10 January, 2010

Amid the hysteria... some perspective

The threads of commentary on the internet is polluted with those who refuse to grant to Muslims the rights of religious freedom, opting instead for a "tit for tat" policy. While I grant that we are in the midst of clash of cultures and convictions, I question both the efficacy and the appropriateness of their strategy in the conduct of this war. In short: I agree with their cause for concern, but I believe that the actual reading of history, as seen through the lens of the historical memory of the church, leads to an understanding of the most effective and proper manner in which cultures have both succeeded and failed in negotiating a peaceful coexistence. Society ignores her advice at its own peril.

Let's just for a moment, consider the following. In this Time Magazine article, we gain some perspective with which measure the level of fear and hysteria which is inflamed by those who pretend to be 21st manifestations of Winston Churchill. First we demonize, then we open the door to seeing "others" as the enemy who threatens our way of life. Remember that it was the most cultured and civilized of countries, Germany which for a time malformed itself into an evil parody of civilization by first dehumanizing the Jews, Slav's and Anglo-Saxon while at the same time lifting themselves as the very height of evolution and breeding. To paint all of the Islamic faith as being incapable of making peace with our western culture is to use the same logic that seduced the German people. Thus people trying to emulate Churchill, (most often unwittingly) find themselves playing the role of Goebbels in this new century.

If the examples of Desert Storm I & II and the subsequent debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything, it is the knowledge that the first act of any group bent on the path to war, must first paint his compatriots view of "the enemy", (or the "evil do-er's" to co-op a previously misused phrase) as too extreme and savage to be able to comprehend or engage in a successful negotiations of our common cultural peaceful existence.

In truth, the voices of those who cry that the "savages are coming over the walls", (each armed with copies of Sharia Law in hand no doubt!  It's Mao "Little Red Book" all over again)  neglect to consider the facts such as they are presented in this article: facts which do not support their contention that this war cannot be won if we offer Islam the rights of religious freedom.

Now, with popular opinion running against the voices of extremism within non-Arab Muslim countries, it follows that they will be far less open to Saudi money to fund their schools. After all, if the graduates of these Maddrasses are now bringing a virtual orgy of internecine Islamic killing into the neighborhoods of their very countries (Pakistan, Indonesia, Philipines, Africa) The schools will be seen as the cancer they are. A cancer that needs to be exorcised.

In global terms, it is fair to say that there will always exist tension along the geographic and cultural fault lines of this world; but the overall experience of the world (as reported in the main stream media and within academic institutions) is one of peace. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that there is an entirely different dialectic at work which will necessitate that those of Islamic faith to respect and honor the universal right. This will be the interaction not of Christian vs Islamic faiths, but rather one between Muslims and the modern western materialist secular humanism. Muslims will be no more immune to the seductions of that siren song than the Christian institutions have been.

Again, this time it is post WWII history that provides the evidence of his, a lesson that was repeated 40 years later within the borders of the former USSR. As first waves of pious immigrants settled into western society, it took barely one generation for their faith to crash upon the shores of our consumer culture which heralds the owning of possessions and prestige above everything else. When the Iron Curtain fell, societies like Poland in which the Church held the preeminent place, a tidal wave of consumer oriented advertising washed the former soviet state which over a surprising short time has drowned out both many a persons faith, and the effective voice of the Church as well.

Muslims may well be "at the door" but our society is (in at least one way) sadly well prepared to meet the challenge. There is no need to restrict the Muslim faith by infringing upon their religious freedom. They're going to need all the help they can get.


  1. Good point Fr. Tim.
    I hadn't considered the secular invasion of their faith. We do have a common cause. Ain't that a pip!

  2. It is delusional Tim to think that we can continue to operate in pre-9/11 mind set. There is an overwhelming evidence that the increasing danger comes not from radical Muslims overseas but right those recruited in our homeland, right under our nose. To ignore this new threat is commit suicide and irresponsible. All those freedoms won’t be worth the paper they are written on once you are blown to pieces. There is no way in hell that the vast majority of so called peace loving muslims will ever stand up to the small minority of radical Muslim terrorists. Terrorists may be small as a percentage but they are not small in numbers and have vast resources mostly from the Oil we buy from the countries that support them.

    The violence is a part of Islamic religion as well Christianity going back into the history –the two have been at each other’s throats for ages –engulfed in crusades against each other – what about the fact that the Christians colonized much of the world taking what did not belong to them, anointing themselves as Masters and natives as slaves. Same goes for Muslims who had expanded their Empires wherever they could.

    It is total rubbish to argue that danger comes from Secular world, to say that is not to understand what the secular means –respect and tolerance where as with some exceptions, Christianity and Islam is more about intolerance and obsession with sex that is only a small part of human experience. Do not forget never ending internal war in Ireland that could not be blamed on Muslims and Secular.

  3. Outlaw: The danger from secularism is not to our western society; that battle has been fought and lost from the Christian perspective. Rather, I am saying secularism is a civilizational phenomena that will defeat the extremists within the Islamic faith, at least if western first world countries become the battlefield. A promise of "virgins in heaven" will be a hard sell when it comes up against the desire for an ipod, iphone or whatever else will pass for the "essential" possession needed to merit status within the culture at that time. Consumerism and secularism have been overwhelmingly successful in vitiating the voices of Christian faith. There is no reason to doubt that it will be any less successful in its confrontation with the Muslim faith.

    As to being vigilant in protecting ourselves from harm, where ever it originates, there can be no argument with you assertion that we need to continue to look both within and without our borders for those who would do us harm.

    Fr. Tim

  4. Outlaw: It wasn't Christians or Muslims who killed millions of people in the last century. It was secular socialists like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussilini, etc.
    This liberal lie that Christians were on a killing rampage throughout history has worn itself thin.
    Have a look at the killing rampage of secular's who are killing babies in the hundreds of millions by abortion.

  5. RuralRite, even if your claim was true, is your argument that two wrongs make it right? Before you go on debasing liberals let me remind you that the Catholic Church is on further left of Liberals. It is interesting you brought the issue of abortion, is that worse than the babies being killed after they are born right under your nose under the supervision of bishops, Ronald Fabbro (London), at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London, Ontario, where they have been deliberately euthanizing babies with birth defects for 20 years. This does not come from left wing liberal radical but right from this blog that links to catholic-dialogue.blogspot.com/.../bishop-henry-rips-bill-c-484-but.html
    Here's how it works:
    1. A prenatal diagnosis test reveals a baby has serious birth defects.
    2. Doctors wait until the baby reaches 21 weeks of gestation, the point at which it is considered "viable", in other words that it could theoretically survive outside the womb if it were given highly specialized intensive care treatment.
    3. The doctors then artificially induce labour so that the baby is born prematurely.
    4. They intentionally let the baby die. They only provide palliative care.
    And voilĂ , instant euthanasia of a little baby in a Catholic hospital. Can you believe it? Disgusting.
    The priest responsible for overseeing this procedure at St. Joseph's, Fr. Michael Prieur defends his Catholic euthanasia and has stated on several occasions that Bishop Fabbro approves of the situation. Fr. Prieur, by the way, is a staunch supporter of the Winnipeg Statement (notice how it keeps popping up every time there's a moral problem in the Church?) Fr. William McGrattan, rector of St. Peter’s Seminary, and another member of St. Joseph’s ethics committee also approves of this euthanasia.
    In some cases, expectant mothers have been pressured into having their baby euthanized by the hospital, despite the claim from Fr. Prieur that the procedure is only done when the health or life of the mother is at risk.

  6. Tim
    What is your strategy for fighting radical Muslim whose bases are now all over the world with headquarters in Pakistan where all Muslim terrorists get their marching orders? The ones in Europe and North America are so few and none of them are the masterminds of the attacks.

    Many tried apeasment of Hitler and we know how did that work. Muslim Radicals are getting closer and closer to getting hands on Nukes and if not stopped we risk some thing far serious than 9/11 and that is what your thinking will make us face.

  7. O/C: You've almost got it right... alas not.

    Condition # 1. A prenatal diagnosis test reveals a baby has FATAL birth defects.

    (BIG DIFFERENCE) In cases where there is no potential for the sustenance of life the rules are different from what you purport.

    Condition # 2. We wait until the point of viability in case the diagnosis of the physicians is wrong so that the benefit of the doubt must be given the sustenance and protection of life, even if it does not meet our modern message as productive.

    Condition # 3. The baby is induced and born by natural means. Life lasts long as the baby lives with no extraordinary measures taken to prolong its life. In this it is no different than asking that treatment be discontinued in the face of a certain death.

    The Vatican is analyzing the practice and will soon either give their blessing to it or they will order it stopped.

    I will post once the decision comes by.

    I should also introduce you to my old debating partner from the National Post threads, "Outlaw". He sometimes steps out of line, and he is prone to misusing information so as to paint the Catholic Church is as negative a light as possible, but he often acts as an excellent foil against which to measure the soundness of your argument. So long as you don't fall into his occasional trap, he is a worthy debate opponent to those of us who might want to promote the positions of faith.

    Fr. Tim

  8. Sorry all: This was included in my message to O/C but it was directed to all. We welcome Outlaw to the site.

    "I should also introduce you to my old debating partner from the National Post threads, "Outlaw". He sometimes steps out of line, and he is prone to misusing information so as to paint the Catholic Church is as negative a light as possible, but he often acts as an excellent foil against which to measure the soundness of your argument. So long as you don't fall into his occasional trap, he is a worthy debate opponent to those of us who might want to promote the positions of faith."

    Fr. Tim

  9. O/C: Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that we are already involved in activities designed to deal with the international location where terrorism is being prepared.

    Fr. Tim

  10. Tim if you are aware of any effective strategy against Islamic Terrorists then I am sure Israel and India would love to know … they both have been fighting so far unsuccessfully these homicidal maniacs far worse than Hitler for over five decades. US have all but admitted that they do not have a clue as to how to deal with them. Perhaps your approach of handing them flowers may work.
    You may not have noticed but I have posted my response on these pages before and you have frequently taken my comments and posted them here. More recently you have been pissed off with me because I had the audacity to expose your hypocrisy and lies and for that I make no apologies.
    Just as you did in your post once again, do you have a personal knowledge of what goes on at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London? You made up and added a whole bunch of stuff to make as if the child would not grow up and live except for the handicap. The birth defect is not fatal and that word you added falsely. I was born with a handicap and my parents went through several years of hell caring for me and I have lived a productive life, paid my taxes, made an excellent living (by working and not preaching BS), and never collecting a cent of welfare, UI or any other handout, and yes I am a proud liberal who does not mind paying taxes and helping needy. You need not treat your readers as children and warn them of the Evil Outlaw, I am sure they have the intelligence to judge for themselves. The only one they should be warned about is the Predators who run around as Priests and molest children’s and Nuns and those Priests are protected by the Catholic Church. Have a nice day Tim.

  11. O/C: Let's review to see if I am familiar with both the people and the issue.

    1. I studied at St. Peter's Seminary (London)
    2. Fr. Michael Prieur was professor of moral theology
    3. Bishop-Elect McGrattan was a year or two ahead of me, so although we shared the same residence for three years, we only shared one year of study.
    4. I have communicated with Fr. Prieur to ask for an explanation of the practice
    5. I have read all of the Lifesite News articles

    Hope this counts as having sufficient grounds to speak authoritatively on this subject.

    Pray tell... why would you who state that you do not believe in the Bible (cf NP post of 12/01/10) claim to have an interest in such a news event, other than to use it as a club to beat the Church with?

    You have made clear your opinion that abortion should be legal and available to this same woman of your example, an action that would snuff out the life within the womb and leave no room for error on the part of the pre-natal diagnosis.

    This you would claim to be preferable the steps taken at St. Joseph's? How can you even claim to be competent to comment in a matter that (by your own logic) would deny the capacity to understand or comprehend the issue? If celibates are not relevant as a source of wisdom and understanding on sexual matters (cf same NP Post), then you as a man cannot hope to claim to understand the difference from the perspective of the only sentient person directly involved - the mother. Only she, and she alone knows what it was like to feel and nourish the life that stirred within her. Most certainly an unbelievers, male, hostile opinion such as yours would not be appreciated.

    Fr. Tim

  12. O/C: Sorry, it is you who are mistaken. The baby born may live for a short time with medical assistance, but the defect must be fatal or else it can not be used. Fr. Prieur and St. Joseph's have been very clear on this point.

    Can't beat going to the source if you want to know the truth. You should try it some time.

    Fr. Tim

  13. It is not my view that abortion should be legal but is legal and is the law of the land. My views do not matter. However, the abortion is not an option at late term and that is the law, unless there is special circumstance such as to save the life of mother. What is being practice in the St. Joseph Hospital is far crueler than the early term abortion or morning after pill that both you and your church oppose. But you seem to be fine with forcing a woman to full term and then forcing the early delivery and then latter cause the baby to die for the convenience of the mother. You have all the education in the world but not enough common sense to realize how cruel and disguising your approach is. Even more important is your hypocrisy in opposing right of a person to end his or her suffering.
    I am not alone to point out to you as to the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, in fact that is the very gist of and opinion of the article you have linked to on your won very blog. Seems to me you are now arguing against yourself. Perhaps you had one too many when you posted the article or now that you have fully realized your earlier position. You need to go back to the article in question to refresh your memory.
    I am not surprised as to what Fr. Prieur says now that he has been caught with his pants down, well below his knees. He is according to the article you posted and I quote without editing: “The priest responsible for overseeing this procedure at St. Joseph's, Fr. Michael Prieur defends his Catholic euthanasia and has stated on several occasions that Bishop Fabbro approves of the situation. Fr. Prieur, by the way, is a staunch supporter of the Winnipeg Statement (notice how it keeps popping up every time there's a moral problem in the Church?) Fr. William McGrattan, rector of St. Peter’s Seminary, and another member of St. Joseph’s ethics committee also approves of this euthanasia.

    In some cases, expectant mothers have been pressured into having their baby euthanized by the hospital, despite the claim from Fr. Prieur that the procedure is only done when the health or life of the mother is at risk.”

  14. More importantly the article goes on to say:
    “The bishops of the United States, on the other hand, have their heads screwed on straight on this matter. They clearly state that such a practice is never permissible. In a 1996 document called Moral Principles Concerning Infants with Anencephaly, the US bishops explain the moral principles that makes this practice unacceptable:
    "In other words, it is permitted to treat directly a pathology of the mother even when this has the unintended side-effect of causing the death of her child, if this pathology left untreated would have life-threatening effects on both mother and child, but it is not permitted to terminate or gravely risk the child's life as a means of treating or protecting the mother.

    Hence, it is clear that before "viability" it is never permitted to terminate the gestation of an anencephalic child as the means of avoiding psychological or physical risks to the mother. Nor is such termination permitted after "viability" if early delivery endangers the child's life due to complications of prematurity. In such cases, it cannot reasonably be maintained that such a termination is simply a side-effect of the treatment of a pathology of the mother (as described in Directive 47). Anencephaly is not a pathology of the mother, but of the child, and terminating her pregnancy cannot be a treatment of a pathology she does not have. Only if the complications of the pregnancy result in a life-threatening pathology of the mother, may the treatment of this pathology be permitted even at a risk to the child, and then only if the child's death is not a means to treating the mother.”
    Tim you still maintain that what is being done at the St. Joseph Hospital is moral and according to Catholic Faith. ? How many babies will have to die before this racket is shut down? I grant you that you have great deal of education but I am afraid you need a rest from insulting your own intelligence Tim.

  15. Tim you question my competence by stating “Most certainly an unbelievers, male, hostile opinion such as yours would not be appreciated.” First I am totally for the Pro-choice and I fully support the right of a woman to make her decision but what is happening here is as the article states and I quoted above that women are often coerced and that is to me repugnant. The Bishops and Priests seem to think that they have a license to coerce as has been demonstrated in one case after another of where young boys were coerced into performing oral sex on Priests, and they were sodomised as were the Nuns coerced into having sex with Priests and Bishops as well then have abortions or take birth control pills. If you want me to refresh your memory I would be happy to re-post all the articles and accounts that you had finally agreed were true. It is the Catholic Church that coerces the legislators to vote a certain way. Yet that is not the worse part, what is worse is that the Priests and Bishops do not follow their own talk. You will argue well they are rouge Priests and Bishops who are in minority to which I challenge the Church to investigate the allegation of Nuns – 40% of whom claim to have been raped or sexually molested, when that investigation is done then we shall know if they are in minority or the Catholic Church is indeed a house of evil. I shall die believing woman’s right to chose, do you?

  16. O/C: The article that you quote (from LifesiteNews via Socon blog) offers one opinion on the procedure. As it was reported, it seems to be an open and shut case - but this is in fact not the case. The policy as written for London is identical to some US Diocese (who have previously had the policy approved by the Vatican) and London has followed suit and also sent their policy to Rome to be validated or changed.

    As to your contention that it would be better to simply kill the child in the womb (abortion) that is just too silly to take seriously. You complain about steps being taken to ensure the possibility of viable life - and then offer death as the preferable alternative. Can't get my head around that one.

    As to your misapplied claims of abuse etc., no need to address those calumnies here given how much virtual ink has been already used in the NP threads.

    Your always welcome here, even if its only to spread ill.

    Fr. Tim

  17. Tim lies and deception is your usual way of operating as you have demonstrated again and again. First you say that the Vatican is reviewing the policy and that is exactly what is said in the article and I quote “Is it a coincidence that the Vatican also launched it's own review around the same time? Notice how he said all the right things in public at the time he announced the review: he said he "wasn't necessarily going to wait until all of this work had been done before I would be in a position to make changes to the guidelines the hospital is following now."”
    Now you say that the policy is fine when the article say is contradictory to the position of the US Bishops. Are you saying now that the Vatican has approves of euthanasia as practiced in St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London. If yes then my simple question if that if the Catholic Church approves of euthanasia then why is it fighting Bill C-484 which is assisted suicide far less than euthanasia and especially and again I quote so you don’t falsely accuse me again “In some cases, expectant mothers have been pressured into having their baby euthanized by the hospital, despite the claim from Fr. Prieur that the procedure is only done when the health or life of the mother is at risk.”
    If everything is fine as you claim then what is there to investigate as announced by Bishop Fabbro that he was launching an investigation into the practice of euthanasia in the St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London. Tim you need to stop embarrassing yourself by defending the baby killers at the St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in London, Pedophiles like Bishop Lahey and others.
    How dare you claim that my claims of concerns for the nuns and children sexually abused by priests some your friends for twenty years are misplaced. I wish you had more concern for the victims than you have for the abusers. I make no apology for raising the issue and I don’t particularly care if you find it inconvenient and embarrassing.
    As Joyce had pointed out before me in her posting that you are allowing your own personal relationship cloud your judgment. http://catholic-dialogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/bishop-henry-rips-bill-c-484-but.html

  18. Tim I don't spread the ill, the ill is spread by the Priests and Bishops who sexually molest and rape boys and Nuns and pedophiles like Lahey and the your pals at the St. Joseph Hospital for whom you show so much concerna and apathy and little for their victims. Where is your outrage against these ill doers?

  19. Whats with Outlaw's obsession with the church's child abuse scandal anyway ?

    He can hardly write two lines without somehow referencing the above mentioned item.

    Were you abused as a child Outlaw ?

  20. O/C:

    1. The Vatican did not "launch an investigation". The policy was sent BY London to Rome for clarification that they are in compliance with Catholic teaching.

    2. Anchorage, Alaska has the exact same policy. The London one used it to write their own. Last time I checked, Alaska was still part of the USA, so the statement that the policy is contrary to what their Bishops demand is wrong on the very face of the question.

    3. You attempt to get me to express "outrage" is silly as you know full well that I do not support abusers.

    Fr. Tim

  21. Sanwin:

    Welcome to the blog!! Your participation in these threads will always be welcomed.

    You may be right in your application of that Shakesperian wisdom "I think he dost protest to much"... when questioning O/C's posts, but I don't think so.

    Referring constantly to abuse serves two purposes for O/C:

    1) it allows him to constantly paint the church in as bad a light as possible; and

    2) I believe that he is legitimately angered when is contemplates the evil that has been done to innocents at the hands of predatory priests. It's easy to understand... we feel the same way!!


  22. Tim you are either clueless or you are deliberately continue to mislead. I would suggest that you fully read http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121111.html and read it slowly. Clearly Fr. Preur’s is unworthy of being trusted. For instance:
    “Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist and former President of the Catholic Medical Association, disagrees. Speaking on early induction for lethal fetal anomaly he said: "Every time I have been contacted over the many years that I have practiced neonatology, I instruct and encourage the mother to keep the baby in the uterus. It does not help the baby or the mother to deliver early."

    The bottom line on the matter from the NCBC is "early induction of an anencephalic child when there is no serious pathology of the mother which is being directly treated is not morally licit, emotional distress notwithstanding. Early induction of labor before term (37 weeks) to relieve emotional distress hastens the death of the child as a means of achieving this presumed good effect and unjustifiably deprives the child of the good of gestation." (http://www.usccb.org/dpp/anencephaly.htm )

    Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition commented, saying, "All of this sounds pretty appalling to me. It sounds to me like this is nothing more than abortion dressed up in more attractive clothing." Hughes concluded: "Can some Catholic authority please put an end to the abortions going on at the Catholic hospital in London. Is this the only Catholic hospital that's doing this or is this widespread?"
    As to the fatal lie watch the testimony of the mother whose child your friend had diagnosed had a fatal syndrome and suggested that baby be aborted – thankfully the mother did not believe the doctor as you seem to.
    Videos of Babies born with Lethal Fetal Anomalies:

    Trisomy 13 lived 35 minutes

    Trisomy 18 lived 99 days. (Shown on Oprah a few weeks ago)

    Trisomy 18 lived 4.5 years
    All these are on the link you had provided but you are too lazy to have seen them. I suggest that you admit you were dead wrong and apologize; if you are not convinced I will be happy to post more and more to prove you are either clueless or deliberately misleading.

  23. Tim check out http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=4151&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+socon%2FljaE+%28SoCon+Or+Bust%29
    where your lies are also expopsed by some one beside me and your BS is being refuted. Where is your proof?

  24. LifeSiteNews Fully Stands by Original Report in Wake of National Post Whitewash of St. Joseph's Hospital "Early Inductions"

  25. O/C: And if Lifestitenews or SoCon blogs were official church instruments you would be correct. Given that they have exactly the same authority and standing as this blog does... well you get the picture. As I said earlier, I'll wait for Rome to grant (or not) its approval and then we will see what happens.

    Glad to see that your haunting these other RC blogs. Maybe we'll make a convert out of you yet (grin).

    Fr. Tim

  26. O/C: One other point: London is within the national borders of Canada, thus only the CCCB (not the USCCB) so in so far as national Bishops conferences are allowed to interpret for their own churches, so the USCCB guidelines do not apply in Canada.

    Just for your information.

    Fr. Tim

  27. Tim I have told you again and again will not let you weasel your way out as you may be used to with others with you lies and deception. When it suits your convenience you post Lifestitenews as your authoritative source and now it is not. But that is not the point, the point is that what is going on St. Joseph Catholic Hospital for the last 20 years is clearly worse than abortions and you are defending your rouge friends and your arguments against assisted suicide are hypocritical. First you say it is a settled issue and now you insist that a clarification from Vatican is needed, well that over twenty years too late is it not? Have you bothered to even take a look at the video’s, they are as obvious as to what is going on. Finally if you keep insisting that the Church is so clear as to its morality in particular as to abortion, sex and chastity who would there be ambiguity between Canadians and American Bishops? Why would they not be on the same page after all the Catholic Religion is not as if it was born yesterday?

  28. O/C: All that I am saying is that it is an open question that the Vatican will speak to. LifesiteNews is an excellent source of news, but when they drift into opinion they have no more gravitas than I do. You are the one who is acting weasel like as on the one hand you condemn the RC Church and on the other champion RC websites when it serves your purposes.

    At least I know which side of the fence I stand on. You seem to still be working on making that decision.

    Fr. Tim

  29. Thank you for the welcome Fr. Tim.

    There is, of course, a third option.

    Outlaw could just be a Catholic Church hating bigot.

    As was displayed when his first comment on the National Post blog regarding the new Vietnamese Bishop was another rambling diatribe involving abuse of children and nuns in the Church.


  30. Tim I resorted to using Roman Catholic Web sites to prove your lies, distortion and hypocrisy so you won’t accuse me of using anti Roman Catholic Web sites. We have long ago established as Richado, no friend of mine, complained “First of all, it was very frustrating having a 'conversation', as it never felt like one. It felt more like platitudes being preached from the pulpit on your part. I am very used to academic debate. In fact, overseas, I taught it. Once again, I must stress you constantly and consistently ignored my evidence and reasoned arguments. Very disappointing. I have been studying and reading about Islam since the '90s. I make it a rule to try to prepare. If I err, I wish to be corrected in fact, not condescended to.” Jan 13 5.55 pm http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/09/imams-issue-fatwa-against-terrorists.aspx#comments
    Your pathetic line is that every one of the web sites is lying except you. You are so desperate that now you got a phantom of yourself posting as Sanwin. Enjoy a mutual jerk off.

  31. Hi Outlaw,

    You need to whip out your tin foil hat asap if you now believe that I am somehow Fr. Tim.

    Au Contraire.

    I might not agree with everything Fr. Tim says, particularly his overgenerous attitude towards Islam. I have spend almost 20 years working in the Middle East, so I have a ground level understanding of how Muslims think.

    But that's not relevant to this discussion.

    Can you take the time to explain your OBSESSION with the Child Abuse scandal in the Church ?

    Also, a google search of your nick (Outlaw_CA) turns up several links to severely questionable web site, which I did not even have the courage to look at since they all seemed to involve child pornography.

    What exactly explains your OBSESSION with child abuse anyway ?

  32. That may explain Outlaw's obsession with the Catholic Church's abuse cases. Making someone else look more obscene than oneself can help alleviate the guilt pangs of one's own obscenity!

  33. Outlaw: why do you keep refering to this 40% number? I haven't found it anywhere. Simply repeating it over and over again does not make it truth.
    You seem to waste a good deal of time and effort chasing the blogs spreading this hatred. If you don't like the Catholic Church then don't go to mass. It's that simple.

  34. Hopefully Outlaw will some day understand that he cannot win when he is fighting against the Almighty. All Catholic Church haters are losers in the end, both now and in the hereafter.

  35. Tim you are a chicken shit blocking me from posting my comments to prove that you are nothing but a scumbag.

  36. O/C: Check here.



Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics