I know I'd a dim view of it if I operated any. Most of your posts weren't in anyway logical or well argued. How you expect to engender any support for the White cause with that load of horse manure, I just don't know.

solas

arabel I think you speak for quite a few people, as for the likes of mr hanky..there are a few running around. (don't think they are Irish either,) They are purposely stirring up intolerance and I for one have had enough of religious intolerance, considering the climate we grew up in.
I genuinely believe the majority here feel the same way.
live and let live. (or total apathy..whichever suits best)

Redleslie2

solas wrote:

They are purposely stirring up intolerance

Or challenging political correctness and liberal dogma.

Memnoch

solas wrote:

arabel I think you speak for quite a few people, as for the likes of mr hanky..there are a few running around. (don't think they are Irish either,) They are purposely stirring up intolerance and I for one have had enough of religious intolerance, considering the climate we grew up in.
I genuinely believe the majority here feel the same way.
live and let live. (or total apathy..whichever suits best)

the problem is that the church isn't interested in live and let live. It's constantly pushing it's agenda and trying to impose it's views wherever possible and trying to involve itself in political decision making. The recent events in the United States being a good example.

So unfortunately the only way for the tolerant to be able to live in tolerance of each other would be to get rid of the intolerance, but the only way to do that would be to stop tolerating the intolerant and then you would become just like them...

I hate the church, burn them all down! vive la resistance!

Karl Hungus

Arabel wrote:

anyone that hates the Church because of its views is an idiot.

No, I personally hate the Church because of it's choice of internal decor. :rolleyes:

Oppossing the Church for it's views, actions and policies? Why that'd be daft!

Memnoch

Redleslie2 wrote:

Or challenging political correctness and liberal dogma.

power troll post if i ever saw one, sarcastic or not :P

Dinner

Karl Hungus wrote:

No, I personally hate the Church because of it's choice of internal decor. :rolleyes:

Oppossing the Church for it's views, actions and policies? Why that'd be daft!

Why yes, yes it would.

the_syco

Arabel wrote:

You have your views, I have my views and the Church has its views, anyone that hates the Church because of its views is an idiot.

The church doesn't like gays, but it doesn't mind (and protects) those who **** around.

solas

Oppossing the Church for it's views, actions and policies? Why that'd be daft!

I've been preventing myself from referencing this quote but I think it makes a point.

bobby sands wrote:

when something is repressed, when we were opressed because of our faith, it causes the spirit to seek liberation, to fight for its freedom

..or something along those lines. I'm not using the quote to prmote republicanism, I'm using it as an example of what happens when people are opressed, either through faith or race or whatever the case may be.
If you are not a member of then you are no longer oppressed by it.
If you continue to fight it, you will only give it (as an organisation) strength.

the problem is that the church isn't interested in live and let live. It's constantly pushing it's agenda and trying to impose it's views wherever possible

what jesus christin country are you living in, stop daydreaming, where are they imposing their views on you wherever possible?
wake up.

Dinner

the_syco wrote:

The church doesn't like gays, but it doesn't mind (and protects) those who **** around.

Ahem, I believe one of the comandments runs along the lines of "Thou shalt not commit adultery" Correct?

If you are talking about pedo priests than all I have to say is a great big *sigh*.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the Church "doesnt mind" peadophilia. Have you?

From what I know the Church thinks homosexual acts are evil. I've never heard nor seen a source which says that the Pope things gays are evil or not loved by him.

Zombrex

Arabel wrote:

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the Church "doesnt mind" peadophilia. Have you?

You mean other than the fact that for years the Catholic Church at all levels has protected peadophile priests around the world, at the expense of the victims and families ... no, no evidence at all :rolleyes:

Naive statements like this is one of the reasons people are so angry to towards the Church and its "blind" followers ..

Arabel wrote:

From what I know the Church thinks homosexual acts are evil. I've never heard nor seen a source which says that the Pope things gays are evil or not loved by him.

Well that is ok then. Telling someone what they do is evil and if they don't repent they are going to spend eternaty in hell isn't really that bad. :rolleyes:

Talliesin

Memnoch wrote:

the problem is that the church isn't interested in live and let live. It's constantly pushing it's agenda and trying to impose it's views wherever possible and trying to involve itself in political decision making. The recent events in the United States being a good example.

That would be the extent of my opposition to the RC Church, my disagreements go further (I disagree with most of what they say and believe) but my actual opposition is only in so far as they try to involve themselves in secular affairs (they can hardly complain, they chose to start playing by the rules of secular political involvement) and much more so in actually undermining our secular affairs (I don't think their running our schools and hospitals has been entirely negative and will give them their due, particularly given a historical context where nobody else was going to do it, but this should be a Republic and they should be our schools and hospitals).

Beyond that I'll always defend the religious freedom of anyone, and given the circles I move in that tends to mean my speaking in the Church's defense more often than against them.

Of course this middle-ground position means I probably just piss off everyone whatever they think about the Church!

Zombrex

solas wrote:

where are they imposing their views on you wherever possible?
wake up.

where have you been for the last 2000 years?

You must be about 12 years old and from Dublin if you have no experience of the church imposing their views on Ireland.

Read a history book, any history book about Irish society in the last 100 years it 90% of it will contain references to the church organising and controlling public and private lives in Ireland

Memnoch

Arabel wrote:

Ahem, I believe one of the comandments runs along the lines of "Thou shalt not commit adultery" Correct?

If you are talking about pedo priests than all I have to say is a great big *sigh*.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the Church "doesnt mind" peadophilia. Have you?

From what I know the Church thinks homosexual acts are evil. I've never heard nor seen a source which says that the Pope things gays are evil or not loved by him.

really?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/19/184327/493

Ratzinger is also the author of a May 2001 letter to bishops stating that the "Crimine solicitationies" law (regarding strict secrecy in sex abuse cases) is still in effect.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

there is plenty more stuff out there on google.com for anyone wanting to read up about this

for eg..

At the height of the scandal of priestly pedophilia in the United States, he blamed the uproar on a media conspiracy. "I am personally convinced," he told an interviewer, "that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the U.S., is a planned campaign."

Bri

Arabel wrote:

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the Church "doesnt mind" peadophilia. Have you?

Seriously, I have to add to the above comments. Do you ever read/watch the news? Even a few weeks ago - there was major outcry. Are you seriously saying you've never heard anything remotely similar to this big story...

Read this:
here
Specifically:

[Cardinal] Law resigned as archbishop of Boston in 2002 after court documents showed that he and other leaders of the Boston church shuttled known pedophiles from parish to parish without informing worshipers.

Also:

Cardinal Law resigned after a judge decided to unseal court records that included a letter from the cardinal commending priests even though he knew they had been accused of abusing children. He eventually stepped down and cloistered himself in a monastery until his appointment in Rome.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/04/08/1112815725265.html?from=top5&oneclick=true

Talliesin

Arabel wrote:

If you are talking about pedo priests than all I have to say is a great big *sigh*.

It's probably inevitable that there will be some paedophile priests, as with paedophile brick-layers and paedophile shopkeepers. However when the latter happens there isn't a brick-laying or shop-keeping organisation with well-placed members who will harbour them, conspire to pervert to course of justice and attack the reputation of their victims so that they are not brought to book. Nor do brick-layers and shopkeepers often find themselves placed in positions of trust in relation to children other than their own without having done anything to earn that trust.

Saying this isn't church-bashing. Canon law recognised the risks of paedophile priests and the necessity of turning them over to the secular authorities and assisting the secular authorities in prosecuting them centuries ago. The Church's rules on the matter were a shining example of an organisation putting justice and consideration for the rights of victims ahead of its own selfish interests and reputation. In complaining that those rules were not followed I'm corrupt-moral-coward-bashing, not Church-bashing. After all, I'm not the one who is consciously and with foresight-of-knowledge breaking and re-writing the Church's rules on this matter, it's the bishops and cardinals that are doing that.

For that matter Church-bashing really doesn't help lead to justice in this matter anyway. It's no coincidence that Colm O'Gorman, a devout Roman Catholic, is a far more effective activist in this regard than many with strong anti-Church sentiment.

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote:

What the Stormfront people think of mrhankey

Roffle.

Wicknight wrote:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Of course the problem with this definition is that it rules out most people who claim to be liberals. The most bigoted people I’ve ever met think they’re liberals.

solas

where have you been for the last 2000 years?

I've only been alive for the last 30....

You must be about 12 years old and from Dublin if you have no experience of the church imposing their views on Ireland.

I don't understand that statement, the church has had absolutely no negative influence on my life....would you like me to repeat that?
I have no experience of the church imposing their views on my life.

Read a history book, any history book about Irish society in the last 100 years it 90% of it will contain references to the church organising and controlling public and private lives in Ireland

actualy most story books and history books will discuss the events of the last 100 years in Ireland in a political/military sense, well there was the whole civil war thing and us fighting for our independance from british rule..who were coincidently enough "oppressing" the Irish people.
But then again..I don't live in the past.

ferdi

When the Catholic church actually did oppress people in ireland and had a hand in what the state did, people who oppossed the church could have been seen as rebels/radicals etc.

However, now that things have gone the complete opposite way and The Church of Consumerism rules, with the "Because I'm Worth it" doctrine fully embrassed, are people who support the Catholic church the new rebels/radicals etc?

I'm a lefty liberal but i am fit to vomit at all the bial and hate spewed at the church by modern society, we really havnt grown up at all.

Zillah

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course the problem with this definition is that it rules out most people who claim to be liberals. The most bigoted people I’ve ever met think they’re liberals.

Explain please

BuffyBot

What the Stormfront people think of mrhankey

Good to see he's won the respect of his peers anyway

Moss

Arabel wrote:

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the Church "doesnt mind" peadophilia. Have you?

The Irish times reported this cardinal had a one in 20 chance of becoming pope after John Paul II. This is taken from the Dallas morning news:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1157311/posts

Cardinal offered sanctuary to admitted molester

Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez could be the next pope. He also recently sheltered an admitted child molester.


09:20 AM CDT on Monday, June 21, 2004

By BRENDAN M. CASE and BROOKS EGERTON / The Dallas Morning News


TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – A prominent candidate to succeed Pope John Paul II recently sheltered a priest who is an admitted child molester and now an international fugitive, The Dallas Morning News has learned.


Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez, who heads the Archdiocese of Tegucigalpa, put the Rev. Enrique Vásquez to work in two remote parishes from last year until March. The priest had fled criminal accusations in his native Costa Rica in 1998, then served in at least two U.S. dioceses before running again and spending time at a clergy treatment center in Mexico.

Father Vásquez helped found a training center for Catholic lay people in the Honduran town of El Paraíso and served as the resident priest in the village of Guinope. He vanished from Guinope days ahead of police after child-protection activists in Costa Rica pressured their government to revive a languishing criminal case.

The Irish times also quoted Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez as saying that 'he would rather go to jail than tell on a fellow priest for child abuse'.
The fact this guy could even be considered for pope is sickening.

You might want to look into the abuse scandal in boston. Despite the fact that cardinal law resigned after being shown to have repeatedly sheltered known pedophiles, he was allowed celebrate Mass at the Pope's funeral. What kind of message does this send?

Don't forget what happened in this country, e.g. in the industrial schools. Fintan O'Toole ( a highly respected journalist) compared them to Bosnian rape camps. He said he couldn't find another suitable analogy.

Personally I think the Church is the last bastion of pre-enlightenment thinking and backwardness in western Europe. The mentality of the Church is that you don't question. That is why it is pre-enlightenment and thats the real root of its problems.

ferdi

fintan o toole is a gob****e

Bri

ferdi wrote:

fintan o toole is a gob****e

Thanks for that constructive input.

The Corinthian

Zillah wrote:

Explain please

There are quite a few people out there who profess to liberalism, yet are completely intolerant of all other views. Disagree with such liberals and you are immediately branded and dismissed as a homophobe, misogynist, racist or otherwise. Question the logic behind any of the politically correct agenda and you’ll get jumped upon as fiercely as a black guy would at a BNP barbeque.

Such black and white conviction, inflexible and intolerant of dissention - and seemingly unable to question itself - is the very antithesis of liberalism. However, unlike the more traditional forms of bigotry, it’s far more fashionable and socially acceptable today; so you’ll see a lot more people ascribing to it.

But they’re certainly not liberals.

Moss wrote:

Fintan O'Toole ( a highly respected journalist) compared them to Bosnian rape camps.

I’m certain he’s highly respected in some quarters of the Montrose set, but he probably could not be called any more highly respected than archbishop Lefevre could - and probably for the same ideologically charged reasons.