It would be a lot better if the Vatican would get rid of all the statues and uniforms and break out the old piano and all sing "Down By The Riverside." After clapping and singing, the pope could say, "now we are going to take all our wrong urges and desires, and we are going to throw them in the river." The priests could say, "Amen!" Then the pope could say, "and we are going to take all of our traditions that hold people back, like saying that we must confess to a priest and that just confessing to the Lord isnt enough, and we are going to throw them in the river." Everyone could again shout, "Amen!" All the priests who want to confess publicly of wrongdoings could come forward for prayer and laying on of hands. People would leave the service crying with arms around one another. A good service with a lot of good for everyone involved could be accomplished. Now what in the world is holding this church back from doing this?

The AP article says : ""The pope defends life and the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, in a world in which powerful lobbies would like to impose a completely different" agenda, Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz, head of the disciplinary commission for Holy See officials, said on the radio."

The only reason I can imagine him sliding the comment about "marriage between a man and a woman" is that he wants to blame the gays.

He lies.

The movement for accountability is being driven by the Catholic faithful, the victims, and their families. The only possible reason to point fingers at proponents of choice and the gay community is to arouse the radical right wing of the church's traditional mudslinging.

Here's another translation: You hate us, the Catholic prelates say. You hate us because we will not change, and we will not change because we are already basically perfect. That is, the church's basic set-up is perfect. But see, we did change something....listen to John Allen on CNN only Catholic bias-mongers do not admit that the American Bishops did in fact change a lot. etc, etc, etc.

Well, in fact the American Bishops did change a lot. They went from circumventing every law on the books to actually minimally complying with the laws of the land. That was a big change, but does it realistically deserve applause when all that happened is that they started to behave like responsible citizens. Congratulations, welcome to the special realm of non-scofflaw!

As to the comment from the prelate: ""The pope defends life and the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, in a world in which powerful lobbies would like to impose a completely different" agenda," Of course, they mean gay people again, that is the necessary translation. But as to their great defense of marriage I have another bit of truth to tell. I recently looked up another friend of mine while at Theological College in DC. I basically only had two close friends while at seminary in DC. One was Joe Tyson, now Bishop in Seattle. The other was a guy named Jesus Gil. The were very different Joe Tyson leaned towards being hyper sincere and a little sanctimonious on occasion. But Jesus Gil was quite the opposite. Let me tell you, if I had non-normative beliefs at that period, Jesus had none. (I know, great irony given his name) In fact he talked many, many times about how he didn't believe a word of the Catholic faith but that it was a good way to have a good life. He was happy to get away from Colombia and looking forward to being in comfie Orlando. Jesus Gil and I used to play little pranks around the seminary, like putting shaving cream on people's door knobs. I am not sure why we thought that was funny, but we did, and cracked ourselves up a lot for such pranks. But Jesus had a slightly harsher side and a couple of times I had to stop him from real vandalism. He repeatedly tried to stop-up the sinks in the basement of the seminary. If I had not gone in and unplugged them there would have been several floods and lots of damage. Jesus Gil had a real destructive streak.

After I left the seminary I did not keep in touch with him. In fact I assumed he had dropped out too. The few times I googled him I did not come up with anything in Orlando. But that was because he is using his middle name and seems to have dropped "jesus" perhaps because it is confusing for Anglos. I was amazed to find recently that he had indeed gone on and even went to get a Doctorate in Canon Law. I laughed and laughed when I saw in addition that he is the head of the Marriage Tribunal for Orlando Diocese. So my friends this is what the Catholic Church means by great defense of marriage. They have a guy who does not believe one word of the faith passing judgments on people's marriage. Jesus Gil was so cynical about the whole thing that I do not believe for a moment that he changed his stripes one bit. My non-normative beliefs came from my deep desire to expand my spiritual integrity. Jesus Gil had cynical beliefs pure and simple. And that is the total truth about this guy. I do not wish the man ill. But the charade of people like this being used to screw up other people's lives. and bolster the Church's retrograde actions is wrong. And woe to those who conspire to continue it.

And, the whole system is set up in such a way as to allow those in power to have just that without question. I dont mean to sound like a broken record on this as I am sure there are those here who will accuse me of it. However this system of male unccountability has to stop, and it isnt going to stop as long as the Vatican is in charge. I am a firm believer of men running the churches, but the devil is essentially running this church. Yes he is in every church, but this church is associated with evil Roman empires, starting with Constantine. It has a man in charge who has a lot of power in who gets to be a saint, which is a ridiculous concept for those born after Christ's death. It doesnt have to pay attention to scripture if it involves a tradition that started before the bible was printed. This encourages a lot of non biblical ideas, such as praying to Mary to intercede or not eating fish on Fridays. Most of all, it encourages good old pride. That is a huge tool for the devil. If we are the first Christian church then we dont have to listen to what other churches say, and they are wrong for not joining us. The whole system needs to be broken down to the local church level, with no one between God and the church except the priest in charge and the congregation commitees. Votes need to be taken as to how things will be run on certain levels. In the Methodist system, no adult can be alone with a minor. There must be two adults present with kids at all times. Tradition and pride discourage the Catholic Church from doing this, so satan can keep his system going. And for gosh sakes, get rid of the uniforms and statues. As much as I like art, a church is not an art gallery. Keep things simple, keep things honest, bring up the tempo and volume a little. Dont say you have to confess to a priest or else you havent confessed. How will any of this happen? Only if individual churches start breaking away. How can they if all the property is owned by the system? How can they if the priests are trained by this same system? It probably would have to start with the Archbishops breaking away from Rome, then allowing individual churches to break away from the local archdiocese. If this system continues, nothing or little will change. For all anyone may say against my opinion, I am convinced that this church would be better off.

"Votes need to be taken as to how things will be run on certain levels."

Reminds me of a story about a man who would rather let the multitude decide than do the right thing. He said: "Then what (do you want) me to do with (the man you call) the king of the Jews?"

And then he decided based on their vote.

Clay - You are right about one thing. You are sounding like a broken record. A broken record of misinformation. I feel sorry for you Clay.

Let me ask both of you then. A system of ensuring that at least two adults are with kids at all times in the Catholic Church. When and how will this be instituted? Thanks.

Clay - We already have that at my church. Contrary to what you believe the Vatican does not dictate every aspect of how each individual church functions. That’s why you should refrain from commenting on the Church because you don’t know that much about it.

Then why are there still reports of problems? I assume that all churches dont have this policy. So it isnt a policy dictated by Archbishop O'Brien?

Clay - A lot of these reports are older cases for one thing. I honestly don't know if our policy came from the Archbishop or our own Parish Council came up with it.

Clay, Of course the archdiocese has standards and you can find them here at the archdiocese's website:
http://www.archbalt.org/STAND/documents.cfm

As ravensfan said the Vatican does not dictate how each church functions. You don't know much about our church, and that is not meant to criticize you. It was clear when I first read some of your posts some time back that most of what you think you know comes from anti-catholic tracts.

So here is my invitation Clay: I encourage you to look up everything you think you know on google advanced search. And where it says "Search within a site or domain" type .va

Anything with the .va domain is direct from the Holy See - Vatican City State. Your eyes will be opened.

So it looks like in this case a little church wide decision making wouldnt be a bad thing. It is funny that I havent heard the Vatican say that they have instituted a church wide policy on adults being with kids. It sure seems like it would help their reputation. Look at the articles on this blog about it. Some of what I say comes from tracts, but to be honest most of what I say comes from what Catholics have told me and good old common sense in thinking about it. I have attended a Catholic church for a wedding and for a funeral. I also listen to what former Catholics have told me, and they agree with just about all that I have to say. Most of them were brought up in this church. I know what Rome was like and is like. I know about how communion and how confession are handled. I have heard some of the sermons. I think that it is not so much a case of ignorance here as it is pride. And yes, perhaps sometimes on my part also. I am just trying to help, and I believe that it is needed. Thanks.

Clay - I doubt the Vatican would micromanage the various archdioceses and parishes like that. Although I would agree it might be something to consider to demonstrate commitment to end this problem. You would be surprised how many Catholics don't have a good understanding of how their own church works and sadly many times these are the ones who make the most noise. I don't doubt you are well intended, however, by criticizing what you don't fully understand I don't think you are helping anyone including yourself.

The articles on this blog are just the well meant (usually) opinions of folks like you and me, Clay. That's why I suggest going directly to the Vatican website.

I'd like you to let go of this idea of the Catholic church being monolithic and that the Pope can just say "jump" and the faithful respond "How high?"

It doesn't work that way.

Your idea of children never being alone with adults has some merit. In fact from a legal point of view or a loss prevention view, it has a great deal of merit. Beyond that, though, we need to build a world where adults don't harm children. Where they don't harm them because it is wrong, not because they are being watched.

Sadly, the low estimate is that 60% of the children who are sexually abused are abused by someone living in their home. For other forms of child maltreatment the figures are much higher, with mom being the usual culprit. My point is that we must reform our entire society, not just our churches.

"You would be surprised how many Catholics don't have a good understanding of how their own church works and sadly many times these are the ones who make the most noise."

Truer words I have rarely heard Ravensfan!

It doesnt seem like a problem with the Vatican micromanaging. The Vatican needs to macromanage in this case. There is nothing wrong with a statement to cover the problem for all Catholic churches. It could go a long way in helping. It seems like tradition and pride keep getting in the way to me. The Pope sets the tone in many ways, and now he backs off. If this church is going to have a head control in Rome then the head control needs to do what God wants it to do. If that was the case then there wouldnt be a problem with one head control for the church (besides God). Pride and tradition keep the devil in the driver's seat. Is the Archbishop afraid to make a statement about not allowing one adult to be alone with kids because he is afraid that the Vatican wont approve of the way he says it? Someone has to stand up to this system if new members are going to come into this church. What it boils down to is that someone has to stand up to satan and say enough is enough. For all the church will say that it does that, I dont think it really does.

For once Clay is right--Rome is in terrible trouble--it will survive as the seat of Catholicism but various archdioceses will break away--two adults with children all the time won't work--there were more than two adults with children all the time in the Catholic church--those two or more adults were the priests and rapists both. Dana LaRocca your pieties about this church don't wash. Too many molestations and rapes--and you Ravensfan to dismiss this avalanche of complaints with a wave of your sanctimonious Catholic hand tells me you are a brainwashed Catholic--on the one hand you deplore the rapes and molestations--on the other hand you strike hard in defense of this church's hierarchy and the decay within it--you are all for your church rising like a phoenix from its ashes at times and at other times pretending the ashes don't even exist--for you Ravensfan the Catholic church will come up smelling like roses even when it is covered in dung--the nuns indoctrinated you well. As for the mysticism in which you shroud this church as though an insider perspective is necessary to decode its deep dark secrets--any criticisms of this church you dismiss as arising from anti Catholic bias or simply "lack of understanding" from outsiders. What's to understand Ravensfan? Distant past, near past or present--the Catholic church has a massive problem--too many erring priests--too many of them outright pedophiles--secrecy--defiance of criminal and civil laws in countries where these rapes and molestations happened. Current pope had his finger in the criminal pie when he headed an archdiocese in Germany--he also made non cooperation with lay law enforcement a policy--what say you to these sins of the church--and of course confessing to men of this kind of cloth is a targic joke.
Ravensfan Anon

And no Ravensfan Anon, everyone who is religious isnt going to take a gun and blow their head off. Get behind me.

I didnt mean to sound so harsh but you dont seem to want the Catholic Church to succeed no matter what. Two adults at all times with kids is better than nothing. Once in awhile we have to think positive. If things need to change then perhaps they will. And please remember, not every priest is interested in kids in the wrong way. Yes this church needs to change, and I have made quite a few suggestions. What I wont do is turn my back on fellow Christians.

Come on Clay: "Two adults at all times with kids is better than nothing."

Believe it or not there are many families in Baltimore where at least one parent goes to work. At least that's what I heard.

Maybe it's just an urban myth.

Who was talking about kids being alone or with one parent at home? I mean that a policy of no adults alone with kids in church is better than no policy at all.

So Clay, I thought you were. I thought you were responding to my comment:

"Sadly, the low estimate is that 60% of the children who are sexually abused are abused by someone living in their home."

Sorry. Mea Culpa.

Anon - I would have never guessed your obsessive hatred of the church was so bad as to cause you to start agreeing with Clay on anything. I don't think I'll waste time commenting on the content of your little diatribe except to say at least Clay is well intended when he makes his criticisms.

Wow Ravensfan--what about your obsessive apologist strategy on behalf of this crumbling edifice called "The Church"? I suppose that obsession is sacred in your mind?
Ravensfan Anon

Hey Clay, I'll bet you would like Pastor Deacon Fred's sermon at www.landoverbaptist.org entitled , "Millions Of Brave Catholics Wipe the Vomit Off Their Chins and Begin to Flood the Pews of Baptist Churches!", Its right up your alley.

Anonybaby.

Apologetics is what Catholics do.

Why are you so afraid of a "crumbling edifice," ymous?

What is it about a believer that makes your skin crawl?

And: "I suppose that obsession is sacred in your mind?" is a statement of presupposition. It is not a question.

I do not believe that the object of your attack is the party with the "obsession."

Just sayin'....

LaRocca,
Not afraid of the crumbling edifice--my reply was a rebuttal to Ravensfan--you seem to have abutted yourself into it out of context--my answer to you Laroacha is this, "Nothing about a believer makes my skin crawl except the believer's unshakable blindness to what has happened--the number of children whose lives have been ruined--the number of priests who have grown aged as abusers-- aided, abetted and enabled by the church elders--the network of deceit that has been perpetuated through the centuries--the number of children in the Third World, who have no recourse to fancy lawyers, who continue to be victims of the church abusers--the whole damn shebang is nothing but a web of lies masquerading as spiritual truth--and what makes my skin crawl is the believer's excuses for all of these tragedies--the believer's argument that the church is fundamentally salvageable and good--this is what makes my skin crawl because such insistence is the result of an appalling blindness. That blindness has the capacity to prop up a corrupt institution and keep it going to perpetrate more violence on the public--talk of reform is not the same as actual reform because the church is essentially loath to change the fundamentals of its hypocritical moral standards about human sexuality--hetero or homosexual.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon.

Let's see if I got this right. You view of believers is that we are blind and the things we hold to be true are lies, and that's what makes your skin crawl.

You seem to think we should renounce our faith because it is comprised of sinners. We're not going to do that. I didn't give up on my country when the previous administration shredded the constitution. I didn't give up on Baltimore when the mayor was stealing. And I'm not going to give up on my Church because I'm displeased with its current leadership.

I think you confuse our love for our faith with some kind of implicit support of those men involved in the scandals under discussion. It simply isn't true. Men committed crimes and other men may have acted as accessories. In the christian world we call that sinful. In the secular world we call that criminal.

We live in a world that has sinners and criminals. Nobody is happy about that.

My family came to Maryland before 1730 to escape the same kind of anti-Catholic contempt that is still going on now. We've been listening to that sad refrain for three hundred years and remain unmoved. The foolish mob should realize that the children who have been abused were Catholic children with Catholic parents. The idea that we are not concerned with their suffering is ridiculous.

You attack me with the word “pious.” You attack Ravensfan with the suggestion that he considers his faith “sacred.” You are so good with the obvious, friend. You need some work on the details.

LaRocca,
The abusers in the Catholic Church are both criminals and sinners--not just the current administration, administration after administration have been involved in these scandals--centuries of reforms promised but never achieved--I also don't understand your contempt for capitalism when the Catholic enterprise has not only benefited tremendously from capitalism--it is the epitome of capitalism itself --money jingles in the coffers of this capitalistic venture all the time--it is money that has lent it the aura of power and authority--not the moral high ground. As for the distinction you make between common criminals and the sinners in the church--there is no such artificial distinction--these are criminals plain and simple and they should come under the civil and the criminal jurisdiction of every land where they perpetrated their crimes. Keep your faith strong and continue to be complicit in these crimes, if not directly, indirectly. That is your choice LaRocca but I am not short on any details--what there is to know is pungent and redolent of the sewers to all except the faithful.
Ravensfan Anon

Dana – I thought your responses to Anon were outstanding. Certainly better than anything I would have come up.

Anon – I’ve stated my views on the abuse scandals many times over I see to reason to restate them simply because you choose to ignore them and act as if I should renounce my faith because of the sins of some of its leadership. You can deny it all you like but Dana is right there is something that scares you. As I said long time ago you focus only on the sins of the Church and ignore the good it has done and still does.

Ravensfan Anon - There is little in common between the Catholic (or any other church) and Capitalism. In Capitalism, tangible products are produced that generate income that produce profits that stimulate more production that then employs more people to produce and consume increased demand. In Catholicism (and almost all other religions) the product is sold, but never produced, it is promised, but never delivered, except in an improbable, unprovable, and unsupportable afterlife. This more resembles selling swampland in Florida as nurtured estates, but without even the pretense of there actually being any land.

Religion is a fraud, which demands from us the same respect that any criminal operation deserves, and not the blind reverence shown to it by the sheep that infect this forum. If religion is allowed to get away with this obvious deception, then anyone who can make the same assurances of certainty they make in hawking their product (everlasting life), should also then allow for the sale of real-estate, on the same terms, in that invented hallowed place.

- WELCOME TO HEAVENLY ESTATES-
Make the last step you take in this life the first step into a luxurious eternal afterlife. Why spend eternity floating on a cloud when you, IF YOU ACT NOW, can reside is the lap of luxury in your very own white marble, gold trimmed, mansion, with cherubim catering to your every need. All that is required of you to be GUARNTEED this wonderful opportunity is that you act now, before it is too late, and commit 10% of your income, while alive, to the Heavenly Estates Corp. Commit today, there is ONLY one path you can take, or you will suffer the eternal torment of making the wrong choice.

Littel - I see your still busy attacking people for faith when you practice your own faith in the empty propaganda of the radical left.

Anony:

Where on earth did you get the silly notion that I have “contempt for capitalism?”

I have been a both a retail and a wholesale merchant for over thirty years and have owned two businesses. Nor did I make any distinction between criminals within the Church as opposed to those outside the Church.

You seem to conjure up adversaries. I've read a lot of your posts and it is clear that you don't like the religion or religious people. That comment you made in another thread; “God is in (name redacted) butt,” suggests both the nature and the origin of your discontent. You are surely entitled to your prejudices and your juvenile approach to your fellow man.

That said, it is a joy that you continue to be drawn to “In Good Faith.” Your desire to be among the faithful suggests that you may be salvageable, after all.

Deo volente!

Ravensfan:

Thank you for your kind words.

rino - If that is all you have to offer, then please, go blow it out of your non-cake hole. The voices of those who represent rationality will no longer be silenced by intimidation, shunning (Clays ineffectual strategy), or by trying to maintain a status quo dependant on superstitious delusional myth, just because it already exists. You want to shut us up about your god creatures, then just cough it/they up, for all to see.

Littel - Why don't you produce the proof for your own paranoid fantasies of right wing conspiracies? You appear to operate with a double standard. Your beliefs are a given requiring no proof, yet others must prove their beliefs to be valid? Do you know what the word hypocrite means?

Not going to play your mindless little game. GFYS.

Littel - The only thing mindless is your responses. Empty barrels are rarely silienced so stop whining about that. Someday when you grow up you will understand that people of any level of intelligence make their arguements with facts not empty accusations and persoanl attacks.

Robert--don't forget the papal indulgences--sold for a price to the sheep--then don't forget the collection plates--salvation is the sell--yes, religion is capitalistic--look at the large empire of nuns and priests supported with the monies collected all over the world--Larocca--you forget what you write--I am glad to know you are one hell of a capitalist--

"Abstinence works. And for those who find that distasteful there are ways of sharing erotic passion that do not involve coitus.

"Of course neither feeds the capitalist beast."

That I believe is a quote from you on your blog about abstinence versus contraception, where you certainly didn't seem to be singing a paean to capitalism.
I am sure you will explain that away unabashedly. As for God being in someone's butt I don't see why that should offend anyone of faith who essentially believes god is omnipresent. I am not going to be salvaged by being on this blog just like you are not going to convert to atheism by journeying here. I am here to express my opinions and you are here for the same purpose--no need for you to wax poetic on behalf of my soul. You keep supporting your corrupt church and I'll keep pointing out the folly of that stand--no more no less.

"In the christian world we call that sinful. In the secular world we call that criminal"--a quote from you. .In the Christian world if the activities of these bishops had been labeled the correct word "criminal" the bastards would have been arrested and suffered the justice meted out to all people of their ilk. The Christian world called them sinners, forgave their sins and hid them from the authorities--you clearly make a distinction between the criminals and the sinners-- the church forgave the sinners as Jesus would have and gave them cozy corners elsewhere--gave the victims no justice--why? The church too made the distinction you implicitly make in your blog--criminal versus sinner. Please do not tell me I conjure up things O retail queen--I don't--I read before I respond.
Ravensfan Anon

rino - We have gone through this all before, yet my efforts, being buried so far back in this thread that it is not seen, bears repeating to counter your seemingly manic need to personally confront me, so here goes.

rino - I full well realize that you are playing a game whose rules give you the advantage. That is how the game was constructed and because you have successfully built a wall of plausible deniability, you can demand that I provide justification for every brushstroke I take in painting a picture you do not wish to have seen. I pointed that fact out in an earlier post on this thread, and I pointed out the difficulty in countering such a strategy because its only goal is to muddy the water and paint your opponent as being beyond believability. When the average citizen has paid no real attention to the workings of our government, especially those parts that have been already co-opted to carry out corporate backed policy that has resulted in the murder and overthrow of democratically elected national governments, all to protect the pocket books of American business interests. You are playing on the gullibility and inability of the common man to understand the complexity of the harsh realities of wealth driven struggles for dominance. It is an easy game when the people you wish to keep in the dark and use, are content to be there in the first place. It is also outside the realm of believability for them to conceive that the same effort and expense isn't being expended domestically to achieve the same ends that a government funded arm of international corporate interest enforcement (the CIA) has used to overthrow the government of Guatemala in 1954, all to protect American fruit company interests, the engineered and financed overthrow and murder of the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran (a crime that they still hold against us), all to keep that country from exercising their own control of the oil that happened to be located under their soil, the 1973 overthrow and murder (a totally run CIA operation) of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile, that resulted in the murder of thousands of their citizens and the installation of Augusto Pinochet's murderous regime, all to protect the corporate interests that had, until Allende's election, pretty much run that country for their own benefit, might just be in operation here all to serve similar ends.

Why would an organized effort by corporate interests, so willing to cause so much misery around the world, under cover of patrio-jingoistic lies and distortions, (necessary to motivate our young to march off to war when that becomes part of their plans), not make a concerted effort to exercise that same control here as well? The simple answer is that they do and when things don't go their way (the election of a progressive Black president qualifying as a prime example), then we begin to see the same mechanisms being called into play that worked so well to bring down their enemies in places like 1953 Iran, and 1973 Chile. A campaign to undermine the very legitimacy of our elected leader, (Birther and socialist type crap) has been launched and the impending threat of masses of Rightists in the streets to "take back America", the hatred being pumped up in the Right-wing media, and the pumping of the fear factor by people too unaware they are victims of the very people pumping them up, all mirror the the effort corporate interests employed before so effectively overseas.

You will dismiss this of course, and by playing on the disinterest in the mass of Americans of anything that rocks the boat, demand more "proof" that, would take volumes to fill (that the majority wouldn't read anyway) and which in the end would just be blown off by you as more "leftist propaganda", rather than the easily verifiable, but mountainous pile of information already in the historical record. Search "CIA Mossadegh", CIA, Allende", or "CIA Ngo Dinh Diem" if you want damn proof (which of course you don't), I don't have time to play, or be played by you anymore.

Anon. You quote me very well but you conjure up wild imaginings of my intentions, motivations, and personal beliefs.

First, I never wrote a blog about abstinence versus contraception. Rather I recommended abstinence as one form of contraception. I never made a distinction of "criminal versus sinner." I referred to "sinners and criminals."

That was "and" not "versus," anon. As much as you claim to read before you respond, you should do so more carefully. Any fool can scroll back and read what I have actually said as opposed to what you imagine I said. Of course not all fools are obligated to do so. Free will, too, is a gift from God.

We should use it wisely.

Can't argue with you endlessly LaRocca--you may not have written an abstinence blog but you certainly responded to it with the "capitalist beast" comment. Quote from you--"In the Christian world we call that sinful--in the secular world criminal." Advocates for the victims want the laws of the secular world to take precedence over church laws and church modalities of justice dispensation because thus far the church has failed miserably in its duties toward the abused. It has shielded the perpetrators--you LaRocca practice catholic apologetics with an ardor incomparable--you have stated in another piece of writing of yours--you being a nitpicker in your own defense I won't say "in a blog of yours" and give you a chance to tell me you never blogged anywhere (when you write in this forum you are blogging with your fellow bloggers) you have said in another piece of writing in this forum that "after all the children who have been abused are Catholics"--what difference does that make--these children also live in the secular world --do you believe the secular world has no business butting into the crime syndicate the Catholic hierarchy has boldly carved itself to be? You seem disturbed that secular laws are applicable to this church of yours and "after all the children affected are Catholics" is to me, merely the tip of the iceberg, of your many rationalizations, about this church. The secular world thus far has done a terrible disservice to the abused by giving the collar and the cloth more respect than the truth--religion has been the best hideout of hidebound criminals for centuries--the secular world needs to wake up and apply its laws full force against the Catholic enterprise and treat the numerous rascals there as they do the poor folks who are suspected of committing crimes in the regular world. I know in your response you will agree with me with alacrity on this one--I have no doubt you think you also want secular justice for the criminals in the Catholic Church--unfortunately you give yourself away in what you write LaRocca, as a person exasperated (never directly, but read between your lines to catch this tendency) with the secular world for its pursuit of the Catholic enterprise--you are in sync with the conspiracy theorists of the Vatican who think that all the troubles of the church are Satan induced or the equivalent of the worst form of anti-Semetism--as a person who continues to have faith in an enterprise that has consistently shown itself to be unworkable within its current restrictions, you are another fossil of this church--an edifice also headed toward fossil status.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon

"Can't argue with you endlessly LaRocca...."

That's pretty obvious. So why do you keep trying?

I suggest you study logic and rhetoric for a while and then try again.

My reply to your last comment, last sentence LaRocca, "Ah the arrogance of the fool--incomparable in empty swagger and bravado!"
Ravensfan Anon