Allah Takes Over Catholic Church.

[Cato]

Article from 2006, but.. :eek: Pictures are worth a thousand words.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1053

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, this is where "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" gets you.

[Murphy]

Yea it's disgraceful.. and? Your government tolerates hundreds of thousands of illegals within its borders.

[Murphy]

Well, this is where "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" gets you.

You're an intelligent fellow. So stop playing the fool.

[Magister Eckhart]

Yea it's disgraceful.. and? Your government tolerates hundreds of thousands of illegals within its borders.

Well, how would you describe the impetus of the Catholic church to offer "relief" to the invaders? The liberal ideals of egalitarianism, individualism, and the almighty market create our situation, and it's not a good one; these ideas, though, can find their root in the egalitarian forgiveness taught in early Christianity that is now re-emerging after years of being suppressed by positive warrior values assimilated in Christianity that were essentially at odds with the teachings of the Nazarene.

I'm not sure how foolish the notion that Christian forgiveness ultimately leads one down the path to a borderless world is, to be honest. I'd be delighted to hear your explanation for this, as a traditionalist Catholic.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well sorry to spoil your little authoritarian dream but it was the elite and big money aristocracy (hey... your buddies !) that brought them in. Not the egalitarians and individualists under us but sure as heck the Almighty Market.

And btw: any elite would love those people because there is no better way to control the rabble then by dividing them. And that's why they brought them in: for quick gain and control.

[Murphy]

Well, how would you describe the impetus of the Catholic church to offer "relief" to the invaders?

Sorry, find me, in any catechism of the Church, where it states it's a-ok for a Catholic to break the immigration laws of a state? You wont be able to find it because breaking the law is against Catholic teaching.


The liberal ideals of egalitarianism, individualism, and the almighty market create our situation, and it's not a good one; these ideas, though, can find their root in the egalitarian forgiveness taught in early Christianity that is now re-emerging after years of being suppressed by positive warrior values assimilated in Christianity that were essentially at odds with the teachings of the Nazarene.

Positive warrior values? I always find it amusing when these faceless pagans behind their PC screens go on about the warrior spirit and so on. I'm a big fan of Tolkien as well, but I know where to draw the line ;).


I'm not sure how foolish the notion that Christian forgiveness ultimately leads one down the path to a borderless world is, to be honest. I'd be delighted to hear your explanation for this, as a traditionalist Catholic.

The Church has always said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. A state has a right to define the laws concerning its borders. Catholics must bow to the state here. They can have different opinions, but when they cross into breaking the law they are sinning.

It is clearly foolish to say that the virtues of Christian charity and forgiveness will lead to a borderless society. Unless of course you remove from them their proper Catholic context. If a man strikes me in his anger why should I not forgive him? I will defend my self if necessary of course. But I am also a man. Have I not also struck out in anger? In my ignorance have I not lashed out? Have you not?

These Christian virtues simply lead us away from the edge. How can we damn a man for a sin we ourselves have shared? If we are deserving of forgiveness and respect why aren't they?

Some would say if we truly showed respect we would have open borders. I ask how could that be so? Respect must be universal and not for select groups. What of the native population? Are they less deserved of respect because they are native to the land? What of their hungers and their needs? They deserve a stable living condition as much as any.

[Murphy]

Tristan's hit the nail in the head (though knowing my Dutch uncle here, he will disagree with my take on it ;)). It is the Capitalistic society that has created the opportunity for the Mohammedan to break Belgian law. A society born of a rejection of Catholic teaching. It is materialist, self-centred and atheistic.

It is this society that is leading to a borderless world.

Hardly Catholic in nature, eh?

[The Lawspeaker]

Tristan's hit the nail in the head (though knowing my Dutch uncle here, he will disagree with my take on it ;)). It is the Capitalistic society that has created the opportunity for the Mohammedan to break Belgian law. A society born of a rejection of Catholic teaching. It is materialist, self-centred and atheistic.

It is this society that is leading to a borderless world.

Hardly Catholic in nature, eh?
Coming from the South (Brabantic mother who was more Papist then the Pope himself) I would be inclined to say that materialism and self-centred behaviour are not particularly Catholic "virtues".

I don't agree with your take on the matter but I am willing to agree with you that the Catholic Church is not to blame for today's situation. And as Christians they have little choice but to shelter and feed them. It will be up to the State to kick the immigrants back to where they came from and if they did just that then the problems wouldn't exist.

[Murphy]

And as Christians they have little choice but to shelter and feed them. It will be up to the State to kick the immigrants back to where they came from and if they did just that then the problems wouldn't exist

I think their heart is in the right place, but they're just not thinking right. The Muslims probably need food and water. But would it not be better to provide them food and water in their own homelands? Where they can grow and give food and water in turn themselves to their neighbour and so on until they live in a healthy society?

The current situation helps no one. Think of the tax money that has went into the situation. Could it have saved a life if applied elsewhere? A state should not have to worry for its borders.

[Groenewolf]

Eóin, can argue a lot about this being against Catholic teaching. However the Vatican had shown little teeth when these bishops do these kind of things.


[FONT="Tahoma"]Well sorry to spoil your little authoritarian dream but it was the elite and big money aristocracy (hey... your buddies !) that brought them in.

Ah yes, aristocracy have brought them in. It is all the fault of people living on their mansions and running their estates. How many titled and untitled nobility are there in the quote 500 for example. I do not think there are much of them there.:rolleyes:

And they where brought in to work in failing business, that would have disappeared in time and have slowed down technological innovation. But they where brought in under temporary contracts which would not have lead to much trouble if it was done Saudi style. However the changes for that where destroyed when parties even more egalitarian then the free-market liberals came to power. Or are you willing to say that the PvdA are also big money 'aristocrats':rolleyes:.


Not the egalitarians and individualists under us

Ah yes, that is why I see them being against (mass) immigration, instead of playing along with the merchant caste to open the borders (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.indymedia.nl), or at most to make more efforts to integrate/assimilate them.


And btw: any elite would love those people because there is no better way to control the rabble then by dividing them. And that's why they brought them in: for quick gain and control.

It also creates social unrest that would be favorable for people who want to overthrow the elite, the coins flips two ways you know.:coffee: So a wise elite would not do such things since it would harm their long term interests. Something that does not exist among MP's, since they have to worry about the next election, or even referendum in the case of California (funny how Switzerland is always brought up, but no-one mentions California when it comes to direct democracy). So there interests automatically become short term, and for certain parties it is best to have a large group of people dependent on the state.

In an aristocracy there is higher change that long term interests will be kept in sight, if only because said Lord (for example) has been raised to view him selves as part of a larger organic whole (his family). Something that does not go up for individualists and egalitarians, who consider such things meaningless.

[The Lawspeaker]

Right. Was it the 1960s electorate that brought in the immigrants or was it the money elite ?
Can you show me the exact date of the referendum held in the Netherlands around the early 1960s that decided that we needed immigrants ? Ooh wait.. there never was one. Never mind.

And who were in the driving seat back then ? Ah yes.. the Kabinet-Marijnen. KVP (sorry Catholic People's Party - now CDA) and VVD. Ah yes.. wait.. the VVD. That's a party for the entrepeneurs and people with big money isn't it ?

The elite ? Where is the guillotine when you need one ? The traitors.

[Murphy]

Eóin, can argue a lot about this being against Catholic teaching. However the Vatican had shown little teeth when these bishops do these kind of things.

I agree. But do we not have the right to reform the men of our ranks? Your nation has driven its self into the ground. All of our people have. Does that mean we abandon our people? Does that stop us being men of our nations?

You don't jump ship, you stick around and patch up the leak.

[Austin]

The Catholic church is an abomination. It only exists as a third-world immigrant lobby now.

It only cares about it's influence. Italy should audit the Vatican.

[The Lawspeaker]

LOL. A clueless Texan :)

[Austin]

LOL. A clueless Texan :)


Plenty of people in the U.S. in all states agree. The Catholic church is an immigrant lobby.

[Murphy]

It only cares about it's influence. Italy should audit the Vatican.

Glad you admit we have influence ;).

Funny, I saw this same charge levelled at a recent group of Anglican Bishops who are converting. The fellow said they only care about money, power etcetera. He forgot to say that they had no idea on whether or not they would even be ordained priests never mind bishops, that their financial situation was basically non-existent, their futures were a murky water.

But yea, they're just power-hungry mofo's.

[The Lawspeaker]

Plenty of people in the U.S. in all states agree. The Catholic church is an immigrant lobby.
Well. We all know that the American people isn't the most well-educated in the world. The Catholic Church is innocent in this matter. If you want to blame someone then blame your money elite that want cheap labour and your politicians that sold you out to them for cooperate money and immigrant votes.

[Austin]

Glad you admit we have influence ;).

Funny, I saw this same charge levelled at a recent group of Anglican Bishops who are converting. The fellow said they only care about money, power etcetera. He forgot to say that they had no idea on whether or not they would even be ordained priests never mind bishops, that their financial situation was basically non-existent, their futures were a murky water.

But yea, they're just power-hungry mofo's.


Why support a financial organization...errr I mean church that constantly undermines European nations borders and immigration laws? The Catholic church is only concerned with filling more and more empty U.S. churches with illegal alien Mexican spawn who will give half their earnings to the church.

[Murphy]

Why support a financial organization...errr I mean church that constantly undermines European nations borders and immigration laws? The Catholic church is only concerned with filling more and more empty U.S. churches with illegal alien Mexican spawn who will give half their earnings to the church.

Simple.

I can separate man from God. The divine from the weak mortal flesh. The Pope could turn around tomorrow and say that every nation should become one and I would rally against him on the matter but still follow him in matters of the Faith for the good of my immortal soul.

I know the failings of men in the Church. The Church herself has none.

[Austin]

Simple.

I can separate man from God. The divine from the weak mortal flesh. The Pope could turn around tomorrow and say that every nation should become one and I would rally against him on the matter but still follow him in matters of the Faith for the good of my immortal soul.

I know the failings of men in the Church. The Church herself has none.


It's a bunch of men in robes with big bank accounts who have nothing to do with the guy in linen robes who the Romans executed all those years ago.

[The Lawspeaker]

Simple.

I can separate man from God. The divine from the weak mortal flesh. The Pope could turn around tomorrow and say that every nation should become one and I would rally against him on the matter but still follow him in matters of the Faith for the good of my immortal soul.

I know the failings of men in the Church. The Church herself has none.
In that respect one can denote the crimes committed by members of the Church as crimes committed by persons and not as crimes committed by the Church. That (correct if taken into context that the Church is God whereas the men serving him are not) viewpoint would be easier to defend if the Church extradited criminals to a secular court. ;)

Criminals after all should be punished according to the law.. and not hidden by the Church.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” and the law is Ceasar's and so it's his right to deal with lawbreakers.

[Murphy]

It's a bunch of men in robes with big bank accounts who have nothing to do with the guy in linen robes who the Romans executed all those years ago.

I wonder if your anger towards to Church is simply born out of your realisation that you are so insignificant compared to her? She is older than the nations that gave birth to your own. Yet you.. it's actually amusing.


In that respect one can denote the crimes committed by members of the Church as crimes committed by persons and not as crimes committed by the Church. That (correct if taken into context that the Church is God whereas the men serving him are not) viewpoint would be easier to defend if the Church extradited criminals to the secular court. ;)

That's what I've been arguing for years now.

As for the secular courts.. well get those courts in order. I think you're forgetting a key thing here Tristan. Most reported crimes of sex abuse for instance dragged up by the media are decades old. The courts cannot do anything about them even if the Church handed them God himself as eye-witness.

I acknowledge the failings that allowed for this situation to come about. The culture of silence etcetera. That's been fixed though, long time now.

But ask yourself this also Tristan. What would the secular courts do exactly?

[The Lawspeaker]

That's what I've been arguing for years now.

As for the secular courts.. well get those courts in order. I think you're forgetting a key thing here Tristan. Most reported crimes of sex abuse for instance dragged up by the media are decades old. The courts cannot do anything about them even if the Church handed them God himself as eye-witness.
If there is evidence they can be prosecuted. There is testimony from the victims and sometimes even evidence if the case is newer. Bribes for instance. Threatening letters.


I acknowledge the failings that allowed for this situation to come about. The culture of silence etcetera. That's been fixed though, long time now.
Unfortunately it was too little and too late...


But ask yourself this also Tristan. What would the secular courts do exactly?
That would depend on the testimony and evidence presented in court by the victims and the Church itself.
The man in question has already lost eternal salvation now it will be his turn to pay in this earthy life as well.

I actually like that system very much now that I think of it: one crime - two trials. One secular and one divine. :lightbul:
And if the first one doesn't get you then the second one will. Lawbreakers be afraid.

[Austin]

I wonder if your anger towards to Church is simply born out of your realisation that you are so insignificant compared to her? She is older than the nations that gave birth to your own. Yet you.. it's actually amusing.



That's what I've been arguing for years now.

As for the secular courts.. well get those courts in order. I think you're forgetting a key thing here Tristan. Most reported crimes of sex abuse for instance dragged up by the media are decades old. The courts cannot do anything about them even if the Church handed them God himself as eye-witness.

I acknowledge the failings that allowed for this situation to come about. The culture of silence etcetera. That's been fixed though, long time now.

But ask yourself this also Tristan. What would the secular courts do exactly?


I don't know about in Europe, but in the U.S. among European people the Catholic church is dying and is in steep decline.

The Catholic church pays for the media to run articles about conversions and conservative Bishops to attempt to dispel the reality that Catholic church attendance has all but collapsed among the under 40 crowd in the U.S. I'd know as me and my three brothers -were- Catholic, as -were- most my 47 cousins and family.

There is nothing to fear. By the time I die the Catholic church will be seen as an immigrant voting block such as the black churches are today in America.

[Murphy]

If there is evidence they can be prosecuted. There is testimony from the victims and sometimes even evidence if the case is newer. Bribes for instance. Threatening letters.

That would depend on the testimony and evidence offered in court.
The man in question has already lost eternal salvation now it will be his turn to pay in this earthy life as well.

I actually like that system very much now that I think of it: one crime - two trials. One secular and one divine. :lightbul:

Sorry, I don't know Dutch Law after all :P. But in the UK, Ireland the US etc., some crimes cannot be punished due to a limited amount of time in which the cases can be brought to trial.

And again, I acknowledge the wrongs of men in the Church. It hurts me more than it hurts most who would assail the Church over it. I am a Catholic and take my faith seriously. I have been just as betrayed by these men as most others. We all have.

The men deserve punishment. But the secular courts cannot offer it. All they can offer is 3-5 years, out in a couple of months.

[Murphy]

The Catholic church pays for the media to run articles about conversions and conservative Bishops to attempt to dispel the reality that Catholic church attendance has all but collapsed among the under 40 crowd in the U.S.

And ladies and gentlemen, with this one little gem here from Austin, we can safely dismiss him from the conversation at hand. As a last suggestion Austin, pick up the New York Times sometime. Or anything from the MSM actually.

That should hopefully dispel your idiocy with the above.

Still laughing.. the media's on the Church's side.. LMFAOROFLCOPTER

[Sally]

The Catholic church is only concerned with filling more and more empty U.S. churches with illegal alien Mexican spawn who will give half their earnings to the church.

These "illegal alien Mexican spawn" are defecting from the Catholic Church at a very rapid rate into Evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches. To the detriment of their souls, I must add.

Austin, you seem to think that the Catholic Church just wants money, but I assure you that most Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are much more aggressive in asking their members for money. They're also not above using some pretty appalling tactics to ensure the coffers are filled.

[Austin]

And ladies and gentlemen, with this one little gem here from Austin, we can safely dismiss him from the conversation at hand. As a last suggestion Austin, pick up the New York Times sometime. Or anything from the MSM actually.

That should hopefully dispel your idiocy with the above.

Still laughing.. the media's on the Church's side.. LMFAOROFLCOPTER


No, read what I wrote. The Catholic church PAYS the media to print stories that favor it to hide it's actual decline in the U.S. The media is correctly against the money lending organization.

[The Lawspeaker]

Sorry, I don't know Dutch Law after all :P. But in the UK, Ireland the US etc., some crimes cannot be punished due to a limited amount of time in which the cases can be brought to trial.
I looked it up: there is indeed a verjaringtermijn (as we call it. I don't know the English word) it's 12 for sexual assault of a minor and 20 for actual rape. But for new cases it will be dropped. However: that will not make things easier for the victims here as it will only be about new cases.



And again, I acknowledge the wrongs of men in the Church. It hurts me more than it hurts most who would assail the Church over it. I am a Catholic and take my faith seriously. I have been just as betrayed by these men as most others. We all have.
The Church should have cleaned out the pig stable a long time ago and presenting everything they know. However the 1962 Crimen sollicitationis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_09_06_Crimen_english.pdf) implicates the Church in a terrible manner as this was an official document protecting child abusers from punishment.



The men deserve punishment. But the secular courts cannot offer it. All they can offer is 3-5 years, out in a couple of months.
It depends on the country you're in. Here they get can get a ticket to the big house for a longer time and end up in what they call TBS (basically forceful admittance to a mental hospital) if the crime is heinous enough.

[Austin]

These "illegal alien Mexican spawn" are defecting from the Catholic Church at a very rapid rate into Evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches. To the detriment of their souls, I must add.

Austin, you seem to think that the Catholic Church just wants money, but I assure you that most Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are much more aggressive in asking their members for money. They're also not above using some pretty appalling tactics to ensure the coffers are filled.


I dislike those churches as well on the whole. The Catholic church in my eyes and others is just a financial organization that retains power via new zealot intake throughout the world. It is no better than the scum evangelical movement. Neither have any real connection to Jesus, one is just an older, more established scam organization than the later.

[Murphy]

The Church should have cleaned out the pig stable a long time ago and presenting everything they know. However the 1962 Crimen sollicitationis implicates the Church in a terrible manner as this was an official document protecting child abusers from punishment.

Crimen Sollicitationis would make for an interesting discussion (one we could probably keep civil for once :P!). There's a lot of unfounded media hype around this document. Give me a few days until I read further into it.


It depends on the country you're in. Here they get can get a ticket to the big house for a longer time and end up in what they call TBS (basically forceful admittance to a mental hospital) if the crime is heinous enough.[/FONT]

I envy the Dutch.

[Groenewolf]

[FONT="Tahoma"]Right. Was it the 1960s electorate that brought in the immigrants or was it the money elite ?

Minor question, did you vote ever for a nationalist party? Or are you part of large parts of the electorate who only make noise about immigrants and the problems they cause around the table in the bar.

Also who do you think gave those parties enough seats to form a majority-government. Oh yes, the 1960s electorate.


And who were in the driving seat back then ? Ah yes.. the Kabinet-Marijnen. KVP (sorry Catholic People's Party - now CDA) and VVD. Ah yes.. wait.. the VVD. That's a party for the entrepeneurs and people with big money isn't it ?

I am not going to respond to emotional manipulation, save that for the electorate. I am going to look deeper in to this matter, but you easily forget that under the Den Uyl they where allowed to stay. What did he say again : "They will stay", or something along those lines. And the PvdA is hardly the party of big money, now is it.

[The Lawspeaker]

Minor question, did you vote ever for a nationalist party? Or are you part of large parts of the electorate who only make noise about immigrants and the problems they cause around the table in the bar.
Frankly there is none. Minus the PVV or Trots op Nederland which can hardly be called nationalistic and during the last elections I voted for them (by lack of anything better). I am still waiting for a decent alternative.


Also who do you think gave those parties enough seats to form a majority-government. Oh yes, the 1960s electorate.
Not knowing what they were getting into and subject to the same kind of manipulation that is still going on today. Hmm.. where was Her Majesty back then ?




I am not going to respond to emotional manipulation, save that for the electorate. I am going to look deeper in to this matter, but you easily forget that under the Den Uyl they where allowed to stay. What did he say again : "They will stay", or something along those lines. And the PvdA is hardly the party of big money, now is it.
The PvdA was by then already taken over by New Left.

[Magister Eckhart]

Wow. A lot happened while I was asleep. I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond to everyone here in turn, but I'll make a go of it.


The Catholic church is an abomination. It only exists as a third-world immigrant lobby now.

It only cares about it's influence. Italy should audit the Vatican.
LOL. A clueless Texan :)
Well. We all know that the American people isn't the most well-educated in the world. The Catholic Church is innocent in this matter. If you want to blame someone then blame your money elite that want cheap labour and your politicians that sold you out to them for cooperate money and immigrant votes.

Simple.

I can separate man from God. The divine from the weak mortal flesh. The Pope could turn around tomorrow and say that every nation should become one and I would rally against him on the matter but still follow him in matters of the Faith for the good of my immortal soul.

I know the failings of men in the Church. The Church herself has none.

The above exchange (which has some omitted segments) deserves some comment. Of all three of you, really Eóin has come closest to the truth. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops often tries to act as if it is a Vatican in Baltimore, but the reality is that it often comes to very different decisions and takes a very different view of the relationship of the Church with minority and immigrant groups than the Vatican itself does.

I remember, for example, a few Catholic Bishops criticising Benedict XVI's comments in Regensburg when the media misrepresented his quotation of Manuel II Palaiologos. The simple fact of the matter is that Roman Catholics - especially you Europeans so fond of attacking America - have to admit that the USCCB is often quite at odds with the Holy Church, and part of the disparity between the two is the embrace with loving arms of the invaders from the south. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's indeed...

But, as far as I can tell, the Vatican takes the same dismissive view of America that most Europeans seem to do, and the USCCB has been reprimanded in the past. I remember when Benedict came to America when I was still an undergraduate, much of his speech reflected how flawed the views of Americans were of the Vatican and its official stances on several key issues. He also issued an official reprimand to several bishops and Catholic schools. The reaction, far from humble penance, was wide-spread indignation. American Catholics are a significant contributor to the immigrant lobby as Austin said, but they are also very poor Catholics.


Eóin, can argue a lot about this being against Catholic teaching. However the Vatican had shown little teeth when these bishops do these kind of things.

True, but the Vatican in general shows little teeth these days in public; I am sure private reprimands have been significant, but when was the last time someone was excommunicated. I don't think it's weakness on the part of the Church so much as a recognition that no one really pays attention to "showing teeth" any more, and other methods need to be used to keep Bishops in line.


Ah yes, aristocracy have brought them in. It is all the fault of people living on their mansions and running their estates. How many titled and untitled nobility are there in the quote 500 for example. I do not think there are much of them there.:rolleyes:

And they where brought in to work in failing business, that would have disappeared in time and have slowed down technological innovation. But they where brought in under temporary contracts which would not have lead to much trouble if it was done Saudi style. However the changes for that where destroyed when parties even more egalitarian then the free-market liberals came to power. Or are you willing to say that the PvdA are also big money 'aristocrats':rolleyes:.

Ah yes, that is why I see them being against (mass) immigration, instead of playing along with the merchant caste to open the borders (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.indymedia.nl), or at most to make more efforts to integrate/assimilate them.

I am glad that I am not the only one here who can differentiate between the monied elite and a spiritual aristocracy. Everyone seems to assume that just because liberal government and society has allowed the mercantile caste to gain the upper hand that they are "aristocracy". Nothing could be further from the truth; they remain petty merchants, only one step up from the slave caste.


It also creates social unrest that would be favorable for people who want to overthrow the elite, the coins flips two ways you know.:coffee: So a wise elite would not do such things since it would harm their long term interests. Something that does not exist among MP's, since they have to worry about the next election, or even referendum in the case of California (funny how Switzerland is always brought up, but no-one mentions California when it comes to direct democracy). So there interests automatically become short term, and for certain parties it is best to have a large group of people dependent on the state.

In an aristocracy there is higher change that long term interests will be kept in sight, if only because said Lord (for example) has been raised to view him selves as part of a larger organic whole (his family). Something that does not go up for individualists and egalitarians, who consider such things meaningless.

By and large it is a sense of self among the old nobility (some of whom admittedly do not belong to a spiritual aristocracy) that does make them ardently loyal to the integrity of their nation - this was especially true in Germany until 1944 when the power of the old Prussian Aristocracy was broken by the Nazis. This is another principle flaw in the understanding of the difference between the contemporary monied elite (who, I agree with Civis Batavi are agents of cultural destruction) and those among us who are true nobles, titled or not.

To better understand what I mean by "aristocracy", "nobility", etc., let me turn to a Dostoyevsky quote:

"A real gentleman, though, even if he loses everything, must not show emotion. Money must be so far below a gentleman that it is hardly worth troubling about." (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Gambler)


And ladies and gentlemen, with this one little gem here from Austin, we can safely dismiss him from the conversation at hand. As a last suggestion Austin, pick up the New York Times sometime. Or anything from the MSM actually.

That should hopefully dispel your idiocy with the above.

Still laughing.. the media's on the Church's side.. LMFAOROFLCOPTER

I have to admit I was more than a little surprised at the assertion myself. No one who has ever read a real newspaper or watched the TV news could possibly believe that the news media serves the interests of the Roman Catholic Church - you need only watch the coverage of the papal election process to realise this!


These "illegal alien Mexican spawn" are defecting from the Catholic Church at a very rapid rate into Evangelical and/or Pentecostal churches. To the detriment of their souls, I must add.

Austin, you seem to think that the Catholic Church just wants money, but I assure you that most Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are much more aggressive in asking their members for money. They're also not above using some pretty appalling tactics to ensure the coffers are filled.

American Christianity in general is dominated by a thirst for money and supporters - See Weber, Protestant Ethic.

However, Sally, I am not sure I would be so quick to dismiss Austin on the assertion that the Catholic Church in America is not just as guilty of efforts to swell its numbers in America through the exploitation of a very portentous (for them) invasion presently happening that is coming from Roman Catholic dominant areas into a still Protestant-dominant country. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and the USCCB is not exonerated from guilt in this regard.


The Church should have cleaned out the pig stable a long time ago and presenting everything they know. However the 1962 Crimen sollicitationis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_09_06_Crimen_english.pdf) implicates the Church in a terrible manner as this was an official document protecting child abusers from punishment.

To my knowledge Crimen sollicitationis, far from protecting abusing priests, prescribes a precise form of punishment for them, including suspension from celebrating the mass or administering sacraments. The fact that abuses have been allowed to continue in the United States and Ireland (and elsewhere) is often proof that Crimen sollicitationis is being ignored. You can see at a glance, for example, that in the Archdiocese of Boston, abusing priests were not kept from administering the sacraments but were merely removed and moved elsewhere; no punishment was ever accorded.

Crimen sollicitationis remains, however, perfectly in accordance with Canon law, as dictated in C.904 & 2368:


C. 904: Ad normam constitutionum apostolicarum et nominatim constitutionis Benedicti XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae, I Iun. MDCCXLI, debet poenitens sacerdotem, reum delicti sollicitationis in confessione, intra mensem denuntiare loci Ordinario, vel Sacrae Congregationi S. Officii; et confessarius debet, graviter onerata eius conscientia, de hoc onere poenitentem monere.

C. 2368: §1. Qui sollicitationis crimen de quo in can. CMIV, commiserit, suspendatur a celebratione Missae et ab audiendis sacramentalibus confessionibus vel etiam pro delicti gravitate inhabilis ad ipsas excipiendas declaretur, privetur omnibus beneficiis, dignitatibus, voce activa et passiva, et inhabilis ad ea omnia declaretur, et in casibus gravioribus degradationi quoque subiiciatur
Canon 904. In accordance with the apostolic constitutions, in particular the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV of 1 June 1741, a penitent must within one month denounce to the local Ordinary or the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office a priest guilty of the crime of solicitation in confession; and a confessor must, under a grave obligation of conscience, inform a penitent of this duty.

Canon 2368 §1. Anyone who has committed the crime of solicitation dealt with in canon 904 is to be suspended from celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions and, if the gravity of the crime calls for it, he is to be declared unfit for hearing them; he is to be deprived of all benefices and ranks, of the right to vote or be voted for, and is to be declared unfit for all of them, and in more serious cases he is to be reduced to the lay state.

Crimen sollicitationis only prescribes a method to get from Point A (accusation) to Point B (the above).

Gods... I just realised I'm defending the Catholic Church... what's wrong with me? :p

Back to the matter at hand:


Minor question, did you vote ever for a nationalist party? Or are you part of large parts of the electorate who only make noise about immigrants and the problems they cause around the table in the bar.

Also who do you think gave those parties enough seats to form a majority-government. Oh yes, the 1960s electorate.

^This. You cannot exonerate the people from blame merely because of a lack of plebiscite or referendum: in a parliamentary system of government, all elections are a referendum, and the party elected to power acts in accordance to its programme which was endorsed and given mandate by the people. If a socialist party is elected, and drives its country to ruin, the people to blame for that situation are none other than the people, because they alone had the power to recognise the dangers, and prevent them, but instead happily jumped in line on the way to the ballot and filed their vote.

If the people "didn't know", they didn't look close enough - all political parties are fairly explicit about what they stand for and whose interests they have at heart, and it doesn't take much looking to find out this information. Therefore, it is the monied elite who funds the parties and the liberal system of governance which grants them power through a mindless rabble which we today style "the electorate". How, exactly, are social and spiritual aristocrats (mind the etymology!) to blame for the immigration crisis?

[Amapola]

I am not surpised by shit like this. As a Catholic traditionalist, I am utterly scared of Catholic bishops nowadays because many, I say, more than many ..lots and lots (and only one would be too much) are AGAINST tradition, sadly. One of the most crafty Spanish bishops (only apparently conservative) cardinal Rouco keeps on looking down on Tridentine Mass, for example. Others feel able to crucify a sensible priest cos of the mere fact that he denied communion to people against doctrine, stealing the canonical mission from him. This all reminds me of Judas Iscariot.

It is impossible for me to stop fearing such liberal bishops, real wolves in sheep's clothing in Christ's flock. It's clear that if there was a normalization of the Society of St. Pius X, there is no alternative to the degradation of the Bishops instead. If there were one or two attempts against tradition, we could overlook it, but it's too obvious the problem is universal. :( ---> trendy liberated bishops, guilty of scandals, halfhearted, liberal and converse of faith and doctrine. Not sure if we need an efficient reformer angel or a Rome willing to sanction violations. Probably the former, given the later is not going to happen. :rolleyes2:

[Flintlocke]

utterly scared of Catholic bishops nowadays

I'd be afraid too, for other reasons :D

hNjv8XlYjtQ

[Hurrem sultana]

I'd be afraid too, for other reasons


btw a new scandal in Croatia :/

[Yaroslav]

Catholic Church is cult of Mary ("Queen of Heavens") and the sun god, it has nothing to do with Christianity in the first place. Catholic Inquisition and Holocaust persecuted real Bible believing Christians that opposed the Mother of Harlots.

[Xenomorph]

Catholic Church is cult of Mary ("Queen of Heavens") and the sun god, it has nothing to do with Christianity in the first place. Catholic Inquisition and Holocaust persecuted real Bible believing Christians that opposed the Mother of Harlots.

This is an incredibly inaccuurate portrayal of Catholic. I've been a Catholic all my life, and we have been taught that there is salvation through Jesus, and that Mary and the saints are examples to be honored but are in no way deities in and of themselves. Also, I know of no sun god worship in the Church.