Let's not forget what Pope Benidict is...

[betsy]

It is time to fix the damage that had been done to the church.

"... done TO the church"?

Surely you meant "done BY the church"

Sickos abound and are protected by their "leaders".

In secular society we don't protect perverts. So much for "morals of the church"

You'll find some explanations to your question if you pedal back a few posts and read the exchanges.

[gerryhatrick]

From your serious topic about the Pope...you're now focusing on being American and the proper usage of an expression. All because of a simple "eh?"

I see you're still using the same tactics of steering away from your real topic.

Oh not at all betsy.

I'm quite happy to focus on the topic. I posted it, after all.

I think it's clear this Pope engaged in criminal behaviour. I can make that judgement because the letter and the contents of it are not in dispute. You have pretended that it's not an established fact, but it most certainly is.

The Pope should answer for his crime.

[betsy]

From your serious topic about the Pope...you're now focusing on being American and the proper usage of an expression. All because of a simple "eh?"

I see you're still using the same tactics of steering away from your real topic.

Oh not at all betsy.

I'm quite happy to focus on the topic. I posted it, after all.

I think it's clear this Pope engaged in criminal behaviour. I can make that judgement because the letter and the contents of it are not in dispute. You have pretended that it's not an established fact, but it most certainly is.

The Pope should answer for his crime.

<yawn>

Whatever.

[jbg]

Eh?

You just pegged yourself as an American since you clearly don't understand the use of that word.

I think, if true, being an American is something to be proud of. What do you have against Americans? Ever traumatized by any?

[gerryhatrick]

Eh?

You just pegged yourself as an American since you clearly don't understand the use of that word.

I think, if true, being an American is something to be proud of. What do you have against Americans? Ever traumatized by any?

What do I have against Americans? Besides that they don't understand the usage (or the meaning) of the word "eh", nothing at all.

What do you have against Canadians?

[jbg]

What do I have against Americans? Besides that they don't understand the usage (or the meaning) of the word "eh", nothing at all.

What do you have against Canadians?

Nothing. Maybe you can tutor me on the use of the word "eh".

[gerryhatrick]

What do I have against Americans? Besides that they don't understand the usage (or the meaning) of the word "eh", nothing at all.

What do you have against Canadians?

Nothing. Maybe you can tutor me on the use of the word "eh".

I'll PM you on it.

This topic is concerning a letter signed by Ratzinger instructing bishops to keep allegations and evidence of sexual abuse of children secret.

[gerryhatrick]

The Pope should answer for his crime.

<yawn>

Whatever.

Ok betsy, I understand your position. Your position, simply put, is that you have decided to doubt all the media reports of this letter.

Just hypothetically then....IF the letter were real as it's been described in the media and lawsuits and elsewhere, would you then condemn Ratzinger for it?

[betsy]

Ok betsy, I understand your position. Your position, simply put, is that you have decided to doubt all the media reports of this letter.

Wrong.

Do you think all a judge has to do is read the media, then base his judgement on it? The media said such a letter exists...that's it? Good enough to convict and condemn a man?

Did I miss something here? You're not talking of Iran? or Zimbabwe? or Cuba?

[betsy]

Just hypothetically then....IF the letter were real as it's been described in the media and lawsuits and elsewhere, would you then condemn Ratzinger for it?

Darn Gerry....you really are determined to tar and feather him in whatever way or form. Now you'd even settle for hypothetically.

Well that's why I gave you the answer that I know you desperately want to hear.

I'll repeat it one more time, hypothetically or not:

Whatever.

[Drea]

Whatever.

I take it by your "whatever" that you really don't care if priests abuse children -- you really don't care that the church (Ratzinger) covers it up.

Geez Betsy, I thought you were "for" family values? I don't know about you, but my family values include protecting innocent children from predators, no matter who they are.

Anyone who covers up this abuse is just as guilty as the abuser.

[betsy]

Whatever.

I take it by your "whatever" that you really don't care if priests abuse children -- you really don't care that the church (Ratzinger) covers it up.

Geez Betsy, I thought you were "for" family values? I don't know about you, but my family values include protecting innocent children from predators, no matter who they are.

Anyone who covers up this abuse is just as guilty as the abuser.

I take it if someone accused your husband of molesting children, based on just hearsay....it's okay with you if we condemn him guilty right away, right?

Darn, according to Gerry...you or your husband don't even have the need to read or know exactly what it is that makes him guilty! You'll just have to believe that the accusation is there...and that it says your husband is guilty.

Apparently it's okay with you that your children bear the shame of your husband's guilt...that they also end up losing a father when he goes to jail! And apparently it'll be okay with you that the family as you know it, is suddenly gone.

Oh well, you can always file for divorce and re-marry! After all why would you stick with a pedophile. If he's been accused...of course, definitely...no doubt about it, he must be guilty!

That may be YOUR type of "values." For some, that is called "tabloid values". Or Banana Republic type of values!

[gerryhatrick]

Whatever.

I take it by your "whatever" that you really don't care if priests abuse children -- you really don't care that the church (Ratzinger) covers it up.

Geez Betsy, I thought you were "for" family values? I don't know about you, but my family values include protecting innocent children from predators, no matter who they are.

Anyone who covers up this abuse is just as guilty as the abuser.

I take it if someone accused your husband of molesting children, based on just hearsay....it's okay with you if we condemn him guilty right away, right?

There is no "hearsay" involved in this betsy. The Pope signed a letter as it has been described in the media.

I believe in protecting children, and I don't care if it is the Pope...anyone giving orders for others to keep accusations and evidence of child sexual abuse a secret is a criminal and deserves to rot in jail.

Seemingly you disagree with that.

[betsy]

Whatever.

I take it by your "whatever" that you really don't care if priests abuse children -- you really don't care that the church (Ratzinger) covers it up.

Geez Betsy, I thought you were "for" family values? I don't know about you, but my family values include protecting innocent children from predators, no matter who they are.

Anyone who covers up this abuse is just as guilty as the abuser.

I take it if someone accused your husband of molesting children, based on just hearsay....it's okay with you if we condemn him guilty right away, right?

There is no "hearsay" involved in this betsy. The Pope signed a letter as it has been described in the media.

I believe in protecting children, and I don't care if it is the Pope...anyone giving orders for others to keep accusations and evidence of child sexual abuse a secret is a criminal and deserves to rot in jail.

Seemingly you disagree with that.

Disagree...agree...take your pick.

Whatever.

[sharkman]

There is no "hearsay" involved in this betsy. The Pope signed a letter as it has been described in the media.

I believe in protecting children, and I don't care if it is the Pope...anyone giving orders for others to keep accusations and evidence of child sexual abuse a secret is a criminal and deserves to rot in jail.

Seemingly you disagree with that.

Apparently you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. We have seen far too many innocent people's lives ruined by baseless accusations designed only to bring ruin. Once a person has been accused of child molestation their lives will never be the same. It's worse than the seven years of bad credit a bankruptcy brings.

Children need to be protected, but so do those accused of something they didn't do.

[gerryhatrick]

There is no "hearsay" involved in this betsy. The Pope signed a letter as it has been described in the media.

I believe in protecting children, and I don't care if it is the Pope...anyone giving orders for others to keep accusations and evidence of child sexual abuse a secret is a criminal and deserves to rot in jail.

Seemingly you disagree with that.

Apparently you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. We have seen far too many innocent people's lives ruined by baseless accusations designed only to bring ruin.

Apparently you're confused. Nobody is accusing the Pope of molesting children.

His letter - a confirmed document - orders bishops to maintain secrecy over all accusations and evidence of child molestation.

It is not necessary for there to be a court case and conviction, although there have been many of child predators in the Catholic clergy.

If you're going to hide behind that red herring then you're not admitting the truth before you, which is an abomination to God.

[betsy]

Foley says clergyman abused him; admits he's gay

Associated Press

Washington — Disgraced former U.S. Representative Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages.

Lawyer David Roth said Mr. Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15 by a clergyman. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Mr. Foley is Roman Catholic.

The lawyer said Mr. Foley, who is now in treatment for alcohol abuse, never had any inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. He said Mr. Foley was under the influence of alcohol when he sent many of the e-mails and instant messages.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

If it is true, the confession of Foley supports what Gerry had suggested as a possibility, and what some of us had suggested all along in previous debates: that homosexuality is not necessarily only biological.....that it could also be acquired. Please take note again of the age he was when molested.

It also seems to support what Gerry had suggested as a possibility: the job had something to do with it.

From what I've read from other materials, Foley tried his best to contain his "demon"....but the power that came with the job offered temptations too hard to resists.

Though it may not be in the case of Foley, it is understandable though why certain jobs attract certain types of people.

[newbie]

Foley says clergyman abused him...

Convenient defense. How about the name of the clergy that abused him and proof thereof. I'm afraid his credibility is as shattered as his career.

[Argus]

What do I have against Americans? Besides that they don't understand the usage (or the meaning) of the word "eh", nothing at all.

What do you have against Canadians?

Nothing. Maybe you can tutor me on the use of the word "eh".

I'll PM you on it.

This topic is concerning a letter signed by Ratzinger instructing bishops to keep allegations and evidence of sexual abuse of children secret.

There never was any such letter. But don't let that bother you. Straw men make easier targets.

[Argus]

It is time to fix the damage that had been done to the church.

"... done TO the church"?

Surely you meant "done BY the church"

Sickos abound and are protected by their "leaders".

In secular society we don't protect perverts. So much for "morals of the church"

What secular society do you live in? I know lefties are wildly out of touch with reality, but I would have thought the number of abuse cases which were ignored and papered over in the secular world would have at least given you a clue that this sort of thing was generally ignored or disbelieved in society for a long time.

The world did not want to think about or hear allegations of sexual abuse involving children. The world was too uptight about sex, and too dumbfounded by the very idea. So if a priest - or a teacher, or an uncle - or a doctor or a gym coach or whomever, was messing around with kids, well, unless he was caught red-handed by an adult it was awfully hard to get him prosecuted.

[Argus]

From your serious topic about the Pope...you're now focusing on being American and the proper usage of an expression. All because of a simple "eh?"

I see you're still using the same tactics of steering away from your real topic.

Oh not at all betsy.

I'm quite happy to focus on the topic. I posted it, after all.

I think it's clear this Pope engaged in criminal behaviour. I can make that judgement because the letter and the contents of it are not in dispute.

Your bizarre interpretation of the letter was disputed - by me. You hate religious Christians. Of that there is no doubt. Your postings reek of contempt for anyone you identify as the "religious right" and the popes, who oppose abortion (eek!) are certainly part of that group.

All the letter said was the church could keep an investigation secret - could - and the presumption I made from looking at the letter was - in the event that the investigation turned up nothing of substance.

But then, I don't hate the church. I might look at it at and its obsession with sex with a jaundiced eye, but I don't hate them.

[Argus]

Whatever.

I take it by your "whatever" that you really don't care if priests abuse children -- you really don't care that the church (Ratzinger) covers it up.

Yeah, clearly that's it.

I find it amusing that all you people who love to condemn the church over the very few instances of child abuse then get anguished and indignant if anyone ever suggest that perhaps one of the reasons why there was child abuse was that the Church - short of priests - allowed too many homosexuals into its ranks.

Okay, now's your cue to start waxing indignant about it not being homosexuals at all, and them not abusing children, and my being homophobic, and - - - and --- why Drea, clearly you don't care if homosexuals abuse children.

[Argus]

Apparently you're confused. Nobody is accusing the Pope of molesting children.

His letter - a confirmed document - orders bishops to maintain secrecy over all accusations and evidence of child molestation.

No it doesn't. That's simply your odd interpretation.

It is not necessary for there to be a court case and conviction, although there have been many of child predators in the Catholic clergy.

Not nearly as many as there have been in schools and day care centres.

Maybe the church should ban homosexuals from entering the priesthood. What do you think?

[Drea]

Yeah, clearly that's it.

I find it amusing that all you people who love to condemn the church over the very few instances of child abuse then get anguished and indignant if anyone ever suggest that perhaps one of the reasons why there was child abuse was that the Church - short of priests - allowed too many homosexuals into its ranks.

Okay, now's your cue to start waxing indignant about it not being homosexuals at all, and them not abusing children, and my being homophobic, and - - - and --- why Drea, clearly you don't care if homosexuals abuse children.

The priest are pedophiles. Period. Why do you want to protect pedophiles?

What is a pedophile? (perhaps you don't know)

A pedophile is a person who desires children for sex.

What is a homosexual?

A person who prefers sex with adults of his/her own sex.

What is a heterosexual?

A person who prefers sex with adults of the opposite sex.

Do you get it?

The priest are pedophiles, not homosexuals. If they were homosexual they would be having sex with other men, not children.

Why do you protect the church when it has clearly covered up the actions of these pedophiles?

Are priests above the law? Is it ok for a priest to **ck a child in your mind? Do you have to label him a homo in order to call him a bad guy?

[betsy]

Yeah, clearly that's it.

I find it amusing that all you people who love to condemn the church over the very few instances of child abuse then get anguished and indignant if anyone ever suggest that perhaps one of the reasons why there was child abuse was that the Church - short of priests - allowed too many homosexuals into its ranks.

Okay, now's your cue to start waxing indignant about it not being homosexuals at all, and them not abusing children, and my being homophobic, and - - - and --- why Drea, clearly you don't care if homosexuals abuse children.

The priest are pedophiles. Period. Why do you want to protect pedophiles?

What is a pedophile? (perhaps you don't know)

A pedophile is a person who desires children for sex.

What is a homosexual?

A person who prefers sex with adults of his/her own sex.

What is a heterosexual?

A person who prefers sex with adults of the opposite sex.

Do you get it?

The priest are pedophiles, not homosexuals. If they were homosexual they would be having sex with other men, not children.

Why do you protect the church when it has clearly covered up the actions of these pedophiles?

Are priests above the law? Is it ok for a priest to **ck a child in your mind? Do you have to label him a homo in order to call him a bad guy?

Yoo-hoo Drea.....check out the resurrected topic EGALE under Federal.

And....the topic "Pedophiles waiting in line...", also under Federal.