Blaming "incendiary language" is a tool of ideologues

I'm glad you don't mind incendiary speech because a lot of people have a lot to say about the shortcomings of the Catholic clergy.

AREYOUSAYING
POSTED JANUARY 17, 2011 8:58 AM
“THE ICONOCLAST AND FAIRYLAND"

IRT:
“A lying (Obama is a Muslim), racist (vis a vis his posts about Blacks and abortion) anti-Semite (the Jews murdered Jesus), twistedthingamajig thinks he can hide behind his cherry-picked scriptures to conceal his intolerant right-wing Catholic bigotry like his Church still hides it's pervert priests.

ANS:
Only a paranoid mind, in the Alternate World, could concoct such calumniatory false and malicious statements. But, that's what philistines do; they proffer pseudepigraphical aspersions and misrepresentations. They are a product of their quixotic fantasies. If it were not for three words, “hate,” “racist,” and “lying” their tool used to implement their libel traducements, the radical philistines would dry up like dirt and blow away like dust.

There are no pervert priests in hiding in the Church; you've proven that when you couldn't show any. It’s all in you hallucinating mind. Second, there was no post taken from this forum that defiles Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and so were his Apostles. That’s another of your delusions you've manufactured because of your frustrations. Third, did the Jews crucify and murder Jesus? You might consult your dictionary and find out what Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes are.

As to racism, are Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby racist against Blacks? Jesse Jackson, before it was politically expedient not to defend Abortion, called Abortion Genocide. Cosby, in several instances on TV said that 70 percent of Black pregnancies occur out of wedlock, and some 55 percent end in abortion. To me, Abortion kind of looks like genocide.

Is Barack Obama a Communist Marx Socialist? He’s admitted to it in his book, “The Dreams from My Father.” Obama has been proven to be a Communist in two books, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” and in “Crimes Against Liberty.” Notwithstanding, He has surrounded himself with a multitude of Socialist Marxist czars.

He pulled Carol Browner out of a worldwide Socialist Organization bent on destroying American capitalism to be his Climate Czar. On U-Tube, Anita Dunn, Obama’s earlier Media Advisor, said Mao Zedong was whom she went to when she needed advice. Van Jones was a self-admitted Communist advisor working in the White House. On U-Tube Obama had an ornament with Mao's picture on it hanging on the Obama’s Christmas tree.

However, there is no proof that can be given to you, because your proof is ”ignis-fatuus.” and is hermetically sealed in your mind set.

Consequently giving you proof is like giving it to a jackass, because both are incapable of even seeing proof, much less understanding it. Nevertheless, here is a link for a list of the Obama Communist attaches, so that others may see your demagoguery and who is really a bigot.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/enough_is_enough.html

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
“DELUSIONS?”

IRT:
“Of course not. My dear "invisible flying pink unicorn" (IFPU) exists too. If you cannot believe, it is your problem. Especially since you have no evidence to show that my dear, noble, all beneficent IFPU does not exist.”

ANS:
“Plants cannot grow in a soil cursed by God; they can take root only in that Church where the True Faith is professed." You may believe in whatever you want, but don’t act on your delusions, they could be fatal. As for your IFPU, there is not an iota of proof they exists, as there was no iota of proof the Roman gods existed, or there exists a Sun god or Pagan gods.

However, there is an enormous amount of proof that God exists, but the morally blind cannot see it. Hence, in Romans 1: 18cf "For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made as to His eternal power also and divinity, so that their ignorance is inexcusable. When they knew God, they had not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts.

And their foolish hearts were darkened. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. For they changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

There is no civilization that has existed since the beginning of man that hasn’t believed in a god because God is an innate virtue of human nature.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING:
JUSTACOMMENT
EEZEMAMATA
"TRUE BELIEVER"

If you cannot understand what “True” means, then no explanation is possible. True means factual as an adjective, as was shown in the Dictionary.com. When "True," as an adjective, describes a believer, it means the believer truly (in fact, in reality) believes in something. Now you can believe in all your convoluted apocryphal delusive distortions, but if they don’t exist then they are delusions and hence, are not real. If they are not real, then to say to believe in the unreal makes you a true believer is a contradiction, and oxymoron. Hence, you are a Believer not a "True Believer" but a "Delusional Believer," and apparently, you cannot tell the difference.

No one can be a believer who believes in nothing. Thus, to be a "True Believer" one must believe in something; to be a "Delusional Believe" you only believe in that what doesn't exist, and that which doesn't exist is nothing. However, to be a "true" believe you must believe in something that exists because to believe in nothing is not to believe at all. "True" and "Delusional" both describe a Believer, but they are not the same except to you.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING:
JUSTACOMMENT
LOURDES

IRT:
Please explain where I can find the list of 70K miracles documented and approved. You wrote “Miracles are still occurring today, 70,000 at Lourdes.”I googled a couple of sites (http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf) and surprise, they list just 67 miracles.”

ANS:
Because you are indisposed to believe any proofs, no proof is possible for you because you can't explain them and deny there is a God.
Miracles can be physical, spiritual, or both; the 67 miracles are those officially approved of by the Church and can be verified that they happened, viz. no other explanation but God’s intercession could account for them.

The 67 have been thoroughly examined by a Medical Bureau that was established in 1882 to test the authenticity of the cures. The doctors include unbelievers as well as believers and any doctor is welcome to take part in the examination of the alleged cures. As many as 500 medical men of all faiths or no faith have taken advantage of the invitation each year. I am sure you know that just as you knew the 70,000 were witness. B/W that other post you site is not on this forum, but the one shown is and you knew it.

What’s more, 70,000 miracles are a less than modest number that happen at Lourdes. Moreover, the point is made that miracles happened, and still are happening, and they prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, you decided on a subterfuge to deflect the fact that shows the emptiness of the claims there is no God.

http://www.olrl.org/stories/lourdes.shtml

Lourdes has since become one of the most famous shrines, attracting more than a "million pilgrims" each year. There have been "thousands of miraculous cures" at this shrine. The gift of miracles has never ceased to show its presence in the Catholic Church. "If you would not believe Me," said Our Lord to the Jews, 'believe the works I do.'

"The Catholic Faith alone produces miracles that are never seen among heretics. Plants of this sort cannot grow in a soil cursed by God; they can take root only in that Church where the True Faith is professed . . . God cannot sanction the performance of a miracle except in favor of the true religion; were He to permit it in support of error, He would deceive us."—St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori, Bishop & Doctor of the Church

No one leaves Lourdes without a gain in faith. Moral and spiritual cures are more marvelous than physical cures. Some go to Lourdes with lifetime prejudices, yet their minds are cleared in a sudden manner. Frequently, skepticism gives way to faith; coldness and antagonism become wholehearted love of God. Again and again, those who are not cured of bodily pain receive an increase of faith and resignation – true peace of soul."

@TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

This thing about the "True Believer" started when EEZMAMATA wrote: “Actually, incendiary language is a tool of ideologues. And that's just what you are, a True Believer is an ideologue. A man who hasn't the guts or the intelligence to think for himself, instead he mouths the utter crap forced through his brain by his foolish religion, his foolish politics.”

You riposted: “A “TRUE BELIEVER” is one who believes in the Truth."

Then SECULAR jumped in with: “the word "True" used in "True Believer" is adjective that describes the word believer not the truthfulness of his/her belief itself.”

I added: “See what I found in Wikipedia: ““The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by Eric Hoffer. The book evaluates and sometimes disparages all mass movements including communists,fascists, nationalists, and Christianity.”

So EEZMAMATA was right and SECULAR gave you the correct grammar interpretation in case you wanted to dismiss the use of the words within a known expression in the literature of mass movements.

You kept ongoing with your definition and now more recently you wrote: “Therefore, to be a true believer, the believer must believe in something that is true or that which exists in reality.”

No, no Ttwsy, you can really really believe in something false and still you are a true believer, as in: My daughter is a true believer in Santa Clause, but a real Santa doesn't exists.

But you gave us more:

"To believe in what is false is to believe in what is a lack of being something because what is false is a lack of reality. Henceforth, to believe in what is false is to believe in nothing."

I don't know how you can understand this. Must be something very profound beyond my comprehension.

“To be a Truly Believe, one must believe in that which is true or conforms to fact or reality.”

Your are making the expression True Believer to evolve into Truly Believe or you made a big typo or you are changing purposely the expression. Which is it?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 is like Sarah Palin. The more he rants, the more he forgets what he posted previously to the contrary. The more he rants, the more he reveals his political, religious and racial bigotry.

@TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You wrote: “Contrary to your out of context quote, this is the quote in context, “Have you not heard of ‘THE 70,000 WHO WITNESSED’ THE MIRACLE OF THE SUN AT FATIMA, or the multitude of Miracles at Lourdes?”

You wrote "The 70,000 witnesses..." in your post at JANUARY 17, 2011 11:28 AM.

But please notice that you previously wrote: “Miracles are still occurring today, 70,000 at Lourdes. . The Pharaoh lost his entire army to God...” POSTED BY: TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 | JANUARY 17, 2011 12:12 AM.

Did you wrote this later post or not? Did you forget what you write? Do this post appeared miraculously, not written by you?

After this post you have a second post where you qualify the 70K as witnesses, but when I wrote my post I referred to your post at 12:12 AM (awfully early, maybe this is why you forgot). In this post you also wrote "the Jews murdered Him"? Remember? There you go...

Ttwsy...for normal people 70,000 miracles are 70,000 miracles, not “atheist people,” or “witnessing public officials.” However, they evidently can be for the prejudicially blind people like you. Prejudicial minds see things that aren’t there but think they’re there. Pardoner, if you cannot understand a simple sentence that you wrote and requires little or no thought.

Ttwsy, how could not anything remain elusive to you that is complex?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTACOMMENT
POSTED JANUARY 17, 2011 4:40 PM
“TRUE BELIEVERS”

IRT:
First, you wrote: “A “TRUE BELIEVER” is one who believes in the Truth.” Later you wrote: “If “True Believer” stands alone, it can only have one meaning, namely, it must mean someone who believes in something.”
Why getting this right is so difficult for you?

ANS:
The problem is not mine, but yours. Consequently, are you denying that a True Believer necessarily doesn’t need to believe in anything? If that were true, he wouldn’t be a believer. Thus, a believer must believe in something to be a believer.

IRT:
“Believer = someone who believes in something
True believer = someone who really believes in something
Secular had already pointed to you that “The word "True" used in "True Believer" is adjective that describes the word believer not the truthfulness of his/her belief itself.”

ANS:
From the dictionary: TRUE defined as an Adjective:
1. Being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. 2. Real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings.

As was said, if you believe in nothing, you don’t believe. Thus to believe you must believe in something, To believe in what is false is to believe in what is a lack of being something because what is false is a lack of reality. Henceforth, to believe in what is false is to believe in nothing. Therefore, to be a true believer, the believer must believe in something that is true or that which exists in reality.

Namely, the definition of “true” as an adjective is being in "accord with the actual state or condition." But if the believer is not believing in something that is actually exists, and something is that which exists, than he is not a truly a believer.

“True” defined as an adjective also means conforming to reality. Now to conform to reality as a believer is to believe in something in order to be a believer, or a true believer. However, to believe in nothing is not to be really believing, because a true believer must believe in something.

If something is True, it is a reality.
Therefore, to be True, one must conform to reality.
False is a lack of reality.
A lack of reality is not to be real. It is the lack of reality and thus, that which lacks reality is that which doesn’t exist.
To believe is to believe in something.
To believe what is false is to believe in what doesn’t exist, and therefore nothing.
But, to believe in nothing is not to believe at all.

To be a Truly Believe, one must believe in that which is true or conforms to fact or reality.
If a believer believes in what is false he believes not in reality, or that which exist.
That which doesn't exist is not a reality and is not a thing.
If one believes in nothing, he cannot be a True Believer. namely, he cannot truly believe.
Therefore, to be a True Believer he must believe in that which is true which is reality and is something.

If a wise man goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs and there is no peace - Solomon

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTACOMMENT
POSTED JANUARY 17, 2011 6:00
“70,000 MIRACLES?’

IRT:
“Can you get one right?
You wrote “Miracles are still occurring today, 70,000 at Lourdes.”

ANS:
Contrary to your out of context quote, this is the quote in context, “Have you not heard of ‘THE 70,000 WHO WITNESSED’ THE MIRACLE OF THE SUN AT FATIMA, or the multitude of Miracles at Lourdes? AMONG THOSE 70,000 WERE ATHEISTS WHO CAME TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OF THE LITTLE THREE CHILDREN, the atheists and agnostic public officials who attempted to prevent the three children from attending the grotto. Are you saying they all were hallucinating?”

For normal people, miracles are not “atheist people,” or “witnessing public officials.” However, they evidently can be for the prejudicially blind. Prejudicial minds see things that aren’t there but think they’re there. Pardoner, if you cannot understand a simple sentence that requires little or no thought, how could not anything remain elusive to you that is complex?

Clearly, “70,000” does not mean 70,000 miracles, except to the obscured mind of a prejudicial philistine eagerly disposed to find fault. Such prejudices render them incapable of objective reasoning. I can understand such confusion and a lack of embarrassment from such preposterousness, since it is evidently impossible to embarrass a philistine.

Here is EVIDENCE of how the predispositions of a closed mind have become not only an encumbrance to its thought processes, but has obscured its ability to see reality. In any other context but the ambiences of a closed and narrow mind could such a distortion occur. How can anyone, but a closed mind, understand that 70,000 meant miracles unless what is sees has been clearly baffled by its previous distorted mind set?

Further, the true meaning of “70,000” is enforced when one continues, “Among those 70,000 were atheists.” Now, only a closed mind encapsulated by its fabrications and distortions could conclude that the 70,000 meant “miracles are the witnessing atheists.” Are there such things as “atheists public official witness miracles?” Are these miracles attempting to frighten the children in order to prevent them from visiting the grotto? What kind of buffoonery is this madness?

Consequently, it is evident Secularists' judgments are not trustworthy, or can be taken seriously. Thus, the cause of accusing Palin and conservatives are the major source of violence is clearly a distortion of a liberal’s prejudicious mind set.

My dear friend, if you cannot understand a simple sentence that requires no explanation, how can anything be explained to you that requires a complex thought. Clearly, 70,000 does not mean 70,000 miracles, except to the obscured mind of the bias that are eager to find fault under their paranoid delusions.

A Huey Cobra landed wrong, spinning and sparks flying.

Tower: Sir, do you need assistance.
Cobra: I don't know tower. We ain't done crashing yet.

The story of my life, one crash after another. God only knows. I ain't done crashing yet.

So TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 (aka Bill Donohue), please tell us again how "Obama is a Muslim", the Jews murdered Jesus, 55% of Black people have abortions and how the Catholic Church is hiding no pervert priests from civil prosecution.

Also, please give us substantiation for your Catholic League pontifications. In your own hateful words, "Put up or shut up"

And you, Fr. Pavone, are not an ideologue? You have no ideology? More wars, more people killed, tortured in the name of "God" and religion than for any other reason.

Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts and more - all in the name of "God".

According to the logic of the left, now anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of violence. Those people blaming conservatives for the latest violent events are unable to grasp (on purpose, I suspect) that disagreeing and then publicly talking about your disagreements is at the heart of American democracy. The absence of free speech is totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is at the heart of the left.

@TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Twwsy, can you get one right?

You wrote “Miracles are still occurring today, 70,000 at Lourdes.”

I googled a couple of sites (http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf) and surprise, they list just 67 miracles.

Please explain where I can find the list of 70K miracles documented and approved.

Be careful Twwsy, il padre Pavone may scrap another of your posts.

@TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

First you wrote: “A “TRUE BELIEVER” is one who believes in the Truth.” Later you wrote: “If “True Believer” stands alone, it can only have one meaning, namely, it must mean someone who believes in something.”

Why getting this right is so difficult for you?

Believer = someone who believes in something

True believer = someone who really really believes in something

Secular had already pointed to you that “The word "True" used in "True Believer" is adjective that describes the word believer not the truthfulness of his/her belief itself.”

Use some logic here. Got it now?

Probably you meant to write “a truth believer”, an expression that is somewhat confusing, but at least makes some sense related with what you want to say (based on the context of your post).

If you use the same logic you have displayed on this to prove to yourself that god exists, one can understand your conclusions.

How convenient Pavone has removed TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 vile posts about "...the Jews murdered Him" and his unsubstantiated racism about Blacks and abortion.

Protecting one of your own, Father?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
“ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE”

IRT:
“There is absolutely no evidence at your disposal to advance the truth claims of Christianity any further than the truth claims about Zeus, Apollo, Allah, Krishna, or Thor.

ANS:
How many miracles have any of your myths performed, or rose from the dead, cured the leper, the sick, gave sight to the blind and made the lame walk, the deaf hear, ousted demons, and had their life written over 300 years before they were born and live it to the last iota?

How many of your gods have lasted for over 2,000 years and their followers proliferated to 1.3 billion members. Who are the worshipers that still pray to these myths, and how were their prayers answered. Jesus did all these things, His Father was even more visibly wonderful. His Father's might is recorded in History, the Great Flood, the freeing of the Jews, the defeat of the Pharaoh's army, the Canaanites, Philistines, and Egyptians?

Christianity has been vindicated by its works. Can you prove any different? Can you even prove where any nation collapses, or imploded, or was terminated by its neighbors because it advanced Christianity’s Ten Commandments, and its Spiritual and Corporal works of Mercy?

Has there ever been a nation that imploded, or hoist withone's own petard because it adopted the two Great Commandments? They sum up the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy and the Ten Commandments of Christianity, viz. “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

There is an insurmountable proof of Atheism causing the collapse of many regimes, because of their moral bankruptcy, basket case leaders like Nero, and Caligula who denied God’s laws. Did Christianity ever cause the cataclysm, catastrophic fate that has befallen Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Congo, the Sudan and Lebanon, who believed there was no God to answer to?

Have you not heard of the 70,000 who witnessed the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, or the multitude of Miracles at Lourdes? Among those 70,000 were atheists who came to expose the fraud of the little three children, the atheists and agnostic public officials who attempted to prevent the three children from attending the grotto. Are you saying they all were hallucinating; that there was a mass hypnosis of the masses, as Marx described religion? Where's the proof?

C. S. Lewis wrote, “Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.” You are correct. Because of the Secularists' predispositions, Aquinas said, "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

IRT:
"It would be best, if you recanted your truth claims.

ANS:
Yes when you can rationally demonstrate there is no God, however, it is impossible to prove what is true is not true, but a Secularist can do it every day.

For a complete answer, see link below.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

Excellent article, Fr. Pavone.

It is clear to me that Jared laughner wasn't influenced by anything other than the voices in his head. Any attempt to connect his actions to the work of any real-world political movement is farcical.

And libelous.

And destructive.

And plain of wrong.

.

Truth needs no evidence to exist; it needs evidence for you to know it exists. Thus, God exists but the Secularists claim He doesn’t, yet they have no evidence that God doesn’t exist. It would seem that you don’t know what you believe because you have no evidence to the contrary.
_____________________________________________

Of course not. My dear "invisible flying pink unicorn" (IFPU) exists too. If you cannot believe it it is your problem. Especially since you have no evidence to show that my dear, noble, all beneficent IFPU does not exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He rose from the dead. Scrolls, millions of witness from the Exodus to Jesus witnessed God's miracles, Miracles are still occurring today, 70,000 at Lourdes. . The Pharaoh lost his entire army to God, not to mention the Jews crucified Him and He rose from the dead. Still, the blind Secularists say it's all a lie, a delusion, and a conspiracy.

___________________________________________

Speaking of Lourdes, please see this video on YouTube

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Root_of_All_Evil%253F&rct=j&q=dawkins%20and%20lourdes%20video&ei=JEw0Tc_YEcK_gQexqa3SCw&usg=AFQjCNFnptwLx-hsF8IcAWXqOwLqOvHv3Q&sig2=waUHmYejaFq4jarMdn879g&cad=rja

Seems to me that, that brief lesson in separating fact from fiction was lost on you. You are truly beyond help. Only thing I can conclude is that you must be one of those priests in RCC. I cannot even imagine you making a living in the real world with your level of intellectual discourse. You are able to get away with it because you are one of those parasites on the society, called priests.

A lying (Obama is a Muslim), racist (vis a vis his posts about Blacks and abortion) anti-Semite (the Jews murdered Jesus), twistedthingamajig thinks he can hide behind his cherry-picked scriptures to conceal his intolerant right-wing Catholic bigotry like his Church still hides it's pervert priests.

He has finally revealed himself for what he is.

"..the Jews murdered Him.."

Not only a liar that Obama is a Muslim, twistedthingamajig is also an anti-Semite.
If he lies about Obama and displays this kind of hatred form his heart, what credibility does he have pontificating to the rest of us?

FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!

(as US Christians vomit hate speech continuously)

What are you, a degenerate GOP Rove acolyte? Go ahead and defend the 'southern strategy', the militant Palin bs, and the rest of the scorched earth crap, it just shows what you really are.

Situational morals and values on parade.

Are you a torture defender as well?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTACOMMENT
"MASS MOVEMENTS"
POSTED JANUARY 16, 2011 9:05 PM

IRT:
“A core principle in the book is Hoffer's insight that mass movements are interchangeable; an example is Saul, persecutor of Christians, becoming Paul, a fanatical Christian.—Wikipedia.”

ANS:
Paul was converted because he sought the truth, and found Judaism was false when it rejected the Son of God. Paul realized truth abided in Christianity.

If by “fanatical Christian'" Hoffer means Paul was marked by excessive enthusiasm for God, so be it. If Hoffer defines Christianity as a "mass movement" caused by “fanaticism,” and "fanaticism" meaning irrational behavior, then Hoffman is in grave error. You are not irrational to love God excessively, because that is an innate and natural part of man’s nature.

Of course, there is dissatisfaction in man if that means man has an appetite to seek the Truth. Man is naturally made to seek Truth; therefore, man seeks truth in accord with his natural appetite that thirst for knowledge, and seeks the Good who is Truth and God.

Thus, Scripture reads in Matthew 22:37, "Jesus said to him: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind;' consequently, man is naturally fanatical but not irrational to seek the ultimate truth who is God for whom man was made and drawn toward by virtue of man's nature.

There is all kind of mass movement whose formal object is to seek Truth because man by his natural appetite for knowledge thirsts for the Good, and the Truth who is God.

Am I to assume that Christianity is one of the many mass movements brought on by the symptoms of hysteria and paranoia that you’ve presented as representing Hoffman’s conjectures? Now there are all kinds of universal mass movements and they are not fanatical. Thus, there are mass movement that recognizes the universal truths in Mathematics and Music. Consequently, there is a mass movement toward Christianity because it represents truths that are presented to man by God, Who is all Truth.

Truth and knowledge are the natural, consummate, and essential food of the intellect. In seeking truth and acting on its accord is how man perfects his being. By definition God is Truth, All-Reality, without Error, Omniscient, and Prescient and therefore, he is rationally sought by man's appetite for Good and Truth.

So it's official. Twistedthingamajig denies the Catholic Church is still hiding pervert priests from civil prosecution. That's why Bishops are lobbying state legislatures to shorten the statute of limitations for felony child sexual abuse.

Too bad we don't know his position in the Church and the Catholic League so we can spread the news to the rest of the world. He's either a priest, a bishop or maybe Bill Donohue himself!

Hallelujah! The Catholics have finally turned all their pervert priest over to civil prosecution. Thus sayeth twistedthingamajig.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTACOMMENT
"TRUE BELIEVER"
POSTED JANUARY 16, 2011 9:05 PM

IRT:
“You said: [A “TRUE BELIEVER” is one who believes in the Truth.] “I think you got the meaning of this expression a little bit twisted (pun intended) or at least enormously incomplete. See what I found in Wikipedia”:

ANS:
If “True Believer” stands alone, it can only have one meaning, namely, it must mean someone who believes in something. Now, if what the believer believes is false, he believes in nothing, because to be false is a lack of truth and doesn’t exist, since “Truth” is that what exists, a reality. A belief in error is a belief in that which doesn’t exist, viz. in nothing. However, no one can believe in nothing since he wouldn't believe at all.

Now if you specify what one believes such as a believer who truly believes in Buddhism, Hinduism, or Paganism, then it has some meaning other than believing in Truth, because these believers exists and what they believe is not all error because these religions all contain some truths or else they wouldn’t be believed.

IRT:
“True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. Keene considered it a cognitive disorder, and regarded it as being a key factor in the success of many psychic mediums.

ANS:
Christianity is both normal and paranormal but not irrational; it has never been proven to be staged; it is a construct of reality.

Moreover, a belief in an existing God is not a cognitive disorder. Now since the natural purpose of man is to seek the truth, viz. to know and love God, man by nature finds his goal inscribed in Christianity because it is a good given to man by his Creator and all men, by nature, seek what is good.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
POSTED JANUARY 16, 2011 4:14 PM

IRT:
"It seems to me you have not been coached to tell the difference between these three, Truth Claim, 2) Myth, & 3) Fact or Truth. The latter two are truth claims but only the third kind is backed by the evidentiary support. The second one is truth claim that has no basis in fact or is supported by any kind of evidence."

ANS:
Truth needs no evidence to exist; it needs evidence for you to know it exists. Thus, God exists but the Secularists claim He doesn’t, yet they have no evidence that God doesn’t exist. It would seem that you don’t know what you believe because you have no evidence to the contrary. You’re right, according to your own word, if there is no evidence there are no facts, so without facts you cannot know God doesn't exist. Still, not knowing doesn't prove anything except you don't know. Unfortunately, it looks as if your belief contradicts your belief and that's a truth.

However, God does exists, and Aristotle proved it from reason alone. Your problem is you incapable of knowing it, even though God became man, stayed on earth for 33 years, raised the dead, fed thousands with a few loaves and a few fish, made the lame walk, the blind see, cured the sick, the dying, and the lepers.

Further, the Jews murdered Him and He rose from the dead. Scrolls, millions of witness from the Exodus to Jesus witnessed God's miracles, Miracles are still occurring today, 70,000 at Lourdes. . The Pharaoh lost his entire army to God, not to mention the Jews crucified Him and He rose from the dead. Still, the blind Secularists say it's all a lie, a delusion, and a conspiracy.

That much evidence would seem to convince even an imbecile, or a dead horse, but it doesn’t affect an apathetic Secularist who seems anesthetized to reality. The Star that led the Three Wise Men can be scientifically proven to have existed; scientists have even proven the Great Flood occurred.

Most recently, scientists have verified that the first parents were Adam and Eve. Notwithstanding, Jesus’ entire life from birth to death was written some 300 to 400 years before He was born, and He fulfilled it all.

Abraham told the Rich man who was in Hell that his Secularist brothers wouldn't believe a man if he died and was raised from the dead, Luke 16:22cf.

Moreover the Scriptures, history, man’s conscience, the concept of the meaning of Justice, viz. every man will receive his due, has no meaning without existence of God, nor is there any authority for inalienable rights without a transcendental authority, who is God.

Incredulously, the Secularist even contradicts the Founding Fathers, in spite of the Wisdom of Christianity and God are vindicated by their works, and that which contradicts this wisdom destroys itself.

Moreover, that same contradiction by the Court has caused the murder of over 52 million unborn by abortion and yet incredibly the Secularists still are telling us God doesn't exist.

@TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You said: “A “TRUE BELIEVER” is one who believes in the Truth.”

I think you got the meaning of this expresion a little bit twisted (pun intended) or at least enormously incomplete. See what I found in Wikipedia:

“True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.[1][2] Keene considered it to be a cognitive disorder,[3][4] and regarded it as being a key factor in the success of many psychic mediums.[2]”

“The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by Eric Hoffer. The book evaluates and sometimes disparages all mass movements including communists,fascists, nationalists, and Christianity. “Hoffer argues that all mass movements such as fascism and communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to glorify the past and devalue the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors.”

BTW, you are a true believer...

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SECULAR
POSTED JANUARY 16, 2011 4:14 PM

It seems to me you have not been coached to tell the difference between these three, Truth Claim, 2) Myth, & 3) Fact or Truth. The latter two are truth claims but only the third kind is backed by the evidentiary support. The second one is truth claim that has no basis in fact or is supported by any kind of evidence.

ANS:
As the good denotes that towards which the appetite tends, so the true denotes that towards which the intellect tends. Your first mistake seems that it’s not the latter two you mean but the former two. Another mistake is

Knowledge is according as the thing known is in the knower, whilst appetite is according as the desirer tends towards the the desired. Thus the term of the appetite, the good, is in the object desirable, and the term of the intellect, namely true, is in the intellect itself.

Now as good exists in a thing so far as that thing is related to the appetite, the aspect of goodness passes on from the desirable thing to the appetite.

In so far as the appetite is called good, its object is good. Since the true is in the intellect in so far as it is conformed to the object understood, the aspect of the true must needs pass from the intellect to the object understood, so that also the thing understood is said to be true in so far as it has some relation to the intellect.

Knowledge is the union of the intellect with the form of the object known. Truth is reality, that which exists. Truth cannot contradict truth. There are self-evident truths, as First Principles. They need no evidence, and are not demonstrable. Truth doesn’t need to be know, it only needs to exist.

Whenever truth is predicable of a judgment, that judgment corresponds to the reality, the nature, or attributes of which it reveals. Every judgment is made up of ideas, and may be logically analyzed into a subject and a predicate, which are either united by the copula is, or disjoined by the expression is not.

If the judgment be true, the ideas must also be true, i.e. must correspond with the realities that they signify. This objective reference or significance of ideas is not recognized or asserted except in the judgment. Ideas as such are said to be only "materially" true. It is the judgment alone that is formally true, since in the judgment alone is a reference to reality formally made, and truth as such recognized or claimed.

Now a thing understood may be in relation to an intellect either essentially or accidentally. It is related essentially to an intellect on which it depends as regards its essence; but accidentally to an intellect by which it is knowable; even as we may say that a house is related essentially to the intellect of the architect, but accidentally to the intellect upon which it does not depend.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,seems to me you have not been coached to tell the difference between these three, 1) Truth Claim, 2) Myth, & 3) Fact or Truth. The latter two are truth claims but only the third kind is backed by the evidentiary support. The second one is truth claim which has no basis in fact or is supported by any kind of evidence.

For instance when Newton made the truth claim that two bodies attract each other by a force which is proportional to the product of their masses it is supported by massive body of evidence. This evidence has been collected by observation and intense search for the contrary evidence too. If there were ever to be found a contrary evidence then a the present truth claim is either abandoned or qualified to make it more restrictive.

There is absolutely no evidence at your disposal to advance teh truth claims of christianity any further than the truth claims about Zeus, Appolo, Allah, Krishna, or Thor. So it will remain a myth and will not be qualified as anything but dogma or doctrine. A true believer has little to do believing in the truth. All it means is that the person truly believes in the doctrine as evidence by his action vis-a-vis the doctrine. the word "True" used in "True Believer" is adjective that describes the word believer not the truthfulness of his/her belief itself. It would be best, if you recanted your truth claims

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
EEZMAMATA
POSTED JANUARY 13, 2011 9:57 PM

IRT:
[Blaming "incendiary language" is a tool of ideologues.] "Actually, incendiary language is a tool of ideologues. And that's just what you are; a True Believer is an ideologue. A man who hasn't the guts or the intelligence to think for himself, instead he mouths the utter crap forced through his brain by his foolish religion, his foolish politics."

ANS:
I wonder if you can tell us what this incendiary language of the Catholic Church is. A “TRUE BELIEVER” is one who believes in the Truth; reading your inflammatory language, I can understand why you're having problems not believing the Truth.

ANS:
Do you even know what an ideology is? An ideology is defined as a body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. Christianity extols a body of doctrine but it is based on reason expounded by the Creator. It is not myth, and its Creator exists. You know whom the Creator is, don’t you? In case you've forgotten, the Creator is the one the Founding Fathers said endowed you with your inalienable rights.

An ideologue is one who zealously believes in an ideology. Do you believe in anything but your own illogical rhetoric?

An ideology, according to the Dictionary, can also be a body of doctrine with reference to some political and social plan, as Democracy, or Fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation. The Catholic Church isn't a political or social institution though it is instrumental in perfecting both.

Philosophically speaking an ideology is a study of the nature and origin of ideas, or a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation, or a. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

Catholicism is not a form of politics or a philosophy, though it uses philosophy to explain some of its religious concepts that are applicable to politics.

So, should it be assumed that you are against all ideologies? If you are, and it apparently appears that you are, then it explains why you’re so emotionally disconcerted, disorientated disconnected with the truth and such a paranoiac.

Further, Christianity is not myth or a manufactured fabrication like Greek Mythology, nor is it a human construct of inflammatory language. Moreover, it’s a construct of revealed Truths the iconoclast finds repulsive. Truth is the food that feeds and perfects the intellect.

Consequently, someone unfamiliar with what an ideology is, isn’t too intellectually suited to know much of anything, and consequently, religion or ideologies are pointless to barbarians and cave dwellers who dwell in superstitions. So it’s understandable why you’re having problems with both religion and ideologies.

"So imagine my surprise when, pretty immediately after the Tucson tragedy, people started blaming it on "incendiary political language." This is a favorite tool of some ideologues in our society."

It is unclear to me what you mean by this graph. What is "this"? A call to chill the inflammatory language? That is ideological?

You conclude your piece by saying, "And to attempt to "keep the peace" by chilling, or somehow prohibiting, freedom of speech, is simply another form of violence against the human spirit."

This equating a call for cooling political rhetoric with an attempt to inhibit free speech is nonsense and a favorite tool of the right-wing. Free speech, of course, is not unlimited, i.e., fire in a theater. But more to the point, we shouldn't lean on freedom of speech to excuse irresponsible speech, or indeed, celebrate it. We have freedoms but we also have responsibilities. This is particularly true of leaders. Someone in a Tea Party rally has the right to carry a racist poster, but it is the responsibility of those around the sign carrier and especially political leaders to condemn such speech.

For this man who evidently subscribes the utter idiocy called "Original Sin" to say the following:

"the further obligation to accept personal responsibility rather than blame one's actions on what someone else said or did." Is just astounding. The very notion of original sin is antithetical to individual responsibility. It is all about collectivism.

I am very disappointed that so many comments are personal attacks against Fr. Frank as a priest and the Catholic Church. The column is right on point related to the recent shootings in Arizona. However, haters of the Church will not even consider the contribution of Fr. Frank specifically because he is a Catholic priest. Thank you Fr. Frank for providing wisdom and guidance during this time in our country.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AREYOUSAYING
POSTED JANUARY 15, 2011 2:16 PM
“THE CHURCH DOESN’T ARREST PEOPLE”

Sorry, but the Church has no police authority, nor can it prosecute and decide Civil Law Court cases. It can notify the families, and has, though the victim should also notify authorities as well. Today, it is the policy of the Church to notify the authorities. As the link said, the doctors, family, teachers usually do that; unfortunately some families don't want to be exposed to the trauma and calumnious inflammatory .embarrassment the exposition and trauma tends to cause, and the problem is many times settled out of Court. Similarly, it is seen in many cases where the women who are raped are somewhat reticent to expose their rapist because of a false sense of embarrassment of what happened to them.

Again, as said, the abusive priests you showed are not being hid; to the contrary, they are exposed or you wouldn’t be writing about them. Again, put up or shut up. Where is your evidence that the Church is hiding pedophiles that you call for them to expose?

“Mahony has been more aggressive than many U.S. bishops in dismissing members of the clergy. According, to newly obtained information, the cardinal quietly removed 17 priests from ministry during the last decade that either had admitted or had been credibly accused of molesting minors.

...and how many are in prison that he "removed quietly"?

I've belonged to the Catholic League for decades.

Posted by: dollyangel

That explains it.

To clarify my previous statement about 'numerous childish remarks': The Catholic League has printed samples of the 'potty talk' they've received in letters and e-mails. Again, nothing new. Old and silly 'news.' We do wish people would grow up, though!

There are clearly some people posting here who are desperate to discredit the Church or Father and other posters in any way they can, and seem to believe every negative piece of propaganda their viciously anti-Catholic sources invent.

I really hope you will wake up. The link I posted recently showing how much deceit is behind the charges of abuse against priests says it all: the Catholic Church is a target because it dares to tell the truth and uphold commonsense moral codes. It has facts supporting its views, something those sources who attack the Church do not; they only have their silly rhetoric and touchy-feely buzz words. I hope people have enough respect for themselves to avoid such propaganda, but we'll see.

You certainly can continue to post your sources, but do know there are already numerous incredibly dishonest sources out there who will do anything to discredit and attack the Church--including repeating their lies. They're almost always written by someone who has thrown morality out the window and is inventing his/her own "truth" in an attempt to quiet their uneasy consciences. It's bogus. Waste your time on such sources if you like, but it's self-deceit. Frankly, it makes people who buy into this nonsense look quite ill-informed and naive; and we wonder why anyone would waste their valuable time on such nonsense? Trust me, if you're trying to shock us, think again; we've heard it all before.

I've belonged to the Catholic League for decades. That may give you a clue as to how much illogical nonsense aimed towards the Church I've heard. It's constantly spewed out against the Church, priests, etc. and against the Catholic League itself. Catholics are not impressed by silly verbal attacks against the Faith. I've read numerous childish remarks in the League's newsletter so it's old, empty 'news; to have such silliness repeated here or elsewhere. Can we say "grow up"?

Truth is truth, and you can try to wish it away or follow sources which are in deep denial, but that's not impressive to any of us wanting a respectful dialogue here.
You might also want to check out the book written in 2010 entitled Double Standard by Dave Pierre. Wow--does this nail the real truth!

I agree with Father Pavone.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WHATAREYOUSAYING
“HIDING PRIEST?”

ANS:
Don’t blame the Church, blame the Culture and those who created it, viz. the Secularist who deny the existence of God.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_08_18_Bunting_FatherNicolas.htm

By Glenn F. Bunting, Ralph Frammolino, and Richard Winton
Los Angeles Times
August 18, 2002

“Mahony has been more aggressive than many U.S. bishops in dismissing members of the clergy. According, to newly obtained information, the cardinal quietly removed 17 priests from ministry during the last decade that either had admitted or had been credibly accused of molesting minors.

“In recent months, as the Roman Catholic Church has struggled to contain the clergy sex abuse scandal, Mahony has taken a stance as an outspoken reformer on a mission to oust all sex offenders from the priesthood.

“The archdiocese has not made the names of accused priests public, but a review of lawsuits, police reports, and internal archdiocese records found at least 33 priests and one deacon accused of sexual abuse since Roger M. Mahony became archbishop in 1985. As archbishop, Mahony oversees about 1,100 priests and 287 parishes in Los Angeles." None of the 33 priest is in hiding. That = 3% from ’85 to ’02 of both pedophiles and pederasts—LA Times.

Nowhere is there any proof that the Church condones sexual abuse by any member of the Church. These perverts are priest who have disgraced the Church and violated their vows while violating the trust given them by the Church and its people.

Were all the cases handled propitiously? No! But none show it is a Catholic Church policy to defend any of these perverts. In fact, the Church has attempted to provide recompense, to the best of its ability, to the families for the damage these crimes against God and man have caused. The Church’s mission is to convert sinners, not abandon them.

No one is free from sin; it is the personal responsibility of each individual, because of his free will, to seek the truth and abide by it. Satan, God’s greatest created creature, sinned and went to Hell; Adam, the first man, sinned and we have to die for it. Judas, an Apostle, sinned; Popes down the years have sinned against God, all have and will be reckoned with by God; that is what the concept of Justice is about, viz. giving every man his due.

Albeit those who manage these priest also have a duty and an obligation to do their duty as well, that duty is higher than that of a public official because it deals with eternal salvation.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WHATAREYOUSAYING
“CONSPIRACY?”

IRT:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_08_18_Bunting_FatherNicolas.htm

ANS:
There is no proof that the Church today is hiding any pedophile priest although five percent of NY Public Schools employees (0.2 percent have been accused in the Church in the last 30 years") are said to have abused children, been shuffled, and housed in "Rubber Rooms" in New York Public Schools at salaries up to and over $100,000/yr).

It’s been reported that a child every day is molested in NY's Public Schools. I’ve cited that link in previous post. This Forum, since it’s pro-gay and pro abortion, apparently allows only certain links. Several of my posts were rejected but cleared when only the links were removed. So some links are not shown.

This is a better link for you.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_08_18_Bunting_SundayReport.htm

“Police said in two cases the church refused to cooperate; "the door was once shut in our face," said Long Beach Det. Randi Castillo. “I had never encountered this in all my years in law enforcement."

"Two convicted sex offenders continued serving as priests for years before Mahony dismissed them and parents were not informed of their backgrounds. The archdiocese has agreed to four out-of-court settlements totaling $9.2 million since 2000. The agreements included confidentiality clauses to keep the sexual abuses secret.

"In a series of interviews, Mahony said the Archdiocese has worked closely with law enforcement over the years and authorities have long known about nearly all of the sexual abuse cases involving priests in the Archdiocese. The allegations were often reported to police, Mahony said, by therapists, teachers, and victims themselves.

"I want the truth out. I want this thing dealt with; there was no policy on my part that we would not cooperate with law enforcement," Mahony said. Because reporting was not mandated until 1997, "this was not an area of responsibility for the church. We always made sure that people knew that they themselves were the ones who should make the report or should contact police. We also have cases where the police didn't do much about it either." That has happened by the Mexico police in Rivera's case.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley called Mahony's characterization "disingenuous." Mahony said that all priests in the archdiocese found to have molested minors during the last decade were either dismissed or suspended from their ministerial duties. His staff now takes immediate action, including informing law enforcement, when it learns of sexual abuse allegations, he said.

"The historic culture of the archdiocese in cooperating with local law enforcement has been inadequate and flawed," Cooley said. "Morally, the archdiocese should have been the first to step forward.

This is 2011 who are the priest the Church is hiding? None of your links show this.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/24/texas-priest-accused-of-trying-to-hire-hit-man/

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_08_18_Bunting_FatherNicolas.htm

If you think you can bully me into "...quisling pusillanimous gravelling..." (SIC), you're just as sorely delusional as your lie Obama is a Muslim.

Let's start with Padre Nicholas Aguilar who was run out of town by a mob of angry parents in Mexico for his special attention to their little boys.

Then Archbishop Rivera of Mexico sent a letter of transfer to Cardinal Mahoney for "health and family reasons" a code for pedophile.

Aguilar was convicted of Federal felony child sex abuse in California and disappeared to the Mexican state of Pueblo where he reportedly continued to conduct mass until he was eventually defrocked. Aguilar is a fugitive from US Justice living in Mexico.

What was Archbishop Gomez's involvement in one of his priests abusing a minor and then trying to hire a hit man to kill the victim. Did Mahoney's successor know?

Let me repeat the question which you seem unable to answer (in less than 900 words) directly:

Do you or do you not deny your Church is still hiding known felons, be it in Catholic Rehabilitation or not?

As for my views on abortion, I oppose it.
I got a vasectomy to stop my wife from doing it behind my back and without my consent.

Surprised?

I'm sure the little badge (the one God deputized you with to look into the hearts of others and judge them) gave you the right to assume I was for it. My conflict is that I am not a woman and one of those in special situations like a 9-year-old girl pregnant in South America whose mother was excommunicated for the abortion so how can I decide for them?

Gay sex? None of my business. God made gays, too. I don't have one of your deputy badges to judge and condemn as Jesus taught you not to do but you do anyway.

Your political hatred of Obama and Donohue rantings make me wonder if you're not yet another nutjob out there with a Glock and 30 round clips.

IN REPLY TO
AREYOUSAYING
“ABORTION IS THE ISSUE”

The Church isn't hiding pedophiles, but your hiding from the Abortion question. And, where are these pedophiles? Either put up the evidence, or stop letting your mind run after your tail by only blowing smoke.

Hot air is the vacuous Secularist’s only train of thought because their worst enemy is truth. They can't back up what they are carping about because their caviling has little or no depth. GK Chesterton called it the lazy brain syndrome, viz. being too lazy to check the facts.

It's said, "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." Namely, the first thing that crosses the mind of a cretin that agrees with his prejudices he repeats it like a mindless parrot, irrespective of its truth. So you can squawk like the indifferent parrot, but you won’t get a cracker if you can’t back up your impudent effrontery.

To be for pro-abortion and gay marriage while railing about pedophiles is the exemplar of a Secularist's lack of moral integrity. However, it is also an act of a hypocrite. You can’t even connect these two evils to the violence in the world because of your myopic vision. Abortionists make life cheap. When life is cheap, violence is in vogue.

Today, human life is becoming a commodity; human fetuses are being sold on the open market for collagen. Tissue cultures are obtained by dropping still living babies into meat grinders and homogenizing them, according to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Mother Theresa posed the question that Secularist can never answer, viz. “If you can tell a mother she can murder her own child, how can a nation tell others not to murder each other? You can't. Even this lunatic shooter figured that one out but the Secularist haven't, nor have you.

It's said, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." The Secularists blame everyone but themselves for the world’s troubles that they caused by ignoring God. GK also notes that a man must be certain of his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it."

Thus, immorality has its penalties. We have chosen a Socialist Marxists that imitates a Muslim terrorist's lack of respect for life and the penalty is America’s moral and physical collapse.

Obama's disrespect for our allies and his quisling pusillanimous gravelling to our enemies is a presage for America’s decline. It was said in the US House that the epitaph on America’s tombstone will read “Roe v. Wade.”

Palin, the Tea Party, and talk radio are telling America to wake up. Don’t think you can violate the Natural & Moral Law without a price to be paid.

"Blaming "incendiary language" is a tool of ideologues"

Actually, incendiary language is a tool of ideologues. And that's just what you are, a True Believer is an ideologue. A man who hasn't the guts or the intelligence to think for himself, instead he mouths the utter crap forced through his brain by his foolish religion, his foolish politics.

Oh, what a victim you are. I suppose that gives you strength in your battle against reality, an invented pressure you can imagine yourself resisting. Makes you feel like a man, eh?

Oh, how many children have you molested? I mean, you are a catholic priest, right? Isn't that what you people do?

Dear Dolly,

Are are implying, like Donohue, child victims of your pervert priests are "goldiggers"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6fwPcoX6UU

If so, please be advised that not all of them, including me, could be bought off like little boy sex workers for your priest "johns"

I never wanted, ask for, not took one stinking semen and blood stained penny from your vile church.

The question is very simple and forthright. Do you deny the church is still hiding some of these felons from civil justice?

A simple "yes" or "no" is the only honest answer you can give, your biased media references notwithstanding.

Amelia: A question: for those women who support the choice to do WHAT? Please finish the sentence.

And why are you ignoring the innocent man praying outside the abortion clinic who was shot and killed? No truly pro-life person believes it is okay to kill an abortionist or any human being; surely you must know that?? And, are you aware of how many times pro-life organizations are harassed and threatened? Some, on a daily basis, just for attempting to save innocent lives and save women from exploitation for huge profits for the abortion mills. Are you aware how dishonest the so-called abortion 'counseling' is in some abortion centers? Google Lila Rose who has gone undercover posing as a pregnant teen, watch the video, and let us know how you feel about some abortion clinics using deceit just to make money off women.

Where on earth are you getting your history? Priests were well known for SAVING Jews in Europe. There are several movies available about this subject.

Oh, please. Give it a rest about Sarah Palin. The woman has guts and morals and scares the heck out of the Left because of it! The Left hate her because she has facts to stand on and they don't; they only have weak rhetoric and character attacks against SP and other conservatives.

http://www.themediareport.com/jan2011/special-steier-declaration.htm

I'm posting this link for the benefit of those who repeatedly bring up the priests' sexual abuse scandal here. Please read this report. We need to ask why the media, always so obsessed with attacking priests, has completely ignored this bombshell story???

Note that no one is excusing those few priests who are guilty of abuse; abuse is obviously wrong! But read here about all the other abuse going on which the media is completely choosing to ignore. Most importantly, think how many priests are being falsely accused and abused themselves by the media!
Can we expect the major networks to make an onair public apology to the priests and the Church? Don't hold your breath.

I agree ith Fr. Pavone's comments. If political speech, even that deemed "incendiary" is denied then it would be an erosion of the First Amendment right to free speech. Ironically, if it were denied then most of the negative comments directed personally to Fr. Pavone and to the Catholic Church posted thus far
would be prohibited!

Any political rhetoric that Sarah Palin or the Tea Party used in the recent election is hardly "incendiary." If it were then there would have been observable damage; and other than a few broken windows which may or may not have been done by Tea Party supporters there were few problems.

Rather the Tea Party political speech if "incendiary" at all did what it was supposed to do---in fact what all similar speech from either the right or the left: it 'lit a fire' leading to needed or desired political change.

Rather it is becoming quite clear that the shooter in the Arizona massacre did not act out of any political motiviation but because of a severe, perhaps, largely self-induced mental illness. To assign blame to any political group or individual for the tragic deaths in Tucson, in light of all of the evidence thus far is an injustice.

The suggestion that one political group initiated the tragedy last week when all of the evidence indicates otherwise is truly "incendiary."

Oh, heaven help us. Father Pavone wants to be sure we know he is as innocent as Palin. this is all about how Pavone is put upon by those who support choice.

Of course you are not the one who shot the abortion doctor or burned down the abortion clinic.

But, how many priests stood in the background while Jews were killed in Europe. How many roused crowds to a killing frenzy?

Words matter. Using a position of authority to bring a crowd to a frenzy is wrong. Using a position of power to advance lies and distortions (death panels) is wrong. While I don't think you, Fr. Pavone, would use an image of an abortion doctor in a rifle gun-sight, Palin did put what she opposed in such an image. Why should she be surprised when some nut took her up on her suggestion?

I do not believe Palin killed any one. But she is complicit in these deaths when she and others like her use images of guns as solutions to political problems.

PS: twistedthingamajic

Has god deputized you to look into my heart and judge me as a "secularist", pro-abortion and pro-gay-sex?

May I see in your Catholic Encyclopedia where you gained that power or perhaps you could just show me your badge.

twistedthingamajig:
In all your verbose, distracting, rambling, pontifications are you saying you deny your Church is still hiding pervert priests from civil prosecution?

(hiding them in Church sponsored rehabilitation is still hiding them from civil law)

Or are you saying your clergymen are exempt from civil law?

The fawning obeisance with which the devout Catholics on this board express themselves vis-à-vis "Father" is utterly repellant.

Perhaps it's ingrained, the result of parochial school educations. But the fact that grown women and men verbally shuffle before this priest, as though they're hoping for a metaphorical pat on the head or some special attention, is quite simply revolting.

It's possible to show respect and admiration while maintaining a dignified humility. Is that not enough for the princes of the Catholic church?

IN REPLY TO
AREYOUSAYING
“ABORTION IS NOT THE ISSUE”

IRT:
The issue is not abortion, gay sex or your lies Obama is a Muslim. The issue is your church still hiding perverts..."

ANS:
Neither is the issue pedophilia and priest, but you have made it that. I believe it is hypocrisy to rail on about pedophile priest and be blind to Abortion and Gay Sex. Oh I am sure you don’t want to talk about Abortion or gay sex, but in fact that’s all you’ve been unwittingly rattling about.

The issue is violence. Abortion is very relative because what begets violence is disrespect for human life, but the morally blind and the recalcitrant implacable agnostics cannot see the connection. Thus, Mother Teresa said if we cannot tell a mother not to murder her own child, how can we tell others not to murder others? That you won't answer, nor even can you without exposing your vile sanctimony?

You are too pusillanimous to answer if you support such beliefs that do incomprehensible violence to all mankind? I believe you do, since all Secularists do. Susan Jacoby, a quixotic, vindictive Secularist who refuses to face the same issues you face, for the same reasons as you, viz. the fear of exposing her hypocrisy.

Being pro-abortion and pro-gay sex, while railing about pedophile priests, is patent hypocrisy. In so, you support the most ruthless, heinous, and diabolical kind of remorseless violence on a child possible. So, which are you?

IRT:
“I will not give it a rest. Get used to it.
I will not be bullied by you or any other fanatic right-wing theocon.”

ANS:
A saint on his conversion said, “You shouted and you broke through my deafness.” A rich man in Hell cried out to Abraham, Luke 16:22cf. “No, father Abraham, but if one went to them [his living brothers] from the dead, they will do penance." Abraham replied, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe one who rises again from the dead” a.k.a. Jesus.

If they will not believe the prophets, the Scriptures, miracles, (even today at Lourdes & Fatima), their own conscience, their reason, the order and cause of the Universe, and not even the rise of the dead, who will they believe? God's Wisdom in the Scriptures is vindicated by its works. St. Thomas Aquinas noted, “For he who has Faith no proof is necessary; for he who has no faith, no proof is possible.”

It is said, "A word to the wise is sufficient," however, a word to the unwise is like talking to a tree stump. Hence, in “Romans 1: 21cf. “ Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; they changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." Violence is the creature wrought by a false disbelief in God.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOE_ALLEN_DOTY
“LOTS OF PEOPLE”

IRT:
"And the RCC has used hateful language in regard to gays and lesbians, too."

ANS:
There seems to be more propaganda from the uninformed. The RCC doesn't hate gays; it hates what they do because She knows what horrific disasters will ensue. She succors to the sinner but rejects the sin.

Since the left is still trying to put the blame of the Arizona murders on conservatives, here's another theory. Jared Loughner admitted being gay, and since 8 out the top 10 serial killers were gay, perhaps it was because he was gay?"

The RCC has created the most prolific and effective healthcare program in the world that treats AIDS HIV victims caused by the Secularists' propagation of the "Sexual Revolution" (Sex without Responsibility) and its climax, the "Culture of Death.” Try looking it up; it’s called the “Dream Program”

"Boy Prostitution--Intergay” Hate Crimes Against Boys Gay Men View These Boys As Recreational"

The advocates of homosexual lifestyles perpetuate a systematic symptom of moral blindness and are impervious to its consequences; they blame others for the travail they helped initiate.

"According to the British Journal of Sexual Medicine and The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: ‘Homosexuals carry one-half of the country's syphilis, although they are only 1.5 to 2.5 of the population, and are fourteen times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexuals.

Two-thirds of all the AIDS cases in the U.S. are the direct result of homosexual conduct. Homosexual young people are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than their heterosexual counterparts. In San Francisco, the sexually transmitted disease rate is twenty -two times higher than the national average.”

If RCC hated gays, She would want them to engage in gay sex, an analogical form of Russian Roulette. To the contrary, the RCC wishes none of these tragic things will happen, namely that some 26 million worldwide have died from AIDS and some 33 million victims have HIV and probably double that 33 million have STDs worldwide?

To John Doty; Do you regard the Churches teachings on hetrosexual single people to live a chaste life hatefull too?

All; If you disagree with the teachings of the Church fill free to live your life on your own standards/morals.

The Cathoic Church is not in the business of sending folks to hell, quite the oppisite it is a supportive tool in saving ones soul for where we eteranlly are directed.

If you are in need of trauma care by a team of medical providers do you refuse that care because of the history of severe malpractice and negligence that some medical practitioners have inflicted?

I concur with your article Father Pavone.

Folks who post in profanities IMO only project a personal anger within themselves projecting that on to those they disagree with on political topics.

Sarah Palin used language in the sense of political targeting not in the literal sense of "hunting".

Yet the vile profanities posted everywhere on the internet against the Palin family and even folks wishing her demise seems without any personal responsibilities in check.

Is that type of Freedom of Speech really healthy for the mind/body or soul?

The teachings of the Catholic Church have been a great mentor to my personal freedom of choice.

IMO Socialism and other ideologies in that realm leave the soul dark and the mind void of clarity.

"The Church has never "inflict(ed) their emotional abuse" upon children."

...except, of course, those brutally raped by some pervert priests who Razinger and his criminal racketeering Cardinals are still hiding from civil prosecution...

Deny it. Let's hear it if it is not true. Directly deny it without all the pompous, verbose and distracting obfuscation.

Simply deny it and suffer the consequences of the sin of violating your own Ninth Commandment.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOE_ALLEN_DOTY
“LOTS OF PEOPLE”

IRT:
Lots of people have been killed with the Blessings of the Roman Catholic Church. Check out the history of the California Missions where Natives who didn't speak Spanish were 'baptized' first and then killed by Spanish soldiers shortly afterward.

ANS:
Where do you get all this baloney?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California#Mission_period_.281769.E2.80.931833.29

“Captain Fernando Rivera y Moncada violated ecclesiastical asylum at Mission San Diego de Alcalá on March 26, 1776 when he forcibly removed a 'neophyte' in direct defiance of the padres. Missionary Father Pedro”…Rivera y Moncada was subsequently excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for his actions" Were you talking about this?

"In 1818, several of the missions were attacked by Hipólito Bouchard, "California's only pirate." A French privateer sailing under the flag of Argentina, Pirata Buchar worked his way down the California coast, conducting raids on the installations at Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Juan Capistrano, with limited success." Is this the RCC violence you are speaking of?

"Upon hearing of the attacks, many mission priests (along with a few government officials) sought refuge at Mission Nuestra Señora de la Soledad, the mission chain's most isolated outpost. Ironically, Mission Santa Cruz (though ultimately ignored by the marauders) was ignominiously sacked and vandalized by local residents who were entrusted with securing the church's valuables.

"Proclamation of Emancipation” on July 25, 1826. All Indians within the military districts of San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Monterey who were found qualified were freed from missionary rule and made eligible to become Mexican citizens. Those who wished to remain under mission tutelage were exempted from most forms of corporal punishment. The Mexican government passed legislation on December 20, 1827 that mandated the expulsion of all Spaniards younger than sixty years of age from Mexican territories;

"On August 9, 1834 Governor Figueroa issued his 'Decree of Confiscation.' Nine other settlements quickly followed, with six more in 1835; San Buenaventura and San Francisco de Asís were among the last to succumb, in June and December 1836, respectively.

The Franciscans soon thereafter abandoned most of the missions, taking with them most everything of value, after which the locals typically plundered the mission buildings for construction materials.—Wikipedia" There is no RCC violence against the tribes here.

WHAT ARE YOUR RECKLESS SOURCES THE RCC SLAUGHTERED OR WERE THE CAUSE OF SLAUGHTERING NATIVE AMERICANS IN CALIFORNIA?

Thank you for your column, father Pavone. Truly, people like you are the epitome of the Catholic Hero and the American Hero. On the Catholic side, living up to what Jesus demands of us Catholics pursuing virtue with courage and love. On the American side, to firmly stand up for noble principles while peacefully opposing evil. People with words and action similar to yours are inspiration and true Hope for America. My prayers and support for the Pro-Life movement.
Truth must be said.

Hitler won the admiration and than subjected an entire Nation through his incendiary language.

Lots of people have been killed with the Blessings of the Roman Catholic Church. Check out the history of the California Missions where Natives who didn't speak Spanish were 'baptized' first and then killed by Spanish soldiers shortly afterward.

And the RCC has used hateful language in regard to gays and lesbians, too.

Amelia: I think what Father is referring to (Father, correct me if I'm wrong about that) is that there now are self-appointed 'speech police' or 'thought police' who want to monitor and censor the Church and any conservative voices. It's "I don't like your religious or social beliefs so you don't have any right to say them publicly." We're constantly bombarded by the media with the beliefs of nonCatholics, but heaven forbid if someone articulating a religious or conservative belief gets the microphone--they can't handle that! The speech police step in...

Speech can be used for good or misused against another. Too often, words are put in others' mouths or twisted to become what one person wants them to mean.
There's an attempt by certain groups to label anything they don't like as 'hate speech' and this is worlds apart from true hate speech such as Hitler spew out.
Note the difference!!

This argument would excuse anything Hitler said, anything put out by hate groups.

Good going, Pavone. But, consistent with the idea that the Church did not need to take any kind of action about the abuses by priests and nuns because it was the individual who sinned.

But, if you don't speak out against wild language that invites violence, your silence endorses it. This is where Palin and others of her ilk fall down. They are paramours of violence, not violence itself.

KARLMARX2: In response to your post, there are numerous false claims against Catholic beliefs coming from those who truly misunderstand it or sources which have an agenda against the Church.

The Church has never "inflict(ed) their emotional abuse" upon children. Quite the contrary! Catholicism's teachings are liberating and loving; not enslaving like Marxism. (Incidentally, why do people free Marxist countries and come here? Why don't they flee here and go to Marxist countries? Think about that and ask someone who has escaped such a nation.)

Doesn't a loving parent have guidelines for their children so they don't harm themselves? So does the Church. I can't drive and ignore all the stop signs. I can't steal something just because I want it. Morality has a necessary place in our world.
I believe the Church is considered the #1 barrier to Marxism/Socialism/Communism, so that is why the Church is always shown in a false, negative light by those who don't favor freedom. I suggest in the future, if you truly want to know what the Church teaches, you go to an authentic source to get your information--the Church itself. If there's something you don't understand, ask someone like Father Pavone.

The older I get, the more I realize how wise the Church is, and how truly liberating. We all need moral compasses in this world. We are seeing the ugly results of NOT having this moral 'compass' in our world, and it's not pretty; in fact, such moral decay is destroying many nations! Thank God for the Church!

We were never created to "burn for eternity" (where on earth did you get that from?), quite the contrary: we were created to know, love, and serve God so we can be with Him in the next world, Heaven.

As far as incendiary speech, I see it as coming from the Left much much more than the 'Right.' Look at the incredible hatred towards Sarah Palin, such as the 'abort Palin' signs, and the horrific character attacks on George Bush, to begin with. Here, once again, the Lefties want a double standard.
They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it, and I don't recall such attacks coming from the 'Right'; only the 'Left.'

Also, the Church is neither 'Left' nor 'Right.'

It's funny that Pavone would write about "incendiary labuage."

The concept of "original sin" is promoted by Pavone and his church. This is the doctrine that all humans are inherently evil, even from the moment of birth, and without the special dispensation of their creator (who made them this way), they will burn in agony for eternity. Pretty much the definition of incendiary speech.

If you doubt me, ask yourself this. Do you tell your children every day that they are evil and that unless they do what you tell them unquestioningly that they will pay with pain and suffering? Of course you don't because if you did you would rightly be arrested and your children taken from you before you could do more harm.

So why is the catholic church allowed to inflict their emotional abuse upon children? It's pretty obvious what the church and its authority figures are getting out of this arrangement, but why do we allow this as a society?