Pope acknowledges church failures in abuse scandal

[hitch22]

---

^ ^ hehehe...so, from what I read from your posts, sources are only objective and factual if they say favorable things about the Catholic Church?

Spring, I agree to disagree na lang. Besides, what can anyone prove in discussion forums anyway other than expressing opinions and sharing links?

Like I said at the very beginning, I only wanted to see at least some of these accused face trial that awaits them, especially Cardinal Bernard Law. I didn't say he is guilty. And if you really know what that completed sentence looks like: FLIGHT IS A SIGN OF GUILT. I guess that, to me, reveals something significant about these priests/bishops.

Anyway, I did catch this post of yours....

I am also appalled on what does this tell us :

Who We Are

I guess you're not turning a blind eye on these abuses, after all, and are just as outraged as some of us here about those cases.

In addition to that link you supplied, I'd also like to point out another similar site which also advocates accountability for clerical abuses: Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). Here's the link: http://www.snapnetwork.org/

If clerical abuse of children wasn't a problem, we wouldn't have any need for these organizations.

That's all I have to say about this issue. I appreciate very much your time in engaging with me. I enjoyed and gained insights from reading your posts. I don't expect everyone to think the way I do or see things the way I see them. And that what makes the world interesting.

To return a compliment, discussion forums would go out of control if we don't have Springfield supervising it. Good job, Spring!

Peace.

[hitch22]

I feel I need to respond to a couple of points, because most of them have that accusatory tone, like I'm extremely biased.

1)

Isnt it very contradicting that it is a TOP SECRET but then everyone knows about it ? Thats the whole brouhaha all about , do you have background checks and valid identifications of these so called victims ?

First of all, if you've been following these stories as I have, you'd know that Crimen Sollicitationis was leaked out by a priest who got dismissed from the order in one particular state in the U.S. Yes, it was top secret before that. Now, as they say in the US, the cat's out of the bag. I'll send you the link about that history when I find it.

Secondly, background checks and valid identifications? I've been repeating this point ad nauseam that trials await the accused. What does that fact mean? a) There's probable cause to warrant a trial; b) Let the court decide all those background checks, valid IDs, black-and-white stuffs. MAO GANI MAG TRIAL TA.

2)

I cant find any documented information about Fr. Tom Doyle in the net about his whereabouts . I didnt bother to watch the Youtube link either because it will defeat the purpose of listening to someone I dont know and will call it valid but it doesnt mean its not interesting .

Well atleast you could linked CNN and ABC as your sources but mind you , all media are tabloid , its just a matter of who is more presentable and unbiased . Mind you that pwerting palpaka anang CNN sa Gulf War reports . Another reason why I dont trust them just because sikat sila , ok na . Its all about MONEY thru EXPOSURE and EXPOSE .

Bai .. even paper media doesnt account everything as RELIABLE since they are only there to report . It depends who they talked to , gathered infos from , references and witnesses . So mapa paper or internet , it still carries the same content . Nothing biggie . I am not saying though na tanan sila sayop , its just that , mura bitaw ug AKP and TGP sa una , grabe kaayo ang sales nila basta headlines kay gi lawg man ang duha . That is nothing different from using VATICAN and if linked gani about RAPE , *** ABUSE , CHILD MOLESTATIONS , SCANDALS ... sensationalize dman kaayo because pistahan man jud . I know that you know how the MEDIA controls everything .

Again, it's only unbiased if it's favorable to your prejudices, isn't it? All media are tabloid? Well, you have to be smart about this, Spring. One must learn to separate factual reporting from the editorials (i.e. separate facts from opinion). And what are the facts: 1) There are pending trials awaiting these priests, including Cardinal Bernard Law; 2) Statements coming from Vatican insiders such as Fr. Tom Doyle and Fr. Gabriele Amorth may be admissible in court, as they could shed light on Crimen Sollicitationis; and 3) Victims' testimonies would have to be corroborated by witnesses.

If the media says the priests are guilty, pending trial, then that's an irresponsible opinion. But the opinion leveled against the Vatican is all about their covering up for the accused individuals. And it's a valid opinion. What are the facts? The accused priests/bishops are simply shuffled around various parishes or hidden inside the Vatican to avoid facing trial. Nobody's saying they're guilty. All they're saying is that these folks must face trial. The court has exercised due diligence and jurisprudence to deem the case valid for trial. If even the legal system cannot be trusted, then innocence and guilt depends on Springfield's judgment?

3)

I may sound biased with it but I am clearly pointing out that there are still people who believes and dili magpatandog sa criticisms . The ones you posted only suggestively says something about what they feel but based on second hand information and it clearly points out that these people are already pre programmed with their respective views of the church . Still I would respect their opinions but opinions are opinions right ? It doesnt not constitute black and white documentation .

Biased gyud ka. Again, that's the whole point of bringing the case to the courts: to bring out all those black-and-white documentation to scrutiny.

4)

The study was based only on SURVEYS of ALLEGATIONS but the outcome already sounded like they are GUILTY . The 80% who got substantiated only portrays a number that we dont know what happened . where are or what happened on the 20% ? Are they on state prisons serving time?

You don't seem to understand. Substantiated means that the allegations are backed up by evidence and/or witness testimonies. Meaning to say, these cases would hold water if they're filed in courts. That's when they say "YOU HAVE A CASE". And that represents 80% of those cases which had investigations done on them. I would suppose some of these victims have filed charges, some may be scared, some may find it a waste of time, and some just couldn't afford it financially.

20% of the cases investigated were considered false or couldn't be determined if the said events really took place.

5)

Murag comparable na siya sa justice system nato bai . If you remember the judge who valiantly said " I would rather set free 10 criminals than imprison 1 innocent man . " Like I said , because of the labeled , stereotyped image of the Catholic church regarding these scandals , pistahan jud and it involves lot s of money . mao daghan mo take advantage .

MAO GANI ADTO NA LANG SA COURTS I-DECIDE. MAO BITAW NANG GITAWAG NATO NA GOING THRU THE PROPER CHANNELS. Kanang walay tago-tago ba. Let the evidence and facts decide guilt or innocence. THAT'S WHAT THE TRIAL IS FOR.

Mind you, the US justice system is different from the Philippine justice system. Jury system man sa US. "Pistahan" is not in the purview of the courts.

6)

Same sa USA bai . People sued KFC at one time for millions because they got served with a chicken head mistaken as a thigh . Same logic . Its all about GREEDINESS .

There's nothing wrong with getting sued. It shows that the plaintiff wants the dispute to be settled at the courts, where evidence and witnesses are scrutinized and cross-examined. Do you think that anyone who sues wins automatically? If the judiciary system is a failure, then where else should one turn to?

7)

Or AGNOSTIC for the fact it came from you . Anyways ... there are reasons behind it from SPIRITUAL to RADICAL reasons .

Want to hear my reasons? How about growing up and dropping myths and fairy tales? How about finding supernatural claims just too hard to believe, given just hearsay upon hearsay as evidence? I can sum it up this way: I don't know if there is a God or what He looks like, but I think He doesn't look like the God(s) described in all organized religions.

I do noticed some atheists have an axe to grind when they turn away from religion. For my part, I took an honest look at my religious belief. It's either I truly believed or I just pretended to believe. I'm sorry to say that all the evidence and arguments that have been presented to me just aren't convincing, to put it mildly. In that case, I do what most rational people would do: suspend judgment. I just hope, if God does exist and questions my un-belief, that He would appreciate my honesty. I accept all the consequences attendant to my doubts.

Ask yourself this: WHAT CONSTITUTES TRUE BELIEF? Think hard about it. Is it all about saying "I believe"? Is it all about baptismal certificates and getting administered various sacraments and rituals? Is it all about uttering prayers? Is that what it all comes down to? Think about it.

8 )

Thats because of IGNORANCE bai . Like I said , MEDIA controls lives and how they control it depends on how and what they present on the table . Still the absence of validity is clear if we justify that it is synonymous because it is in stand up comedies , movies qor any other mdeium of entertainment .

The thing is , you made JAY LEO look like god now . He is as stupid and funny as his chin . Btw ... I cant complete the sentence , whats the answer ? I know what you are talking about regarding FLIGHT though . ANyways , on MJ issues ... do you know how much money he shelled out of that scandal ? Imagine that happening on Vatican more than ten times fold .

You didn't get my point. I was making a point about popular perception, because we were talking about the synonymous-ness between "Catholic priests" and "pedophilia". One barometer for popular perception, I think, can be found in pop culture: things like popular cartoon shows and late night shows, since they represent popularity for various age groups and demographics. Like I said, if it's gotten to the point where Jay Leno or The Family Guy or South Park (all TV shows with high viewerships) are making jokes about Catholic priests and pedophilia, then you know it's become synonymous. Get my point?

9)

Bai ... from that statement , it just made Fr. Tom Doyle a lesser person who was supposed to be a CANON LAWYER .

Yeah right. To you, Fr. Tom Doyle's only a human being if he speaks well of the Vatican. It's like Henry Ford's ad line: You can choose any color you like for your car, as long as it's black. To you, it's only fair and un-biased if it speaks well of the Vatican.

If the truth is ugly and somebody has the courage to say it, I commend that person; provided, of course, that he's willing to testify in court. Look, it's like this. I just don't approach the Brand "X" salesman to find out what's wrong with Brand "X". Get my point?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I feel I need to respond to a couple of points, because most of them have that accusatory tone, like I'm extremely biased.

Hehehehe .... actualy , its only a perception rather than an accusation . I only percepted it because most of the arguments presented are not even yours because these are sources based but then the big question would be , are these reliable enough to pin or nail the subject ? Its still pretty weak so to say because of these :

- Why is it that most members of the church only sees it as a propaganda against the church

- Why is the POPE still a POPE . He could have died a long time ago by mere assassinations . Mind you that Pope John paul II endured 2 failed attempts of assassination and we all know how good he is , he was even considred a living saint compared to the issues Pope Benedict XVI is facing right here and right now to include iSTORYA.net .

- Why is the Roman Catholic church still a religion of the masses , embraced by a lot under the governance of the Vatican leadership ?

First of all, if you've been following these stories as I have, you'd know that Crimen Sollicitationis was leaked out by a priest who got dismissed from the order in one particular state in the U.S. Yes, it was top secret before that. Now, as they say in the US, the cat's out of the bag. I'll send you the link about that history when I find it.

It just makes more sense to me now na murag conspiracy theories na hinuon nahitabo . Its just like those expose of the alleged ex Freemasons sa craft and the secrets that were totally hoax .

Secondly, background checks and valid identifications? I've been repeating this point ad nauseam that trials await the accused. What does that fact mean? a) There's probable cause to warrant a trial; b) Let the court decide all those background checks, valid IDs, black-and-white stuffs. MAO GANI MAG TRIAL TA.

Mind you it doesnt need a trial to establish that . Murag ikaw ug ako ... why am I wasting my time on you ? Because you are worth the time in exchanging of ideas . Before I engage on these discussion maski we both know that we are running in circles , its because I know who HITCH22 is in the forums when we talk about THIEST and ATHEIST .

Again, it's only unbiased if it's favorable to your prejudices, isn't it? All media are tabloid? Well, you have to be smart about this, Spring. One must learn to separate factual reporting from the editorials (i.e. separate facts from opinion). And what are the facts: 1) There are pending trials awaiting these priests, including Cardinal Bernard Law; 2) Statements coming from Vatican insiders such as Fr. Tom Doyle and Fr. Gabriele Amorth may be admissible in court, as they could shed light on Crimen Sollicitationis; and 3) Victims' testimonies would have to be corroborated by witnesses.

And what was achieved for the last 50 years / Nothing but just a mere data from researchers . That would total around 4 to 5 Holysee's in the throne .

If the media says the priests are guilty, pending trial, then that's an irresponsible opinion. But the opinion leveled against the Vatican is all about their covering up for the accused individuals. And it's a valid opinion. What are the facts? The accused priests/bishops are simply shuffled around various parishes or hidden inside the Vatican to avoid facing trial. Nobody's saying they're guilty. All they're saying is that these folks must face trial. The court has exercised due diligence and jurisprudence to deem the case valid for trial. If even the legal system cannot be trusted, then innocence and guilt depends on Springfield's judgment?

Wrong ... even the links provided already pre judged these so called CHILD MOLESTERS , *** ABUSERS and CRIMINALS . Even the POPE was accused of harboring and cuddling criminals when in fact how can these be harboring and cuddling when the subject is not a CRIMINAL ... yet if guilty ?

Biased gyud ka. Again, that's the whole point of bringing the case to the courts: to bring out all those black-and-white documentation to scrutiny.

Hehehehe ... bias gyud diay ko ?

You don't seem to understand. Substantiated means that the allegations are backed up by evidence and/or witness testimonies. Meaning to say, these cases would hold water if they're filed in courts. That's when they say "YOU HAVE A CASE". And that represents 80% of those cases which had investigations done on them. I would suppose some of these victims have filed charges, some may be scared, some may find it a waste of time, and some just couldn't afford it financially.

20% of the cases investigated were considered false or couldn't be determined if the said events really took place.

That is probable cause already for them to get the priest if indeed it is backed up by EVIDENCE and WITNESS TESTIMONIES . What happened ? The " some " part doesnt make up 80% for sure logically beacause if you are scared , find it a waste of time and cant afford means only that you never filed a case . So ang figure karon na 80% haosiao na .

There's nothing wrong with getting sued. It shows that the plaintiff wants the dispute to be settled at the courts, where evidence and witnesses are scrutinized and cross-examined. Do you think that anyone who sues wins automatically? If the judiciary system is a failure, then where else should one turn to?

Dont make sound too complicated . Like I said .... its all about MONEY which is the root of all evil . Everyone wants a piece of the pie .

Want to hear my reasons? How about growing up and dropping myths and fairy tales? How about finding supernatural claims just too hard to believe, given just hearsay upon hearsay as evidence? I can sum it up this way: I don't know if there is a God or what He looks like, but I think He doesn't look like the God(s) described in all organized religions.

That would be yours but you havent establish anything the fineline between FAIRY TALES and REALITY .

I do noticed some atheists have an axe to grind when they turn away from religion. For my part, I took an honest look at my religious belief. It's either I truly believed or I just pretended to believe. I'm sorry to say that all the evidence and arguments that have been presented to me just aren't convincing, to put it mildly. In that case, I do what most rational people would do: suspend judgment. I just hope, if God does exist and questions my un-belief, that He would appreciate my honesty. I accept all the consequences attendant to my doubts.

Good for you ! You are based on a personal level of thinking unlike others who are mandated and brainwashed .

Ask yourself this: WHAT CONSTITUTES TRUE BELIEF? Think hard about it. Is it all about saying "I believe"? Is it all about baptismal certificates and getting administered various sacraments and rituals? Is it all about uttering prayers? Is that what it all comes down to? Think about it.

It is actually just as when you say it is not convincing to you . It is convincing to us , me .

You didn't get my point. I was making a point about popular perception, because we were talking about the synonymous-ness between "Catholic priests" and "pedophilia". One barometer for popular perception, I think, can be found in pop culture: things like popular cartoon shows and late night shows, since they represent popularity for various age groups and demographics. Like I said, if it's gotten to the point where Jay Leno or The Family Guy or South Park (all TV shows with high viewerships) are making jokes about Catholic priests and pedophilia, then you know it's become synonymous. Get my point?

I am getting your point but the issue here is not about how we justify it . The mediums you use are only for ENTERTAINMENT purposes which even us fellow Catholics gets amused sometimes maski offending siya to some point but we all know , it is still weak if it is a move man gani as a prtopaganda . Do you think Jay Leno , The Family Guy or Southpark cares on what you say here ? That you use them as your leverage ? They dont and all they cared for is the ratings for the station and the money they make in the expense of the PRIEST " pedophilia " synonymous-ness .

Yeah right. To you, Fr. Tom Doyle's only a human being if he speaks well of the Vatican. It's like Henry Ford's ad line: You can choose any color you like for your car, as long as it's black. To you, it's only fair and un-biased if it speaks well of the Vatican.

Isnt that also reciprocal on your behalf ? That it is on your advantage because he favors your stand without even acknowledging who he really is ?

If the truth is ugly and somebody has the courage to say it, I commend that person; provided, of course, that he's willing to testify in court. Look, it's like this. I just don't approach the Brand "X" salesman to find out what's wrong with Brand "X". Get my point?

True ... true ... but what if brand Y is involved in making brand X to look like something wrong with it ?

[hitch22]

are these reliable enough to pin or nail the subject ? Its still pretty weak so to say because of these :

The fact that trials await priests/bishops who are at large indicates that the courts have held hearings to determine probable cause for trial and that there is indeed probable cause. Are the evidence and testimonies "pretty weak"? If it is, then the courts would dismiss the case outright. But we have a trial. Are the evidence enough? Well, that's for the jury to decide in trial proceedings.

- Why is it that most members of the church only sees it as a propaganda against the church

Catholicism is a religion. Of course, the "flock" is expected to defend its Pope.

But how do you know "most members only see it as propaganda"? The Catholics for Choice organization is outraged by child rape scandal. You yourself are outraged by it...right? You're not saying the all these child rape cases didn't take place, right?

- Why is the POPE still a POPE . He could have died a long time ago by mere assassinations . Mind you that Pope John paul II endured 2 failed attempts of assassination and we all know how good he is , he was even considred a living saint compared to the issues Pope Benedict XVI is facing right here and right now to include iSTORYA.net .

Why is the Roman Catholic church still a religion of the masses , embraced by a lot under the governance of the Vatican leadership ?

The Pope not assassinated or why Roman Catholicism still has a lot of followers has nothing to do with whether or not the bishops/priests should face trial or whether or not the evidence is strong or weak. I know you're intelligent enough to NOT use that kind of reasoning. Maybe you're saying that despite these scandals, Roman Catholicism still commands a huge flock. True. But I didn't lump the religion of Catholicism with the acts of its clergymen in my criticisms.

Let's take on that "huge flock" claim, anyway. In countries with high poverty rates, it is not a surprise that religion is embraced by the masses. The correlation is so well-established that you can make this truism: as long as there's poverty, there would always be religion. The Vatican, however, is not content with that fact. As far as the Vatican is concerned, their crowning glory would be, in the words of the Pope, "the re-evangelization of Western Europe".

I don't think re-evangelization of Western Europe could be accomplished through mere evangelization. People there have a sense of history and what it was like when the Roman Church was a tyrannical theocratic force and had everything their own way. The tradition of the Enlightenment is also well-entrenched amongst its learned population. They could, however, encourage high birth rates among its dwindling Catholic population there to re-colonize it. If there's one lesson in history, in the words of the famous historian Will Durant, it's this: "The fertile will inherit the earth."

To me, Pope John Paul II is an impressive individual. Yes. He was a unique kind of Pope that had the courage to own up to the Catholic Church's sinful past. In March 12, 2000, he made an unprecedented apology for his institution's sins throughout history, which included: The Crusades, The Inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish people, injustice towards women, and the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, especially in South America. That event actually followed a series of preceding apologies made by John Paul II himself for no less than 94 crimes: The African Slave Trade (apology in 1995), the unjust punishment of Galileo and an admission that Galileo's heliocentrism turned out to be right (1992), violence and torture of "heretics"--torture was institutionalised by the Pontiff during the Counter-Reformation (apology in 1995), and the indifference towards the Holocaust and the burning alive of the great Czech Protestant Jan Hus in the town square of Prague (apology for in 1999).

It just makes more sense to me now na murag conspiracy theories na hinuon nahitabo . Its just like those expose of the alleged ex Freemasons sa craft and the secrets that were totally hoax .

Mao lagi. Kadungog lang gani ug "top secret", conclude man dayon nga hoax. Don't be too quick to conclude. Don't be too naive about "top secrets". Almost all big organizations (government, private, and religious) have "top secret" documents. Do you think Coca Cola doesn't keep its formula under wraps? Do you think that governments communications with internal security are all open to the public? Wake up. Organizations/institutions all keep some form of secret/confidential document(s). It's about protecting their organizations' respective interests. It's not about conspiracy theories. You've been watching too many movies, Spring.

What are the facts?

1) The document called Crimen Sollicitationis exists. This is acknowledged by everyone, including the Vatican, although apologists for the Vatican claim that such document wasn't known to all bishops and therefore couldn't be made evidence for allegations of systematic cover-ups. But, as you can see, fact no. 2 obviously refutes that excuse.

2) Crimen Sollicitationis was referred to in a letter dated May 18, 2001 by then-Cardinal Ratzinger Ratzinger to every bishop in the Catholic Church. The letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning inquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation.

* click here to read that letter in English (from BishopAccountability.org)
* click here to read the original letter in Latin (from the Vatican website).

3) Charges have been filed at various states in the U.S. And in Boston, in particular, the Crimen Sollicitationis document was submitted as evidence of systematic cover-up the the child-rape scandal.

* Given the facts, apologists can't say that bishops were not aware of Crimen Sollicitationis.

why am I wasting my time on you ? Because you are worth the time in exchanging of ideas . Before I engage on these discussion maski we both know that we are running in circles , its because I know who HITCH22 is in the forums when we talk about THIEST and ATHEIST .

hehehe...sorry for wasting your time.

And what was achieved for the last 50 years / Nothing but just a mere data from researchers . That would total around 4 to 5 Holysee's in the throne .

You said so yourself that the Pope is a very powerful individual and that the Vatican is a very influential institution. What chance do these kids have against their s-e-x-starved predators?

Wrong ... even the links provided already pre judged these so called CHILD MOLESTERS , *** ABUSERS and CRIMINALS . Even the POPE was accused of harboring and cuddling criminals when in fact how can these be harboring and cuddling when the subject is not a CRIMINAL ... yet if guilty ?

Wrong. The Pope is accused of harboring FUGITIVE(s). When you're wanted to appear in trial and you escaped that responsibility, unless you have a valid excuse, you're considered a FUGITIVE.

Show me one link that's pre-judged these priests/bishops as child-molesters. If ever there is one such media organization that's stated such thing, then the same can be asked about them: WHY AREN'T THEY SUED FOR LIBEL? You're already pre-judging the media for libel when they're not judged guilty of that crime yet. Reciprocal, di ba, Spring?

Like I said, FLIGHT is a sign of GUILT. If these priests/bishops want to show they've nothing to hide, then let the courts find them as such. Why? Should we just operate on "just take my word for it" principle?

Hehehehe ... bias gyud diay ko ?

hehehe....Big-time gyud, bai. Nanggawas na lang gud nang bias sa imong ilong. You can likewise reciprocate that accusation.

That is probable cause already for them to get the priest if indeed it is backed up by EVIDENCE and WITNESS TESTIMONIES . What happened ? The " some " part doesnt make up 80% for sure logically beacause if you are scared , find it a waste of time and cant afford means only that you never filed a case . So ang figure karon na 80% haosiao na .

I only said "I SUPPOSE some of them are scared, etc." I don't have the numbers on what percentage filed charges. It could be that majority filed charges but the accused priests/bishops didn't show up because they got shuffled around. But the fact still stands: 80% of the cases that have undergone investigation were found to be SUBSTANTIATED. "Haosiao" (or "bogus"...hope I got that translation right) is not up to you or I to decide. That's for the courts.

Dont make sound too complicated . Like I said .... its all about MONEY which is the root of all evil . Everyone wants a piece of the pie .

Don't make it sound too complicated. Celibacy suppresses a very powerful, human urge---the urge for S-E-X. And with nowhere to go for expression, that urge is bound to cause a few short circuits, if you know what I mean. A few of these celibates would check in to a motel to rest kuno (wink, wink) with two young girls. A lot of them would go for young altar boys or boys in church-run orphanages in sadomasochistic manner. Between these two groups, the former is more moral...at least naay transaction. That's the basis for civilization: MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

"Money as the root of all evil" a very naive motherhood statement. It's what you do to get that money which is subject to moral judgment.

It is actually just as when you say it is not convincing to you . It is convincing to us , me .

So, true belief boils down to a feeling of being "convinced"? Remember, you're not just talking about being convinced about a First Cause. You're talking about being convinced about the entire Apostle's Creed. You're absolutely sure all the claims therein are true? If you don't believe in at least one of the creeds, then you can't call yourself a Catholic.

And how do you show your being "convinced"? By debating? By taking offense if someone says you're wrong? By carrying out placards that says "behead those who insult God"? By attacking atheists? And does God send people to Hell on account of their not being "convinced"?

Surely, certain acts and behaviors must constitute "being convinced". On this matter, I always point to Christians, Matthew 7:16, which says: By their fruits ye shall know them. I sometimes find it funny that I know more about Christianity than devout Christians. What behavior would a "convinced" Christian exhibit? Think, Spring, think.

I am getting your point but the issue here is not about how we justify it . The mediums you use are only for ENTERTAINMENT purposes which even us fellow Catholics gets amused sometimes maski offending siya to some point but we all know , it is still weak if it is a move man gani as a prtopaganda . Do you think Jay Leno , The Family Guy or Southpark cares on what you say here ? That you use them as your leverage ? They dont and all they cared for is the ratings for the station and the money they make in the expense of the PRIEST " pedophilia " synonymous-ness .

I'm not justifying it. I'm not even arguing whether what Leno or Southpark says are true. All I'm saying is that if it's gotten to the point that "priesthood" and "pedophilia" have become punchlines, then you know that such associations have reached pop culture. Get my point, now?

True ... true ... but what if brand Y is involved in making brand X to look like something wrong with it ?

To borrow your phrase: Don't make it sound too complicated. I'm not saying that if you don't go to brand "X", then you automatically go to competitor brand "Y" that has vested interest in making brand "X" look bad. Of course, we have to exercise sound critical thinking to check if statements are indeed backed up by facts. Obviously, the brand "X" salesman would not be a good source for objectivity about brand "X". Agree?

* Spring, I expect you to have the last word on this. So, go ahead. I really think we're going around in circles. I have to stop with this post, as far as this thread is concerned. Thanks for the conversation.

Cheers.

[SioDenz]

Somebody said that Christianity is a very good religion, but the problem is that Christians in general are only good at preaching not living what they preached.

[peewee_toot]

^^based on my observation... daghan ang ma igo ani!

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ HITCH22 ...


Hahaha ! Cge bai kapoy na pod ko ... anyways ... I am for the priest who are guilty of such crime to be burned alive and roasted in hell .