I'm sure you don't care Donald, but this is kinda offensive. It's kinds offensive to me anyway, and I'd slit Ratzinger's throat given the chance.
I would probably be hurt if I didn't know I was super awesome and the greatest poster in the history of the online. If I wanted to do so, I could be a physics professor, too. I just don't like wasting my time with trivialities.
Looks like the links I sent were getting too many direct links to them. Let's see if these work. Those were the two most factually based sources analyzing the different allegations. First the detailed response to the allegations in Munich: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm This response has a lot of factual sources and goes in depth in to the question of how involved with the Munich case then Cardinal Ratzinger was. Second, the de Souza response to the NY Times article, with detailed dates and using only the NY Times' evidence in the Milwaukee Case: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM= Third, a close look at the most recent Oakland letter that has come out by a really liberal Catholic writer who puts the letter in complete context, something no news source I have seen yet in the mainstream attempt to do. http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2746
Golden Domer means someone who goes to Notre Dame for school, which I do. If your response is about college football then I agree, it is totally offensive.
Maher is smug because thats what he's paid to be. A flat out ******* who pulls no punches, you either love him or you hate him. Religulous could have been a better critique of how the world has been torn apart by the idiocy of religion, instead he spent half the movie harassing people who were trying to be nice. I have to admit it was pretty hilarious when the Jewish Rabbi Holocaust Denier pissed him off so much he ended the interview.
If he was involved in protecting these folks, he should be held criminally accountable. I don't give a flying crap who or what actually levies the chrages or whatever.
It would be interesting to see if the Anglican Church, with virtually identical theology and liturgy, but married priests, has the same sordid history of covering up child molestation. I think this would be a reasonable way of controlling for the celibacy as a causal variable.
I don't see how twhy77 can defend this type of stuff when it is quite evident that many catholic priests have engaged in this behavior. The fact is that this is a problem within the catholic church. Maybe the problem should actually be addressed instead of saying "no, it's just a few stray priests..."
Sigh, reading comprehension is hard. No one is denying the church has/had problems with abuse. Benedict has done so much to clean up the problem, including introducing a zero tolerance policy, stricter sexuality standards for seminarians, etc. While there are obviously still problem priests out there, they've been pretty much put in check. I've posted the stats in the American Church already, but once more...only 6 credible cases of abuse in the American Church in 2009 were reported. That's pretty good for a church with over 65 million members and below the average for the rest of the population. The current debate is about 3 cases where people are trying to say the Pope participated in a cover-up, 2 of the American cases have been shown to have no credence and are being blown out of proportion, and the third case, a German diocese's handling of a 1984 case transferring a priest from counseling back into a parish (certainly an imprudent decision and not the way these cases are handled anymore) has no facts showing the Pope was involved in the decision, just speculation that the priest who made the decision is falling on his sword for the Pope.
Not all of them Catholic bloggers, and I'm not saying there wasn't/isn't a problem. But that's not the point, the three ones I presented are using documents, facts, and the context to make their points. You're free to disagree, but an impartial look at them should yield the same results. But the fact remains you can't produce any evidence that shows he participated in a cover-up, just op-ed pieces with really horrible analogies to Watergate and cartoons showing pedobear.
<br> True, apparently our reading comprehension and biased opinions are nothing against the Catholic blogspots.....
NY Times, First Things, and National Review are not Catholic Blog sites. I can post to Wall Street Journal op-eds with facts as well, but no one is caring much about the facts right now. Oh well, I needed a good break from the bbs.
