Mar 28, 2008 - 04:05:05 CDT
A man accused of sexual abuse decades ago in the Bismarck Diocese has been officially removed from the priesthood by the Vatican, citing "ecclesiastical crimes against youth."Joel Melarvie, chancellor of the Bismarck Catholic Diocese, said that an announcement of the laicization (removal from priesthood) of James Pommier was placed in the diocesan monthly "Dakota Catholic Action" to inform people in the diocese of Pommier's status and to offer an opportunity for victims to come forward.
"If anyone has been abused, (we want them) to contact the diocese, to let us know,"Melarvie said. "We want to work with them to come to some resolution for the pain they suffered."
Born in 1925 in Lignite, Pommier's first assignments were as assistant pastor at St. Patrick's in Dickinson in 1954 and at St. Vincent's in Mott in 1955, Melarvie said. His first two assignments as parish pastor were at St. John's in New Leipzig in 1957-61 and at Immaculate Conception in Max in 1961-62.
That was followed by positions as parish administrator at St. Peter and Paul in Fallon, 1962 and at Sacred Heart in Scranton in 1963. From 1963 to 1970, he was pastor at St. Theresa's in Carson, and in 1970, he became pastor at St. Boniface in Grenora.
Pommier then went to St. Joseph's Hospital in Minot, where he served as a chaplain from 1970 to 1977.
In 1977, Pommier left the Bismarck Diocese without the knowledge or permission of the bishop, presumably moving to the state of Washington, Melarvie said.
Pommier's diocesan file indicates that following the removal of his faculties (the permission to perform priestly functions) by the Archbishop of Seattle in 1985, the Bismarck Diocese's Bishop John Kinney removed his faculties as well in 1990.
Pommier's movements during those years aren't entirely clear, Melarvie said, although rumors reached the diocese that, after the removal of his faculties in the Archdiocese of Seattle, Pommier was representing himself as a priest in the Great Falls and Billings, Mont., areas.
"We received an inquiry from a parish pastor in a small community in the Great Falls-Billings Diocese, about three years ago," Melarvie said.
"When we found out what he was doing, Bishop (Paul Zipfel) notified all civil authorities and the state of North Dakota, as well as the (relevant) diocesan bishops."
Bismarck's canonical council sent its case for Pommier's laicization to Rome; once approved by the Vatican in December 2007, the information on Pommier was sent to all bishops in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Melarvie said.
At this point, the Bismarck Diocese has not heard that Pommier is making any effort to promote himself as a priest, Melarvie said.
To their knowledge, Pommier is living in Washington state, he said.
Melarvie said Pommier's diocesan file indicates that the first accusations were made anonymously by three boys in 1962. Other accusations were made in 1964, in 1968 or 1969, in 1971, in 1973 or 1974, and in 1977.
The file does not indicate what responses or actions Bishop Hilary Hacker may have taken to these allegations, Melarvie said.
Melarvie said that in recent years, the diocese has met with the alleged victims. In addition to counseling, financial settlements have been made with four individuals during the period of 2004 to 2007 in the amount of $326,083, he said.
"The important thing is the people who have been abused," Melarvie said. "For some, their faith has been shattered. Others are stronger. But all have been greatly hurt."
Melarvie said that the majority of those who came forward said they were in their early to mid-teens when the alleged abuse occurred, with one person reported to be age 10.
"We all recognize that the church has carried a great burden of sorrow for the victims of clerical sexual abuse," he said. "Our effort now not only in Bismarck but through the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is to prevent such a recurrence by informing parents and all staff members and volunteers of the issues of child abuse, and give them the tools to prevent it."
A priestly convocation Monday through Thursday at the Seven Seas in Mandan will focus on boundary issues, said Bishop Zipfel.
"We're aware of the need to keep that in front of our mind's eye, to be very mindful of that," he said.
sunny wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:54 AM:
helloooooooooooooo wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:49 AM:
Nathan S wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:31 AM:
If you'd like to dialogue about this where I can better understand what your confusion is (I'm not always clear as I'd like to be), please contact me at the following email address: letstalkabouttruth@yahoo.com
God Bless,
Nathan "
Responder wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:31 PM:
Mom wrote on Apr 5, 2008 2:56 PM:
Nathan S wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:16 PM:
You said "The only truth is the Bible read it and find out the truth."
Please, if the Bible is the only truth, then if the bible doesn't say it is the only truth it can't be true that the bible is the only truth.
So I ask, where in the Bible does it say that it is the only Truth?
Also if what you say is true, how do you reconcile your beliefs with John 14:6 (I [Jesus] am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life) and 1 Tim 3:15 (in case I am delayed you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth). Please help me to understand these passages so that I may be persuaded to renounce my Catholic Faith and believe as you do. "
Nathan S wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:09 PM:
Which came first, the church or the bible?
Was the New Testament binding to believe for all Christians for all time since the death, passion, and resurrection of Jesus? Yes or No.
Can you give me the verse of Scripture which says the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ? Where is the word "Catholic" appear in this verse?
Can you give me the verse of Scripture which says the Pope is 666? Where is the word "pope" in this verse? "
Nathan S wrote on Apr 4, 2008 10:55 PM:
You said I can't prove that an afterlife exists, and your underlying assumption is that I should believe it in because it can't be proven. Please allow me to use your reasoning...If this is true.
Can you prove an afterlife doesn't exist? After all, if you can't "prove" that an afterlife doesn't exist, you shouldn't believe that it doesn't.
Can you prove that God doesn't exist? After all, if you can't "prove" that he doesn't exist, you shouldn't believe that he doesn't.
My underlying assumption is that you don't want to believe either of those two statements. Using your own logic, you shouldn't believe as you do. Do you not think it is peculiar that using your own logic applies to everyone else, but not yourself? "
To: Mom wrote on Apr 4, 2008 10:42 PM:
Honest Omar wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:14 PM:
mom wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:21 PM:
C5323 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:59 PM:
That is the title of this article, right? Sexual abuse alleged...so, it hasn't been proven I take it. I'm sure the truth will come to surface if it comes to court and criminal charges. Instead it seems that its much easier to see "sexual abuse" and "catholic priest", throw them together and judge a person based solely on allegations and not proof. This is why I say by the very laws we would wish to prosecute this man should also be applied to protect the individual, should he be innocent.
But whats the point in trying to explain this? Some of you are so dead-set on destroying the catholic church you're willing to not offer a person his due-rights and instead tear him down based on what? Your gut feeling? Intuition? The fact that you believe are priests and catholics are bad? I'm getting of something here...whats it called...bigotry of some sorts?
There are very few here who would want to pursue this case until the truth is found. You'd rather lynch one man to draw blood from the catholic church's nose to prove a point I assume. Your point has been made clear. Crystal clear. "
Responder wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:22 PM:
"It Ain't Necessarily So..." wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:59 PM:
Pretty well sums it all up. The old testament: the borrowed myths (from neighbors, that is -- or conquerors) and common wisdom of a wandering tribe of illiterate, desert nomads, kept alive orally for at least one thousand years, and not even written down until around 500 BCE (so much for Moses writing his own story). The new testament: oral stories passed around for 40 years until Mark (whoever he was) wrote the first gospel; John (whoever he was) was the last, some 30-40 years after Mark. And all the gospels have a different take on who Jesus was or what he said, and they all contradict one another in significant ways. Luke is the only gospel that tells the Bethlehem story, about Joseph and Mary having to travel there because of a Roman decree to return to the birthplace of one's ancestors for a census and to pay taxes (by the way there is not one shred of historical evidence about this, and how in the name of sense could that have even been enforced -- it couldn't be enforced in modern America?!). These original gospels are nowhere to be found. The earliest copies show up hundreds of years later. And what happened to them? They were hand-copied by multiple persons over hundreds of years with inevitable transcription errors and blatant changing of text. The new testament you can buy in Barnes &Noble? Certainly not the original gospels, or, worse, maybe not even a ghost of the originals.
Is this the kind of document a rational person would use as a basis for believing in virgin births, miracles, and resurrected dead..and purgatory?
"It ain't necessarily so." "
Wanblee wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:38 PM:
Responder wrote on Apr 4, 2008 2:58 PM:
Hooters Involved wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:24 AM:
SARCASM! "
Wanbli wrote on Apr 4, 2008 8:30 AM:
1st Responder wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:02 PM:
To: C5323 wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:01 PM:
Steve Zastoupil wrote on Apr 3, 2008 8:53 PM:
C5323 wrote on Apr 3, 2008 5:19 PM:
1. A former priest is being accused of child molestation. A serious charge and a serious crime thats punishable by law.
2. People do bad things, regardless of affiliation or oaths. There have been doctors that have been just as bad as pedophile priests for example.
3. You wouldn't buy a box of apples, see one rotted apple, and throw the whole batch out would you? The actions of one person cannot speak for a group of people.
4. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Atleast thats how I'm told it works.
5. This should be a more law oriented discussion than a theology discussion. James Pommier should be on trial, not the catholic church. "
pj wrote on Apr 3, 2008 4:12 PM:
Stepper wrote on Apr 3, 2008 3:52 PM:
To: Nathan S wrote on Apr 3, 2008 11:05 AM:
Bismarcker wrote on Apr 3, 2008 11:04 AM:
Honest Omar wrote on Apr 3, 2008 10:41 AM:
Nathan S wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:37 AM:
Let's see if you really understand the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please demonstrate this for the readers of this blog by explain the Catholic doctrine of purgatory and how it relates to how we receive Justification. If you can answer this then I will believe that you understand the teachings of the church and since you have rejected them it will give more weight to your argument which is, I know Catholicism and it's bunk. This will, in turn, cause me and other Catholics to question why if someone like you can know and not accept the teachings of the Church as she herself teaches them, why should we?
If you can't do this then one of two things must be true. 1) You don't know the Catholic faith and therefore lose all credibility in asserting that what it teaches is not true or 2) You don't believe strongly enough in what you believe to attempt to get us out of the the Catholic Church. If you don't believe in what you believe strongly enough to want to share it with with me, then why should I believe as you do? "
Nathan S wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:29 AM:
Would you mind sharing your beliefs so that if they are sound reasoning I should believe as you do? After all, if I am learning idiotic myths in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church probably won't tell me that. I am dependent upon people like you to show me the ways in which the Catholic Church is in direct confrontation to the Truth. "
W2 wrote on Apr 3, 2008 8:02 AM:
1. Is the catholic church the "one and only church?"
2. Are you indeed condemned to hell if you are not a catholic?
Any comment??????????? "
mom wrote on Apr 3, 2008 7:52 AM:
To: Responder wrote on Apr 2, 2008 10:23 PM:
BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Apr 2, 2008 8:38 PM:
Responder wrote on Apr 2, 2008 5:50 PM:
Wanbli wrote on Apr 2, 2008 3:03 PM:
Deb wrote on Apr 2, 2008 2:09 PM:
Again - I say to you, if you say that a high percentage of men who have sex with underage boys are homosexual, then you would have to also say that a high percentage of men who have sex with underage girls are heterosexual. And I say to that, again - that is an incorrect descriptor. Men who have sex with underage boys are criminals. Men who have sex with underage girls are criminals. Sexuality itself, really has little do to with it.
So, I've realized there's no bringing you to the realization that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, but I would hope that you at least wouldn't live in fear of gay people. That's the shame of your way of thinking. Good luck. "
WHY wrote on Apr 2, 2008 2:02 PM:
Interested wrote on Apr 2, 2008 1:52 PM:
To: Nathan S wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:31 PM:
Mom wrote on Apr 2, 2008 11:14 AM:
age categories” for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen
and twenty years old. (6)
* A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the
proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men
is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against
female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of
pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with
heterosexuality. * Deb, why is it that you want 'homework' from me, but common sense is good enough for your opinion? I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. "
Mom wrote on Apr 2, 2008 10:53 AM:
Deb wrote on Apr 2, 2008 10:02 AM:
If you think that all homosexual men are by nature drawn to pedophilia, then I'll assume that you believe that all heterosexual men are drawn by nature to raping women. "
Mom wrote on Apr 2, 2008 9:25 AM:
Citing a study (Freund and Watson, 1992) which was reported in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, NARTH found that homosexual males were “three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations.”
In the Nebraska Medical Journal Cameron said that when data from both genders are combined, homosexuals are at least 8-12 times more likely to engage with children than are heterosexuals.
I don't know how much more 'homework' you want me to do Deb! I don't see you coming up with any 'homework' to back up your 'opinion'! It's not all information from bay bashers Deb. In fact when this article first appeared in the paper I thought the same as you. My husband is the one that said that it's because a lot of priests are gay. I was trying to disprove him by showing that homosexual men are not more prone to be child sexual predators than heterosexuals. You know what? Despite my wanting to prove him wrong...I can honestly say that from all of the research I've found....he is right! And I am sickened by it. Homosexual men are drawn to underage boys. In fact a lot of homosexuals found that orientation by themselves abused as children by other men.
"
Deb wrote on Apr 2, 2008 7:07 AM:
The FRC has been known for a long time to have an anti-homosexual agenda. Their own descriptor is "Christian organization promoting the traditional family unit and the Judeo-Christian value system upon which it is built."
Let me translate: An uber religious right-wing lobbying group/spin machine, who is against the right of women to choose, against the homosexual lifestyle, and ridiculously enough - puts money toward lobbying against divorce! Seems their efforts are working, what with the 60% divorce rate and all...
Let me make this clear - the FRC has ben roundly and widely criticized for linking homosexuality with pedophilia. Reading their "research" and "findings" into the linking of the two, and believing the "results" is about as intelligent as believing that because both lizards and bears walk on all fours - they must be closely related.
Come on people - time to wake up. Time to do your homework. "
Matt wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:09 PM:
To: Mom wrote on Apr 1, 2008 9:52 PM:
To all evangelicals: get a life and quit destroying this country. "
To: Nathan S and Responder wrote on Apr 1, 2008 9:46 PM:
As to your claim that science demands a supreme creator: abject nonsense. Science requires nothing more than proofs. And there is no proof of a creator, except your religious desire for one. The universe itself might be its own creator. Admittedly even science cannot totally explain the "source" of the Big Bang, but that certainly does not automatically imply the need for a creator. If one indeed exists, who created her? And who created her grandmother...ad infinitum?
Go ahead and believe all you want. In the end you are going to end up in the same heap of stardust I will. I agree we are "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." We come from stardust and it is to that which we will return. Nothing more. Deal with it. It takes far more courage to believe this and act accordingly, than it is to waste your life believing in the ancient myths of illiterate desert nomads. Or some ephemeral afterlife. "
Mom wrote on Apr 1, 2008 4:57 PM:
Deb; This is a 2002 article:
A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.
The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.
Don't just ignore the facts because you don't want it to be true.
"
Mom wrote on Apr 1, 2008 4:43 PM:
Deb wrote on Apr 1, 2008 1:42 PM:
So, saying that "the man who raped the boy is a homosexual" is just as unacceptable. The correct way to look at it is "the man who raped the boy is a pedophile"
There is no connection between law abiding, tax paying citizen who happen to be in loving relationships with someone of the same sex - and pedophiles. We need to rethink our terminology and our vernacular in order to be fair to those citizens. "
mom wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:50 PM:
Responder wrote on Apr 1, 2008 9:42 AM:
Deb wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:04 AM:
Think about it this way: Do you condemn all heterosexual males as criminals becuase the vast majority of rapists are heterosexuals? Of course not - it's just a fact that the percentages show that men who rape women, prefer sexual relationships with women. That doesn't have any bearing on the criminal potential of all heterosexual men, just like "gay" pedophiles have no bearing on the criminal potential of homosexual men.
"
Nathan S wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:46 AM:
You said..."And I don't believe in prayer, which is a form of arrogance"
Arrogance by definition says one doesn't need anyone or anything outside of themself for they can do it themselves. They do not require assistance. Prayer, by it's very nature, suggests that one is not capable of accomplishing what one would like to on their own ability and require assistance to accomplish the works and deeds required in their life. Prayer is a humbling experience, an experience in which the one who prays submits their power over to something which is a more capable power. This is hardly arrogance. "
Nathan S wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:38 AM:
Your issues with the church except the example of infallibility is that people in the church are sinners. Said another way, your issue with the Catholic Church is that it's members don't adhere to its own teaching. I completely agree with you in that regard. All Christians who have ever lived are/were sinners. Even Jesus selected 12 sinners, one would deny Him, one would betray Him, and the others were scattered like sheep when He was crucified.
It begs the question. Why would God choose such a way to give us the Truth? If God came over to our houses and told us the exact Truth, then we would lose the two greatest gifts he has given us in this life. Freedom and Reason. If He beat Truth into us we would lose our free will. God has given us enough that if we seek Truth with our whole mind, heart, body, and soul, we will find it. But he has made it difficult enough so that we won't stumble or accidentally bump into it. In other words, the decision to know Truth rests merely in our reason need it and our freedom to desire it. Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you (Mt 7:7-8).
If the Catholic Church doesn't teach the fullness of Truth, What else in Christianity does? "
Nathan S wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:30 AM:
"Sordid Popes": Yes there are sinners in the Catholic Church. Are there sinners in your church? If so, by your own reasoning, you shouldn't be in your own church then either. Here's something to think about. All these sordid and sinful popes and not one of them, not one, changed the faith to allow their sinful behaviors. Your argument actually helps to support the Catholic position that popes are protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit since while they were wretchedly sinful, they never doctrinally changed church teaching to justify their own behavior. Divine intervention indeed!
Sex Abuse scandal: The church teaches that homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is sinful (CCC 2353, 2357)
"
Nathan S wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:17 AM:
Meat on Fridays: A "small t" tradition (from men) Custom/discipline of the church. It can change like my two year old's mind. No Truth or error dichotomy here.
Unbaptized babies to limbo: This was never Catholic doctrine (binding on all the faithful to believe), it was theological opinion. Truth is, God has not revealed to us what happens to the unbaptized. The official church teaching on this topic is as follows: [CCC stands for Cathechism of the Catholic Church, the number is the paragraph in the Catechism](CCC 1261) "Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.
Buy heaven with indulgences: Yes members of the Church sold indulgences and should not have. It was never a doctrine of the faith to sell indulgences so the church never changed it's teaching on this issue. Indulgences have nothing to do with salvation (justification). It only removes the temporal effects of sin on our souls. As a sidenote the 95 thesis that Luther wrote was against the sale and practice of indulgences, but not one article opposes the Pope's authority to grant them. Mmm?
Inquisition: The church has always taught that murder is wrong. CCC 1756
"
Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:34 PM:
As a Catholic loyal to the teaching office (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church I am free to believe in evolution and I do. To say evolution versus creation is a false dichotomy. The creator could have used evolution as the process to create. Whether we came from some other primitive form of life does not matter, what matters is that the creator created and at some point in the process infused humans a soul which made us made in the likeness and image of the creator. I bet that you didn't even know that Catholics were free to believe in evolution. If you don't believe me look for yourself, it can be found in Humani Generis paragraph 36. Evolution does not contradict a creator or the dignity of the creation.
Scientifically speaking, denying the existance of a creator does not solve the problem. It exponentially makes matters more problematic. Something in cannot be in motion on its own. It requires something to move it. The existance of creation is here and if something didn't put it here then it couldn't be happening. Matter cannot be created on its own. To deny a creator, something that put the existance of this world into motion, is to have a series of unexplainable events set in motion by nothing. The evidence from logic, science, and reason, with complete disregard to "religion", all point to a creator. Science and reason brought me into the church. As a side note, the leading contributor to the science and education from the 3rd century through at least the 18th century if not longer was what organization? That's right, the Catholic Church. "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:16 PM:
I agree with you in the importance of science. But science is not more or less important that theology. Why? Because there is a Creator. Science has shown that matter cannot be made out of no matter. Something can't come from nothing. Scientifically, there must be a creator. That creator must have created everything, the laws and rules of science. The creator is the author of all things, religion and science together. The more we learn about science, the more we learn about the creator. Nothing in science can contradict anything in theology or vice versa. Either your science is wrong or your theology is wrong. Why? Because the creator is the author of all truth, whether it be science or religion. Why? Because if the creator is a lie, then he didn't create, if he didn't create then nothing exists. But we exist so the creator must have created and since it's true that creation exists therefore the creator must also be truth.
The Catholic Church also agrees that reason must inform us as well. After all, the creator can be known through reason. We are here. How did we get here? Our parents. How did our parents get here? In short sum, using reason we can know that time was created and the creator is outside of time. If the creator is inside of time, then the creator had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning is inside of time. The creator then, must be outside of time. "
To: Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:35 PM:
Then why did it take a human vote at the Council of Nicea to establish the catholic version of the new testament? Was there no "Truth" contained in any of the other, many gospels? For years catholic doctrine, your "Truth," said that eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. What happened to that? For years catholic doctrine stated that unbaptized babies went to Limbo. What happened to that? During the late Middle Ages until the Reformation the church said you could buy your place in heaven with indulgences. What happened to that? Oh, yeah, Martin Luther came along. Through the Inquisition the church, at its sole discretion, murdered countless innocent people over a period of five centuries, including the 19th, because the "Truth" was that they were witches. The church preaches the "Truth" of the infallibility of the pope. Tell me about the infallibility of the popes thoughout the late Middle Ages into the Renaissance who bought their offices and who led the most sordid of lives, including one of the Borgias who was openly sleeping with his own daughter! Tell me about the "Truth" of the Avignon popes who openly consorted with concubines. What "Truth" is there in this recent pedophilia scandal? The "Truth" is that your church fathers denied the truth and tried to cover it all up, then were forced to pay for their lies by giving money to the victims. And what is the "Truth" about where this money came from? The faithful parents of the victims!!!
The "Truth," indeed! "
To: To Nathan wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:11 PM:
The one fundamental characteristic of religion is that it is totally unprovable. Any belief that requires a "leap of faith" is a waste of human time. "
To "To Nathan" wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:42 PM:
To: Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:59 PM:
Science should be mankind's sole religion. Add reason to that, as in rational thinking. Proven and reprovable facts. Not ridiculous stories that defy all knowledge and our own experiences of life that require some "leap of faith," which requires mortgaging your intelligence. When was the last time you saw a pillar of fire or a virgin walking around with her child in her arms? Or a dead person resurrected?
Start by studying the Big Bang and Darwin's Theory of Evolution ("Origens of Species" is a very interesting read in spite of what your local pastor may have told you...especially since bible thumpers expound on it without ever having read it). Together they will show you your real place in this universe versus all that nonsense about an "original sin", requiring the creator of the universe to send his only son to be born of a Galilean virgin and then have him nailed to a cross for the redemption of mankind's collective sins. WHAT? If the god you believe in is truly almighty and omniscient, couldn't he have thought of something better than this? And "he" must be a "he." No female would ever have concocted such illogical, gratuitous violence.
Please! The Enlightenment occurred two hundred years ago! Whatever happened to it? And don't give me that old shibboleth that religion makes you a better person. What it really does is turn you into a total non-thinker. And that is a dangerous thing.
Religion needs to be completely abolished. Then, finally, we will have serious discourse. And tolerance. Just look at our current political landscape: three candidates falling all over themselves to associate with some of the stupidest, most intolerant people in America just to get the evangelical vote. We have an evangelical idiot president now. We don't need another.
"
Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:56 PM:
I think it goes against our very nature as humans to be closed minded. As a human being I'm only interested in one thing; the Truth. I need the Truth and I worship the Truth. It's why I'm Catholic.
God Bless,
Nathan "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:50 PM:
I mentioned that we are Catholic because we believe that the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of Truth (which is God Himself) and this ability to teach Truth has no bearing whatsoever on the sinfullness of its members. You have not given a single example of something that the Catholic church teaches in the areas of faith or morals is false. You have provided no sources from Scripture, History, or reason and common sense that would support your position. You have appealed scrictly to your own authority and the sins of the members of the Catholic Church.
Should I believe as you do about the Catholic Church? If so, by what authority do you make this claim? After all, if you appeal only to your own opinion, why should I believe your opinion and not my own? If not, then why can't you provide me with ample support for your positions?
"
To "To Reiterate" wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:42 PM:
Rebecca wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:56 AM:
As far as your "legions of proof" you fail to even give one example, save from the one I just posted a response to. I guess then, your other arguments against the church are "indefensible", because it is impossible to defend against something which has no substance and is only empty, hate spewing rhetoric. "
Rebecca wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:37 AM:
To Deb: Since when have I ever taken you too seriously? ;-)
"
Mom wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:08 AM:
Deb wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:34 AM:
REX wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:52 AM:
Nathan S wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:34 AM:
I didn't believe you at first, but after looking into it, you are completely correct, the Catholic sex abuse scandal is attributable to a homosexual clergy. Here's some info I found that was very convincing.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50434
More supporting info for your position can be found here: http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
As to your question of what should be done. Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 addressed the root cause of the problem swiftly and decisively. That info can be found here:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39700
Thank you for sharing with the readers of this blog about the truth of the root cause of this problem. I never would have guessed. God Bless you! "
To Reiterate wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:18 AM:
So now what? Well, now we have this current "prince of christ," Pope Benedict XVI, who was: A FORMER MEMBER OF THE HITLER YOUTH!!!!!!! Great job, you cardinals, electing this guy! And he wants a "rapprochement" with the Jews? Am sure they are falling all over themselves with joy that this might happen!
Have you all taken leave of your senses? Are you that brainwashed with your catholic faith that you can even entertain such nonsense when your local parish priest utters such abject nonsense? Or, what is he saying about the current pedophile scandal? Not much, I would assume. What the heck, he might be one of them!
I was once a catholic...in my stupid, naive youth. No more. I have seen the light.
"
Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:34 PM:
I apologize for not realizing that you weren't a Christian. When you said you left the church I (falsely) assumed you meant for a Protestant denomination. Misunderstanding such as these are the unintended joy of blogs/message boards. I won't quote Scripture with you again. That being said, your understanding of the accuracy of translation is debatable. If the originals do not exist we have nothing to compare them too, then it cannot be proven that the translations are not accurate. But I disgress.
So that I don't falsely assume you hold beliefs that you do not, I'd like to ask you if you'd be so kind as to share what some of your beliefs are so that we can better dialogue as human persons to better attain a knowledge of the Truth. I think we can both agree that we'd like to know the Truth. If you can help teach me Truth, I'm all for listening. 62zlq "
To To: Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:27 PM:
I apologize for not making myself clearer. I discounted the authority of the New Testament if what "Sordid wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:24 PM" is true. I personally completely accept the authority of the 27 books of the New Testament and 46 books of the Old Testament (Septuagint) because of the authority of the Catholic Church and no other reason. "
Mom wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:49 PM:
To: Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:20 PM:
Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:10 PM:
You make a bold accusation..."[Catholics] are afraid of because you are so brainwashed by the Priests telling you that you can't understand the Bible"
Let's see what the bible says about how easy it is to understand it.
2 Pet 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2 Pet 3:16 speaking of this as he [Paul] does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
Acts 8:30-31 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
How would you interpret these passages to mean that it is easy to come to a knowledge of the Truth from the Scriptures alone?
It should be noted for the readers of this blog that you never attempted to answer the question of where the bible came from. If you did you'd be forced to contradict yourself so you chose to ignore them. If you can only answer one question, Wondering, please answer me this. How easy was it for the earliest Christians to interpret the bible when there wasn't a bible? "
Mom wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:02 PM:
To Nathan S. from Sordid wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:58 PM:
For your information and enlightenment, all the quotes you cite are from texts that postdate the death of Jesus by 40-100 years. All the gospels, but especially the "accepted" ones, no, actually voted on, by the Council of Nicea in the fifth century ACE are the very poorly transcribed accounts of an oral tradition that, today, cannot even remotely resemble these original, late texts, which we do not have! Since the transcription of this oral history there have been many errors in copying and even outright fraudulent changing of the text. The early copiers were ILLITERATE! So much for biblical truth! They didn't even know what they were copying!
Bible thump all you want. The catholic church is a total abomination. I would NEVER return to it. Too bad for them. I am a rather wealthy person, and I am sure they would like my money. "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:41 PM:
All glory goes to God. Grace precipitates everything we do, whether it be faith or works. "
Responder wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:23 PM:
Christa wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:02 PM:
To the extent many have the impression that more boys are being abused, it might simply be because news stories about boys being abused seem more salacious and so the media publishes more of those stories and/or people focus on those stories more and retain those stories in their memories more. "
Wondering wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:52 PM:
Dear people if you want to help please give to the childern so they don't have to suffer without clothes and food the Catholic relegion has enough money .
this is what Jesus is telling us to do thank you God Bless our little chldern "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:39 PM:
For the sake of argument, let's grant you your position. If this is true then the following must also be true...
No other denomination can exist. After all, leaders in all churches are sinners. If we should follow a church or religious institution based on the sinlessness of its leaders, then no church presently on earth qualifies.
If no church on earth exists, then the the bible is no longer authoritative. Think about it. The church, not the bible, is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus did not leave a copy of the bible to everyone so that they could read it for themselves and decide what Truth is and what it isn't. He left teachers (Mt 28:18-20) with His authority (Jn 20:21).
The scriptures also tell us that church is the body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23). Jesus also claimed Himself to be the Truth (Jn 14:6) If Jesus established a church which is His body, then that church must also be the Truth. If it is not the Truth, then if Jesus is God, at least some of Jesus body are lies, because the nature of anything not the Truth is a lie. If what you say is true, Jesus is a liar.
So I ask you. Is there a church on earth? Is that church the body of Chirst? Is there error in the church? If there is error in that church, why should I be apart of it if Jesus is the Truth? If there is not error in that church, why wouldn't you want to be apart of it? Come back home to the Catholic Church, the church instituted by Christ Himself, which is his body in its fullness. After all, wouldn't the church established by Jesus Christ, know that it was the church established by Jesus Christ?
I would also argue that if no church exists to the sinfullness of the
"
Nathan S wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:11 PM:
You said in your statement "well I live by the Word of the Bible." That's great and I hope that you do, but please allow me to ask you a couple of questions.
1) Where did the bible come from? After all, you say you live by this book, you should know who wrote it and who put it together and when these things happened.
2) If you live by the bible you must then also believe that the bible is authoritative. By what authority do you claim the bible to be authoritative? I mean after all, if you live by this book, and you imply by doing so yourself that others should as well, why should I believe as you do?
3) Is the authority of the bible as we know it today binding on all Christians today? Yes or No.
4) Was the authority of the bible as we know it today binding on all Christians in the first 10-20 years after Christ's death? Yes or No.
5) If you answered yes to #4, how can that be if the first book of the New Testament wasn't written for at least 10 and as many as 20 years after the death of Christ?
6) If you answered no to number #4, if the bible wasn't binding on all Christians immediately after the death of Christ, why is it binding on all Christians today? What authority made the bible binding on all Christians?
7) If the bible is necessary for Christians to be saved, how did the earliest Christians who didn't have bibles know how to be saved? Did Jesus abandon those earliest Christians by not leaving them bibles to read?
"
MamaMia wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:09 PM:
Mom wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:04 PM:
Christa wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:13 AM:
Humble Man wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:31 AM:
If I follow the advise of most of bloggers above, I would never again vote, talk to woman, or believe a man; unfortunately, we are all part of the human race.
To imply that because some are sinful, all are to blame or that the religion is to blame is ludicrous. To point fingers and blame is a waste of time.
He who is without sin should throw the first stone. Otherwise, bow your heads in shame, turn YOUR life around, and try to sin no more. Quit blaming people and religions for your tortured souls. Everything ... Everything that I read or see indicates the Catholic faith is the one true faith and is denouncing these sinners. Don't judge a religion or faith by its sinners for none could survive. The church appears to be in the 21st century ... what you are talking about ended 31 years ago!
"
Sordid wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:24 PM:
If you are catholic, you should be totally ashamed. You have been sold a total bill of goods by your faith and your local pastor. But you bear responsibility. You saw this happen. What did you do about it? You heard the cries. But you would never believe that father so-and-so would do such a thing. You had him for dinner. He was your confessor.
Sordid. Totally sordid. I, a former catholic, renounce this abomination. "
Wondering wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:10 PM:
and that money is what they are after, to support their rich taste of materialisti
things in this world, and huge buildings , and that they are not interested in your soul, they would have gotten rid of the pedophiles so the childern would not have been sexually abused time and time again . the reason they didn't want the people to read the BIBLE because there the truth lies . such a shame that the poor little childern suffered in pain and guilt by what these Priests Nuns and brothers did to them many committed sucide because they could no longer stand the pain and when I say pain I mean pain how do I know beacuse my son and
my self and my family for over 40 years and are still suffering the pain even now that we know what happen after 40 years we will be in pain till the day we die over this abuse . We never got any money because money can never take away the pain so they can take all there money and go to you know where they teach all catholic if they aren't living by the catholic laws they made . a joke isn't it?
well I live by the Word of the Bible not what some Pope who thinks he is God . "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:01 PM:
Marital sex is not sinful when not for the purpose of reproduction. Marital sex is sinful if it is not open to the transmission of life. That is a big difference. If what you said is true, then couples who are unable to conceive due to menopause or some other natural reason such as infertility, could never have marital relations without it being sinful. As a fellow Catholic I charitably request that you retract this statement so that others who are not Catholic may know that this is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
Your Brother in Christ,
Nathan "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:56 PM:
We meet again, defending the fullness of Truth. I just wanted to commend you for this. You do a great work for the Lord. "
Deb wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:56 PM:
All sins might be equal in the eyes of the Lord, but in the eyes of the Catholic Church, homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. Unless you're a monk -- seriously... have you met some of the monks from the abbey?? I had to do a double take!! Talk about some flambouyantly wonderful people! I didn't know if I wanted to buy wine or talk about the new Tori Amos album. At least there they are using their talents for art & wine and culture and not giving it all to God. (I'm being snarky -- you know i"m kidding -- just trying to lighten it up a bit). "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:55 PM:
Thank you for providing some sources. The site that you listed in your first post stated this comment which you also mentioned in your post: "Sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church." Unfortunately for your position, this is not sourced to any study or authority and the sentence describing these statements is as follows: "What little hard information that is available seems to indicate that"
This is hardly from correlative data analysis. To affirm this websites information as truth, when it doesn't even make that claim for itself, is hardly logical. I will review the other info you provided later in the day.
Again I appreciate you providing sources. It demonstrates a desire to uphold the highest amount of intelliectual integrity. I appreciate that. "
Deb wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:48 PM:
I never said you should give up your faith. Faith in God has nothing to do with Catholocism. If that's the dogma you want to believe in, then knock yourself out. Believing in, defending and condoning the actions of the Catholic Church and it's leaders with respect to the crimes committed in its ransk is quite another thing. They deserve zero defense from good Catholics like yourself (I'm not saying that sarcastically, either - I believe you are a good person). They deserve a defense in the court of law, as every criminal does. But at the end of the day - that's what they are - criminals. And the establishment of the church has institutionalized their criminal acts. "
Rebecca wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:04 PM:
(hopefully) do this on a regular basis.
The point is that we are not judged by our sins but by God's grace. Otherwise, we would all be condemned.
Secondly, any pedophile should be held to the same standards as every other criminal; the church is not the only establishment to cover up for criminals, and judging them more harshly than other establishments is hypocritical. If you accept that the church "promotes" pedophilia, then you must also accept that the teacher's union "promotes" pedophilia, because they do the EXACT same thing.
As a Catholic, if I am faced with a priest who has done this, I would also expect this person to be punished by the law, and that the bishop who enabled him also be held accountable. But I won't leave my faith behind, especially in light of all the priests out there who I know personally who have given up everything to serve their faith; much like the many teachers who nurture their students and guide them to be intelligent and good people.
The comparison is made to expose a double standard that exists whenever a religious group is involved versus any other establishment. THEY NEED TO ALL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Without bias. "
Mom wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:13 PM:
Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy, chastity, and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual. That's not to say that homosexuals are child predators. Still, it goes against the Bible. Here's a website that will sicken you, it has links to all kinds of cases of clergy sexual abuse. It does cover denominations other than Catholics , but notice that there are a "ton" of Catholic cases. http://www.rickross.com/groups/clergy.html "
Mom wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:03 PM:
Sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church. " This website is
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm
Father Donald Cozzens writes in his book "The Changing Face of Priesthood" that as many as 50% of priests may be homosexual. A Vatican document of 1961 bars persons with homosexual orientation from ordination and religious vows. However, this document appears to have been almost completely ignored. Like a lot of other things Catholics (and other religion as well) like to preach about but not live by. Incidentally the Protestant child abuse numbers you refer to are not by clergy/pastors but rather by volunteers within the church and by other church goers and other kids. It's not that same thing. "
Deb wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:58 AM:
Deb wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:52 AM:
You said "The Church in no way condones pedophilia"
Even you had to cringe a little bit when you wrote that. "Condoning" and "acknowledging" are two separate things. Saying they don't condone pedophilia is one thing, but their actions - institutionalizing the acceptance of pedophiles and their actions for at least 40 years - is the REALITY of the situation.
You can defend your church all you want Rebecca, and you have the right to do it, and I repect you for it. your convictions seem true. But I have to ask you two questions -
1- Why did you get so lucky? Why do the Catholics accept your lifestyle, and not the lifestyle of gay men and women?
2- If you had to speak face-to-face with a 50 year old man whose life was destroyed because a priest raped him as a child, and that priest was allowed to drift from parish to parish to destroy other childrens' lives, all the while the heads of the church knowing that he was a pedophile, what would you say to him as a practicing Catholic? I hope it's something better than "my bad" "
AlteredBoy wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:12 AM:
Rebecca wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:45 AM:
This obviously doesn't permit Catholic priests who have molested children any leeway as far as I'm concerned; but it illustrates the point that it isn't the church which is flawed; it is the sad truth of the society we live in and rather than attack a religious group (which in my mind is a bigoted response; a justification for a distaste that already exists) I would say that we need to be watchful of our children and realize that even in those places where they should be safe, there is a risk.
"
Rebecca wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:44 AM:
As for the way this was handled, I agree that it was inappropriate and that these priests should have been immediately desmocked. However, the Catholic Church isn't the only institution that deals with this issue in an inappropriate way. I know and am good friends with our priest and I would rather leave a child alone with him than with a teacher; the incidence of pedophilia in the teaching profession is much higher and the teacher's union is worse than the church; they give their members "rubber room" jobs where they can be paid taxdollars to work office jobs, and nearly half of those working these jobs are repeat offenders.
"
Responder wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:28 AM:
cd wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:46 AM:
BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:46 AM:
"
Left a long time ago. wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:59 AM:
FYI wrote on Mar 29, 2008 6:25 AM:
Deb wrote on Mar 29, 2008 6:11 AM:
Because of its own teaching that homosexuality is a sin, the Catholic church has drawn to it a mass of men who, because they feel so guilty for their own same-sex sexual urges, the only answer is to run to the church, so that priesthood celebacy becomes their lifestyle. If you aren't acting on your urges, then you are not gay - problem solved. Right.... There is nothing wrong with being gay. I find something completely wrong with hiding from the truth of your life and pretending to be someone you are not. But, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, who are we to judge...
For another, but equally as warped a reason, the criminal mind of a pedophile is attracted to the Catholic church. What a perfect place to act on the urge to prey sexually on a child. You have a captive audience who is not afraid of you, because the children on whom you are preying have been told by their parents to listen and obey you. What an ideal situation for a criminal!! Children are taught never to talk to men offering them candy, but those offerning you communion - do EVERYTHING they say. It should come as no suprise to people that a criminal figured out this racket.
The rape is egregious enough of a crime. It's a re-rape, and a crime on all humanity that it is accepted in the Catholic church and people continue to condone it by attending church and by giving money to these people. This has nothing to do with God or the Bible or Jesus or any religion - it's about institutionalized, accepted criminal acts committed against the members of our society who are least able to defend themselves.. "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:18 AM:
If you'd like to read more on married Catholic priests... http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
"
Nathan S wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:16 AM:
Jesus was sent to earth with God's authority (Mat 28:18-20). Jesus sent the Apostles in the same manner that God sent Jesus (John 20:21). These were the only people who were sent with God's authority and they were all men. Man did not establish this, Jesus Christ did! And this decision of Christ cannot change. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6) and this teaching is the Truth. Why? Because this Truth was espoused by the church by the men who received this authority from God and the church is the Body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23). Jesus' Body is the Truth (John 14:6) because he is the Truth and the Truth can never change. Why? Because God cannot change (Mal 3:6). Why? Because God is perfect and something that is perfect cannot improve or get better by its very nature. To change something perfect it can only became less perfect.
For those with some knowledge of Catholic Theology this can be expressed a bit differently. Not all men can be priests or deacons. In order to be a priest you must receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As a Sacrament it is binding upon all Catholics as a matter of faith, divinely revealed and instituted by Christ Himself. Since it is a matter of faith, it cannot change for the reasons mentioned above. "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:57 PM:
Paul argues for celibacy among those who dedicate their lives to the Lord. (1 Cor 7:7-9) "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Cor 7:32-35) "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."
Paul promotes, the Scriptures promote, the Word of God promotes celibacy among those who dedicate their lives to the Lord. When did this idea of celibacy not being apart of the Christian experience make it's way into the thinking of Christians? It certainly wasn't in Paul or the Holy Spirit when God inspired Paul to write these words. "
Nathan S wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:46 PM:
Where is the evidence of Catholics sex abuse statistically being higher than Protestants? Please share the data to back up your claim. The only data that I could find came from this website:
Click here to view link
It states that the numbers simply aren't comparable since the reported information differs. Simply by the numbers in this article alone there are 32 more Protestant cases than Catholic every year. Again, this is an unfair comparision since the data reported is not done exactly the same.
To argue that one should not be Catholic or not be Protestant simply because of sex abuse is absurd. Following that same logic, one should also not attend public schools because sex abuse occurrs more in public schools than it ever has in Catholic or Protestant Churches. Until folks are willing to shutdown public education over the sex abuse crisis in schools, it's absurd to lash out at institutions as a whole versus the individual actions of sinners. That said any and all criminals who sexually abuse our kids should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Period. Those covering up such activities should be punished as well. "
Responder wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:58 PM:
VATICAN2CATHOLIC wrote on Mar 28, 2008 5:31 PM:
"1982 was still in the era when it seemed only natural for bishops to transfer pedo-priests from parish to parish."
It may have seemed "only natural" in your neck of the words but I assure you that most ordinary people are not of that opinion.
What individual never knew that the sexual abuse of children was wrong?
Stop excusing the bishops. People like you are the "enablers" who, along with the bishops allowed this to happen.
READ MY LIPS:
IF ONLY THE BISHOPS HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN CANON LAWS THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH WOULD NOT BE IN THE MORASS THAT IT IS IN.
Read a few of the different states' Grand Jury Reports on what the Church did and did not do. Make sure you are not reading it on a full stomach. "
Poetic*Justice wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:59 PM:
Mom wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:43 PM:
Sharen wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:41 PM:
Responder wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:59 PM:
lw wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:19 PM:
IDEA wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:55 PM:
justine wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:33 PM:
Benedict XVI th wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:14 PM:
As Brother Occum once postulated :"Invariably the simplest answer tends to be the correct one." "
~Deb~ wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:48 AM:
uncommon sense wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:42 AM:
uncommon sense wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:34 AM:
Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:30 AM:
Benedict XVI th wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:27 AM:
to MamaMia wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:23 AM:
sn68 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:23 AM:
Cindyloo wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:17 AM:
"
Sparky wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:13 AM:
Hmmm, maybe he doesn't exist after all. "
ann wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:11 AM:
eddifiedtavous wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:40 AM:
MamaMia wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:29 AM:
Mom wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:17 AM:
To sn68 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:05 AM:
~Deb~ wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:54 AM:
"To SN68" wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:54 AM:
Got you thinking wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:20 AM:
I guess it's alright to abuse a altar boy in a church atmosphere. The diocese gives the boy some money, and removes the priest from services. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The abuser should be butchered. "
sn68 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:51 AM:
Leonard wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:26 AM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.