Bb, you're full of compliments – now I'm 'funny' and make you smile too... :)

God doesn't 'inspire' bigotry nor does the Pope travel through Africa 'fibbing'...have you travelled with him? Perhaps you should talk on topics you are more knowlegable about...this is one you're out of your depth amongst...I haven't travelled through Africa, with or without the Pope but I imagine there may be some distortion of facts, dare I say Propaganda put about by other 'PopeBashers' like yourself...in Africa?

O2, you've got some pretty weird theories of your own...you argue I shouldn't 'judge' then demand I judge Cardinal Pell and others when I do not know the circumstances or the truth...nor do you...

I'm not casting any stones, just stating that some of the parishioners of St Mary's were not present on the 'media' day and many who were, did not represent either the Catholic Church or Fr Kennedy's parishioners...and if you knew the facts, you'd already know that.

Your reference to 'listening more in Church' doesn't mean a lot when you twist the meaning of Biblical passages to selectively portray a version that doesn't exist, except as a figment of your over excited imagination...in 2000 years, there have been others who have seen, but not believed...you're not the first and won't be the last...

Your statements regarding “Broken Rites” refer to an organisation that claims many things, including the loose comment that 90% of callers are 'from a Catholic background'...which could mean that those 90% (if the statement is to be believed) are devoutly, practicing Catholics...or simply people who have known someone who was Catholic, or were baptised as Catholics...but never raised in their faith...or any range in between. What does such a statement really say? Little other than show the agenda of the organisation in the cold, hard light of day...the 'callers' may even have been phoning to offer compassionate sympathy as Catholics who care for the alleged 'victims'. 'Statistics...damned lies and statistics'...they can deamonise and distort by selective omission...

(tbc...)

(Cont...)

Your comment regarding bishops 'attending' court with the alleged 'victims'...how many asked the bishops to attend with them? Would their legal counsel have allowed or encouraged such 'attendance'? I guess not, since it would have indicated that the Church was not the 'monster' you are trying to portray...

I have known numerous Catholic and non-Catholic priests and religious and have never had an experience where any of them behaved in a sexually improper or suggestive manner to me … I am not in a minority within the Catholic Church...despite the claims you like to make and highlight...yet you never seem able to recognise any of the good the various Churches achieve.

That's the hypocrisy, O2...you represent the real hypocrisy of your argument in your portrayal of all that is Catholic...other than a lot of bile, there's no real substance.

Meg,

I'm not asking you to judge anyone! I have proven through this I don't judge - have you?

Why did you take this long to comment on these alleged criminal issues?

How did you feel about the now Cardinal Pell, allegedly escorting Father Gerald Ridsdale to court?

Why did the victims allegedly feel let down by the Church?

Meg how do you know the "Broken Rites" quotation of 90% was a "loose comment"? Not all statistics lie! Are you using a cliche to get out of addressing the issue?

I know many Catholics and they are all wonderful, caring and loving people, in great families, who do lots of wonderful things in their communities. I also have known some fabulous priests who work tirelessly within their communities.

Personally, I feel that genuine Catholics are hard done by because everyone focuses on them and not on the other religious organisations where similar crimes have occurred.

This fact doesn't excuse the baddies in your religion OR are you saying it does?

Isn't it the method which your Church and others handle these things that needs to change? Is your Church hierarchy failing you?

Isn't it you who wrongly kept labelling me anti-Catholic!Exodus 20:16 Naughty, naughty Meg!

Why didn't you address my reference to the "Sermon on the Mount" in relation to St Mary's? Does that reference make you feel a little silly?

Can you point out exactly where I misrepresented the teachings of the Bible?

You stated <<Your reference to 'listening more in Church' doesn't mean a lot when you twist the meaning of Biblical passages to selectively portray a version that doesn't exist...>>

Can you point out where I have done this or is this another case of "Bearing false witness"? Exodus 20:16 Naughty, naughty again Meg!

Do you really know your Bible Meg?

Read through what you typed about the people at St Mary's Meg... Did you fail John 8:7 ....let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...”?

But enough of this.... I look forward to hearing how I misrepresented the Bible... This will be fun...lol

cupcake, you're the gift of humor which keeps on giving.

you suggest that i should only talk upon that which i am knowledgeable? does your very reasonable suggestion also apply to the pope? might you suggest why he is so knowledgeable about the use of condoms in the prevention of STD's? does it concern you that many health experts are on the record, shocked by the inaccuracy and the dangerousness of the pope's knowitall comments?

ah, no. you simply suggest, with out a scintilla of evidence, that it's all misquoting from pope bashers.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ spelt out the way his government would operate. As the King he would establish courts, and in those courts, the promise of Matthew 7:7 is given. Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened for you. The English took this to heart and devised a way that a person could formally ask Almighty God for what he wanted. The Form used was a Writ, issued in the name of the Ruling Sovereign, and tested in the name of the Chief Justice. Once issued, the Writ required an answer, and to not answer was contempt of court. The Pope took exception to this Biblical interpretation.

In England a Writ was replaced in 1873 by a Writ of Summons, and that is what Australian Courts issued in 1900. If a claim was made in a Writ of Summons, it could not be discharged by a Judge. It could only since 1472 be discharged by a jury trial with twelve men present. Men were the only ones entitled to vote back then. The jury trial was of higher rank than a Judge, and the judge could not do any private deals behind their back, because only a jury trial exercised the divine power of Almighty God. This is what all Australians voted for in 1899.

In Matthew 18 Verses 15-20 further guidance is given in the ways of good government. In verse 20 Jesus promises to be there, when two or three are gathered together in my name. The English to be fairly sure they got it right settled on 12 disciples, all sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth. They kept the promise of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7 :18 and 19, and courts with judges brought forth good fruit, while a Court with a Judge brings forth evil fruit. There are many exceptionally gifted and genuine Roman Catholic Australians. The Roman Catholic religion was alien to England, and it is Roman Catholic law to exclude voters of both sexes from courts

Peter the Believer wrote: The Roman Catholic religion was alien to England, and it is Roman Catholic law to exclude voters of both sexes from courts

Sometimes the statements of Peter the Believer are especially ridiculous, and the above is one of them.

I don't know how Roman Catholicism can be alien to England since it existed in England before there was Protestantism.

If it were Roman Catholic law to exclude voters of both sexes from courts then the courts would be confined to non-voters.

I am not a Catholic, but I grow weary of Peter the Believer's denigration of Catholics, and his vision of our government as though it should be an instrument of his religion.