Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LightAngel

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Resigns

168 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

LightAngel

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
LightAngel

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I've read the story of many former Christians here on UM, and the great majority of them, it seems to me, were Catholics. Perhaps it is time for Catholicism to fade away? It seems to be getting most of the bad rap side of Christianity these days. Having more and more scandals and horrible things associated with them. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx

https://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/why-the-u-s-catholic-church-has-lost-more-members-than-any-other-major-denomination/

Quote

The downward trend in the number of Catholics is pretty familiar by now. In 2016, we were 18% of the population according to a recent PRRI report. In 2014, we were 21% and in 2007, 24% according to a Pew Religious Landscape Study.

That is pretty significant.

Protestant numbers seem to be holding steady.

vfpdodr0ueop2sktt4a9lg.png

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I haven't digested this fully, but appears like the Pope doesn't want to talk about if he knew about McCarrick years and years ago, or not.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cardinal-cupich-interview-questions-cardinal-mccarrick-allegations-491926591.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

So how does this work....someone commits a crime, but because they are religious and part of the pope thing, all they have to do is resign? 

On 04/08/2018 at 5:35 PM, GlitterRose said:

Absolutely, it should be taken to court and proven, but there must be rather a stunning amount of evidence for the Pope to take this action. 

Can the pope be summons to court?

I can not see why McCarrick can not be called into the  interview room and  strapped to a polygraph machine, and strap the pope to it too, see what he is covering up for his pals.

On 04/08/2018 at 5:32 PM, GlitterRose said:

He should live out his "life of prayer and penance" in a prison cell, though.

Absolutely. 

Where was this god thing when it came to protecting all the victims against this cardinal? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

Tis such a shame there is no god, then he could have been called into court, surely he would have know what his 'sons' were up too.

NO SHOW FROM THE GOD BOSS?

=

NO  GOD BOSS,  only men.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel
16 hours ago, freetoroam said:

 

only men.

 

Yup.

We are the only Gods right now, so we have to stop all this pain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
On 04/09/2018 at 2:28 AM, freetoroam said:

So how does this work....someone commits a crime, but because they are religious and part of the pope thing, all they have to do is resign? 

Can the pope be summons to court?

I can not see why McCarrick can not be called into the  interview room and  strapped to a polygraph machine, and strap the pope to it too, see what he is covering up for his pals.

Absolutely. 

Where was this god thing when it came to protecting all the victims against this cardinal? 

 

I think in the USA (in Weurl's case) there's a statute of limitations. 

In Australia: Cardinal Pell is standing trial; and, former Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson has been convicted.

The Pope is head-of-state for Vatican City. To say summonsing a foreign head-of-state would be problematic, is an understatement. 

Isn't McCarrick is in Vatican City awaiting a Vatican Trial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel

 

"DR. JANET SMITH, professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS, journalist and staff writer at National Review discuss the Letter to Pope Francis from Catholic Women, why they signed on to it and what answers they hope to receive from Rome."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 9/3/2018 at 9:28 AM, freetoroam said:

So how does this work....someone commits a crime, but because they are religious and part of the pope thing, all they have to do is resign? 

I don't think it is much different then if someone in politics wanted a cover up, or someone in the music industry, or someone in military.... Those who have power often can cover things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
On 08/09/2018 at 6:30 PM, DieChecker said:

I don't think it is much different then if someone in politics wanted a cover up, or someone in the music industry, or someone in military.... Those who have power often can cover things up.

Or the UN...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Habitat
On 05/09/2018 at 2:43 AM, Golden Duck said:

I think in the USA (in Weurl's case) there's a statute of limitations. 

In Australia: Cardinal Pell is standing trial; and, former Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson has been convicted.

The Pope is head-of-state for Vatican City. To say summonsing a foreign head-of-state would be problematic, is an understatement. 

Isn't McCarrick is in Vatican City awaiting a Vatican Trial?

Pell has now been found guilty, which has shocked a lot of people, including myself. Whilst there is little doubt he was far from pro-active in ridding the church of sex offenders, and appeared to cover for them, to at least some extent, it is still something of a shock that was an offender. This may go to appeal, but the words of his defence lawyers, arguing for a lenient sentence, certainly don't appear to be denying his offending, but more directed at portraying it as not of the most serious kind. This really is a landmark case, like no other in Australian history.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 7/29/2018 at 3:07 AM, Hammerclaw said:

One could wish, but according to the tenets of Catholicism, once an Christian, always a Christian and Christians don't go to Hell--whatever that is. Even the excommunicated are still considered Christians. Makes no sense to me, but religion isn't especially renown in the sense department.   

OSAS is not accepted doctrine for all of Christianity.  I'm not Catholic so I can't speak to what they may believe but I'm confident that a man who will abuse God's most innocent and still speak as though he represents God is in for some serious rectitude if he doesn't genuinely repent with a broken heart and a desire to make amends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
15 minutes ago, and then said:

OSAS is not accepted doctrine for all of Christianity.  I'm not Catholic so I can't speak to what they may believe but I'm confident that a man who will abuse God's most innocent and still speak as though he represents God is in for some serious rectitude if he doesn't genuinely repent with a broken heart and a desire to make amends.

He can repent all he wants, but if there is a just god, this man will suffer for his misdeeds.

That is a thing that has always bothered me about the Christian philosophy: It is said that god will forgive one's sins, if they are sincere, but how does that help the victims?

At the risk of invoking Bowden's Law, if Hitler hit his knees and was thoroughly & sincerely repentant for his crimes, HE gets to go to heaven? and what about his victims suffering? How are they recompensed?

IMO, that is the sickest & most evil tenet of the Christian theology: The worst SOB on the planet can sincerely repent on their deathbed, and all is forgiven, no matter who, or how many they have harmed.

IMO, a JUST god, would prevent innocents from suffering and show the villain the error of his ways, BEFORE he is allowed to harm others, A La, a "Damascus Road" experience.

But, nope, "god' will sit back and watch, doing nothing to prevent harm. NOT a god worthy of worship, in my opinion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Pell has now been found guilty, which has shocked a lot of people, including myself. Whilst there is little doubt he was far from pro-active in ridding the church of sex offenders, and appeared to cover for them, to at least some extent, it is still something of a shock that was an offender. This may go to appeal, but the words of his defence lawyers, arguing for a lenient sentence, certainly don't appear to be denying his offending, but more directed at portraying it as not of the most serious kind. This really is a landmark case, like no other in Australian history.

Yes, I saw the news last year, despite the suppression order.

It's good to be talking facts at last.

David Marr is still going on about the need for the Church to recognise it's not above the law. The idea of the separation of church and state is much older than Our constitution; and, some reports of police not getting involved in Church matters in "Ballarat" the state can take a small portion of blame for not taking the responsibility it should have.

Then again the Corruption Royal Commission is more historical than the charges against Pell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, and then said:

OSAS is not accepted doctrine for all of Christianity.  I'm not Catholic so I can't speak to what they may believe but I'm confident that a man who will abuse God's most innocent and still speak as though he represents God is in for some serious rectitude if he doesn't genuinely repent with a broken heart and a desire to make amends.

Yes, he goes to that Catholic reform school called purgatory.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Pell seems not to have lost all support, despite the conviction, two former Prime Ministers more or less speaking favourably of him. The shock to me is that the defence has more or less admitted it happened. I am amazed that would have happened in his mid-fifties, he must have had prior form. Otherwise it would be like the champion jockey caught with the brown paper bag full of cash, the proceeds of backing another horse in a race he was riding in. He claimed it was the only bet he had ever had. Yeah, right !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.