America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I would like to apologize publicly for calling Rick a bigot in another thread on this forum. I could have argued with him about my opinions without resorting to name-calling. But, as a human, I fell short of doing that.

I thought that I was defending my faith, and still do defend the faith that the majority of Cathlolics understand (despite some of the misnomers stated by others).

I don't agree with things that you write sometimes Rick, but I apologize for what I wrote about you and I ask that you forgive me.

Finch- Thank you for your example of humility. I find honor in your act.

HUMILITY- a prominent Christian grace (Rom. 12:3; 15:17, 18; 1 Cor. 3:5-7; 2 Cor. 3:5; Phil. 4:11-13). It is a state of mind well pleasing to God (1 Pet. 3:4); it preserves the soul in tranquillity (Ps. 69:32, 33), and makes us patient under trials (Job 1:22). Christ has set us an example of humility (Phil. 2:6-8). We should be led thereto by a remembrance of our sins (Lam. 3:39), and by the thought that it is the way to honour (Prov. 16:18), and that the greatest promises are made to the humble (Ps. 147:6; Isa. 57:15; 66:2; 1 Pet. 5:5). It is a "great paradox in Christianity that it makes humility the avenue to glory."

"The Vatican should allow priests to marry. Simple...may not fix 100% of the problem, but it would significantly reduce the occurance."

If I understand what you are claiming, then married Men cannot ever become pedophiles or engage in pedophilia? I think that notion is a bit far fetched and unproven. After all, how many baseball coaches, scout masters and school teachers (all married) have turned out to be child molesters? You will find more of them than Catholic Priests.

I think the general opinion of those who don't understand or want to understand the Catholic faith is that marriage equals unlimited sex and a natural control over one's concupiscence. And yet, Catholics believe that marriage is a Sacrament instituted by GOD and that sex is a gift that still requires a certain level of chastity within one's station in life.

Marriage requires faith in your partner to remain true and to share in the gift of sex with only your partner. As for priests, they have chosen to become priests knowing that they are "married" to the Church instituted by Christ and that their station in life also requires a certain degree of chastity (celibacy).

No one forces these men to be celibate, because no one forced them to become priests. Therefore, a priest can give his entire life and energies over to his parish withour neglecting his own flesh and blood. Many people don't realize that a much of a priest's day is taken up in activities that extend to almost 16 hours. A great deal of time is spent alone in prayer to prepare for Mass. And, there are those trips to the hospital at all hours to care for the sick and dying. What women would want to be neglected or have her children neglected for that long? The role of a Father in married life requires so much more than what a Catholic priest can give, and these men (the good priests) understand this.

They chose to give their life to Christ and those that have failed miserably by molesting children have (in my opinion) given up the right to be called priest.

Married priests aren't the answer. The answer is threefold in my opinion:

-Tighter screening processes at the seminary level to weed out men with pedophile tendencies.

-Removal of priests from the priesthood (defrocking) and prosecution in the cases of those who are found guilty of these crimes.

-Disciplinary actions against any supervisory personnel who "cover up" molestation charges.

Obviously Ffinch, there is no good answer. You are correct that prosecution and accountability are an answer. As well as allowing priests to have wives. Understand, allowing priests to be married doesn't solve the pedophile problem in its entirety. But it puts an extra measure of accountability into the priest's mindset and allows him to have a sexual relationship which is condoned by the Church. It also
If you knew anything about crime, criminal behaviour, and yes, criminal profiles: a vast majority of pedophiles are single,older,solitary,males. Hmmm...put the equation together. The numbers start to decline as you take away each of those components.

It doesn't fix the Catholic Church's problems entirely but it will reduce the occurrence. I am not Catholic, but I have probably spent more time in Catholic Church than Synagogue. My kids went to Catholic school, my wife is Catholic we are involved with a lot of activities and charities. And I happen to live in an area where, out of the 15 Catholoic Churches here, 5 have had priests indicted. That's 33% of the parishes in this area. That is a pretty high number. I think I would like to see a quick solution to the problem since it hits close to home.

Rayder writes: "If you knew anything about crime, criminal behaviour, and yes, criminal profiles: a vast majority of pedophiles are single, older, solitary,males. Hmmm...put the equation together."

It might interest you to know that I've spent my entire adult career in law enforcement dealing with all types of criminal behavior. I'm well aware of the profiles of almost every type of criminal. I'm also smart enough and had enough experience on the streets and in the prisons not to "pigeon hole" people so quickly. Humans are a very rare "animal" capable of almost anything.

Profiling isn't an exact science, it is a "place to start" for investigators. However, using your paradigm, almost every single or widowed adult male between the ages of 38 and 60 is suspect. And that might even inlcude yourself or others on these forums.

Let's be real here and begin looking at the motivations behind certain people and their quick criticism of the entire Catholic Church. There is a certain segment in our society that absolutely hates the Catholic Church and perhaps organized religion as well. Some here have made that very obvious at the onset and have been very quiet since then. Making a quick "drive-by" slander or poke at the Church is real easy. Having a discussion about differences isn't, as demonstrated by my own lack of composure.

I think I made my opinion very clear with regards to the guilty priests. I'm not defending their behavior in the least but, I'm not willing to stereotype, profile or pigeonhole people too quickly either.

Now for the sake of peace, allow me ask you a cigar related question.... What was the most recent cigar that you've enjoyed?

Me? I just finished a nice C.A.O. Corona Gorda, quite delicious.

Peace to you Rayder....

As for priests marrying....
There are certainly better ways to prevent perversion than by attempting to select non-molesters simply by virtue of marital status.
But the idea is not without some merit, simply because we are not (usually) talking about pedophilia when we speak of the offending Catholic priests.
The molestation, in fact, is more consistent with homosexuality, since most of the cases involved young male teens and pre-teens.
Pedophilia, a disease known to be uncurable, is typically gender neutral and performed on young children.
These monsters/priests preyed on younger teens of the same sex. Usually no physical force was required.
They deserve to die slowly for what they did. But not because they have a disease (pedophilia), rather becasue they used their position of trust to persuade unsuspecting youths into compromising positions.
Nobody calls it homosexuality because they're afraid to be labeled as homophobes. But to suggest that these priests are indeed gay is not a condemnation of all gays. Just the ones who prey on our youth.

Priests in fact did marry until the 1500. Seems certain families had Catholic dynasties. So celibacy was introduced for what were claimed to be altruistic reasons. The Church was trying to prevent too great a concentration of power in any one group. Many families then began putting their misfits into seminaries. They figured they might as well get SOME contribution from them. Hell, let 'em marry. Let women be priests. Why not?

By the way ...I'm done. Peace to you as well brother. I'll light up a nice AVO tomorrow before football.

questions

did pedophiles become priests hoping the they would be cured of their needs?

did pedophiles become priests because they were certain they would not be punished by the church for their actions and law enforcement would not be brought into the picture?

since most day-care centers are liscensed and presumably the owners are screened, does the church have a higher percentage of pedophiles then other occupations, or callings.

why did g-d make pedophiles?

tailgater
homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophelia which is using children.
i can't think of any class of citizen that would defend pedophelias.
please explain how weak, twisted humans creat pedophiles.

Maybe Finch can tell us what the relevance of the picture is. Are you proselytizing?

Just don't say the Jews killed Christ. I have to face that when I visit my inlaws and get the "Ya know....if the Jews hadn't sold out Jesus....."

I keep reading on the subject...and I am pretty convinced Romans did the deed.

Rick wrote:

"you are proselytizing and that is your business, but don't ever tell me again that what i post is wrong, unfair, or contrary to the rules of the board.
incidently, i don't believe in sin."

Hey Rick, I thought that we were past that? If I recall, I did pubicly apologize to you for what I wrote about you and I believe that you did forgive me right? Or, are you recinding that? Perhaps you need me to grovel for you? There's a difference between humility and groveling. I mean, why didn't you bring this up before now? The picture of Christ was posted from the beginning.

As for "proselytizing", I actually thought that I was "apologizing". My image of Christ was in no way meant to be taken as proselytizing. Please save us all the agony of your "I'm offended" attitude Rick. After all, aren't you the self-proclaimed "thought catylist" around here? Or, does that only apply when you can make others squirm and get angry?

As for the "rules", please show me where it says anything about proselytizing being prohibited?

Oh, and I welcome any further comments that will "bump" this thread and the picture of Christ up to the top of the forum, thanks.

Peace to you Rick.

You could have posted your apology on the Misc board. I was just wondering what point you were trying to make with the picture.

PMoreno349 writes: "You could have posted your apology on the Misc board. I was just wondering what point you were trying to make with the picture."

Actually, I didn't have to post an apology at all. But, since I made my disparaging comments about Rick in this forum, I thought it appropriate to post my apology here as well for the purpose of continuity.

As for the picture, it truly was an after-thought because after I had typed my apology and went to post it, I received an error message from the site. So, I quickly thought that I would include a picture of Christ.

But, you offer an interesting point in that Rick could have originally voiced his opinion about the Catholic Church on another board sans cartoon. But then, he wouldn't have gotten the rise out of me now would he?

In summary, I don't need a photo to stand up and say "I apologize". Others simply post photos to glean responses. And while that is all well and good and a lot of fun to read, My purpose was different, and it wasn't for proselytizing either.

But hey, once again, a rendition of Jesus Christ on the cross gets "bumped" to the top of the thread again. Thanks.

Finch, Do you think that error message was from Jesus himself? Maybe he wanted to send a message through you!

What goes into 9yrs. a dozen times?..........
A priest.

Rick wrote (in two separate postings):

"consider this hand shake, a peace offering, an apology for offending you and a wish to have peace beween us."

Splendid offering of peace Rick. I accept whole-heartedly and also desire peace with you.

"let us argue about bush and politics and war and all other things that do not touch on religion. i have none and you do. that puts us at odds regardless of what we say."

Perhaps (to the latter), but I'd prefer not toargue with you about President Bush or the war et al. These things are "of this world" and not what I prefer to focus on. Despite what you think, even though I do consider myself more conservative than not, your social views aren't offensive to me.

"i must continue, however fighting my good fight against pretty much everything including organized religion and the coming roe vs wade fight, assuming democrats can fight."

I respect your position Rick and would encourage you to fight for what you believe in. As for Row V Wade, I'm sure that you know where I stand on that issue.

"i am sure i will offend your religious upbringing, but my none religious upbringing wont be offended by the comments (probably not from you) about my godlessness and my lack of understanding about the meaning of life from a religious point of view. my lack of faith, my selling myself to the devil, my future burning in hell for eternity and i'm sure other remarks i have not even thought of."

Actually Rick, I don't have a "religious upbringing" to speak of. To the contrary, I was quite the heathen myself most of my life. As for your condemnations listed, I don't judge you (even though I did wronfully call you a bigot). I don't believe it is my place to tell you where you will end up after you pass away.

"i have helped your cause and have bumped this thread and the picture of Christ to the top. resurrected if you will, by a heathen."

Heathen to heathen, I appreciate your tongue in cheek recognition of my previous post regarding "bumping" my picture up. Hey, don't be so hard on yourself, I still think that there's a chance for you! : )

"i guess i am not an atheist, i don't even think about it one way or another. god, no god, universal force, no universal force. what's the difference? solved the dilemma at age 12 and haven't had to deal with it since."

Age 12 eh? Must have been pretty bright then. You ask "what's the difference"? I say plenty, but I agree with your call for peace and the end to our barbs at one another. I suppose that my wish would be for you to be as happy an at peace as I feel. That's all Rick, nothing more.

"don't be so subtle, we all know that the jewish hierarchy "sold out" christ."

Aha!!! You caught my sentence that used the word "people" huh? You are correct Sir. I stated that I "knew who killed Christ". And I believe that between Caiphas and Annas and the other power hungry members of the Sanhedrin, their political pact with Pilate and Herod Antipas to rid the Temple of threats posed by Christ killed Jesus.

The Jewish people had as much to do with killing Christ as taxpayers have to do with the hidden agendas of their representatives (?)

"he was not a proper jew, i think he voted democratic, he was a liberal don't forget. he was a trouble maker and they turned him over to the romans to deal with."

But Sir, you confuse Christ with the Sadducees or perhaps the Scribes of the Sanhedrin. They thought themselves to be "proper Jews" as far as observing the "letter" of Mosaic law. But, as you have accurately pointed out, He was very much a social liberal thinker and wanted GOD's people to follow (or live) the "spirit" of the law, thus making him a very proper Jew in actuality.

Much like the liberals of today (limosine liberals), the Temple keepers told others what was "good for them" but failed to live the example themselves. Much too often we hear cries of "eat the rich" from the likes of Gore, Levin, and Kennedy. And yet, these Men live as kings while the poor beg for scraps. So who among us lives as Christ now? It is left up to us (the little ones) to live as He did and do for the least of our bretheren.

Peace to you Rick.

rayder1

that my friend, is wit at it's finest.

i don't know who i sent cd's to, did i send you any klezmer? [email protected]

Rayder, that was probably the funniest thing written on this tired and sometimes bitter thread!

Rick, you are very kind and I tip my hat to you Sir for some very lively and thought provoking albeit somewhat heated, exchanges (equally shared).

Despite what began as an ugly confrontation days ago Rick, I would like to think that I am better off for having these brief exchanges with you. I feel the same about some of the others here who have made contributions with the exception of a few who have offered only the obvious attempts at hypothetical one-liners and barbs. Those few being mere sophomoric scribble and nothing more.

Peace to you Rick, long ashes and many, many an unpluggled cigar.

HOLYSMOKES!

"I feel the same about some of the others here who have made contributions with the exception of a few who have offered only the obvious attempts at hypothetical one-liners and barbs. Those few being mere sophomoric scribble and nothing more."


Hey WTF! I never even posted to this thread...LOL...He must be talking about PM? LOL

e

always it's the women that says enough. just because you are finished, doesn't mean we are. have a certain rachmones for the men.

I'll stay out of your theological discussion. I just wanted to comment on Rick the Maven's comment: "...incidently, i don't believe in sin."

Rick, On another thread, I saw a line-up of smokes you recently acquired. That you'd feel the need to punish yourself with such dreck, that's a sin!