Archbishop Hughes, Boston native, retires

Good riddens to another hypocritical Catholic official. Take the supposed high moral ground and refuses to attend Xavier Univeristy in NO commencement because Donna Brazile, an unelected official with no real power to govern and believer in choice, was to be honored as part of the ceremony. His absence was a direct snub to all the graduates, for whom the event was really all about. Back here in Boston, the man was a partner to Cardinal Law in covering up the Sex Abuse crisis in Boston and actually allowing it to continue with the diocese's lack of action. . Hughes and Law and the rest of their ilk are no men of God. May they one day be judged and receive their and receive what they so richly deserve.

Ok, let's check TJT's level of fairness and even handedness. Do you think any secular college would invite Archbishop Hughes to speak on the truth and beauty of the pro-life position? Nah, I didn't think so. Most libs are one-way streeters. Case closed.

And if Hughes was involved in the sex abuse crisis, how come he was never pursued by law enforcement? Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty--that's known as a liberal right.

And your vengeful post make you a peacemaker and "man of God"? Are you setting the standard here for "men of God"?

Frankly, who the hell CARES?

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Any decent "church" would have thrown this creep out on his ear a long time ago.

What's eatting you tom?

The Lord does, Tom. The Lord does. He alone is the Judge; not you, not me.
But I do care; I care very much about what people like TJT say about the Church founded by Christ. Who amoung us can be the first to cast the stone ????
There have been many Judases throughout history . Archbishop Hughes is not one of them.

If this country has so many men of God, peacemaker, we wouldn't have so many
lawyers and courts room do we?

Amazing how the church moves these people around.

No spelling bee winners here, I see. Cretans. Look it up.

Archbishop Hughes is accused of being a pedophile protecting criminal who escaped prosecution due to the Statue of Limitations. It really isn't that complicated. I do not know if he is guilty or innocent, though I suspect the former given his job and boss.
Judases, Naomi? Betrayers? He should have been protecting the children. If the allegations are even somewhat true, he betrayed them, instead.
By the way, even if what the Bible says is partly true, Jesus did not want to start a new faith. He wanted to fix the one he was in. It was founded after his death, in fact organized long after his death. I think Jesus of Nazareth would roll over in his grave to see what was wrought in his name.

Naomi, your church was founded by men. It has been run by men for the sake of the men who have run it, and such has been the case throughout its history. Keep in mind that your church's hierarchy presided over the rape of thousands of kids, allowing it to continue unchecked for decades. They did this purely for political purposes, because they no doubt feared that people would see them for what they really are - nothing more than politicians with no moral authority whatsoever. Whitened sepulchers. Frauds. As for your comments on judging, no one casts a first stone with the glee of the zealot, the sheer joy that the "devout" feel in judging others as their inferiors.

Posted by gaudete June 13, 09 06:49 PM
Posted by KJR June 13, 09 07:23 PM

Gaudete, projecting your own intolerance onto liberals again, I see. One-way streeters? Sounds a lot like your approach (and KJR's as well) - the "everyone must obey us" approach that is so prevalent among you "devout" types. And, KJR, you found a new word to use instead of "hateful" - "vengeful". Congratulations. But you're still whining that you're all being persecuted, aren't you? And, guys, as usual, you present nothing of fact to refute TFT. Not a word. Where is he in factual error? Care to actually dispute any of his points?

I found an interesting piece in Washington Post on May 18th, quoting Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, at their commencement. It addresses Notre Dame specifically, but its points are apropos to Hughes, William Donahue, Ray Flynn, and the rest of the Catholic Taliban:

"The real scandal at Notre Dame today is not that the president of the United States is speaking at commencement," McGuire said. "The real scandal is the misappropriation of sacred teachings for political ends. The real scandal is the spectacle of ostensibly Catholic mobs camping out at Notre Dame for the specific purpose of disrupting the commencement address of the nation's first African American president. This ugly spectacle is an embarrassment to all Catholics. The face that Catholicism shows to our new president should be one marked with the sign of peace, not distorted in the snarl of hatred."

McGuire continued, "The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. . . . They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology."

The snarl of hatred, with no charity toward the living. Sounds like any number of the right wing zealots who post here, and it's far too frequently characteristic of your own posts.

"No spelling bee winners here, I see. Cretans. Look it up."
Posted by Heather Wandstadt June 14, 09 11:00 PM

Heather, Cretan references the island of Crete in the Mediterranean.

Cretin is defined as "a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person".

As you said, look it up.

Finally we got rid of the creep. May our lovely Catholic city become truely Catholic once again

Here is a statement from a young lady in my 100% Bible, Tradition, and Magesterium following community. She as well as all in this community of ours do not condone any abuse or coverup committed by anyone in the Church and feel strongly that should be held accountable to the law and will be by God. We do not blame God and or His Church which Jesus started clearly started over 2000 years ago for the acts of Men. This young lady's committment to the Church does not come from the world but from her commitment to daily prayer, Mass, the Sacraments and spending a good portion of her time serving the Church through her volunteer ministry. I have to believe that even those consistently that bash the Church would understand that without the organization of the Church there would not be near as much service being done to help the poor, the sick, etc, etc. Let's not forget the the Catholic Church spends more treasure and talent then any other organization in the world on serving those in need.

Now please understand there is nothing morally wrong with trying out for American Idol it's just nice in today's culture of thinking about me first that some still put Jesus and serving God before themselves and actually listen and believe He is wiser than they are. Anyway here it is.

I got up and went to seek my fortune at the American Idol audtions at 4 in the morning. I stood in the rain with no umbrella for 2 hours, and around 6:30 realized that it's all a set-up and that God would not fit into any American Idol plans. He would, however, fit perfectly in my previous plans to go to church at 3 to rehearse music for Mass and go over Theology of the Body with the teens later. So home I went, people staring as I ducked under the yellow caution tape to escape the hopeless, endless line of hopefuls.

Kai: Jesus is not "rolling over in his grave" because he rose from the dead!

OnTheLeft: The Church was founded by Christ. Even though some of his followers betrayed him then and betray him today, Jesus did choose to establish the church and called men and women to continue it, with his grace. He told his disciples "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The central question is: Is Christ the Son of God, and did He rise from the dead?

gaudete,
If you read the story I do not think the woman for whom Hughes refused to come to the event was there to speak about the pro choice position. It simply said she was going to be there to speak and be recognized. People usually choose their own topic for a commencement address... I seriously doubt her topic would have been abortion.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a Constitutional right, not a liberal right. However, we are here in the Court of Public Opinion, where there isn't a Statue of Limitations. If a religious figure has to have everyone he/she is appearing with vetted to ensure complete agreement with even the major points of RCC dogma, it is getting a little reidiculous.

Kai and Ontheleft,
and others who think the Church was founded by men: Try on Matt16:18 for size, when Jesus says to Peter "and on this rock, i will build my church, and the gates of hell will prevail against it." And it's not just this one verse. During his three years of public ministry, Jesus was obviously forming the Twelve, and others, into a community, an extended family, to carry on his message of love after he died.

Onthe left,
All i said in my comment at #2 above was that if it were right for Donna Brazile to speak at Xavier U., then you and TJT should logically support Archbishop Hughes to speak at a secular college, even about pro-life issues, to broaden the discussion, in the name of mutual tolerance. Are you fer it, or agin it, and why?

Now as to the substantive charges regarding clerical sexual abuse of minors, and the mal-supervision of the abusers by the bishops, of course both have much truth to them. The deviant actions of the abusers were manifestly evil crimes, and should have been dealt with as such. Nothing can excuse the bishops' failure in their duty to protect, but there are several explanations why otherwise good men could fail so miserably. One thing, when an accusation would reach them,
they put into effect the good old Anglo-Saxon mantra 'innocent until proven guilty,' but when some of the abusers got their 5th or 50th accusation, the presumption of innocense should have been dropped. Believe it or not, i think some bishops were naive, not believing that they could engage in such criminal behavior, so finding it difficult to believe that any other priest would either. Also, we cannot forget that in our general culture, the state of the art treatment for pedophiles
was the psychological one. Then the bishops would get these men back with the therapist's stamp of approval, that the abuser was again fit for duty. But of course, the ultimate decision was the bishop's, and the buck stops there. Finally, they didn't learn the 'Watergate' lesson. They desparately wanted to avoid giving scandal by admitting even one case, so in general, swept them under the carpet, hoping that if you couldn't see the problem it would go away. Rather than dealing with it up front from the beginning, pushing so much garbage under ground
created a volcano, a mega-scandal, which was much worse than if they had dealt with it correctly from the get-go.

Having said all that, i again trot out the cliche 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.' Certainly the perpetrators and many bishops were the bathwater, but the Baby Jesus, and the adult Jesus, are still present in his family, the Church, inclduing the vast majority of the priests who had nothing to do with the scandal.

Peter, only if you believe the mythology.
And please note how little the modern RCC resembles that which was originally created, long after the death of someone who did not want to create a new religion, let alone have one name after him.

OnTheLeft,

Please have those in the pro life community, who you know who don't care for the living ( I believe you mean born as you know the unborn are living) and gently remind them of Jesus and the Catholic Church teaching which is all life is sacred from conception to natural death. You know the Church which is in every part of the world serving those in need more then any other organization in the world.

Peace and Blessings

"The central question is: Is Christ the Son of God, and did He rise from the dead?"
Posted by Peter June 15, 09 09:11 AM

No, Peter, the central question is: why do so many "Christians" hate with a ferocity that would cause Jesus of Nazareth to see them in the same manner as he saw the "Christians" of his day ? You know them as Pharisees and Sadducees. Your central question brings up the central flaw in Christianity - it is not based at all on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but instead on unprovable claims - the better to terrify others into obedience to the people who benefit most from the religion, the wealthy and powerful, the hierarchy.

Posted by gaudete June 15, 09 10:13 A

Gaudete, you are presuming your mythology to be immutable fact. It is not. Your church was most decidedly founded by men. If you choose to believe that your scriptures are historical fact, that's your business. But they are indeed mythology, much as you label other belief systems. Quoting Matthew proves nothing.

And the "gates of Hell" have prevailed against your church for at least the last 17 centuries, with your church's insatiable lust for power and riches and the accompanying oceans of blood shed through the centuries for its crass political purposes. The "gates of Hell" continue to prevail against it as it fuels hatred for those who refuse to worship it, as it continues to treat women and members of the gay community with contempt that too often becomes hatred. And those same "gates of Hell" prevail with the church's institutional support and enabling of child rape on a pandemic scale. Your arguments about state of the art methods of dealing with the problem are meaningless. Your church insists that it, and it alone, has a divinely-based moral authority. They lie. And in the process, they destroy countless lives. For their wealth and power. Your church has a history of amorality and immorality to this very day that absolutely precludes any claim of moral authority. And Hughes is imply part of that amorality and immorality.

Posted by proud2bcatholic June 15, 09 10:29 AM

Most of the genuinely pro-life people (to be distinguished from the anti-choice movement) whom I know are very much pro-choice. They have enormous respect for the living. The same is hardly true of far too much of the anti-choice movement. That's why clinics get bombed, and health care providers get murdered. And the anti-choice movement says "gee, we didn't mean for that to happen when we called them murderers".

As for Hughes, he really is just one more robed hypocrite doing his damnedest to make targets of those who don't obey him. Another pissed off right winger throwing a tantrum because he and his ilk got hammered in the 2006 midterms and then got really hammered last November, rejected even by a majority of Catholics.

Gaudete
I remember school and being taught that you can’t use the word in the definition. To attempt to justify the text of the Bible by quoting the Bible… is faulty logic. This is especially true considering the source has no other independent backup for the events. For instance, at the wedding feast if Jesus of Nazareth had actually turned water into wine… it would have made the 5:00 news scrolls. It would have been debated in panel discussions for months, if not years. Was it Concord grape wine or vitis vinifera? Was it Bordeaux, Burgundy or a subtle white from the Baaka Valley? There is nothing. There is no independent verification.
Also, think about the English language as we know it today. Understand that that language has evolved in the last 50 years very rapidly due to the societal upheaval of technology… think about what has changed with the internet. Then think back to the time of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution and how the language has changed and evolved since then. Go back further to the Puritans and the English that they used, then remember that before that was Middle English and Old English. The original text of The Canterbury Tales practically requires learning a second language to read it in the original English. Then, understand that going back all that time, to translations and manual copies by the illiterate who just copied marks without knowing what they meant, to the text going through Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and other languages before reaching English, modern times, the evolution of each language, numerous edits by the RCC itself, Constantine, the Nicean Council, etc… there are bound to be errors, mistranslations and misunderstandings.
How can one rationally look at this, look at the intentional changes, the imposition of one theory over another, the lack of independent historical evidence and the lack of anything corroborating the events of the life of Jesus and seriously believe that there is a rationale beyond crowd control and greed? Using “divine inspiration” to explain why the Bible says what it does is one thing but how can it explain the complete lack of a record of the existence of someone as troublesome as Jesus of Nazareth?
Your comment to Ontheleft regarding what you said about Xavier is nothing like what you posted in #2. I can accept the premise, however the countless examples of members of various religious organizations speaking about numerous topics at public and private schools. Many of these, if they were to involve the abortion debate, would involve panel discussions, where multiple views are presented. The Xavier Commencement is not the time to make a political statement, by not attending. It is also not the time for a speech about the abortion debate. What Hughes did here was simply to make himself the center of attention because he disagreed with one position taken by someone else also invited, instead of focusing on the real reason people were going; the students. “Uh oh!!! The school is going to recognize someone who advocates for women’s rights to choose what to do with their own bodies. I can’t go. Screw the graduates, what could I do/say to them that would be more important than being a stuck up, arrogant snob and not attending?” The school was honoring Donna Brazile for her accomplishments. It was more important to make a statement by not attending. I would say, very misplaced priorities. It is about the graduates.
And, to your last comment, the historical Jesus does not exist outside the pages of an historical document of questionable veracity. Why not throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I am pretty sure he will have plenty to do.

ontheleft,

You keep saying the living. Are you denying that an unborn human in the womb is alive? I imagine that outside the blogesphere you must have acquaintances and/or friends and/or family and/or co workers who believe abortion is always wrong or at least believe differently then you do on the subject. What percentage of them would you say don't care about the born? Also do you really believe that most of those within the Catholic Church who believes life and all the rights associated it with start at conception don't believe caring for the born is as important? Three specific questions I'm curious to hear your reply.

Peace and Blessings,

It is too bad that none of those in church leadership whom we have come to regard as Enablers in regard to the sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests have ever been held accountable for their actions.

However, a number of them beginning with Boston's Archbishop Bernard Cardinal Law have moved up on the rungs of the episcopal corporate ladder.

Usually when individuals are known to be complicit in facilitating crimes committed against individuals, especially the sexual abuse of children, they are arrested and prosecuted.

Why hasn't that happened with the majority of Law's cronies and yes men like Bishop John McCormack and Archbishop Alfred Hughes?

Posted by OnTheLeft June 15, 09 12:50 PM
"They have enormous respect for the living. The same is hardly true of far too much of the anti-choice movement. That's why clinics get bombed, and health care providers get murdered. And the anti-choice movement says "gee, we didn't mean for that to happen when we called them murderers".

Posted by OnTheLeft June 15, 09 12:50 PM
And those same "gates of Hell" prevail with the church's institutional support and enabling of child rape on a pandemic scale.

Ontheleft, you apparently have a gift for exaggerating. Your first statement about pro-lifers unfairly stereotypes all of us who oppose abortion because of the actions of a few sick individuals. Because we correctly label abortion as the murder of the unborn does not mean that we encourage or condone the murder of abortion doctors or clinic bombings. Tiller's killing in his church was a tragedy. But the bigger tragedy is how so many on the left are exploiting his murder as a means to silence the pro-life groups. So much for open dialogue and finding common-ground as Obama frequently advocates.

Your second statement is even more far fetched than your first. You belief in the "pandemic scale' of abuse is the product of the media hostility towards the church. Yes there was a pattern of abuse and cover-up by priests and some church officials, but this problem is not systemic to the Church. This patern, despite the lack of coverage by the media, happens in other organizations regardless of faith, celibacy requirements, or hierarchy. Read the following link for articles on the same pattern in other organizations that has gone largely ignored.
http://voice.stblogs.com/2009/06/15/where-is-the-media-now/

Good. Another dinosaur bites the dust. This one was especially gruesome, at 75 years of age, allowing his own parishioners to be handcuffed and jailed. Total loser. Bye, bye.

KAI: "And, to your last comment, the historical Jesus does not exist outside the pages of an historical document of questionable veracity. Why not throw the baby out with the bathwater?"

Apparently MSNBC, and the rest of the puppets were controling the media back then too..

By the way, go and research what Josephus had to say about Jesus.

ontheleft: "No, Peter, the central question is: why do so many "Christians" hate with a ferocity that would cause Jesus of Nazareth to see them in the same manner as he saw the "Christians" of his day ? You know them as Pharisees and Sadducees. "

Your posts are always so charitable and loving, we should look to you on what it is to be a Christian.... our bad. No, really, tell us how to love, please, because all we can do is hate for our own personal weath and self centered needs. Help up left, help us...

www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for DAILY verified & vetted reporting on the USCCB (Unremoved Sexual Criminal Cabal Bishops) & Roman "La Cosa Nostra" Pedo Curia Cult.

THE SOLUTION? "STOP DONATING LAITY" as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted and was canonized for.

To date evil office holders like Hughes, Brom, Brown McCarrick, McCormack, Hubbard, Law, George, Pell, Leveda, Mahony, Egan, Gregory, DiNardo, Keeler, Foley, Bertone, Scola, Sodano, Hummes, Burke, Re, Rivera, etc., have cost American laity at least $4.5 BILLION DOCUMENTED TAX FREE offetory plate dollars, and squandered laity paid for assets, with no correction, and no removal of the CRIMINAL SCUM PEDO CURIA, who have caused 100% of it.

Edmund Burke reminds each of us: "The only condition for the triumph of evil is for good men (or women) to do nothing."

St. Paul to the Ephesians, 5: 11, sugggests: "Do not deal in fruitless deeds of darkness, but expose them!"

There is no middle ground here laity, you are either a fianancial supporter of this racketeering and child endangering pervasive criminal pedo curia, or you are not.

HOW WILL YOU ANSWER YOUR MAKER?!

Fiat Lux & Veritas!

Albino Luciani,
MURDERED POPE

Posted by Matthias June 15, 09 02:13 PM

No, Matthias, you incorrectly label abortion as the murder of the unborn (and you accuse me of exaggeration). And in incorrectly labeling this medical procedure as murder, you contribute to the violence against health care providers. You encourage the fringe elements of your movement to act against those whom you demonize. Then you all shed your crocodile tears, while implying that your side's violence serves your greater good ("...but the bigger tragedy...", etc). So tell us all, Matthias, that women should be forced to die for your religious beliefs. Because that is precisely what the anti-choice movement seems to desire here.

And child abuse is, in fact, pandemic in your church, and has been, apparently for decades. And the fact that it happens elsewhere is irrelevant to a discussion of Catholicism. It's excuse-mongering. Your church, as I said, claims a divinely-based, infallible moral authority, and it has ignored science when doing so has served its political purposes, so it can hardly claim that "psychiatry said this or that about abusers". Your church was instrumental in the rapes of thousands of kids. No excuses, Matthias. Until your church addresses its institutional complicity in this brutality, it has no moral authority whatsoever.

Posted by KJR June 15, 09 06:28 PM

KJR, care to actually dispute any of what I said? Or will you just go on as usual about much of nothing? I'll ask you again, KJR, in case you didn't get it the first time:

Why do so many "Christians" hate with a ferocity that would cause Jesus of Nazareth to see them in the same manner as he saw the "Christians" of his day ? You know them as Pharisees and Sadducees.

Now, address the accuracy of my point, KJR. Tell us all that my point in that central question is inaccurate and tell us how it's inaccurate.

Posted by KJR June 15, 09 06:28 PM

Controlling media? KJR, do you consider Fox News to be fair and balanced? Are you going to tell us that the media is just one big leftist group? That they're all out to get you and your little church and your little right wing politicians?

As for Josephus, there actually is a fair amount of academic controversy over his Testimonium with its rather brief mention of Jesus of Nazareth. The controversies range from inaccurate interpolation over time to its possible outright fabrication by one Eusebius of Caesarea during the late 3rd-early 4th centuries CE.

Mr ontheleft,

Why won't you answer my questions please?

Peace and Blessings

Posted by proud2bcatholic June 15, 09 02:11 PM

The living - as in ensouled, born, or viable. That is my reference. A zygote cannot exist outside the womb, and there is no scientific reason to assume ensoulment at conception. And I do know some very rabid anti-choicers. Most are, not surprisingly, far more concerned with the unborn than they are with the already born. And in answer to your 3rd question, the Catholic Church is also, as an institution, far more concerned with controlling women than with anyone's rights or lives. Frankly, I doubt they could care any more for the unborn, except as a political issue, than they do for the born.

So let me ask you a question or two. How could you support Republicans like Bush, knowing that their war in Iraq was killing the living, including pregnant women, and in that case, obviously aborting their fetuses? And, given your absolutely anti-choice position, are you suggesting that women should have to die for your beliefs? Because if you have your way legally, that will be the result.

Ontheleft,
You still haven't refuted my point. Tiller is murdered, and the pro-choice side exploits his death by blaming all pro-life groups and even demanding the government monitor or investigate pro-life groups like they are all terrorists. Why wasn't the same done to all Islamic groups when the Army recruiter in Arkansas was killed? I don't hear you accusing all Muslims being murderers even though the extremists in their groups belief in death to unbelievers? The answer is pretty clear. It is a cheap ploy by pro-choice people like you to use Tiller's murder to silence those who disagree with you.

As for the sex abuse scandal:
"And the fact that it happens elsewhere is irrelevant to a discussion of
Catholicism. It's excuse-mongering. " Again, rather than prove my statement, you avoid it all together and launch into your usual tirade about the Church. I didn't make any excuses for the scandal. I stated the fact that this problem is not confined to the Catholic Church. It has nothing to do with Catholic beliefs such as celibacy or the hierarchy of the Church or the Church's stand on moral issues. It has become clear that this problem is common in any institution where adults where in charge of children regardless of religious belief. However, like the Tiller murder, people like you like to exploit it to attack the Church while blatantly ignoring the same problems happening in othe organizations.

Kai and Ontheleft,

In my comment @#19, I tried to say something positive about your side of our arguments, to attempt to reach a more civil tone and perhaps some areas of agreement. You both totally rejected that, and betrayed yourselves as hate-blinded fanatics, self-righteous and infallible-in-your-mind.

Plus, you both reject my arguing from Scripture and church doctrine. But that
presumes that i write my comments only for your pleasure. Many i write for the general public who read these blogs, but do not comment, and for my fellow conservatives, to support them and perhaps supply an argument they could use in their 'real' life.

ONtheleft, you wrote: "Gaudete, you are presuming your mythology to be immutable fact. It is not. Your church was most decidedly founded by men. If you choose to believe that your scriptures are historical fact, that's your business. But they are indeed mythology, much as you label other belief systems."

Ontheleft, you are presuming your agnostic/secularist mythology is an immutable fact. It is not. Your 'church of agnostics' was most decidedly founded by prejudiced, materialistic, wrong-headed men. If you choose to believe that your
secularist/agnostic 'scriptures' are historical fact, that is your business. But your beliefs are indeed mythology and ideology.

Posted by Matthias June 16, 09 04:59 PM

Unfortunately, far too much of the anti-choice movement has, in fact, become a movement that uses violence or the threat of violence as a means of intimidating women seeking medical services and health care practitioners providing those services. Your movement now has a fairly lengthy history of clinic bombings and assassinations, meaning that it has a fairly substantial terrorist characteristic. And the rest of you, as I said, shed your crocodile tears and say something to the effect of "well, if he had done as we say, maybe he wouldn't have to have been killed". Read some of the comments that have made the rounds in the anti-choice movement. Your damned straight that there are elements of your movement that are terrorist in nature. And no one has claimed that it's all of you. But any of you who demonize women, their physicians and their supporters as murderers are, in fact, contributing to the climate that your fringe elements exploit. As for silencing those who disagree, that's a bit of projection on your part, I'm afraid. You think we're exploiting someone's death? Should we just shrug it off cavalierly, as the anti-cholcers do? When your side contributes to violence, you can bet that you will be called on it.

And, Matthias, simply because you don't like my answer to your contention that abuse is not confined to Catholicism doesn't mean I didn't answer your point. So I'm going to repeat it. Your church, as I said, claims a divinely-based, infallible moral authority, and it has ignored science when doing so has served its political purposes, so it can hardly claim that "psychiatry said this or that about abusers". Your church was instrumental in the rapes of thousands of kids. No excuses, Matthias. Until your church addresses its institutional complicity in this brutality, it has no moral authority whatsoever. You are making excuses when you state that it's done elsewhere. Which of those "elsewheres" demand unquestioning obedience to their every word? Which insist on their infallibility and absolute moral authority? But, of course, we're all anti-Catholic for not bowing to your unspeakably corrupt hierarchy, right?

I am sorry, gaudete, but my tone is generally kept very civil. The fact, however, is that it is tough to accept an argument without a basis in historical fact. I am very fallible, but I know how to approach an argument logically. Quoting events in the Bible to validate what the Bible says when I have rejected the historical validity of the Bible does not prove your point. I have argued that the Bible is questionable historically because it lacks independent corroboration. If looking for proof, historical documentation that is not part of the mythology to corroborate the events of the NT makes me a hate blinded fanatic, then so be it. If pointing to reasons why the Bible may not be accurate, including multiple translations, a word of mouth passing of the story for decades, numerous edits and revisions, political motivations and lack of historical documentation from independent sources has no validity, then I don’t know what to say. My friend, you believe, based on faith, because that is what you are taught to do. I do not believe that guiding ones life on a mythology because “faith is a virtue” is a good way to go.
KJR suggested I look at Josephus, a Jewish priest of the day, and noted scholar. There are issues there, however, as well. Josephus was born several years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. He was arrested by the Romans in a revolt in AD 66 and after release started writing. His writings mention a Jesus, however they are also known to have been edited by Catholics, and it is suspected that numerous phrases were added to the originals. KJR, at least you attempted to point to historical documentation to corroborate, however that source may be impugned and is not considered historically reliable. Josephus had one work thought to have been quoted by the Gospel writer known as “Luke,” which was not published until 94AD. I cannot, at the moment, remember the name, but there was a scholar/historian at the time of Jesus who was known to write as much as 3 pages about a trial for a minor theft, but he never wrote about a man claiming to be divine being executed by the Romans.
I know you believe, gaudete, but I am simply pointing out that there are valid historical reasons to doubt. There are valid historical reasons to doubt it all, and the RCC has done little to live up to it’s own claim of moral superiority over the centuries. Believe or don’t, I choose not to, because it is the only answer that makes sense, to me.

Posted by gaudete June 16, 09 05:24 PM

Gaudete, you apparently equate agreement with your point of view with civility, then you post this bit of uncivil nonsense, calling both Kai and me "hate-blinded fanatics" because we don't accept your scriptures as history texts? Are you serious? Look, man, I've read your posts for the past several months, including on some various political topics and you have time and again come across as a fairly typical, rather rabid right winger, a little too close to the foam-at-the-mouth wing of the GOP. I read your post #19 - it is hardly as you advertised. And Kai's responses have been thoughtful with no malice whatsoever. Where is the hate-filled fanaticism in his posts or in mine, Gaudete? Quote it right here and now. You won't, of course, because it simply isn't there. Like KJR, when you actually have no response to facts placed in front of you, you whine like a 3-year old that you're being picked on, that someone's being mean to you. It's really pathetic, man.

As for the second part of your post, it is not up to me to prove that your mythology is not historical fact - it is, after all, mythology. It's up to you to demonstrate that it is historical fact, and until you do, neither Kai, I, nor anyone else have to presume for the sake of any argument that it's anything more than a story. Gaudete, it is you time and again who shows yourself to be filled with that hate-filled fanaticism that you project onto the rest of us. Grow up.

ontheleft,

First thank you for answering my questions. Now I will answer yours. For the 233rd time as like 90%+ of the voting population my voting decision is based on all the pertinent issues. There where some candidates I would have preferred over Bush and McCain but felt currently voting for a third party candidate is still a wasted vote. I believe death in war including the innocent is just as horrific as aborting the unborn. Please here me again. I believe both are wrong. I believe your take is that aborting an unborn child is nor morally wrong. You feel you can tell people how they feel and what they believe. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you agree with all of his or her position. As far as these mythical one issue voters, they are mythical. There may be some but no one in my 100% Orthodox Catholic Community are single issue voters.

I believe it would be a huge victory for the Life side if abortions where legal only when the Mom's life was in Jeopardy. I'd have to believe that would diminish them by what 99%. That being said as I've stated before just as my wife or I and my Mom and Dad would have taken a bullet for our son or me after birth I know my Mom and Wife would have risked their lives for their unborn child as well. I can't for the life of me imagine someone saying to my Mom or wife in order to deliver your child their is a possibility you will die and them saying OK terminate the life of my child then.

Now a little follow up to your answers with anticipated reply. Those in your life who you refer to as rabid anti-choicers who are more concerned with the unborn then the born? Who are they? Co-workers, acquaintances, friends, family? Do you respect their opinions? Do you lash out at them and call them right wing Bush loving radicals because of their stand?

I will respectfully disagree with your statement about the Church and how it feels about the unborn versus the born. Do you believe the fact the Catholic Church provides more treasure and talent then any other organization to the BORN in need is all a ploy? You really don't think that the majority of both the Hierarchy and laity of the Church don't care about serving those in need who are already born, do you?

Peace and Blessings

ontheleft:
"As for Josephus, there actually is a fair amount of academic controversy over his Testimonium with its rather brief mention of Jesus of Nazareth. The controversies range from inaccurate interpolation over time to its possible outright fabrication by one Eusebius of Caesarea during the late 3rd-early 4th centuries CE."

So ontheleft, you agree with Kai that Jesus never existed? Because really all Josephus really stood for was that there was historical evidence of Jesus's life.

You are like my 12 year old who likes to argue for the sake of arguing, and adds nothing to the discussion.

Posted by KJR June 17, 09 10:45 AM

KJR, do you have any inkling as to the controversy around Josephus? Since you're the one who brought him up in the first place, after all. If, in fact, his Testimonium was not written by him during his life in the first century CE, but rather by Eusebius some two centuries later, it would hardly qualify as contemporary history, would it? And Josephus' writing claimed more than the existence of Jesus - it claims messianic characteristics, and these may well be at odds with his own Judaism. Now where, genius, did I reference the existence or non-existence of Jesus in any post? Point it out, please. Not that you will, because you can't.

And as for your 12 year old, I've got to believe that he or she a is whole hell of a lot smarter than you are, and I'd imagine he or she adds a great deal more to a discussion than you ever really seem to add. Of course, you obviously can't handle the idea of anyone questioning anything you say, so I'd imagine your 12 year old probably gets well under your martyr's skin. Once again, KJR, try to deal in fact, in objective reality. Heed the wise words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said that we all get to make up our own minds. We just don't get to make up our own facts.

Posted by proud2bcatholic June 17, 09 10:39 AM

A victory for the side of life if abortion were banned? Hardly. It would be a victory for the death culture that is right-wing fundamentalist religion. Like it or not, women have a natural right to control their reproductive destinies, and they do not need interference from anyone, especially corrupt members of corrupt hierarchies. It cannot be said often enough - unless invited otherwise by the person in question, you need to keep your hands off of women's bodies.

onthelf: "Now where, genius, did I reference the existence or non-existence of Jesus in any post? Point it out, please. Not that you will, because you can't. "

You didn't, and again you missed the point. Kai made a statement that there was no evidence of Jesus outside the bible, and I was citing Josephus related to that. As usual, you went far beyond the scope. Since you were arguing with my point of extrabiblical evidence of Jesus, one could infer that you rejected the existence of Jesus -since THAT was my only point before you butted in.. You need to pay attention to what is said, and control your hair-trigger desire to argue. As a child, did not not get much attention from anyone? You certainly act that way.

Posted by proud2bcatholic June 17, 09 10:39 AM

Most (if not all) of the anti-choicers that I know are, in fact, Bush supporters. And their concern for the unborn ends at delivery. After that, as is the case with your hierarchy, no further political purpose is served by those no longer among the unborn. And that is now, and for centuries, the principal concern of your hierarchy - the political purpose to be served on their behalf.

Also, you continue to maintain that your church provides more in money and talent to serve people than dos anyone else. What's the basis for that statement, and I'm looking for hard numbers here. Where do you get your data for that?

Posted by KJR June 17, 09 01:25 PM

KJR, are you having a little problem following things here? Let's recap - you mention Josephus, I mention the controversy surrounding his Testimonium, including the possibility that he actually never wrote it. As for what you could infer - really? Based on what? On what basis, other than your own delusions, do you infer anything at all from that other than what I said? Again, KJR, for once, try to deal in facts. If you're going to reference something, make sure you actually know something about the matter.

And "before I butted in"? Is this your blog, KJR? Do you determine who posts here and who doesn't? My hair-trigger desire to argue? Poor, poor KJR. Man, you really have no idea about conversation among grown-ups do you? You always manage to come across as the poor pathetic little martyr (in your own mind). Yeah, KJR, we're all out to get you, aren't we?

By the way, genius, since you asked - I had a great childhood. Lots of all the good stuff - family, fun, lots of learning. Especially the part about learning to think for myself, rather than simply following the dictates of, say, the Vatican. What about yours? What in your childhood caused you to willingly toss away any intellectual capacity you might have had in favor of, as you've claimed, getting your entire perspective from the Vatican? Again, since you brought up childhood experiences.

ontheleft,

That is genuinely interesting. So are they co workers, family, and/or friends? Have they told you they don't care about the unborn? As I've said in the past I belong to arguably the most Orthodox parish in the State and although the pro life and evil of abortion is spoken from the pulpit (3 or 4 weeks a year or about 6% of the time) and we do pray and attend pro life events this is most certainly not all we do. I also know many people whom are against abortion outside of our parish and again none of them do not feel caring for the born is not just as important. Any actual service we do always is for the needs of those born. Do these anti choicers as you refer to them practice any sort of religion regularly? I actually feel sad for these friends/family/co-workers you know who feel this way. They are most certainly in the dark.

As far as the Catholic Church being the largest provider in the world of charity to those in most need, a quick search on line has resulted in nothing definitive. I'm pretty sure She is but if I am wrong that's OK to. I'm sure you would at least agree just by googling Catholic Charities that the Church does do much more then most for those in need.

I'd really appreciate you answering my inquiries in my first paragraph and also if you would answer my previous question which was
You really don't think that the majority of both the Hierarchy and laity of the Church don't care about serving those in need who are already born, do you?

Peace and Blessings

OnTheLeft,
My understanding, re Josephus, is that there are a couple of references to a "Jesus" in his writings, The controversy is that it is thought that those references were added by Eusebius later, not that he didn't write the Testimonium. It is accepted that he wrote it, but that what has survived to modern times is not the original text, but one edited and added to.

Ontheleft,

For the umpteenth time, I am not a republican, i am a registered independent, although admittedly a very conservative one.

Regarding your disputation of the historicity of Jesus, you place yourself in the category of the Kennedy conspiracy theorists, alien abductionists, and Israel was behind 9/11 whackos. Try out references in Tacitus, Suetuonius, Pliny the
Younger, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian, Celsus and the Talmud. If you retort as is your wont that these were not contemporary references, then you are forcing 19th-21st century categories on ancient history. Plus, even on contemporary historical events, there is dispute as to exactly what happened, Kennedy, 9/11, what Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, whether Pius XII did enough for the Jews during WWII, so contemporanity is not an exact criterion. Of course, whether Jesus was the Son of God can well be disputed, for that is indeed an act of faith. You cannot realistically deny that early in the 1st century there were Christian communities; did the 12 apostles make up the existence of Jesus, and buffalo hundreds of tens of thousands of people? And do you deny that the Jewish authorities, for their
own good reasons, attempted to stamp out this 'heresy?' wouldn't they have said that no such man ever existed? No, all they said was that he was not the Messiah, a very defensible position for them.

As for your "hate-blinded fanaticism," I take back the word "hate," but not the words "blinded" and "fanaticism." You are blinded to any possible evidence to
the contrary of your opinion; that is pretty much the definition of fanaticism. Plus, your wrote: "church's hierarchy presided over the rape of thousands of kids, allowing it to continue unchecked for decades. They did this purely for political purposes, because they no doubt feared that people would see them for what they really are - nothing more than politicians with no moral authority whatsoever. Whitened sepulchers. Frauds." I will agree for the sake of argument with the
"thousands of kids," but only an ideologically controlled mind thinks that they know the subjective motives of a wrong doer.

PS, when is Michael Paulson going to blog again. This one's getting a little repetitious and stale. Are you on strike, Mike?

Posted by gaudete June 17, 09 06:27 PM

Gaudete, I'm not going to speculate as to the existence of Jesus, and up to this point I actually haven't, if you read what I've written. I'm disputing your claim that your church is of divine origin. You offer your scriptures as proof of that and I'd suggest that your scriptures are exactly what Christians claim of other scriptures - mythology. Your use of Matthew as historical proof of anything historical simply does not not hold water, any more than do claims of Adam and Eve. I'm also saying that your church has been primarily a political organization for at least the past 17 centuries, and frequently a brutally violent political organization at that.

Now, as for your "blinded fanatic", again, Gaudete, you project. Your insistence that we accept your scriptures as historical fact because they happen to be your scriptures is fanaticism. Your anger that we don't is fanaticism. I have, frankly, spent a long time studying history, studying belief systems, and asking questions. Your unquestioning obedience to, and defense of, what is demonstrably a corrupt organization is fanaticism. It is you who appears ideologically controlled. You actually think that these people allowed rape on a massive scale because of altruistic motives? Do you really think that their motivation for all that unspeakable brutality was good and holy? Hell, according to your statement, juries are "ideologically controlled", as are voters, and pretty much anyone trying to get to the bottom of pretty much anything. Yes, Gaudete, among other things, we attempt to ascertain motive as a means whereby we might prevent the recurrence of fundamental evil. So, given your church's contempt for science when their purposes have been suited by that contempt, what do you think was the hierarchical motive for the aiding and abetting of the rape of thousands of innocents?

ontheleft

don't forget to respond/answer my last post my friend.

Peace and Blessings