There are no such things as “gays”. There are no such as “heterosexuals”, either1. There are men who have properly ordered sexual desires or, at times or for long periods, have intrinsically disordered sexual desires—of every kind, not just toward other males.
There does exist in our culture a subculture of “gays”, with its own tropes, customs, and habits, including the use of preposterous accents when the occasion suits, but the existence of this subculture is not to say there are “gays” in the same sense there are (procreative) males and females. And it is not to say that the people who enter into this subculture remain rigorously within its bounds at all times. They can and do stray.
Even scientists, poorly trained as they are in philosophy and metaphysics, though you would have thought they would have grasped the fundamentals of reproductive biology by now, are finally coming around to this view. (This is only one reference of many: see footnote.)
Allowing the use of the terms gay, lesbian, or any of the other dozens upon growing dozens of terms that describe non-procreative sexual desire as if these terms describe in an essential sense a category of people like male and female leads, has led, and will continue to lead to a certain painful and false judgment.
That judgement is the on-going abuse crisis in the Church is due to a misuse of “power”.
That is false at its core, though power is misused by bishops covering up crimes and by priests and bishops in choosing their victims. Power would not have been abused, and the crisis would not be with us, if it were acknowledged there are no such thing as “gays”. Recognizing men who self-identify as having intrinsically disordered sexual desires as being “gay”, having men who are told to identify as having these desires, can only encourage them to act on these desires.
And they have acted upon them. Repeatedly, often, and in every place these misconceptions are promoted.
Would you trust your teenage son to be alone with a priest who self-acknowledges the desire to have sex with your teenage son? Even if the priest says he will not act on these desires?
The answer, given by common sense and by all human experience, is obvious.
You’d give the same answer were you to substitute your wife or daughter into the question. But you never hear of priests asked to self-identify as men who desire sex with parishioner’s wives and daughters. Yet, as for the latter, even now there is a clamor for recognizing pedophilia as an “orientation” (in the same sense as “gay”). If the priest stood up and said “I am gay”, he is almost congratulated, if not actually celebrated, and nothing untoward is thought of it. But if a priest said, “I find the women (or girls) of this parish sexual desirable”, he’d be ousted.
Virtue is tough, and men slip. Perfection is impossible and cannot be expected. But it must always be aimed for. Allowing those with self-identified intrinsically disordered sexual desires to be priests tosses perfection out the window, not as something unattainable, which is admitted, but as undesirable, which is insane.
(The latest hip “orientation” is asexual, which is no sexual attraction at all. Which proves even the non-religious understand that this is possible.)
Allowing priests to call themselves “gay” says, implicitly at least but sometimes also explicitly, there is “nothing wrong” with the priest. Which is false. What is wrong with him is his intrinsically disordered sexual desire. Bolstering his self-identification as “gay” can only lead to the false and heretical belief that God created gays, that gays have certain gifts and qualities the rest of us don’t. That when gay desires are acted upon, which they will be for some, that they is not that bad, and certainly not a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. All of which, as readers know, was exactly what happened.
So now we have the latest revelations, which fit into the same pattern as earlier revelations. Victims were mostly male, mostly teens (“One priest was willing to admit to molesting boys, but denied reports from two girls who had been abused; ‘they don’t have a penis’ he explained.”) As was also found in the John Jay report. The details are so sickening that the least punishment is booting all malefactors from the priesthood and the cashiering of all involved bishops. Though stringing up the worst is preferred.
I’ve seen estimates of anywhere from 20-50% of the priesthood self-identifies as having intrinsically disordered sexual desires. The population numbers are around 1-3%, growing higher in millennials (maybe up to 15%). Allowing self-identification as sexual desire causes subcultures to thrive. The subcultures cause the abuse. The abuse causes the cover-ups.
Pope Benedict recognized this and, believe it or not, so does Pope Francis, or so reports say.
According to various Italian news reports following a closed-door session with Italian bishops, Pope Francis on Monday [in late May 2018] said that men with “deeply rooted” homosexual tendencies, or who “practice homosexual acts,” shouldn’t be allowed into the seminary.
A report by Vatican Insider says Francis told the Italian prelates: “These tendencies, when they are ‘deeply rooted,’ and the practice of homosexual acts, can compromise the life of the seminary beyond that of the young man himself and his eventual future priesthood.”
Pope Francis’s judgement is correct. And borne out by events. The priesthood has been compromised grotesquely (in the West, and most especially the USA). It must be uncompromised. It must be purged.
If it isn’t, then what came out of Pittsburgh will continue to come out.
Addendum I do not agree with the grand jury that the statute of limitations be eliminated for criminal sexual abuse. This would effectively remove having to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. And false accusations do occur, especially when money is involved.
Update All parishioners in New York this early evening received an email from Cardinal Dolan (which is why I thought it important to respond to Kent below) in which Dolan says, Boy, isn’t the Church doing a great job with abuse now?
I believe that the recent case involving Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, as gut-wrenching as it was, exemplifies the progress that has been made in dealing with such cases. When the Archdiocese of New York received the complaint, we followed our normal protocol as we would for any priest, and everyone involved — from the Vatican on down — agreed that we must deal with the case openly and honestly. It is hard to imagine that such would have been the case 30 years ago.
Bullshit. The Church was dragged screaming and scheming to acknowledge McCarrick, where it was revealed “everybody knew”. And that everybody probably included Dolan. “And while the Church in the past may have been an example of what not to do, today I believe it is a model of what to do to prevent sexual abuse, and how to respond when an accusation comes to light.”
Yes, just look at the list of complicit bishops who have resigned since McCarrick and Pittsburgh came to light. Where there’s, um, and there’s, ahh, and, well, yeah, the Church is doing a great job accepting responsibility.
Update Look at this nonsense from Cardinal O’Malley. He actually wrote he has to spend more time with his family.
Update “We are deeply saddened“. But not so sad that we’ll resign or do anything more than issue yet another strongly worded press release.
1I have a much longer essay on this subject in my new forthcoming book (which is almost done! and still in need of a publisher). The terms homosexual and heterosexual are recent additions to English, added about a century ago originally to classify those with excessive and aberrational sexual behavior and the objects of those behaviors.
I don’t know about PA. Where I come from, there is no statute of limitations on rape, kidnapping, or murder. And they all carry the death penalty.
To make this problem go away we need full disclosure nationally and a sufficient number of lawsuits so that most dioceses are bankrupted. At that point the Church should be materially poor and politically powerless and posed to become one again a credible spiritual institution. Just like Christ wanted it to be before Constantine got in the act.
While the “gay orientation” conversation is apropos and needed, isn’t the real elephant in the room ignored here?
That elephant is–regardless of PC definitions of sexual perversion–a multi-billion dollar international religious bureaucracy that empowered its employees to rape, molest, abuse, and destroy the lives of American children (among others, imagine what’s happening in the dioceses of lesser developed countries where these perverted demons serve…)
Not only did the religious bureaucracy empower these sexual crimes (normal sex or not, does it matter?), but the entire international religious bureaucracy created elaborate conspiracies to cover up their organized sexual crime operations.
It’s interesting to hear Christians (and allied neocon followers of Abraham) regularly malign other religions as suspect in their history–mostly centuries-old cultural practices of “marrying” pre-pubescent females. And yet their own churches are wallowing in the filth of disgusting, degraded, organized criminal conspiracies that procure, groom, and share innocent children for their perverted sexual practices–all known, implicitly condoned, covered up, empowered, and rewarded by the highest levels of the fabulously wealthy church hierarchy.
Mote meet log….
Physician, heal thyself.
Kent, the difference is we don’t teach that it’s ok and most everybody who isn’t involved is horrified beyond measure. Militant members of the other religion I’m sure you mean actually have complex rules governing their disordered desires as “ok under these circumstances”.
The church is not alone in this either. The public school system, the foster care system, Epstein’s machinations, etc. there is a general problem of horrifying proportions.
The only solution that no one wants to talk about is actually prosecuting what are actual crimes in a timely manner under the old rules of common law. Maybe bring back corporal punishment and the death penalty where warranted. There are no “rules” that work when we ignore the rules we already had. There is a lack of will to do what is necessary under a misapprehension that it is somehow “wrong” to do anything that might work. Even things that have been considered morally acceptable for basically all time.
All this only addresses the longstanding/ongoing physical abuse, and not the rampant, unsung mental abuse and manipulation that vulnerable, impressionistic children face at the hands of all manner of self-assured religionists and cultists, and their rituals.
“…Pope Francis on Monday [in late May 2018] said that men with “DEEPLY ROOTED” homosexual tendencies, or who “practice homosexual acts,” shouldn’t be allowed into the seminary. … “These tendencies, when they are ‘DEEPLY ROOTED,’ … can compromise the life of the seminary beyond that of the young man himself and his eventual future priesthood.”” [EMPHASIS added]
What is the criteria for establishing the boundaries of “deeply rooted”? Or, in the stated context, what are and are not “acts”?
The western church requires that its priests have disordered sexual desires, by demanding a vow of celibate chastity. A normal young man will not take such a vow, but the requirement may attract those who are horrified by their own proclivities, and hope that through this they can be buried. One of the priests in this latest story had molested and raped five sisters in one family, including an 18-month old girl. I hardly think the main problem is same-sex attraction.
“Militant members of the other religion I’m sure you mean actually have complex rules governing their disordered desires as “ok under these circumstances””
Actually, not. What you’re describing might be CULTURAL practices you’ve heard described by propagandists. There is NO SUCH practice sanctioned by the religion.
All Abrahamic religions have cults and sects that have justified perversion and abuse, and practiced perversion justified by some sort of religious interpretation.
The recent revelations in Pittsburgh are NOT about the practices of a perverted sect.
The tip of the iceberg revealed here is a comprehensive bureaucratic, organizational norm of rape, molestation, grooming, and abuse by members of the mainstream, international Catholic church. The perverts’ identities, practices, victims, locations, and full details were/are known by the international hierarchy and leadership–for decades (centuries?). And they did NOTHING! Worse, they helped the perverts elude justice.
So what if the official church teaching does not include raping little boys? If there are priests/lay leaders/bishops/cardinals raping little boys, and the church knows about it, covers it up, obfuscates, delays, that is the same as an official policy. In fact, it would be valid to say that raping little boys was a de facto recognized and approved church activity.
Pretending reality is not happening does not make it go away.
Here’s how Islam deals with rapists who prey on children:
““Mousa bin Saeed Ali al-Zahrani lured several underage girls and kidnapped them. He also threatened them and their relatives and physically assaulted them in his home,” said the report.
“He raped them, detained them, forced them to drink alcohol, and forced some to watch pornographic material.”
Sounds pretty much exactly what some of the priests were doing.
“SAUDI ARABIA: MAN EXECUTED FOR CHILD RAPE
November 16, 2009: in Taif, Saudi Arabia, Saad Al-Hathli was executed for kidnapping and raping two schoolboys at a remote area outside the city. His first victim was kidnapped, bound by rope and repeatedly raped. Al-Hathli then returned to the city and kidnapped another schoolboy and raped him. (Sources: Arab News, 17/11/2009)”
That sure sounds exactly like the crimes in Pittsburgh.
More dealing with perverts:
“SAUDI ARABIA EXECUTES FOUR PAKISTANIS FOR MURDER, RAPE (17%)
Saudi Arabia executed four Pakistani men convicted of raping and murdering a woman and raping her teenage son, the interior ministry said.”
You’re in Sam Harris territory now:
“It is no exaggeration to say that for decades (if not centuries) the Vatican has met the formal definition of a criminal organization, devoted not to gambling, prostitution, drugs, or any other venial sin, but to the sexual enslavement of children.”
I recommend the whole thing:
Michael Dowd wrote “Just like Christ wanted it to be”
I have a doubt that you know the mind of Jesus. But just in case you DO; feel free to start a church and join the thousands that have gone before you each thinking he or she knows the mind of Jesus.
Kent Clizbe writes “isn’t the real elephant in the room ignored here?”
It is likely that your own creation, the Real Elephant, is ignored (and not known to exist) by everyone but you. Perhaps you could start a blog called “Real Elephant”.
Seems it already exists: https://theelephant.blog/tag/invisible/
Many Real Elephants exist. Why should your Real Elephant get more attention than anyone elses?
“normal sex or not, does it matter?”
It matters to those for whom it matters.
I don’t know Sam Harris, but it does not take much imagination to fill in the story between the lines of these revelations.
There was a massive, organized, institutional conspiracy to protect these vicious child rapers to escape justice, continue their crimes, and be rewarded.
Truth is hard. But there it is.
SheckyR writes “at the hands of all manner of self-assured religionists and cultists, and their rituals.”
Presumably your solution, when you offer one, will not be “self assured”.
You lost me there, with both of your points. Guess that I’m a bit slow…
If you can’t see the elephant in the room, sorry. No need for a blog.
“Type of sex….”
It really does not matter whether the priests raped and molested boys (homosexual sex), or girls (normal sex).
The institutional conspiracy to empower the continuation of their perversions, and to cover-up and even reward them for their perversions is the story.
Hope that helps.
Ken asks “What is the criteria for establishing the boundaries of deeply rooted?”
My opinion, good as any I suppose, is whether a behavior is a “fad”, that is to say, not an intrinsic part of one’s personality but an experiment, ephemeral, as likely to abruptly go away as quickly as it arrived.
Deeply rooted has the same context as a weed with a tap-root; difficult to extract and you have to get to the ROOT.
“what are and are not acts?”
Behaviors, verbs, action; distinct from mere thoughts. If it involves doing something, then it is an act.
This distinction is important to those for whom it is important. Others consider the thought and the act to be identical in moral consequence.
Kent Clizbe, rapidly hoisting his virtue signals, writes “All Abrahamic religions have cults and sects that have justified perversion and abuse, and practiced perversion justified by some sort of religious interpretation.”
They do when you are the one defining what is a perversion, otherwise not so much. It is wise to say little of one’s behavior today since 20 years from now even you might be deemed a pervert.
“And they did NOTHING!”
I believe it was more than nothing but I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to quibble over it. Fortunately I am surrounded by commenters whose knowledge, wisdom and virtue appears infinite.
20 years ago anal sex was illegal in the armed forces of the United States. Now that very same thing gets you marriage benefits in the same armed forces.
I’m not sure if we’re speaking the same language, or maybe you’re talking about some other case that I’m not aware of.
Just to clarify, Briggs’ article was about (although it is not explicitly mentioned) the recent revelations that the Pennsylvania Catholic church was, in effect, a child sex grooming, rape, and abuse cult run by and for Catholic officials.
“Bishops and other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Pennsylvania covered up child sexual abuse by more than 300 priests over a period of 70 years, persuading victims not to report the abuse and law enforcement not to investigate it, according to a searing report issued by a grand jury on Tuesday.”
“They did NOTHING.” Good thing you’re not aware of what you’re writing about. I am. Happy to provide you with details. Just ask.
They did do more than nothing. They empowered. They conducted an international conspiracy to cover-up the rapes, and to reward the criminals.
Raping boys and girls entrusted to you for spiritual development was wrong and illegal 70 years ago. It’s wrong and illegal today. It was wrong and illegal the whole time the conspiracy was conducted.
Nothing to do with changes in the armed forces.
Kent Clizbe writes “Here’s how Islam deals with rapists who prey on children”
You fail to mention that only certain classes of women and children enjoy any protection under Islam. Do Christian children enjoy those protections in Islamic nations? It seems they do not. Perhaps you could choose examples tuned more to Western culture.
Kent Clizbe writes “If you can’t see the elephant in the room, sorry. No need for a blog.”
Yes, there is no elephant in my room. There may be one in yours. Whether anyone needs a blog is not for you or me to say. If you feel a need to start a blog, then do so. Otherwise you, and I, can continue to use someone else’s blog.
“It really does not matter whether the priests raped and molested boys (homosexual sex), or girls (normal sex).”
It would be more accurate to insert “to me” after “it does not matter”. It matters to those for whom it matters. As it happens, it matters to me, but I see that it does not matter to you.
Okay, I was wrong. It’s not that we don’t speak the same language. It’s that we are living in different realities.
“You fail to mention that only certain classes of women and children enjoy any protection under Islam. Do Christian children enjoy those protections in Islamic nations? It seems they do not.”
It seems….seems to whom? You? Why?
Yes, those protections apply to all women and children under Islam.
Again, perversions of the law occur, but are not the realm of the religion, but of CULTURAL issues.
There is nothing inherent in Islam that encourages such crimes, just as there is nothing inherent in Catholicism that does either. The Catholic church’s CULTURE has become a perversion of the religion.
There’s nothing inherent in Judaism that encourages child rape, however, its organizations have been used to create a “Child Rape Assembly Line:”
You may want to widen your exposure to reality.
Kent Clizbe writes “Nothing to do with changes in the armed forces.”
And yet you saw fit to introduce Islamic justice into a conversation about Catholic crimes. I sense that there is indeed an elephant in your room.
Thanks for the conversation. I’ll have to let you go on without me from here, thanks.
“Whether anyone needs a blog is not for you or me to say. If you feel a need to start a blog, then do so. Otherwise you, and I, can continue to use someone else’s blog.”
I have a blog, and you’re welcome to read it. Click on my name–there’s a link to it there.
Kent, it suddenly clicked into place, your elephant is filled with secrets and so are you. It is a weight that nobody can lift. Suddenly you have my sympathy. But it *is* your elephant and not mine.
“And yet you saw fit to introduce Islamic justice into a conversation about Catholic crimes.”
Yeah, but I didn’t. I simply pointed out the rank hypocrisy of the neocon babblers constantly maligning other religions when their own halls of worship are fetid swamps of sick degradation:
“It’s interesting to hear Christians (and allied neocon followers of Abraham) regularly malign other religions as suspect in their history–mostly centuries-old cultural practices of “marrying” pre-pubescent females. And yet their own churches are wallowing in the filth of disgusting, degraded, organized criminal conspiracies that procure, groom, and share innocent children for their perverted sexual practices–all known, implicitly condoned, covered up, empowered, and rewarded by the highest levels of the fabulously wealthy church hierarchy.
Mote meet log….
Physician, heal thyself.”
Americans are fed a steady diet of nonsense by foreign influencers about horrible things happening in foreign countries by targeted groups, enemies of the influencers.
Yet at the same time, Americans ignore or justify, or minimize real, horrible, nearly unimaginable crimes perpetrated right here in River City.
If you don’t understand elephant metaphors, sorry about that.
It’s hypocritical to bemoan dirt in foreign houses when your own is filthy.
I seem to recall a congressional study about a decade ago on sexual abuse of students in public schools and I believe they estimated that 10% of students were sexually abused. That is millions of students. I don’t recall any big headlines in the WaPo about pedophile teachers. I cannot find this study now.
No breaking news breaks without a reason, and this news is quite old. Could it be to smear a Catholic Supreme Court nominee?
PK says “this news is quite old.” The report of the Attorney General was released yesterday.
Yeah, okay, THAT elephant.
Kent is only mostly right: “There was a massive, organized, institutional conspiracy to protect these vicious child rapers to escape justice, continue their crimes, and be rewarded.”
Change “was” to “is” and he is all right. Have we forgotten McCarrick already? Do we think it doesn’t exist anywhere else because it hasn’t yet been reported on?
Clearing out the bad blood via normal methods hasn’t worked, and won’t work.
As for the rest, think of this analogy, that if the same thing happened in police departments (or public schools, as it does, at high rates). We’d want to clean out the muck and mire, but eliminating the institutions wouldn’t and couldn’t be considered (though there’s an external case to be made for schools). And in the case of the Church, removing it is an impossibility.
‘elephant in the room’
Predatory behaviors, and institutional protections of the offenders is pretty bad, evil. But that should go without saying…
What’s curious is how much both the Left and Right/Religious concur in NOT exploring WHY individuals have such “orientations”.
The Left strives to assign normalcy to LBGT “orientations” as ‘alternative’ lifestyles, etc. The reasons are clear — if a causal factor(s) is identified along the lines of some kind of damage (e.g. a psychological defense mechanism via highly toxic/dysfunctional early child-rearing) then normalcy is out of the question and LBGT (or whatever the abbreviation is) are all somewhere on a continuum of mentally handicapped victims that includes predators. Very unsavory that.
The religious Right is similarly anti-science about exploring why — the evidence increasingly supports the conclusion that “choice” in the orientations and resulting behaviors (when consensual) are non-voluntary, not much different than being born that way or being a victim [depending on how one cares to perceive the outcome]. That contrasts with the Bible-based view held by many of the faithful that choice is involved. If/when the evidence shows that LGBTs are made that way (birth or by mental abuses during formative upbringing) a core tenet of faith will be proven false — and there’s a greater chance of that happening, soon, than proving evolution (another dire threat to a belief system that motivates many to hostility to science).
Obviously, many religious, and many religious doctrines are evolving to accommodate the LGBT communities, which illustrates the malleability of religious doctrine, and, the increasingly wide diversity of mutually incompatible doctrines all claiming to be “Christian.”
As long as so-called, vs bona fide, “Christian” doctrinal values are all tolerated under the banner of “Christian values” and the like, the kind of social re-engineering well underway is sure to continue. To stop that re-engineering, and certainly to reverse it, the diversity of accepted heresies must be contained and then eliminated. False doctrines must go. But nobody is willing to broach that much less do anything about it. At least from the “Christian” community, which with very rare exception is more than willing to embrace all comers waving the “Christian” banner, even when their so-called “Christian” values are heresies.
I thank Kent Clizbe for his diamond-hard and accurate comments. And for his patient responses.
Matt’s substitution of “is” for “was” in one of Kent’s comments is equally accurate — with one proviso. How far back goes this “is”?
We now know that “is/was,” in America at least, goes at least as far back as the episcopate of Francis Cardinal “Franny” Spellman, the very powerful archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967. I recommend reading this March 2, 2018 piece by (Ms.) Randy Engel. Here are just a few quotes from that article.
Nobody seems to know the extent of this horror within the entire universal Catholic Church, nor how long it has been going on. It’s now clear that within Belgium, Italy, and Germany, the answer is decades (at least).
But Kent goes too far in one sentence: “…rewarded by the highest levels of the fabulously wealthy church hierarchy.”
In this day and age, many members of the church hierarchy are not “fabulously wealthy.” Yes, the German bishops are. And some Italians. Some Americans. Some Latin Americans. That’s about it.
Thanks. I appreciate that. I was starting to think that my linguistic faculties had failed me.
Not to be argumentative, but, I don’t think I went far enough with ““…rewarded by the highest levels of the fabulously wealthy church hierarchy.”
I did not mean individuals, but rather the church bureaucracy hierarchy–the parishes, dioceses, up to the Vatican.
“An investigation by the Economist estimated that the American Catholic church alone – which has the fourth largest follower base by country, behind Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines – spent $170bn in 2010 on things like healthcare, schools and parishes.
“Money flows in from individual donations from Catholics, government grants, the church’s own investments and corporate donors.
“According to Georgetown University, the average weekly donation of an American Catholic to the church is $10. There are 85 million in North America, meaning each week the Catholic Church pulls in $850m through donations from individual Catholics.”
How just and fitting it is that they are exempt from the burden of property taxes, as well as any other form of taxation. For we all understand that they abstain from any form of political activity, or anything else that might call in to question their religious exemption, and surely deserve to benefit in our infrastructure, the protection of our military, and everything else that the rest of us are only too glad to pay for without their help.
Is the commission of wickedness in the name of God the greatest sin?
The Church has lied — borne false witness — in the name of God, as an institution, for decades if not hundreds of years. It has used its sacred authority to commit and conceal acts of palpable Evil.
The religion is sound, but the Church has violated — transgressed wilfully– divine law under the false cover of that religion.
Can, indeed should, the Church remain, or will it, should it, dissolve itself in penance?
Kent Clizbe should have stopped with ‘Thanks’.
First, he pulls the rhetorical stunt, “Not to be argumentative…”, and then does just that.
Then, he special-pleads that the word “hierarchy” doesn’t mean what it means (the bishops as individuals, and perhaps abbots and abbesses, too), because he’d like it to mean… what?
There are 178 Catholic dioceses in the US. Each diocese has many parishes, so there are many churches, schools, etc. So: “hierarchy” means every single one of the thousands of American Catholic schools, churches? And just to heat these and turn on the lights in all those places costs… what? Is that “wealth”?
Then as proof of the “immense wealth” just oozing out of these buildings, and HVAC systems, and out of the “immense” salaries and benefits of parish secretaries, janitors, and so forth, he quotes an article in the ‘authoritative’ ibtimes?
Many pastors report the weekly donations in the bulletin. Most Catholics have seen these. You see weekly collection totals c. $2000-$4000. That’s every last cent put in the basket in the parish that week. Yes, some parishes are well-off. A lot are just not.
Knowledgeable Catholics are indeed extremely concerned with the truly gigantic government sums funneled through diocesan programs (for “immigrants” in particular). These sums so dwarf contributions from the faithful that some Catholics have openly worried that even ordinary Catholics cutting off every red cent in protest at episcopal wrong-doing wouldn’t affect the average diocese very much at all.
Who knows if that’s true, but “immense wealth” from the donations of the US Catholic faithful? It is to laugh. (“Immense wealth” is for Germany — where the government collects the “Church tax” directly, from anyone and everyone who files as a “Catholic”).
We all owe Mr. Clizbe a debt of gratitude for the crystalline way he summarized a great evil in the Catholic Church.
But in his follow-up, he should have stuck with “Thanks.”
Sorry to disappoint you–but I’m just a man!
No special pleading–just a clarification of the meaning of a hastily typed message.
Again, not talking about any individuals (although I’ve never seen a member of the Catholic brotherhood starving, and many/most live pretty doggone well), but about the organization/institution.
Try reading that IB article again–in the US alone, the Catholic church hierarchy collects, just in tithes, $850 MILLION a WEEK! Tax free revenue.
Then look at those federal, state, and local government programs shoveling money into the coffer.
Then look at real estate. Then look at bequests. And on, and on, and on.
Yes, the Catholic church, in the USA and around the world is fabulously wealthy! Like it, or not!
And again, that’s not meant to be argumentative, but to point out the reality of the situation.
Sorry to have perturbed you!
All the best.
Islam allows for the rape and murder of your own slaves. It is not permitted to rape or murder another man’s slaves, unless invited to do so.
Islam permits the rape of male children, as long as their father agrees. Neighbors normally trade their little boys with each other.
Islam permits a man to kill his wives and children. They are his personal property to do with as he sees fit.
Islam bans homosexuality. It also narrowly defines that not as sexual relations among men, but as romantic love between men.
Islam forbids the rape of a woman or girl. It also holds the woman or girl to be at fault for enticing the man, except in very specific circumstances. Rape is very narrowly defined, as men are generally not expected to control themselves. The normal penalty for a man raping a girl is to be forced to marry her, assuming she wasn’t killed for having sex outside of marriage.
Islam specifically permits the robbery, rape, and murder of all non-believers who are not the slaves of the faithful. Dhimmis (non-believers who live in Muslim occupied lands) pay a special tax to be allowed to live in relative peace, and have some rights. Until the local Imams decide they don’t. The tax usually escalates to force the Dhimmi families to sell some or all of their children into slavery in order to survive.
Islam specifically permits and encourages the enslavement of non-believers.
Please provide sources for your assertions.
If these assertions are not from your own fevered imagination, then you are being sadly misled by someone with ulterior motives.
Have you considered reaching out to Castalia House to publish your next book rather than go with a left-wing mainstream publisher?
Money Money Money, money, money money money, ahem,m`oney money, Money,
Money money MONEy! To the infinite power, in the mathematical sense.
chicken chicken chicken, is that how the spell goes?
Everybody’s looking for somebody to blame as if they’re all part of the thing.
Kent’s wrong about islam, although it’s a normal thing for him to defend it often as it is tied to his ideas on neocons and the military. His justification is quite sound, I’m sure.
He’s bang on right about the church organisations. There are plenty of hangers on associated with powerful churches who aren’t part of the clergy. Those people are fabulously wealthy and so what? If they aren’t involved in scandal or criminal activity they’re only culpable by their inaction if they have knowledge of criminal activity and don’t report it.
If churches announced audited expenses then overheads would be taken into account.
However, these things are easy enough to estimate. It’s not the little parishes that keep the money, it’s higher up! It’s not only the higher levels which indulge in rape of children and women, but smaller parishes where upward reporting may not happen, as it’s the end of the chain.
There are people supplying a lot of money to churches where money doesn’t filter down. Just like all charities which become enormous. They tend towards laziness, dereliction of original aims, corrupt and self serving, to maintain accretions and inefficiencies.
The thing Kent was pointing out was about rape of females, little girls.
He isn’t right about Islam and it’s treatment of women; and that it is a direct threat to western culture let alone Christianity. That threat being contained with a non interventionist approach and a belief in nation state, which some say is anti-Christian (when their denomination isn’t doing it and as long as they themselves are protected by brave military men.
Under religious sharia courts women do not have the same protections as men. Rape cases require three women to every one man’s testimony.
The faith is founded on a man who married an eight year old girl. No eight year old girl is of child bearing age. The human body doesn’t change, it’s society that’s changes, and attitudes. Affairs of the heart.
A LITTLE girl has infinite value as does a little boy.
I don’t think Kent has deep dark, criminal secrets and that was odd. If he did, he wouldn’t be going anywhere near public discussions on the matter.
..but then I don’t think Michael 2 is a neocon varmint, either. He could be a plain and common or garden varmint, although I found him to be a sweetie.
It’s more internet Alice court type behaviour.
Neocon is a very vague and pretty meaningless term.
It’s still in the “it means what people say it means” era.
Nobody ever says what they really mean because there isn’t the space.
Sloppy moderns again!
There are no such creatures but there’s a lot of nazi spotting, rapist spotting, you name the demon and people spot them. Kent wasn’t calling Michael a Neocon but it’s his trigger word.
People do hold some very wrong views and can justify almost anything if the first conviction is wrong.
It means something very different in different parts of the world, too. Here, just people who believe in military intervention overseas. As if this kind of thing were always a dogmatic yes or no.
Demon spotting is hysterical and usually a feminine or left wing tendency. Even his Royal Highness the King of Briggendom has been known to think like a girl or dress like a chicken.
That’s very kind of you, Joy, thanks. Neocons really have nothing to do with this discussion, but yes, I do despise the havoc they’ve wreaked on what was once the conservative side of American politics. For their hubristic destruction of the Republican party, and intentional destruction of the meaning of “conservative,” they deserve scorn, derision, and deportation to the nest of their foreign sponsor.
On the other hand, can you please share your sources for your insights into the details of Islamic thought, belief, and practice?
Comparative religions? Party politics? The size of the coffers?
How about discussing MORALITY and GOD? Child rape by allegedly Christian Men of God was the topic. But I suppose it’s all relative from the situational ethics perspective.
Repent while you still can…
Amen, Uncle Mike!
That is the elephant in the room!
Does it matter what the sex of the children were that this organized pedophile ring were raping?
Does it matter whether the ordained Catholic clergy who set up a massive covert operation to defile innocent children felt they were born that way, or were just perverts?
No! The story is that this was/is a massive pedophile ring operated by an international organization masquerading as a religious institution, with extensive operations across the whole USA.
All the rest is just smoke blown up nether orifices to obfuscate and ignore.
1. I don’t know Sam Harris (do you know of him? … if not … Wow!
2. Watch anything by David Wood on Islam AND the Koran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7YpuGby7k
3. You have to forgive David for his style: He is a diagnosed sociopath.
On Islam and the Koran
About David’s style: You’ve got to understand, David Wood is a diagnosed Sociopath.
He’s got a lot to say on the subject
Feel free to ignore him but he does go to the source
Thanks for sharing, L. Ron.
I live in the real world. Reality. Not a hothouse debating society of Youtube babblers. That dude’s puerile point-counter-point would make for great sophomoric dorm chatter. The real world is much different from a sophomore’s dorm, however.
I’ve lived in multiple Islamic countries, seen them from the inside–good and bad. I’ve lived in multiple Catholic (or ex-Catholic) countries, and grew up in a Christian (or ex-Christian) country, seen them from the inside–good and bad.
The fevered imaginings of enslaving Christians, trading children, and the literary deconstruction of scriptures are silly and do not comport with reality on the ground.
All religions have positives and negatives. All three Abrahamic religions can be utterly demolished by quoting their scriptures, verse by verse. As can other religions.
No religion is practiced in a vacuum. Cultures have an immense impact on the practice of any religion. The manifestation of any religion’s beliefs and practices varies based on the “host culture.” African Christianity is very different from Icelandic Christianity. Burmese Buddhism is very different from Japanese Buddhism.
All three Abrahamic religions have seen gross perversions of their tenets by various cultures.
Numerous crimes and perversions have been carried out, in the past, and even today, in the name of all three Abrahamic religions–including rape, torture, murder, slavery, and more.
Yet none of them condones these practices.
So, back to reality.
There are those with ulterior motives whose mission is to tear down either an enemy religion, or a religion that they left.
Just as the Pennsylvania pedophile network in the Catholic church does not invalidate the beautiful message and practices of Christianity, neither do examples of mis-behavior by Muslims invalidate that religion’s core message and practices.
The key is to examine the whole of the religion, and its belief system, and its application in a variety of cultures.
I believe that the only modern major religion that is rotten to the core, based on fundamentally sick principles, intended to defraud its adherents, leading to actual slavery, abuse of all kinds, is Scientology.
All the best.
“The story is that this was/is a massive pedophile ring operated by an international organization masquerading as a religious institution, with extensive operations across the whole USA.”
How long before we see various countries beginning to ban the Roman Catholic Church as a criminal organization, as Germany has banned Scientology?
Lee Phillips writes “How just and fitting it is that they are exempt from the burden of property taxes”
Well there’s an interesting concept that ties in (somehow) to a discussion on homosexuality!
“the rest of us are only too glad to pay for without their help.”
Who is “they” that have paid no taxes? I pay taxes and then I go to church. Why should my dollars, already taxed, be taxed again? Ah, but that’s socialism. They were never my dollars.
Kent Clizbe, commenting on homosexuality, reveals “each week the Catholic Church pulls in $850m through donations from individual Catholics.”
Thank you for that bit of trivia.
Ken writes, it is more of an observation but clearly intended to elicit further comments:
“What’s curious is how much both the Left and Right/Religious concur in NOT exploring WHY individuals have such orientations.”
It is not curious to me. Since it is curious to you, perhaps you have an answer. I already have an answer. My friend from California when he was barely reaching puberty, and living in a very small town, had a sexual experience with a girl. He felt so guilty about it that he vowed never to touch another girl again, and he didn’t, so far as I know. But boys weren’t prohibited; in fact, sex between boys wasn’t even mentioned in those days. And that’s how it came to be for him. Humans are not far removed from dogs in being Pavlovian; reward and punishment. The punishment of guilt and the reward of oxytocin. Pretty soon you believe, you KNOW, that’s the only way to obtain pleasure and avoid punishment. That a better pleasure exists you will never discover.
“The religious Right is similarly anti-science about exploring why”
Not quite correct. The religious right is not anti-science; rather, there’s no reason to study a thing when the reasons are already known. To be “religious” is to study rightness, of which there is only one, rather than “wrongness” which is nearly infinite in variety and thus serves no purpose.
“the evidence increasingly supports the conclusion that choice in the orientations and resulting behaviors (when consensual) are non-voluntary”
Sheep, in other words, totally incapable of not acting on their impulses. That necessarily includes you (and me, for that matter). My orientations and choices are also non-voluntary and you’d better start showing some tolerance of my intolerance!
“If/when the evidence shows that LGBTs are made that way (birth or by mental abuses during formative upbringing) a core tenet of faith will be proven false”
You seem to presume upon the existence of a single reason that applies to everyone LGBTQIRS1040. Where is *your* science? I know quite a bit of science about this; for instance a pregnant woman exposed to environmental estrogen from the 7th to the 9th week of gestation will feminize a male fetus. A widespread source of environmental estrogen is pesticides, widely used in California’s central valleys. I’ll let you connect the dots.
“Obviously, many religious, and many religious doctrines are evolving to accommodate the LGBT communities, which illustrates the malleability of religious doctrine”
A believe that Apple Mac is superior to MS Windows is “religious doctrine”. Religions tend to be malleable; I suspect God is not.
“the kind of social re-engineering well underway is sure to continue.”
Well duh, it started well before Plato and ancient Greece. Its current incarnation dates more or less from Karl Marx.
“Why should my dollars, already taxed, be taxed again?”
That’s kind of an odd question, unless you are unfamiliar with how taxes work. It’s not as if a dollar bill gets a stamp on it when taxed, and is ever thereafter immune from additional taxation. If I’m paid a dollar for some work, I pay income taxes on that. If I pay what’s left to someone else for some work, he then pays income taxes on that. The other kind of taxation I mentioned, property tax, has nothing to do with income. Leaving aside the question of whether these taxes are good public policy at all, they are raised, usually, at the county level from owners of property to fund schools and other local expenses. The Church owns vast tracts of valuable land all over the country, but gets a free ride, because of religious privilege. The rest of us need to pay higher rates to subsidize the freeloading Church.
Lee Phillips asks “How long before we see various countries beginning to ban the Roman Catholic Church as a criminal organization, as Germany has banned Scientology?”
What is this, an office pool betting on when Nicaragua bans the RCC?
Germany, the former Holy Roman Empire itself, is unlikely to be first in line.
Kent Clizbe writes “I live in the real world. Reality.”
No. You live in your world. Here you are words on a computer screen, a Turing test where I guess whether you are real and as glorious as you claim to be.
But I take your meaning. You presume to be omniscient; seeing all, seeing Reality; which is a thing in which you alone excel.
“Not a hothouse debating society of Youtube babblers.”
Thank you for judging this blog to be superior to that!
“I’ve lived in multiple Islamic countries, seen them from the inside–good and bad. I’ve lived in multiple Catholic (or ex-Catholic) countries, and grew up in a Christian (or ex-Christian) country, seen them from the inside–good and bad.”
Yeah, more boasting. It can even be true; but here on the blog, they’re just words, existing to establish your superiority, and maybe it does, but probably not.
“All three Abrahamic religions can be utterly demolished by quoting their scriptures, verse by verse.”
Oh? Perhaps your idea of “demolish” needs revising.
Kent :: Just as the Pennsylvania pedophile network in the Catholic church does not invalidate the beautiful message and practices of Christianity, neither do examples of mis-behavior by Muslims invalidate that religion’s core message and practices.
That is sort of B as in B, S as in S that David Wood argues against.
Kent :: I believe that the only modern major religion that is rotten to the core, based on fundamentally sick principles, intended to defraud its adherents, leading to actual slavery, abuse of all kinds, is Scientology.
Thanks for taking the bait (I am not nor have I ever been a Scientologist, I only play one on this blog). Of the “Abrahamic” religions, you could probably relate Islam closest to Scientology, both are “locked” and I mean “locked” on a single human source of revelation.
If you don’t follow the words of either man, you are either not a true Muslim or not a true Scientologist. (The same thing is true of Christians who stand and fall only on the words of Paul – even though Paul would reject that kind of lockstep thinking – IMHO.) So there is a major problem with sources that lock us either in the mid-Twentieth Century, the Seventh Century or the First Century.
As a practitioner of applied anthropology, I prefer actually doing my own field research. I’ve lived and worked in multiple majority Islamic countries, and regions, in the last 35 years.
If you can’t do your own field work, good sources of ethnographies of Islamic culture include, books by Sir Richard Burton: “Burton’s best-known achievements include: a well-documented journey to Mecca in disguise, at a time when Europeans were forbidden access on pain of death; an unexpurgated translation of One Thousand and One Nights (commonly called The Arabian Nights…”
And T.E. Lawrence, “Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, CB, DSO (16 August 1888 – 19 May 1935) was a British archaeologist, military officer, diplomat, and writer. He was renowned for his liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.”
Youtubers? Not so much.
Joy writes: “I don’t think Kent has deep dark, criminal secrets and that was odd. If he did, he wouldn’t be going anywhere near public discussions on the matter.”
I merely wrote “secrets”; nothing criminal is implied. He claims to have been employed by the CIA and if so then he has many secrets even if, or especially if, he was just a janitor rummaging through the garbage that someone forgot to shred.
The weight of those secrets which you are not permitted to reveal to anyone can be substantial. It creates a desire to remove that weight and so you talk as close as you can get without violating your non-disclosure agreement. If someone guesses your secret that weight is somewhat removed because you feel less alone in the world.
Actual spooks sometimes have to violate ethics; lying is routine. A career of that produces a person so adept at lying that such person can, and probably does, lose grounding in what is real and true. This is revealed by an usual interest in proclaiming reality; you proclaim what is on your mind and for most people “reality” just is; you don’t talk about “reality” you talk about dogs and dinosaurs or whatever (just as I chose those examples; neighbor’s puppies and the recent dinosaur movie on my mind). But when your sense of reality is uncertain then reality itself becomes a topic.
“but then I don’t think Michael 2 is a neocon varmint, either. He could be a plain and common or garden varmint”
Thank you; I hope never to be common but there’s something cute and cuddly about “varmints”.
Kent does present us with an interesting metaphor for believing a priest speaks for God. How can anyone know that Kent was employed by the CIA? We probably cannot; it is a *claim* and only another person versed in CIA could unravel the truth. So it is with God and priests. Anyone can claim to speak for God; how can we know? Usually we cannot; it is by comparison with my experiences that I conclude that you, too, have had a conversation with God. It would seem to be impossible but I believe that if God considered it important, that a way would exist. This “way” is known only to you, a secret which you have told no one and you don’t even THINK it; then along comes God himself, or a messenger, and declares that secret or answers a question you know that no human can answer. So it was for me.
Salon tells us the real cause of all this abuse is……Patriarchy!
L Ron Hubbard alias John B() writes “…is Scientology.”
I was in Seattle going to visit the Pacific Science Center via monorail. On one side of the street I was snared by the Hare Krishna’s. Not a total loss, I bought for a cheap price a Bagavad Gita; beautiful artwork and mildly interesting stories but I didn’t read the whole thing. Anyway, on my way back I avoided the Hare Krishnas and ran smack dab into the Scientologists. I went along to see what it was; participated in an Oxford Capacity Analysis that told me I was a lonely geek but I already knew that . They offered to fix it for $50 an hour of auditing. I get the fix for free, more or less, from church. I also bought a “Dianetics” book for $3. Haven’t read it. Anyway, for the next year I received a hand written letter every week.
“So there is a major problem with sources that lock us either in the mid-Twentieth Century, the Seventh Century or the First Century.”
Agreed. An immortal God should not need to rely through all eternity on a single instance of a man saying or writing something.
Lee Phillips writes “The rest of us need to pay higher rates to subsidize the freeloading Church.”
Freeloading? What burden does Church place on society? I pay property tax so my children can go to school. I pay gasoline taxes so I can drive on roads built by governments. Church has no children and drives on no roads.
No 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code organization pays federal tax. Perhaps your animosity is specific to Church. Odd that you do not complain about *them* but perhaps elsewhere you do.
Here’s a splendid example of cognitive dissonance expressed by someone who can’t face a potential threat to a cherished belief:
A tentative forecast of what might happen (not what will happen) is posed: “If/when the evidence shows that …[a particular theological basis for a particular belief will be proven false].”
An irrational (illogical) emotional overreaction is provoked: “You seem to presume upon the existence of a single reason that applies to everyone ….. Where is *your* science?”
Michael 2 : Anyway, for the next year I received a hand written letter every week
WoW! You only hear about those things … which I’m doing now … (it’s been reported that Scientologists who have been “out” for decades and moved numerous times without providing forwarding information are still pestered to “get back on course”) … scary …
I’ve actually yet to meet a Scientologist … that might be a good thing …
Regarding your remark to Joy
even if, or especially if, he was just a janitor rummaging through the garbage that someone forgot to shred. … Actual spooks sometimes have to violate ethics; lying is routine. A career of that produces a person so adept at lying that such person can, and probably does, lose grounding in what is real and true
When it comes to Scientology, they do have a “system of ethics”, but that ONLY applies to other Scientologists … (and even then) … If you find your self an “enemy” of the Church, there is always “Fair Game”
Fair Game :: “Fair Game” is a policy letter issued by L. Ron Hubbard in 1967 (ref: HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV) called “Penalties for Lower Conditions” which states that if someone is found to be an enemy of the CoS, they should be handled like this: “SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
Scientology managed one of the most successful infiltrations of the FBI ever, infiltrating as janitors and low-level secretaries. They almost got Paulette Cooper convicted of Terroristic threats, weeks or maybe days before the FBI discovered the plot through an FBI raid of the church.
Paulette wrote one of the first books critical of Scientology.
See tonyortega.org for all things Scientology
Evidently, all the bible study, praying, God worshiping, weekly preaching, etc., didn’t cure those pedophile and rapist priests of their evilness, and instead seem to have granted them more power over their potential victims, young victims. Evil.
Michael 2 doubles down on his confusion about how taxes work in the United States:
“ I pay property tax so my children can go to school”.
No, you pay it because you are legally required to. If you rented an apartment and were not required to pay property tax, that would have no effect on your rights to use the public schools. And those with real property but no children, or who send theirs to private school, have to pay the same rates as those with children in public school. I’m not defending the system, just describing it.
Freeloading: I thought I gave enough examples to justify this. If you get the benefit of something that others are paying for without contributing yourself, you are a freeloader. The church and its personnel benefit from the protection of our armed forces just as all of us do, use the public infrastructure, etc., but do not help to pay for it.
“No 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code organization pays federal tax.”
Yes, I know. That the Church doesn’t pay taxes was sort of the point (local and state, too). I’m on the board of directors of a 501(c)(3). We are very careful to ensure that our activities and behavior do not disqualify us from this status at the federal and state level, and we need to complete lengthy paperwork to remain certified. Hiding child rapers from the law, political lobbying, etc., would disqualify us. But the RCC gets a pass. This is what I mean by religious privilege.
“What burden does Church place on society?”
This one is way, way too easy.
While I am glad that these clerical deviant predators are in the spotlight and should be dealt a grievous blow I can’t help wondering just how many of them are really Catholics and not apostates lurking in the Catholic fold. You see, anyone pretending to be Catholic but being a member of an hostile sect (such as the Freemasons) is automatically excommunicate because one can’t be both a Catholic and an avowed enemy of Catholicism.
There are plenty of all sorts of predators who are not “Catholic” clerics but they are never identified by their affiliations unless they can be dubbed Catholic.
Now, the Catholic Church has very definite laws (entirely ignored these days) regarding normal sexual behaviour (specifically with regard to clerics and religious) that “cry to Heaven for vengeance” which require that any cleric (and, presumably, religious) who is accused and found guilty should be immediately “irregularised” (forbidden to act in the name of the Church) and be handed over to the secular authorities even if the penalty is death.
The elephant in the room is the arcane loyalties of these supposed “Catholics”.
Olddavid is right. The thousands of priests organized into child-rape gangs protected by bishops, etc., are not really Catholic, because no true Catholic would do such things. Therefore there is no problem of child abuse in the Catholic church.
Lee Phillips writes “because no true Catholic would do such things. Therefore there is no problem of child abuse in the Catholic church.”
Clarity! Much depends on what one means by “church” and it is a word that can change meaning mid-paragraph.
“I’m not defending the system, just describing it.”
Indeed, and property taxes are largely (in my town) for the operation of schools. If I rent an apartment, the landlord is paying the property tax. There have been attempts to ALSO charge the renter in some states. Easterners, particularly Maryland, bleed taxes and fees from more things than I would have thought possible. Those that don’t like it are free to leave, and so I did.
“The church and its personnel benefit from the protection of our armed forces just as all of us do, use the public infrastructure, etc., but do not help to pay for it.”
If by “church” we mean the buildings, they didn’t ask for armed forces protection. If by “church” you mean people, they pay taxes and enjoy police and armed forces protection.
I can see a grey area that you hint at but might have made more express. The police *might* at times extend protection to a church building even though the building pays no taxes. What might justify that behavior? It is because the people that attend that building pay taxes and wish it protected. The slightly negligible cost of adding this building to the roster of police protection is paid for by taxes, including taxes on people that do not attend that building.
But as you point out, taxes are not finely targeted; childless couples pay school tax. In a libertarian world, these errors of apportion would not happen. Those who wanted a building would pay for it. If those same persons wanted the police to watch over that building they would pay a fee to the police for that express purpose. But all that fee paying is inefficient. In my home town about 100 years ago were three (maybe as many as five) distinct electric service companies, each with its own source of power (three dams on the river, each owned by a different utility!) and transmission lines. Wires everywhere. It was dangerous, inefficient, but “free market” in the extreme.
So the citizens of this red town in a red state decided a BIT of blue was okay and converted electric power distribution into a municipal activity. People still pay as though it were a company; you pay for what you use and not for what your neighbor uses.
In Alaskan towns (some anyway and a few decades ago so not sure it is still that way) you subscribe to a fire protection company; or not. The problem ought to be obvious; you subscribe but your neighbor did not. His house is burning and it’s going to burn to the ground and it might take yours with it. Where risk cannot be confined to one’s own property I can see justification for municipal services and enforced participation through the paying of taxes.
Now we extend that to a church (building). It does typically use a small portion of municipal services, water, sewer and garbage. Presumably the custodian of the church pays the city appropriate fees for these services, it is certainly the case in my town. From other discussions on this topic it appears to be fairly common as the Catholic church struggles to pay these fees for services.
So it remains unclear to me what exactly you believe is “freeloading”. It *is* clear to me that you don’t like Catholics and rarely miss an opportunity to belittle Catholic, and probably other religions but others are seldom here mentioned.
Now if they or any organized religion were to pay “taxes” then suddenly that organization gets a political voice. Those taxes aren’t on revenue; they would be on *profit*. How much profit do you suppose exists? Some here seem to think its enormous and by taxing churches all this nations debt woes would vanish. That’s impossible of course; if every dollar ever printed was returned to the government you’d only pay off the principal of the debt; how now are you going to pay the interest? Plainly, you cannot; the “debt” cannot be repaid. But that’s a different topic.
“you don’t like Catholics”
Nonsense. Tons of Catholic friends and family. But the discussion here was about crimes committed by the RCC. Your objection to the concept of freeloading is equivalent to the 13-year-old screaming that she didn’t “ask to be born.” I was pointing out the religious privilege that allows the RCC as an institution to escape taxes even while engaging in political activity and systemic, organized crime that would disqualify a non-religious nonprofit, and that has in fact at least put in jeopardy the non-taxable status of less powerful churches.
If Kent was in the CIA he’ll know my sources.
Threat? Or Sharia? Sharia is allowed to be interpreted loosely) according to Ex muslim victims and proponents.
Islamic countries contain human beings who are innately endowed with a moral capacity.
The problem is not muslims, they are the potential conduit for the barbaric, uncivilised practices and euphemistically called radicals by apologists for the faith based behaviour.
Yes criminals can be prosecuted but Sharia law is neither a supplement or a replacement for western nation’s laws. Nations cannot share two laws for separate citizens under that law.
The problem is Islam, the philosophy,
Source? of which is The Quran.
That’s the elephant in the room.
The Quran is an occult (hidden, secret) book.
What to do about it is debatable but there’s no escaping the threat is there in the text, like a spell that can’t be broken WItH the belief that it contains the actual, written words of God.
The bible contains the work of God. It is inspired BY him. Huge difference.
This is in my view WHY the book is treated like a sacred thing. Kept high, out of reach, physically and linguistically from ‘enemies’, in Arabic. It’s lure and the armour.
The first speaker seems to speak the way you do. The way our media romances about Islam.
I’ve been to one islamic country, three times, and that was enough. I know first hand what Islamic men think they can do.
I have much personal testimony, not all my own, some military and have cut this short because I know that you are satisfied with your conclusion on the matter. So am I.
Like Is said, you must ave your reasons although I did think this was based on a strong belief in nations and borders and not a notion about sharia law’s adequacy for the West.
Jihad is in the text along with the other barbarism seen and witnessed, sometimes first hand, by Europeans.
Islamic country and islam are subtly different. The threats, or no, are slightly different.
Lee Phillips writes “Tons of Catholic friends and family.”
Not for much longer with your characterization of their church. Family cannot escape but friends can.
“But the discussion here was about crimes committed by the RCC.”
Not exactly. The crimes are committed by people. RCC cannot commit crimes. It is not a person. For the RCC itself to be criminal it would have to specify criminal behavior. Otherwise it is not RCC, but persons therein that not only violate the law of the land but the laws of RCC.
“Your objection to the concept of freeloading is equivalent to the 13-year-old screaming that she didn’t ask to be born.”
Annoying, in other words. Everything annoying is equivalent.
As I typed common I did think americans might not know what ‘common or garden’ means but you got it.
Yes, I think so too. I had the same impression.
So much that I copied your long comment from way back to read it. Hope that’s okay or I’ll delete it.
Thanks for your note. Not to offend, but that’s sort of a muddle of bias and poor information.
A religion’s scripture is considered holy. Notice that the Bible is called the “Holy Bible,” and is considered the “Word.” If that is somehow negative/suspicious/despicable, then Christianity is in for some trouble, too.
In fact, many/most(?) Christians consider the Bible the “Word of God.” Try a Bing search on just that. You’ll find hundreds, thousands of Christian sites expounding on the Bible as the Word of God:
“In hundreds of passages, the Bible declares or takes the position explicitly or implicitly that it is nothing less than the very Word of God.
“Some thirty-eight hundred times the Bible declares, “God said,” or “Thus says the Lord” (e.g. Ex. 14:1; 20:1; Lev. 4:1; Num. 4:1; Deut. 4:2; 32:48; Isa. 1:10, 24; Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3; etc.). Paul also recognized that the things he was writing were the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37), and they were acknowledged as such by the believers (1 Thess. 2:13). Peter proclaimed the certainty of the Scriptures and the necessity of heeding the unalterable and certain Word of God (2 Pet. 1:16-21). John too recognized that his teaching was from God; to reject his teaching was to reject God (1 John 4:6).17”
You’re sort of painting yourself in a corner there.
“Occult?” “Hidden?” Hmmm…strange sources you’re relying on. Every mosque is filled with copies of the Quran. It’s not hidden. It is available to every single person who wants it. Stacks of them. Piles of them. It is published in translation into many, many languages. There are commentaries, historical exegeses, and more. It is literally an open book. Like any scripture, the language is poetic, allegorical, cryptic. But occult? Not quite sure what that means. Other than that you’re quoting someone who is bitter and full of hate.
Could you be thinking of the Mormon’s holy book? It is hidden and occult–literally. Try going to a Mormon Temple and asking for a copy of their book. Won’t get it.
“Nations cannot share two laws for separate citizens under that law.”
That’s a pretty vague statement. What is it that you’re advocating, or condemning?
In the USA, we allow different religious groups to live under their civil laws, with greater or lesser autonomy. Jewish religious courts–Halakha courts–exist all over the USA, as do Catholic tribunals, Protestant bodies, and more. No non-Jewish people are subjected to the Halakha courts. No non-Catholics are subject to Catholic courts. We do allow two laws for separate citizens.
“I know first hand what Islamic men think they can do.”
And how is that different from Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/atheist/ Mormon men?
This conversation is going on in a thread about revelations of CATHOLIC clergy running an international organization dedicated to the act of, the covering up of, the empowering of, or otherwise facilitation of a decades-long conspiracy to give access to boys and girls so that CHRISTIAN CLERGY can RAPE CHILDREN!
On your three visits to an Islamic country were you raped? Did Islamic clergy conspire to cover up your rape? I’m sorry to be harsh, but bias can blind one to the reality that is in your face.
I’d highly recommend re-considering the sources of information you rely on for views of issues/people/religions that you do not have first-hand knowledge of.
By the way, the time that I lived in Saudi Arabia, working for their government, were some of the most trying times of my life. The CULTURE of the Saudis is barbaric, and they are horribly racist, among other things. The problem, though, is NOT their religion. It is their culture. On the other hand, it was the safest I’ve ever felt in my life. Absolute physical safety. Take a bus into Washington DC, and I’m fearful for my life, and try not to carry more than $5. In the worst part of Saudi Arabia, I was comfortable carrying $10,000 or more in my pocket. Again, culture, not religion.
Kent Clizbe writes “Could you be thinking of the Mormon’s holy book? It is hidden and occult–literally. Try going to a Mormon Temple and asking for a copy of their book. Won’t get it.”
For what its worth; the Mormon holy book is available online and for download to your Android or iPad device. The challenge is to avoid it if that’s your intention.
“That’s a pretty vague statement. What is it that you’re advocating, or condemning?”
I understand Joy’s comment; civil law must supersede church law; but where civil law has nothing to say or does not care, then church matters are handled by church courts. But a church court, in the United States, cannot deprive you of life or liberty. They might “fine” you, but cannot compel compliance. In the United States, for now, a church’s most severe recourse is excommunication; which depending on your circumstances can be pretty serious.
Sharia is unwilling to take a back seat to civil law. That is where conflict is likely to arise. In a democracy, Sharia becomes law through ordinary legislative processes.
“And how is that different from Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/atheist/ Mormon men?”
The answers would be many and probably serve no immediate purpose. Of that list, you will get the most variety from atheists since that’s not a thing to be (supposedly), rather it is a thing to not be and says nothing at all about what the person is or does. Buddhist is probably safest.
“The problem, though, is NOT their religion. It is their culture.”
I have said that many times of the members of the local dominant religion. The religion is great. Some of its members not so honorable. In fact, I am reluctant to say just how dishonorable some are and it seems that dishonor is almost requisite for high office, but not universal. Once corruption sets in the corrupt will evict the honorable with greater efficiency and organization than the honorable will evict dishonor.
That is because, in my opinion, dishonor forms cabals, cliques, conspiracies, secret combinations while honorable clergy don’t think much about what other clergy are doing and rely on their own chain of command to enforce the rules.
It is no different at work. Dishonorable employees will collude to eject the honorable employee.
“On the other hand, it was the safest I’ve ever felt in my life.”
That is one of the benefits, maybe the only one, of a benevolent dictatorship (Singapore comes to mind). Iceland was extremely safe when I was there. Best place on Earth for a time. But snakes came to that garden of Eden; took advantage of the trust and goodwill of its citizens, and those snakes *were* citizens, many of them.
“Take a bus into Washington DC, and I’m fearful for my life”
I used to walk from Southern Market metro to the Navy Yard. It’s a bit scary, but people that accosted me usually wanted to tell me their Vietnam veteran stories. In my mind there’s places a lot more dangerous than Washington DC; Chicago for instance. Minnesota seems civilized.
“Sharia is unwilling to take a back seat to civil law. That is where conflict is likely to arise. In a democracy, Sharia becomes law through ordinary legislative processes. ”
Where in heaven’s name do y’all get your information from??!!
There was a massive disinformation/misinformation campaign run by neocons about Sharia, that began during the early Tea Party days. The driving force was an Orthodox Rabbi (who lives under Jewish “Sharia”, Halakha), David Yarushelmi.
He spun up the issue, the neocon cover organizations seized on it, and proceeded to send their troops out to as many Tea Party groups across the country as possible to scare the rubes with their wild-eyed babbling about “SHARIA! It’s coming for your wives and children!”
Tracking the payload of an influence campaign is rarely so simple, but every time people state something about Sharia as if they know what they’re talking about, it’s very clear where that opinion came from.
Sharia IS civil law in the USA. So is Halakha. So is Amish law. So is Hindu law. So is Mormon law. So is Buddhist law. So is Catholic law. So is Baptist law.
Each of those religions has a civil code of some sort, and across the USA we have generally worked out ways for religious adherents to live their lives under their civil codes. When there are too great conflicts between American civil codes, and the religion, there are compromises. Usually the religious law loses.
That said, it’s likely that ALL of those religions above, and more, would prefer not to take a backseat to secular law.
But Sharia in the USA is absolutely no different from Halakha, or Catholic civil law.
If the vague statements and hints are Yerushelmi-ite dire warnings of Sharia coming for your family, then they are way wrong, and silly. Sort of like the Monty Python, “She turned me into a newt!” accusation. Sharia coming to the USA has been accused of various and sundry ill intentions. Yet no one has yet lost their wife and kids to Sharia. Orthodox Jews still wear their side-locks in Brooklyn. Amish still ride their horse and buggies down the road in Lancaster. Salt Lake City still is run by the Mormon clergy.
But, but, but…it’s coming!
Kent Clizbe writes “Where in heaven’s name do y’all get your information from??!!”
Everywhere I can, with the exception (usually) of the New York “Spaceships cannot fly” Times. I mention it since you mention it as a resource that presumably you find credible.
A sidebar on NYT: I get a daily email blast from NYT. It tends to be rather one-sided, obsessed with Trump. When it isn’t obsessed with Trump it tries to diversify and talk about Trump lawyer, Trump wife, Trump daughter, Trump campaign managers, who he revokes the security clearances of (which ought to be EVERYONE on completion of their employment, duh!)
Was it that bad on Rush Limbaugh’s show during Clinton and Obama presidencies? I’m not sure since I didn’t pay him a lot of attention either.
“There was a massive disinformation/misinformation campaign run by neocons about Sharia, that began during the early Tea Party days. The driving force was an Orthodox Rabbi (who lives under Jewish “Sharia”, Halakha), David Yarushelmi.”
That would be interesting to explore if I can find some time. It does seem to me that Muslims do not have a lot of tolerance for Christians and even less for non-believers; and while I don’t have my own Koran the many threads of commentary, while not authoritative, is certainly cautionary.
But it is not the only caution. I remember the town of Antelope, Oregon; being overtaking by “Moonies”.
“SHARIA! It’s coming for your wives and children!”
More importantly, it is coming for ME. But it isn’t the only thing that wants my money and obedience or allegiance. You also have the Hare Krishnas, the Scientologists, the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, the IRS, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and your next door neighbor that wants a cup of sugar. The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) and if you have teenager, DCFS, Division of Child and Family Services.
“Each of those religions has a civil code of some sort, and across the USA we have generally worked out ways for religious adherents to live their lives under their civil codes.”
Well yes, it’s called the First Amendment and its non-establishment clause combined with free-expression clause. Recent challenges on this include the Amish wishing to have their own schools and generally not being permitted. That’s a state-by-state thing with some states being considerably more libertarian about their schools.
Mormons wanted multiple wives. Lost big time on that one; disincorporated the church, imprisoned its leaders and confiscated all real property. Men can now marry men but lost the right to have sex with horses, at least in Washington State. When did it become government business to say where you can put it?
“Usually the religious law loses.”
That won’t be the case in a Muslim majority nation, seems to me, with recent examples coming from Malaysia in particular.
“That said, it’s likely that ALL of those religions above, and more, would prefer not to take a backseat to secular law.”
“But, but, but…it’s coming!”
Probably, and I find it interesting to explore the mechanism by which it existed in the first place. How is it that a religion started by one man, and constructed so that nobody can change it, has taken over the Middle East, rather a lot of southern Russia all the way down to Malaysia?
And my answer is “structure”. It is everything to everyone: Law, religion, custom. So long as you accept your role in its embrace, there’s not a lot to worry about; and even its enemies can be compelled to admit that from Arabia under its stabilizing influence comes rather a lot of science, mathematics (Algebra most notably), art. It specifies nearly everything right down to how to have sex, how not to, in considerable detail. But then, so do many religions. Where it exists it *is* the government and avoids a lot of conflict thereby.
This discussion has degenerated from the issue, which is NOT comparative religions but instead the institutional corruption within one sect of one religion, the Catholic Church.
A large percentage of the clergy in the Catholic Church are predatory homosexual pedophiles. The seminaries recruit such people, and they are groomed and protected by the upper echelon who are themselves predatory homosexuals.
The Catholic laity has no substantial voice — the Church is not a democracy and the priesthood is not selected/elected by the non-clergy members.
Those readers/commenters who are not Catholic have no stake in this issue. It’s not really any of your business, other than as community members who wish to prevent pedophilia in general. The victims in these cases are Catholic youth, not youth in general. I know that won’t stop you from voicing your opinions, but it is true nonetheless.
The cure/fix should include common law: the arrest, conviction, and punishment of criminals, but that alone will not repair the Catholic Church. I beg lay members and clergy of the Church to offer a solution set that goes to the heart of the problem within the Church, if indeed the Church, your Church, is worth saving.
You’re the one with the paintbrush.
These arguments always finnish in debates about truth and freedom. Holding thm dear is not compatible with Islam. I would recommend you do actually listen to the debate. Sharia has spread further in England since the debate.
Occult means hidden. Not apparent. When a disease starts, before it presents and may never present it can be ‘occult’. Not a special meaning or use of it. Perfectly fine. See spina bifida occuult.
So something can be ‘occult’ by intent, default or by effect. Use and meaning of it are fine.
I’m not in any corner. I suspect you aren’t a Christian and perhaps are more familiar with a fundamentalist position. Polarised perhaps through a lens of party politics, that’s my projection.
I never said and don’t claim, that the bible isn’t holy.
For example, if you list a tonne of holy books I wouldn’t argue with you about it.
What I believe is truly holy would differ.
The crux of this distraction here is that Christians do not believe nor are compelled to believe that the words in the book are dictated directly by God. This is what Muslims are lead to believe.
The actual words were dictated by God to a man in a cave. With that as a premise, there’s no going back, no freedom for the human spirit to grow or change, or for ultimate truth to be any kind of aim or purpose. This is before you get to the taking of a child bride and so on.
“In the beginning was the word and the word was God and the word was with God…
…and the word became flesh”
This is what Christians believe.
It doesn’t take a literary genius to see that the word doesn’t mean literal word by necessity. God moves and speaks in mysterious ways. That is not controversial.
When the bible says,
“thus saith the Lord”. Unless it is specific to the context where Jesus is being quoted it is metaphoric. Furthermore Jesus’s words are remembered by those who knew him and interpreted by those, like Paul, who never met him personally. They were translated from Jesus’s native tongue into Greek and Latin, then English.
To claim that the bible is the written and inerrant verbatim word of God is a mistake.
Logic will inform that the gospel accounts differ in detail.
“God said call no man Father”
Nobody takes that literally, either.
I hope this helps but it’s really islam’s Sharia I’m concerned with and was my original point.
You say it isn’t a threat. I say the philosophy is written down by instruction and holy war is in there. The notion of Jihad.
You say it’s the culture not the faith,
I say if the faith were worth it’s salt they would have pulled themselves out of the stone age. The money hasn’t helped, either, evidently. They are copying the West except in affairs of the heart.
Sharia is inextricably part of Islam.
To quote one extremist who’s now been passed over to your side,
“what makes you think it’s your country?
You can always argue it out in a Sharia court!
Islam is a threat to western culture. What to do about it is debatable. How far it has reached your shores is another question.
Sharia is part of the islamic faith which means submit.
I listen to your points–and try to understand–which, maybe because of my own limitations, is very, very difficult.
“I say if the faith were worth it’s salt they would have pulled themselves out of the stone age.”
What Islamic country did you visit that was “in the Stone Age?”
There are many, many more countries that are predominantly Christian that are lesser developed, in many/most ways than many Muslim countries. See the African Christians slaughter/genocide of each other in Rwanda, for a start. It’s the culture, not the religion!
Have you ever been to Dubai? Qatar? Riyadh? Kuala Lumpur? Penang? Jakarta? Singapore? All of those cities/countries are majority, or close to majority Muslim. If you think they’re living in the Stone Age, then “debate” with you is completely useless. There’s a huge reality out there that disproves all of your Yarushelmi scare-mongering nonsense.
Many, many Westerners and Christians live in these countries, happily, profitably, and safely.
I don’t know where you live, but you seem to be fixated on the UK. The UK’s problems are NOT due to Sharia or Islam, just as the rest of the EU’s (France, Netherlands, Spain, etc.) immigration problems are not due to Sharia or Islam.
Their problems are due a couple issues that they brought on themselves: their historic colonialization of countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia; importation of their colonized races; PC-Progressive destruction of their Normal culture (e.g. multi-culturalism); destruction of their traditional Christian faith (note: Islam did NOT do this. They did it to themselves–their religions were destroyed from the inside–viz the actual subject of this thread–the Catholic church destroying itself from the inside–allowing a pedophile conspiracy to co-opt the power of the Church for its own evil purposes. Did Islam do that to them? Nope.); their sponsoring and implementing non-stop war in the Middle East and North Africa for the last 15 years; the fact that their countries are within walking distance, or boating distance of the countries that they destroyed.
Combine all those factors, and you have a witch’s brew of cultural disintegration.
Christians are 100% right to bemoan that situation. As Christian churches descend into pedophilia, Gaia worship, LGBTQ12345 worship, everything but worshiping the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, maybe it’s tempting to listen to the hate-filled rants of SHARIA! SHARIA! SHARIA! But I’d suggest that you may want to search for the log in your own eye–metaphorically speaking–and stop digging around in Muslims’ eyes. The Christian power–specifically Anglo-Saxon Protestant work ethic–that made America great is withering from within. It must be rejuvenated from within. If fighting climate change, empowering transgenders, and providing sanctuary to illegal aliens are at the top of the list for Christian churches in America, then you’d better expect more and more melting away of the faith.
Uncle Mike writes “A large percentage of the clergy in the Catholic Church are predatory homosexual pedophiles.”
What is the percentage? How does it compare to the percentage of clergy that is non-predatory homosexual pedophiles? Predatory and non-predatory heterosexual pedophiles? How many read C.S. Lewis and comprehend the significance of Perelandra?
“The seminaries recruit such people”
Clever. Round them all up in seminaries!
“The Catholic laity has no substantial voice — the Church is not a democracy and the priesthood is not selected/elected by the non-clergy members.”
That is true of most Christian denominations. However, you can vote with your feet.
“Those readers/commenters who are not Catholic have no stake in this issue.”
Already voted 😉
“It’s not really any of your business, other than as community members who wish to prevent pedophilia in general.”
“The victims in these cases are Catholic youth, not youth in general. I know that won’t stop you from voicing your opinions, but it is true nonetheless.”
I believe a discussion of how this situation arose, what is being done about it, how it was detected; is suitable for persons of any hierarchical religion.
“The cure/fix should include common law: the arrest, conviction, and punishment of criminals, but that alone will not repair the Catholic Church.”
Nor any other church with a similar situation. It may well be structural. That seems to be the point of Saint Pauls commentary that it is better to marry than to burn, or his comment that a bishop must be the husband of one wife.
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” (1 Timothy 3:2 KJV) See also Titus 1:6
“I beg lay members and clergy of the Church to offer a solution set that goes to the heart of the problem within the Church”
That would be a married clergy.
“That would be a married clergy”
Finally. Eighty-one comments and we finally get one that takes a stab at the actual issue. I’m so worn out reading non-germane drivel that we’ll call it good and go to bed.
Is it because I said “stone age”.
Barney Rubble and Fred Flintstone? Some of the countries certainly resemble that but it isn’t to what I’m referring: It’s also generally not the places people tend to holiday or live in to make hay, as you did, many acquaintances and colleagues have. There’s also my patients at the London Clinic, who were a lesson in islamic culture. That culture not merely floating, but being of islam, Islamic in nature.
I call crucifixion, beheading, chopping off hands, Fgm, (and mBGm, covering women up to the point of preposterously funny if it weren’t so sad; Rape, (which requires more women for every man under Sharia); Slaughter of animals to let their blood run while they are awake; other unthinkable barbaric acts based in old testament style customs; throwing homosexuals off buildings;
“STONE AGE “ (well Bronze Age, but why quibble. You can call it what you like. I believe the word you used was,
“racist”!. What a stressful time it was for you.
I’t barbaric, It’s what they’ve always been called. I can think of a few more,
UnGodly, and unChristian, inhumane, brutal.
Why is that?
You say it’s cultural. I say it is based on ancient outmoded traditions propped up by a false philosophy that seals the deal. One that has no authority but the text itself. They can keep it.
This is not, the argument you reframe as,
“Islamic countries are posing an immediate threat.” It was made that clear.
I am saying islam poses a threat to western culture.
The architecture and air conditioning, the lavish lifestyles are all bought by oil. Over, or underlaid by islamic culture.
Clearly, there was never a better example that money can’t buy love.
The point is that the crimes and punishment are both founded in islamic thinking. Sharia is not justice within a western nation.
Recent history across Europe and in your own country shows that it is a mistake to think islam is benign.
The UK doesn’t have it coming. It’s already had it. Yours has, too, although you seem to have forgotten.
Thank God Trump isn’t ignoring it.
This was the telling part:
‘The subculture caused the abuse”!
False. Maybe they will try this at trial. The Vatican perps didn’t ever go to prison. My guess is these fellows have friends in low places and may well escape justice in this life.
Ted Bundy claimed it was the pornography that caused his crimes! The night before they put him on the chair. He told a well meaning man of the cloth from his cell.
“The abuse caused the cover up’!
Is this like,
The murder caused the hiding of the body?
How many true catholics are caused by a cover up?
How many true catholics are caused by sexual abuse of all kinds?
How many true catholics are there in any seminary?
How many true catholics constitute a cover up?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
“Suffer little children to come unto me.”
Dr Brian Talarico, North Bay Has been convicted of child molestation, an possession of child pornography on his computer. Sexually molesting a young boy… He had previous convictions for child molestation in 1990 and 2001. After his parole in 2006, Dr. Talarico Brian Works for North Bay Regional Health Centre, and elsewhere… despite his background, and numerous complaints against him of abuse, fraud, negligence, and imprisonment.