"“paedophile priests…” media sensationalism”
Like an Iceberg, the truth is often hidden ..."

Like most media sensationalism the truth is often hidden or distorted. As the saying goes 'why let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

"“accepting legitimate authority.”
Now who gave the RCC “authority” – … Queen Isobella of Spain)."

I believe it was someone higher.

"“… newspaper reporter?”
Would it help if I were?"

Most people (hopefully) don't put faith in media stories. I was just wondering if you are part of the media.

“Oh, I do not hate Catholics..."

Ok I think you hate those Catholics who don't think it is okay to tell priests to get nicked when they promote the Catholic faith (assumedly most). Other "Catholics" are fine with you.

"But it is a good ploy of yours. Claim I hate Catholics, get the “numbers”, the congregants, behind you. Claim I hate them. I guess you are a priest..."

No I am no priest. It is just clear that you hate the Catholics described above and you have some facts wrong due to accepting media sensationalism.

"Well, I do not hate priests either, I would never trust one but “treating with a healthy scepticism” is entirely different to “hating”"

"healthy scepticism"! Your descriptions such as “theological control freaks” and “power crazed misogynists, perverts and sadists” for people who dedicate lives to other people and their faith seems to suggest otherwise.

"I do feel sad for people who have, literally, “put their faith” in an organisation which is a cesspool of vested interest, political shenanigan and manipulative corruption."

I am sure all the above happen everywhere there are people. But it is hardly defining of this religious organisation.

“I never claimed anyone was perfect, please do not put words in my mouth….”

Quite the contrary as you put words in mine. My understatement was that you are a“little bit more extreme than just saying Catholics aren’t perfect”.

“… instead of following the Catholic herd, like dumb sheep.”

To an omnipotent being it would seem dumb to think you could make better judgements.

Well, well, well, hallo again to you dear all,

If you wamt to search for the Truth, then you'll have to step into The Light (The Lord Jesus Christ said:"I Am the Light of the world") because it will be no point to explain to people that are still crawling in the darkness (in darkness because of sin that has not been redeemed by the sacrifice of The Lord Jesus Christ on the cross yet,)the proper wisdom about life in the Truth of Christ. In other word you like blind man searching for things in the dark, either red or orange roses will appear to you as black roses. If God so easily frustation because of our lack of wisdom / stupidity, or if God loves to kill people, He might has aborted you and me before we taste one day of our life on this earth ! But no, God loves us (John 3:16 says so:"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, SO THAT ..." You can see here that loving and giving are always joint together, you can not loving without giving. For instance everybody always like second chances in life; so why can't we be fair to every body include the unborn baby, to give them another chance to breath the same Oxygen you and me can't live without? It will be better if we all pray for the miserable woman who keen to shut down a life in their womb and for all the unborn baby that by some people only be considered as a bunch of cells; for even in these cells there are LIFE LIFE LIFE do you understand there are LIFE, and not just a bunch of plastic cells.

So Be Prudent and fill your heart and mind with Godly wisdom (not with devilish wisdom, for the devil is very stupid because he rebellious against God). Listen to what the book of Proverbs says:" Fear of The Lord Jesus Christ is the beginning of all knowledge". Do not try to argue with the Wisdom of God.

mjpb “'why let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

Ah an old proverb just like

“no smoke without fire”


“I believe it was someone higher.”

Ha! like it – well the same source gave me freewill and authority to ignore all the dogma and dictates your “authority” claims and the “inquisition” of the past is not around to enforce it – although the office still exists of course (strange that, waiting for the revival?).

Re your collected claims to “HATE”

Life is too short to hate anyone but it is far too long to allow any person or organisation, religious or otherwise, to get away with usurping an inappropriate authority or an authority gained by illicit means, as in that claimed by Pro-Life and the RCC.

“But it is hardly defining of this religious organisation.” I suggest you prove to the contrary or do you think you can just use throw away lines like that to defend the indefensible?

“To an omnipotent being it would seem dumb to think you could make better judgements.”

Fabulous statement. Proves all that I have claimed

A claim that the RCC is “omnipotent”.

We are talking, after all, about the RCC and not God.

You are claiming omnipotence for the RCC and not for almighty God.

The RCC can claim what it likes for itself and as we have here, what it claims can easily be cut to pieces.

Lets start with - the RCC does not have a monopoly of belief

It might like to think it has but its monopoly is as certainly twisted and deluded as that which Muslim terrorists have.

The RCC is not a universal organisation, despite its historic participation in genocide and the murder of those who did not kowtow to its edicts.

God does not need the RCC to be the interlocutor with his people.
Most congregants are conned by the priest-class who see their vested interest as best served by maintaining a religious authority over the “sheep”.
Despotism, even when benign, is still “despotic”.

Word count kicks in, enough for now.

As a person living in Australia, I have free choice on many matters. I can choose not to be a Catholic and not be bound by the dictates of the Catholic Church, as propounded by the Pope and his agents. I appreciate this very much. Similarly, I'm sure that Catholics in Australia are very grateful that they are not forced to go against the tenets of their faith and comply with the dictates of a religion not of their choice.

I believe in freedom of choice in just about any respect which does not unreasonably affect the freedom of others. Some will say that if something [or even just the thought of something] "offends" them, then they are unreasonably affected. This is nonsense, none of us can go through life without being offended. What offends me may be irrelevant to you and vice versa. That's human nature and something most of learn to accept.

I believe that the "possibility" of human life starts with conception and that is all. As Yabby has repeatedly pointed out, a woman can have about 400 "possibilities" in her lifetime, but only a relative handful can reasonably be expected to come to maturity. I accept that different species have widely variable numbers of "possibilities", according to the chances of a sufficient proportion maturing in order to support the continuation of that particular species.

Anyone who thinks differently has a right to feel that way, but has no right to try and browbeat me into submission. And quoting religious sources in order to convince me is futile.

There are a number of posters on this kind of topic who I find logical and reasonable. Those who post from a position of anti choice, particularly when they become abusive and insulting, I find anything but logical and reasonable.

I would not want any woman to be forced to be "counselled" by an anti choice person, because I don't believe that the advice would be impartial. In fact it could have the deliberate effect of creating psychological trauma for the woman supposedly being helped.

“no smoke without fire”

As I explained above it isn’t smoke - just hot air.

”“I believe it was someone higher.”

Ha! like it – well the same source gave me freewill and authority to ignore all the dogma …”

Ignore? You seem to have an all consuming obsession with it.

”Re your collected claims to “HATE””

The comments seemed to indicate you regard Catholics with extreme dislike and hostility. If you don’t hate Catholics then I better check the posts and make sure that you were the one who made the comments.

”“But it is hardly defining of this religious organisation.” I suggest you prove to the contrary or do you think you can just use throw away lines like that to defend the indefensible?”

Okay then. In a nutshell we have God (the ultimate good) telling people to spread the good news and care for the sheep. People who take up the challenge as a group are hardly likely to be a “cesspool of vested interest, political shenanigan and manipulative corruption” However humans are involved so there will be exceptions.

A public benefit oriented self sacrificing vocation naturally attracts many good people. One example that cropped up above was the lack of sexual misconduct in the Catholic priesthood compared to a more ‘normal’ but still quite respected group namely medical practitioners.

Look at all the historical greatness of the priesthood and nuns spanning the last two thousand years remembered even in the secular community as far back as the third century (Bishop St Nicholas) or as recently as the twentieth century (nun Mother Theresa). Look at the Catholic lay people with countless groups who emulate priests by serving people, groups including Rosies who feed street kids, and St Vincent de Paul who help the poor.

”A claim that the RCC is “omnipotent”.”

The Church is not a person. I was talking about God.

””God does not need the RCC to be the interlocutor with his people”

Then why did he tell the first Pope to care for them

Bosk, that’s my point…re-read the posts. Don’t expect me to accept articles quoted as ‘gospel’ unless you accept all historical records as such, which I would EXPECT you (and the others) wouldn’t do.

‘Meg. None of my comments here…contain personal insults to anyone. Not even any of the really dumb commentors who deserve them. get your facts straight... I bet your hubby is screwing his secretary. ‘
’Posted Brownie, Monday, 27 February 2006 4:05:19 PM’

Again Brownie, check your own posts before threatening others with being struck off as your puerile comments should be.

‘who are these “others” whose freedom and rights are not being respected?’ Yes, Col the living, unborn human babies…

Pay your accommodation and fares…you haven’t added any rational thought to this debate, why would I pay you to present it elsewhere? Talk about haughty and arrogant…you’re a classic, Col. There is nothing natural or affectionate about behaving as if sexuality is governed by instinct (like a dog) rather than an expression of love for your life-partner. Frigid? That’s more likely to result from far too many one night stands…rather than marriage, check the stats.

Littleagreeablebuddy 28-02-06 is correct, careful Pericles or Yabby will get upset if the chimps don’t get a say…

Yabby, your outrageous generalizations re: Catholics and political agendas are clearly paranoid…check other groups, religious and others who lobby – try Family First who have a rep in Federal parliament.

‘reality does not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would’ – neither does abortion…Yabby

Col, your ‘friend’ went to Mass and didn’t receive communion (correct terminology) - rules apply in sports clubs too...do you abide by road rules?

On the Col likes/hates Catholics survey 1 out of billions doesn’t calculate well as tolerant.

Mjpb and Te – well said!

‘Up until 1971 women were obtaining "backyard" abortions and some died and others were left infertile when the procedure went wrong.’ Billie, nothing much has changed now – abortion will always produce cases like this, check the stats – and RU486 will put it back out of sight out of mind…