All Comments (90)

Sally Quinn's comments on Charlie Rose this week regarding the Wright situation were a far cry from the norm and a boon. She was able to move beyond standard fare which came from other people on the program because the situation was so politically loaded. But she rose above, had attended the meeting in Wright's support after the NAACP talk (which made me cringe when I saw it, not when I read it)and brought a perspective that was generous, wise, well informed and unencumbered by being "news." I wish it could run on every news broadcast that mentions politics. As Floyd Flake said seconds before the broadcast ended, "Thank you, Sally." Yes.

I just wanted to take the time to comment on Ms. Quinn's recent appearance on The Charlie Rose Show & her commentary on the Rev. Wright story. Ms. Quinn's opinion was so profound, meaningful, graceful, & humane that it elevated my spirits & gave me hope in both our country & renewed faith in people of good will. She reminded me that not everyone has identical, cookie-cutter, superficial opinions & that there remain individuals who are proudly capable of retaining critical thought & a fresh, broad perspective & approach to the world.

Ms. Quinn attempts to portray Pope Benedict XVI as out of touch with American catholics who support and or practice various life issues, birth control, abortion, homosexuali acts, married and women priests which are not in keeping with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The fact is that
every Catholic who attends Mass speaks to his or her belief in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, not an American Church or a European Church or a Third World Church and not a church whose beliefs are subject to polls of the faithful or whether or not its members follow its teachings.
To argue that one is free to follow his own conscience on matters of religion and morals, even to support abortion, birth control, gay marriage, and other issues presumes that one's own conscience is infallible and superior to all others.
This leads to the absurd conclusion that there is no truth in moral and religious matters as there would be an infinite number of self-satisfying answers. Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to the American Bishops on this very topic in 1991 in a presentation entitled "Conscience and Truth". It is well worth reading if one is writing about Catholic teaching on moral issues.

Heard you on Imus Tuesday .This was before Obama admitted that his rev. was a kook He now says he did not know .We right wingers knew . You however defended the kook as ok . Now that Obama has given the green light to leftists like you It is now ok for you to beat up on the kook rev. You are so full of s---t it is comming out of your ears !
Leftests like you make me sick. PS Imus also looked like an ass by letting you say the crap you said

Heard you on Imus Tuesday .This was before Obama admitted that his rev. was a kook He now says he did not know .We right wingers knew . You however defended the kook as ok . Now that Obama has given the green light to librals like you It is now ok for you to beat up on the kook rev. You are so full of s---t it is comming out of your ears !
Leftests like you make me sick. PS Imus also looked like an ass by letting you say the crap you said

Hi Victoria!

This is what Sally wrote: “We had been expecting “the enforcer” and the "Rottweiler, “ not the good Shepherd but a German Shepherd. Instead, we saw a man who was, soft-spoken, gentle, self-effacing, a bit solemn and non-confrontational.”

I for one do not get the impression that Sally is trying to portray the Pope in a negative light. On the contrary.

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, was the
‘Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ,
President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and International Theological Commission,
Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Before the name "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" the name was The Holy Office of The Inquisition, and hence the negative connotation. Teaching dogma and fundamental theology at University and being a professor of
professor of dogmatic theology and of the history of dogma, and his conserative stand on many issues gives rise to the false conclusion that Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stands for all that is negative in orthodox Catholicism.

However the role as enforcer”came to an end automatically when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope three years ago. Although the Vatican cannot be compared to the way the US government is run, one can make comparisons. In his previous role as Cardinal, he functioned more like the Justice of the Supreme Court and the leader of the law-making Congress. When he was elected Pope by the “Parliament of Cardinals,” his role is now like an elected monarch.

As to what anti-Catholics think and say, I'm aware that even some Christian pastors consider him anti-Christ! Na und?

I, as a 30-year-old women, too do not trust the feminism movement. And, as long as you look at the priesthood as a "rights for women" cause, you'll miss his point. It's a vocation. Attacking the argument as a "rights" issue is an apple/oranges argument.

Additionally, to make a sweeping generalization that the Church has lost touch with its youth frankly just shows your age. It is remarkable to me that the baby-boomer generation of the Church is so out of touch with the resurgence of orthodoxy and thrist for proper catechesis in its youth. While there is and was a troubling dip in priestly vocations, several more orthodox seminaries throughout the country are busting at the seams...look in the right places and you will see a very different story.

PAGANPLACE- since you have my reponse so much energy- i'll clarify my poinbt-

yes- the nickname was given to the pope years ago-
but it has been picked up and used by a virulent anti-pope cadre- it's not my opinion-

either sally is lamentably unaware of the connotations associated with her words-
or deliberately used words she knows to be, currently, insulting.

but- we're not in europe, and etymology of names has no bearing- what we are named by our parents, or choose to call ourself is a choice to continue to do so-

but when another person calls someone a dog- in mainstream america- it is generally not a compliment-

i think sometimes it may be an insult to an innocent dog-
but since sally IS mainstream, and her perspective is NOT pagan or native american- there is no reason one should impose that reasoning where it isnt.
so the only reasonable thing is to take her at her intentions-

SOJA_ no- in the past several years, that term has been co-opted by anti-catholics-

i was not referring to what it was intended to mean a couple of YEARS AGO-(which actually would be out of context)
but what it means NOW-(assuming we all speak in the present tense)

do an easy google you'll see what i mean-
( i first encountered it from sam harris- not exactly a supporter of the pope)

Let me get this straight on the Pius XII thing. According to Lapide, the Jewish historian and Nazi hunter, Pius ordered the hiding and protection of about 1.2 million Jews from Nazis, at least 860,000 of which survived past WWII. Israel Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome was so happy about the saving of so many Jewish lives, that he and his wife converted to Catholicism and he even took the name of Eugenio, Pius's own first name. But Jews in this day and age say that Pius is in hell for what he did to Jews in WWII. This is not logical.

I followed the Pope's visit to America with great interest. Not physically though, however, with a very good coverage of CTV.
Pope Benedict is always the same wether in Europe or America, a humble and spiritual leader who radiates holiness and who is interested to tackle problems hands-on! The many thousands of people who come to hear him not to see him can be testimonies of what I wrote here. It was a very long time ago, that the church had a pope so well learned and yet so humble, thus leading his flock to have a very deep spiritual experience.

Hello Speed123,

Not at all that men's only sports leagues are violating the human rights of men to have male only sports leagues. As long as men don't stop women from forming their own leagues if they want to.

Certainly women are very important actors in the Church as nuns, lay missionaries and workers, the lowliest ones with no great prospect for advancements, and not a single Mother Superior allowed to vote for the Pope.

Surely you are not forgetting that while the Church is a "private" organisation, the Vatican is a sovereign state, the Pope is a head of state. It does have diplomatic relations with over 170 countries.

Surely you are not forgetting that the Church do get involve in affairs of states and wants to still have a say in state and international policies - the environment, human rights, values issues etc. - as a state and church.

Is is really allowed for a "private" organisation with over a billion members (one in every six person in the world) to commit human rights abuses or practice sexism when other "private" organisations are not among its own ranks and file?

China is notorious for human rights abuses. So is Saudi Arabia. Both countries are not democracies with elected governments. The Vatican, as a state, is just a wee better. After all, it allowed those of a certain rank in the clergy and of the male sex, to vote for its state of state.

Both China and Saudi Arabia always say it is their internal affairs when questioned by the international community on human rights abuses and others should appreciate and accept their living by their own ideology or theology.

Both countries never lectures other countries on their human rights abuses or to call for other countries or international community to intervene in countries where human rights violations are happening.

Both countries are also defensive on allegations of human rights abuses in their countries committed against their citizens. China has taken to issuing its own human rights violations report in the US as a rather absurb reaction to the US annual report on human rights of all countries produced by the State Department at the instruction of and for the US Congress.

Hope the Vatican will not be saying what is happening in Church and called human rights violations by others and even among its own flock on everything from rights of women to be in the clergy, for abortions, for acceptance of gays as purely an internal matter and only applicable to Catholics and is no one else's business.

Both Saudi Arabia and China stated that what is happening in their country and their decisions are related to religion (in Saudi Arabia) and ideology (in China). I take it that it will be all right for the Vatican to say what they can and cannot on human rights internally for their flock is due to theology.

Racism and sexism is found everywhere regardless of political systems, state of development, level of education, belief or non-belief. There is racism and sexism in the Vatican/church though it don't shoot people for dissent or cut off heads or hands for crimes. It just excludes, and that is not a crime or human rights violations I suppose.

Anyone or any organisation publicly speaking of promoting and protecting human rights but at the same time held that I am "lesser" due to my sex or because I don't subsribe to its beliefs and must be saved by making me member of it, does not have the right to speak on human rights.

I dislike and am against sexism among Muslim ulema and their rationalisations for it due to their interpretations of Islam. Likewise human rights violations and abuses they commit in the name of and under the pretext of protecting religion. I fought against that here where I live and it is not that easy to dislodge entrenched entitlements and mindsets among members of the ulema.

These violators and abusers are and should be challenged on that. I never confuse protecting and excusing men of God who commit clear crimes and human rights violations even by the tenets of religion as a reiteration of my faith. They are human disgraces and hypocrites by any standards.

And, by the way, I am a woman. Whose side do you think I will be on sexism regardless of race and religion? Belief or non-belief?

Cheers

"J"

Hi Victoria!

You seem to be taking the reference to Pope Benedict as "Gottes Rottweiler" (God's Rottweiler) out of context. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope was considered a fierce guardian of the Church teachings , hence of defending God like a German watchdog. It was meant to reflect his dedication to conservative Catholicism, without any compromise or relativism. It was never meant to be derogatory. Guarding God by protecting His teaching from corruption, like a fierce watchdog, is an honorable service for a priest.

Neal:

Charlemagne has mapped the terrain, by my troth. And goodly armed is s/he with the Post of New York emblazoned on his blessed shield and helmuth.

Neal: "Before you sally forth to do battle with the heathen there Charlemagne, perhaps you should gird your loins with a bit o' research."

Ha! That was actually pretty funny ;)

I am surrounded by books - so I would be in major trouble if book burning started up again!

As for paradigms, the secular is dominant and, therefore, those who are outside of the "immanent order" have a particular view that is unique - counter-culture, if you will.

Why do you think so many artists and great writers are from within the religious camp?

"The artist takes us past psychology and sociology towards the limits of mystery." F. O'Conner

Have you read Charles Taylor's "A secular age," Neal?

I think you would really enjoy it.

Speed123:

Before you sally forth to do battle with the heathen there Charlemagne, perhaps you should gird your loins with a bit o' research. Despite what you may have learned in catechism class, secularism and atheism are NOT the same things and I'd hate to see you accidentally skewer one of your many co-religionists who do, in fact, support secular government, public schools and media.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not too concerned about paradigms that are shifting backwards into the 16th Century. This thing I'm typing on has pretty much put an end to the days when religion could shape civilization's destiny just by burning a few books.

You are speaking out against yourself, Observer/Ilan, and your ethnocentric rage...

May you be enlightened one day...

Anonymous:

I'm going to bed now, and you might consider doing the same.

"Evil" as you put it will be with us tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. That is the way of the world.

It is good of you to speak out against it.

Anonymous:

The answer is no, Anonymous, I'm not Catholic.

Observant writes: "This is the same nonsense that Christians of all denominations have used for the last two thousand years...If he or she had really been a Christian."

You extremely have poor logic, Observer/Anon/Ilan - as this was the same reasoning you used to explain away Jewish complicity with the atrocities of Bolshivism and the Red Army...

As for Neo Cons, this was simply in response to your naming of Catholics as "responsible" for the holocaust and "this and that."

Really now, you are bigoted and ethnocentric beyond reasoning! (which I attempted with you)

You are attacking - I am defending....round and round we go.

Like I said about the peace process....

Good thing Jimmy Cater is around for talks. (I suppose he is an anti-semite too?)

Observer12:

You wrote:
Sorry Anonymous, I mean no offense.

None taken. May I ask if you are Catholic?

Speed123:

I don't know what you mean about another account. I was referring to my 1:50 post about "paradigm shifts." It came up as anonymous.

I would think that with all your researches, you would know that if one doesn't post one's name that's what happens.

But in fact you do know, since you post anonymously from time to time. You need not bother to. One always knows who you are.

Speed123:

This is the same nonsense that Christians of all denominations have used for the last two thousand years.

If he or she had really been a Christian. . . .Is that why the Pilgrims burned the INdians to death in Jesus name? Or the Catholics? In North America, South America, the Caribbean? Is that why we have pedophile priests? Mafias of all sorts? Etc. They're not really Catholic, practitioners of their religion?

Is that why we have you, Speed123?

You claim to really be a Catholic. And yet, long before I started posting, you were posting vile anti-semitic racist filth, not to mention other ism garbage. About the Jewish neo-cons, the Jewish involvement in this or that. . . .

Conveniently, now you would like to shift the footing. If they had been true practioners? But you are one, Speed123.

(Sorry Anonymous, I mean no offense.)

Well now, "Observer" - it would seems as though my "peer" is simply you using another account to attack me.

"Speed123:

That last post was mine. I fogot to print my name."

I was trying to be gracious not to mention your mis-post; however, you again try to attack me with a fictions...

Very dishonest of you...I am tired of your games and lack of reasoning / ability to compromise.

Goodnight.

My point is that neither Jews, nor Catholic, could have been authentic practitioners of their religion if they were active participants in the holocaust or in the mass starvation/collectivization of the Ukraine.

They may have been influenced in such events by their respective and corrupted societies - but not an *authentic* or *observant* versions of their faith.

Make sense?

Speed 123 has posted to me that he does not wish to write to Catholics. For all of you who are reading this, please note that.

He is not one among us. He is sick and evil. He is not of the body of Christ.

Speed123 (and alters) refers to a "paradigm shift."

Your paradigm has been stable for thousands of years. It's called -ism. And it comprises heterosexism, Christianism, Sexisim, paranoia, etc.

Take your reply to your peers, who are legion, for peer review. You need not rely on your alters alone.

Anonymous writes:

"You stain Flannery O'Connor's books when you touch them."

Well then, anonymous you obviously don't understand Catholicism, "grace" or Flannery O'Connor.

That is the end of my comments to you - in fact, I would rather write to Neal or Ilan.

Speed123:

That last post was mine. I fogot to print my name.

Speed123:

The point is you would like to say that Christians (including Catholics) are not Christians unless they are observant.

If you would like to go the other way, so beit. It makes my lists much longer, but I'm okay with that.

It's called a paradigm shift, Neal ;)

As for a "secular" news channel - there are so many to choose from here on the web (don't have a TV) - Salon.com, Huffingtonpost, NYtimes, Washington post, LA Times, dailykos, CNN, MSNBC...

One cant forget the blogs, either!

Speed123:

Get out of the way? Rebuild? You sound like you're coming right out of the Third Reich. Yes, you sound like Hitler, a born again nazi.

You would have been one of those imprisoning those priests and pious Catholics who spoke out against Hitler.

You stain Flannery O'Connor's books when you touch them.

You evil. You attack like the paranoid nazis. You're sick with hatred, for Observer12, for Neal, for J, for everyone except fascists like you.

Get out of the way? Never. And I daresay the majority of American Catholics will be in your way.

You are not of the body of Christ.

As for "Jewishness," you know as well as I do that the MAJORITY of the Israeli population are secular, "cultural" Jews, not observant Jews.

They consider themselves Jewish - in thinking and culture etc. - none-the-less.

Enough...you stop your attacks and I will stop my mine.

This does no one any good...

Finally,

Observer two claims that the "Jewish" participants in Bolshevik atrocities were committed in spite of their ethnicity or religion - while "Catholic" participants in Nazi atrocities were - not in spite of - but BECAUSE of their faith.

See the faulty and dishonest logic?

I, personally, feel both groups lost claims to their religions in each of their respective, horrific action of violence.

Stop the double-standard/ propaganda, Observer12 (Ilan).

Hi Smt. Sally Quinn,

I am an Indian and a Catholic. You might have heard abt Swami Vivekanandan. Once he said a story of a 'frog in a well'. The frog was born and broughtup in the well, never seeing the world. The boundary of the well is it's world!

I often feel the behaviour and responses of many of you American reportes same as of this frog. Yes, you have have seen all the physical world; have all great technology; but mentally it seems you are tied by many strings.

Get freedom from the bondage of all these strings Madam.

Regards,

Jose

The KKK has admitted Catholics. I'm sure they'd grab you in a second.

May I ask, when Trotsky was bar Mitzvah? When he attended synogogue? If he ever read the Tanakh?

In what sense was he Jewish?

And then we have the million dollar question you raised. When are you going to start contributing bodies and money to Israel for the protection of Catholic holy sites? Doesn't the Vatican have enought with what it got from the desperate Ivory Coast (male life expectancy 50) and other impoverished countries?

There are bread lines in Israel. There are Ethiopians needing to be gotten out of Christian Ethiopia. There are Palestinian Christians (your co-religionists) fleeing into Israel. They need money.

Of course, you folks don't like to part with it, I know. Able to raise hundreds of millions to buy the silence of abused children's parents, those poor folks who hadn't a prayer of getting justice until recently, but guard your holy sites? No....

I'm thinking about the mafia. Not just the Gottis and extant families, but the Mexican,Domincan, Columbian drug cartels, all filled with Catholics.

All of them have there priests, too, but the membership would be a good start.

Go back to your reading. Go on with your New York Post research.

Maybe you could hold off attacking Neal and J for awhile. Aren't I enough?

Speed123:

When did Orwellian replace Latin as the official language of the Roman Catholic Church? Now I'm "angry" and you're some sort of pious hippie...too much. Srsly, you have no idea how much I enjoy this, especially the part where you don't even attempt to defend your pontifications. As for my mental health, it started radically improving the day I became an apostate, actually, but thanks for your phony concern.

So, you wouldn't object to paying for a 24/7 atheist cable channel? Groovy...

Anonymous,

No one is perfect - O'connor would agree with that statement.

I am merely defending the slander of Ilan and his false and hateful claims that the holocaust was of Catholic origin.

Enough propaganda! This new generation of Catholics are ready to fight (non-violently) back against these secular (and Protestant and Jewish) attacks on our traditions and faith and history.

Don't like it?...too bad.

Enough with your submission to their false claims and slander -- get out of the way while we rebuild.

I now see why peace between the Israelis and Palestinians goes nowhere...

I guess this wasn't a waste of time, after all.

Speed123, or whoever you are:

The New York Post--heavy reading.

And Flannery O'Connor? You? If she could rise up from the grave, she'd pull her books out of your filthy hands.

I truly hope that Observer12 is Catholic. That would give me hope, where you almost lead me to despair.

You are not of the body of Christ. You cast yourself out a long time ago.

What Ilan? You are still neglecting Jewish involvement in historical atrocities?

What is stopping you - ethnocentrism?

You do not want to recount the Jewish leadership in the Bolshevik massacres of Orthodox Christians in Russia (while leaving synagogues virtually untouched, btw)?

Trotsky (i.e. Lev Davidovich Bronstein) was the head of the Red army at the time.

I do not really want to do the research; however, if you want to go tit-for-tat, I will find some time. Also, I am tired of writing all the terrible names of the neo cons - I will make a saved copy of the list.

To say that Trotsky was not Jewish really is laughable. Oh, I get it, he murdered millions so you do not want to recognize his heritage and its ability to slaughter those who were not in his "vanguard" tribe.

Don't throw stones, Ilan....

PS - shouldn't you be walling in the Palestinians right now? You are neglecting your work.

PPS - the KKK was anti-Catholic - but I am sure you can dig up some sort of connection.

Until next time, my friend who is unable to forgive while ignoring his own transgressions...

THanks for the good wishes, Speed123
thehereandnow, B12, Cal, Iron Lazar, et al.

Actually, it isn't a question of compiling. I have all the info. at the ready. It's a question of categorizing, which I rather enjoy. Otherwise, I could just set aside a half hour a day, and post, say two or three hundred names a day for a few years.

But you see, it's more than that. I have to decide when and how to describe what these people
did. And how much does one describe? There are so many temptations. Does one discuss the activities of the Catholic J.O.S.E.F. Mengele, Ph.D. (not M.D.), in detail? Reinhardt Heydrich? Heinrich Himmler and his personal tastes? And I'm only talking about Germans. That's another problem, should I operate nation by nation?

The peculiar thing is that these so-called Jews that the Christians tortured and slaughtered were atheists. Some of the Reich's German Jews were Lutheran or Catholic.

The thing is that to them, to you, to Alfred Rosenberg (one of your co-religionists), they were Jews. How anyone could think of Trotsky as Jewish is beyond me, but not you. Hence we go to the Russian Orthodox Lenin, STalin.

Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox (e.g., Archbishop Valerian Trifa, a long-time protected US citizen), they were all in it.

And what about ordinary people? One's neighbors?
With their hands soaked in blood? People like you, Speed123, et al. Catholics, many of them, like you.

The lists could take a decade.

Now, you have shifted to the present day. Well do you want to discuss the Catholic parents of NixMarie Brown? That angelic child tortured to death by her Catholic parents?

Happy cross burning.

One last note for Ilan/Observer and his compilation of atrocities lists by major groups/religions:

You might want to put Ben-Ami Kadish on the Jewish Neo Con list for giving American nuclear secrets to Israel - i.e. treason.

Check the front page of the Post today...

Good luck with putting all of your lists together, bud.

Are men's only sports leagues violating human rights??

A ridiculous argument...especially considering the fact that women are very important actors in the Church.

One role reserved for males in a private organization does not equal a crime against "human rights"

Get real.

You are undermining the true case against serious human rights violations: in Atheist China, for example, with forced abortions or restrictions on religion - or in Saudi Arabia, where women do not even have the right to drive and can be executed at the drop of a hat...

Ms. Sally Quinn,

Kris Kristofferson? I will have to look him up. Must be a singer better known in the sixties or seventies.

Thanks for the summary on the Pope - what he said when in America.

The Pope calling for the international community to embrace human rights is the most contradictory. He calls for international interventions against countries that have human rights abuses.

The Pope did not mention anything on the promotion and protection of human rights within organisations such as his own church - against the rights of women to be members of the clergy, against the rights of people sexually abused, and to cease excommunicating those who would not toe the orthodox Catholic creed as a human rights in freedom of thought and expression.

Human rights is not just the right of freedom of religion, but also from religion as constantly reminded by atheists. In the context of what the Pope said, he also really meant the right to preach and to set up houses of worship unfettered anywhere.

What the Pope did not stress is that, it also starts within our own organisation and flock. In this, there is some question on credibility on that call to "embrace" human rights. For whose benefit?

And, have we really come across anyone designated as an "intellectual" who is not a walking contradiction?

I am coming from a faith group where some of our clergy made no pretence at all in talking up and about the promotion and protection of the human rights of women, or in their version and interpretation of justice and punishments against those they deem to be criminals or committing transgressions such as adultery. I am more wary and weary of those who preach it but do not practice it.

Thank you.

"J"

You guys are the best - they say it is better to be disliked than ignored... ;)

So, Ilan (observer12, barb et al), are you also going to list the involvement of Jewish leaders and rabbis in your list of historical atrocities?

Muslims, as well, I hope.

What do you say? Two more lists, please...

As for Neal, I am glad you are venting your anger about your upbringing; however, don't you think that a therapist would be more productive and better for your health?

Pissed about paying for EWTN - wow! That is an interesting grievance!

Carry on - it is not like the majority of the American media is already on this track (except for papal visits, that is). But remember, Neal, that your viewpoints are well represented by the MSM - you are now the establishment...

I am the counter-culture ;)

Best of luck.

Speed123:

That didn't quite answer my question. Let's try this tack. Do Msrs. Reese and Bohlin, for instance, as Catholic contributors to the On Faith OPINION section, have any obligation to present all sides of the abortion issue every time they write about that subject? Which of your listed tactics did Ms. Quinn employ in her most recent OPINION piece? If they were not used, does that mean that by your own standards her OPINION piece was actually objective afterall? Why would she not be allowed to use whatever legal means she chose to get her OPINION across? Why on earth do you keep asking me about the Protocols of Zion!?!

I don't recall you ever asking me your final question before; perhaps you asked it under a different screen name? Is being "obsessive" going to be a new fallacious charge leveled at critics of your religion? How in the heck did you reach that conclusion anyway...because I post *less* than you? Or was it because I asked for some justification for the use of the words "bigot" and "hateful" as many have done recently in characterizing, seemingly, any critic of Catholicism? Not that you would ever stoop so low as that...

In any case, you could perhaps think of me as someone for whom early childhood Catholic "training" just didn't take; a chicken coming home to roost, so to speak. Or, you could think of me as someone who resents having to pay for EWTN on his cable bill and sees this as a harmless, yet satisfying, way of getting his money's worth. No matter my particular reasons, though, I have no intention of going away...not that you would ever suggest such a thing.

Speed123
Cal
B12
thehereandnow,
et al

Getting a bit hysterical, are we? Did you think you were the only one capable of posting lists?

Did you think the nazis were Buddhists? Did you think their religion was not connected to nazism?

That view was discarded long, long ago, before Carroll, long before.

So take a valium or get a drink. I haven't even begun.

Speed123 and various incarnations:

Carroll's essay has been eclipsed, but I'm still here:

More Catholic nazi priests:

Archbishop Stepinac
Fr. Eugen Deluhan
Dr. Rados Glavos
Miroslav Filipovic-Majstoravoic (Fransiscan)
Fr. Dragutin Kamber
Bishop Ivan Saric
Bishop Gregory Rozman

Much more to come.

Correction to a previous post: Eichmann was Protestant not Catholic, as I originally posted. He identified as Catholic in gratitude to Bishop Hudal (A Rome-based bishop, appointed by Pius XII), author of Nazi book and articles, who orchestrated Eichmann's escape from the Allies, Eichmann, along with Stangl, and many others).

The escape routes, false passports supplied by the International Red Cross, etc., the whole program is referred to in the literature as the "ratline."

I may take a brief departure from Catholic nazi clergy to focus instead on high-ranking Christians of "mixed" Catholic-Protestant parentage. Haven't decided yet. Might go to nuns in the T4 program.

Response to Christof: It is absurd to say that there were very few Protestants involved in the Holocaust, if,in fact, that is what you meant. The ratio of Protestants to Catholics in the Third Reich varies, but Protestants were heavily implicated in the Shoah, in Germany, mainly Lutherans, of course, among them many clergymen.

The Lutherans, the Orthodox, et al. will all get due credit.

In the meantime, Sally, so obviously ecumenical, why have you all but removed Carroll's essay? And
is it not time for us to move on from the Pope?

Could you do something about Jovez? If you want to block posts, at least limit his so we can read something else.

Observer2 (Ilan)

Since you are Jewish, why not also give fair time to the Jewish rabbis and scholars and leaders who gave aid to and participated in communist/bolshevik attrocities?

A good place to start would be the Jewish "Iron Lazar" - a red general who over saw the starvation of 10 million Christians in the Ukraine. Then Marx, Trotsky etc. etc.

Follow that up with the Jewish leadership of the Neo Conservative movement that produced the disastrous results in Iraq.

Honestly, your ethnocentric attempt to single out other people for their sins is counter productive and produces resentments.

So, how about that list after you go after the Protestant (ps - start with Luther)

Speed123 and various incarnations:

Carroll's essay has been eclipsed, but I'm still here:

More Catholic nazi priests:

Archbishop Stepinac
Fr. Eugen Deluhan
Dr. Rados Glavos
Miroslav Filipovic-Majstoravoic (Fransiscan)
Fr. Dragutin Kamber
Bishop Ivan Saric
Bishop Gregory Rozman

Much more to come.

Correction to a previous post: Eichmann was Protestant not Catholic, as I originally posted. He identified as Catholic in gratitude to Bishop Hudal (A Rome-based bishop, appointed by Pius XII), author of Nazi book and articles, who orchestrated Eichmann's escape from the Allies, Eichmann, along with Stangl, and many others).

The escape routes, false passports supplied by the International Red Cross, etc., the whole program is referred to in the literature as the "ratline."

I may take a brief departure from Catholic nazi clergy to focus instead on high-ranking Christians of "mixed" Catholic-Protestant parentage. Haven't decided yet. Might go to nuns in the T4 program.

Response to Christof: It is absurd to say that there were very few Protestants involved in the Holocaust, if,in fact, that is what you meant. The ratio of Protestants to Catholics in the Third Reich varies, but Protestants were heavily implicated in the Shoah, in Germany, mainly Lutherans, of course, among them many clergymen.

The Lutherans, the Orthodox, et al. will all get due credit.

In the meantime, Sally, so obviously ecumenical, why have you all but removed Carroll's essay? And
is it not time for us to move on from the Pope?

Could you do something about Jovez? If you want to block posts, at least limit his so we can read something else.

Neal,

When posters deal in canards, stereotypes, and present accusations without societal context or deal in conspiracy theories, I would consider their criticism not to be "objective."

Do you think the Protocols of Zion are legitimate criticism of Jewish leaders, Neal?

And, you still have not answered my question about your obsession with Catholics....

What is your hang-up? I can only assume it is personal in nature.

Speed123:

In that the On Faith blog is in the *opinion* section of WaPo, why would you assume that any of its panelists is under any obligation to be objective? Can you provide me with the names of any non-Catholic critics who Catholics might not consider to be hateful, bigoted or stupid? In that I have seen many Catholic apologists this past week characterize criticism of their church as "hateful", do you think that the such criticism qualifies as "hate speech"? If so, should it be suppressed?

AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools

By MARTHA IRVINE and ROBERT TANNER
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 21, 2007; 7:18 AM

-- The young teacher hung his head, avoiding eye contact. Yes, he had touched a fifth-grader's breast during recess. "I guess it was just lust of the flesh," he told his boss.

That got Gary C. Lindsey fired from his first teaching job in Oelwein, Iowa. But it didn't end his career. He taught for decades in Illinois and Iowa, fending off at least a half-dozen more abuse accusations.

When he finally surrendered his teaching license in 2004 _ 40 years after that first little girl came forward _ it wasn't a principal or a state agency that ended his career. It was one persistent victim and her parents.

Lindsey's case is just a small example of a widespread problem in American schools: sexual misconduct by the very teachers who are supposed to be nurturing the nation's children.

Students in America's schools are groped. They're raped. They're pursued, seduced and think they're in love.

An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.

There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators _ nearly three for every school day _ speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims.

Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims.

And no one _ not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments _ has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of classrooms.

Those are the findings of an AP investigation in which reporters sought disciplinary records in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The result is an unprecedented national look at the scope of sex offenses by educators _ the very definition of breach of trust.

The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. At least half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to their misconduct.

The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002.

Clergy abuse is part of the national consciousness after a string of highly publicized cases. But until now, there's been little sense of the extent of educator abuse.

Beyond the horror of individual crimes, the larger shame is that the institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that's been apparent for years.

It seems that the Catholic haters (and seculars) are getting nervous about a coming Catholic resurgence - hence the attacks and blatent lies below.

130,000! HA! You know that there is only 75,000 Catholic clergy TOPS - and less than 4 percent accused.

You number probably includes the 126,000 public school teachers, rabbis, protestant preachers and relatives (the largest group) etc.

As for the public schools, 2500 teachers have been accused in the last 5 years - and 1 in 10 children molested (millions!).

You dont hear about this because it is secular...

Bottom line: Sally Quinn, as an "objective" religious commentator, is a complete joke.

To date, the continued, ongoing, and uncorrected, cost in monetary dollars to 63 million Roman Catholic laity in the USA, has been at least $2.8 BILLION DOLLARS; wi