Post: #1

A Cardinal from Australia, he's number three in the entire Catholic Church hierarchy. He's also a conservative clergyman on steroids. I'm a young man, but I reckon I've heard this guy being trashed by the media and SJWs for at least fifteen years now. And I probably heard it before that as well, but just don't remember.

After the charges, he is obviously the most senior clergyman ever to be facing court for sexual offences.

He's constantly railed against "smorgasbord Catholics" who pick up certain aspects of the faith while ignoring others (i.e. by supporting the ordination of female priests, gay marriage, or abortion).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-29/ca...es/8547668

Quote:Cardinal George Pell has been charged with multiple counts of historical sexual assault offences and ordered to appear in a Melbourne court next month.

Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton said the Vatican-based cardinal was required to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on July 18.

He said the charges were served on Cardinal Pell's legal representatives in Melbourne, and that they involved multiple complainants.

Last July, police confirmed they were formally investigating complaints about offences alleged to have occurred in Ballarat in the 1970s. [What evidence?]

Cardinal Pell has always maintained his innocence and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Deputy Commissioner Patton said the "process and procedures" being followed had been the same as those applied "in a whole range of historical sex offences, whenever we investigate them". [Bet they didn't involve DNA analysis, video recordings or anything else we could call concrete.]

"The fact that he has been charged on summons — we have used advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions and also we have engaged with his legal representatives, which is common and standard practice."

As head of the Vatican's finances, Cardinal Pell is considered number three in the Catholic hierarchy behind the Pope.

In July, Cardinal Pell said the allegations were part of a smear campaign by the media.

"The allegations are untrue, I deny them absolutely," Cardinal Pell said.

In short, absolutely zero evidence to suggest he did anything wrong. If something super duper real pointing to his absolute guilt comes out, wake me up when it does.

I recall that the Catholic Bishop for the Australian military was also charged a few years ago and was found not guilty, but I'd say the knives will certainly come out for Pell in the courts.

We are only reaching the start of this historic sexual abuse madness and the idea that, because some bonafide molesters will get away sometimes, we need to lower the standard of proof to nothing but a game of he-said, he/she-said.

Post: #2

Whenever a rape accusation is made public my first reaction is to call bullshit on it. Unless its against a Catholic priest. I say fuck them.

These bastards use their power to take advantage of little boys. Somewhere in their education process they have to get taught by older priests whatever the profile of kid to go after is. The numbers are just too high for that not to be true.

I don't know if this is a credible website or not, but 3400 from 2004 to 2014??? And those are just the ones reported to the Vatican. http://www.vocativ.com/235015/by-the-num...-scandals/

On top of these numbers, they go to massive lengths to cover that shit up.

I say, the second somebody comes up with an allegation, lock the son of a bitch up. Instead, the church sends the pervert somewhere else to fuck with more kids.

If the pope had any balls at all, he'd head to the nearest police station and turn himself in for presiding over that bullshit.

These whackjobs don't practice what the preach. The damn church is a bunch of freaks.

Aloha!

Post: #3

I'd keep an open mind on this one.

On one hand, Australia tends to take up childfucking as its national paranoia. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse might not have been out targeting the Catholic Church in particular, but the way the leftie media reports on it you'd think it was. Whether this paranoia is overcompensation for a she'll be right attitude in relation to the problem for fifty-odd years or just an atheist, anti-Catholic bias, who knows; either way, paedophilia - as the McMartin case in the US shows us - is the modern witch hunt.

On the other hand, the Royal Commission has identified as one of the key four risk factors for paedophilia something I've identified for years: where there is a massive power imbalance in the relationship between alleged victim and alleged offender, and where an accusation against a member of the institution is taken to be an assault on the institution itself, you have a situation where paedophiles can thrive. This is one reason why the Royal Commission has been finding sexual abuse in the Anglican Church, Disability Service Providers, and the Australian armed forces: because these bodies had legions of ardent defenders who uncritically believed the paedophiles in their midsts.

That Catholic bishop of the defence force that was mentioned: his name was Max Davis. His defence to the charges was significant: he admitted his accusers had been sexually abused, but that he was not the perpetrator, that they had misidentified him. The court accepted that defence and as a result he was found not guilty. It's not a false complaint in that case, it's just that over thirty to forty years they identified the wrong guy as committing the abuse. And one might note Davis went on to add in 1971 that a group of boys reported sexual abuse to him, he went straight to the abbot of the time, and the brother responsible was sacked immediately.

I will admit that where there's smoke there isn't always fire, but the prevalence of abuse cases in the Catholic Church is a worldwide phenomenon, grudgingly recognised up and down the Church, and particularly the culture of covering up and passing offenders on to other parishes when they got caught out. The Church's problem is the same thing as every other political blunder throughout history: it's not the crime that does you in, it's the coverup. And as I've said in the past the Church's biggest problem is that it's wedged on the subject of paedophilia because so many of its priests are either closet homosexuals or closet ephebophiles, which they don't want to lose because of a small percentage of childfuckers.

Pell's case might be a witch hunt. Or it might not. He is a very strange fish, gives off the vibe of a court eunuch from a Byzantine palace fifteen hundred years ago. He doesn't emote much, doesn't seem terribly capable of expressing public regret or remorse over what his church did to any number of kids over the years. And in particular he has always seemed seriously wooden around the subject of his role in the coverup of paedophile cases across the years. He seems very much a churchman who believes the institution matters more than he or any one person does, but in this debate that makes him stand out like a wooden horse in a cavalry charge; he is completely the wrong guy to put up as the Catholic Church's spokesman on the subject of paedophilia.

I can guarantee you his trial won't be by jury, it'll be by judge alone. Dickheads like Tim Minchin have completely compromised any chance he'd get a fair trial by jury anywhere in Australia.

Insofar as there's any sense of the way the wind is blowing, though, I'd say this: the DPP is not immune to cowardice and letting the jury decide whether a case should be run or not, but you would think that they would not have run with this prosecution unless every i was dotted and every t crossed on the evidence they had to hand. One in four people in Australia are still Catholics, and this is a political shitball to end all shitballs if they haven't got a solid body of evidence to go to trial on.

Also bear in mind that these will be cases of male rape, not female. No pussy pass. And the accusers will all be men out of the 1970s who will have been sitting on these allegations for a long, long time, not twentysomething THOTs who get flaked on by a NFL player and decide to cry rape. I would follow this one carefully and not be surprised if there isn't some truth to this. I'll end as I begin: keep an open mind on this.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #4

The media has been having a field day with this.

It was a rare occasion this morning that put me in front of the ABC24 News channel for several hours. Despite the fact that Pell will be almost certainly be charged with offences relating to conspiracy rather than actual buggery, the media simply trumpeted "child sex offences" all morning, the false implication being obvious.

Having said that, much of the Catholic church officialdom deserve to burn for their hand in this mess.

That rich and powerful institution is as rotten to the core as any globalist NGO viper pit and stands testament to the truth that power corrupts.

I'll probably piss a few people off for saying it, but I've never understood how anyone could start with the Bible and end up with the Catholic church.

Post: #5

I may be wrong on this but the Roman Catholic Church technically existed before the New Testament was transcribed.

I predict this to be an interesting thread.

Post: #6

As much as the Catholic Church may be corrupt or cucked, the pedophilia hysteria surrounding it consists 90% of witch-hunt and SJW mental masturbation and 10% actual abuse.

Post: #7

(06-29-2017 06:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As much as the Catholic Church may be corrupt or cucked, the pedophilia hysteria surrounding it consists 90% of witch-hunt and SJW mental masturbation and 10% actual abuse.

I agree.

Yes - there are some dire cases who went through hundreds over the decades, but most priests either have mistresses, hookers, girlfriends of if they are gay, then they have "friends" that they already met during their studies.

There is rampant sex going on in some areas, but it is not with the altar boys.

You have to keep in mind that the media and globalists are out there to destroy the church.

Where else do they have massive exaggerations?

+ rape culture - US colleges being less safe than Uganda or Malmo Sweden after dark = total bullshit, US colleges campuses are the safest places for girls, the danger is lurking rather outside of colleges
+ biological married fathers being all potential pedophiles of their own children = total bullshit as well, single mothers bring in non-biological bad boys to the mix and they do the abuse (aside from the rampant but unspoken female abuse). Biological parents are the least likely to abuse their own children despite a few exceptions.

Once in my life I considered becoming a priest, I talked with a few monks, priests and former nuns and priests. Most people inside know who is who. There are a legion more priests with girlfriends than pedophiles.

Post: #8

I Agree with Kona.

Let's break it down.

When a man says he is "treasurer at the Vatican" you will always find that the only thing he treasures is Swooping dudes.

And most of the time those Dudes are altar boys. But most are not honest enough to admit Something like this.

***
The Original "Collusion"

Pastors at local parishes colluding with Bishops and Cardinals to move Priests who are caught Swooping little dudes out of their Fiefdom and into a different Fiefdom.

Most do not talk about this.

***
I was raised a Catholic. I Admit This.

But I brought my Machete to church every week and sharpened it in the front pew during Sunday Mass.

This was a Strong Statement making Move.

The Priests in my Fiefdom did not come anywhere near me.

But most do not do this. So run the numbers.

Post: #9

If it was anything but catholic priests I would have been skeptical but because it is I'm perfectly willing to hear the case of his accusers.

I can't find the exact source right now but around the time Spotlight aired there was a study showing how catholic priests had a 2 digit percentage point higher chance of being attracted to children than the average Joe.

Post: #10

(06-29-2017 07:13 AM)Tokyo Joe Wrote:  I was raised a Catholic. I Admit This.

But I brought my Machete to church every week and sharpened it in the front pew during Sunday Mass.

Post: #11

My family used to be Catholic in the days before their stance on Islamic encroachment became "we worship the same God."

Post: #12

(06-29-2017 06:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As much as the Catholic Church may be corrupt or cucked, the pedophilia hysteria surrounding it consists 90% of witch-hunt and SJW mental masturbation and 10% actual abuse.

And you can bet that many of the bishops that do get smeared or charged are the ones who are actually ruffling the feathers of a corrupt leadership.

The Church ranks have been infiltrated by gays and child molesters who have been destroying it from within. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Post: #13

(06-29-2017 06:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As much as the Catholic Church may be corrupt or cucked, the pedophilia hysteria surrounding it consists 90% of witch-hunt and SJW mental masturbation and 10% actual abuse.

Very well put. While the Catholic Church may possibly contain more individuals actually guilty of something rather than false historic accusations brought about by pedophilia hysteria witch-hunt/general anti-male witch hunt, there's still more bullshit than actual fact. Absolutely disagree with Kona, there is something called due process and presumption of innocence, increasingly eroded nowadays for men especially if you are white and charged with anything sexual (rape of a child or rape of a grown woman), to the point where it seems the burden of proof now lies on the defense instead to prove that "this male is not a [child] rapist" rather than "prove to us beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed these crimes".

A small % of them may be pedophiles, but which ones, and how can you prove it?

Most of them are just that, Catholic Priests, innocent men doing their job.

Post: #14

Yeah, to those folks saying, "It's the Catholic Church, it's almost certainly true", that's an only moderately watered-down version of the flak frat guys get on campus from the hysteria brigades. "It's a frat guy, it's almost certainly true."

The idea that we can self-contain presumed guilt to the Catholic Church is laughable. The climate we live in doesn't allow us to.

What's TV like in Oz right now?

Every news website I check from abroad has the Pell story oozing off the screen.

Post: #15

Well, this thread is appropriate to share this anecdote in. I went to church last night with a girl I'm sort of seeing - beforehand, since she was going to a discussion group, she dropped me off at a men's dinner that turned out to be a bunch of priests and priests-to-be eating in that church's rectory. Some were about to ship off to seminary, so I got a good before-and-after look.

A good number of the men seemed to be solid enough, but they tended to be foreign. The American priests and aspiring priests just came across as odd people or overly shy/sheltered people that were afraid of women. I guarantee that at least 60% of the men were sexual rejects that were escaping into the cloth to have some kind of excuse for always being single.

It didn't feel too good to see in general (especially since I'm trying to limp back to the church through the traditionalist side). No wonder sex abuse scandals tend to be stereotypical with priests, normal people don't choose that path anymore. Was it this rampant back in, say, the 1800s? Eventually, when I have a son and try to go church-shopping, I'll have to find one with a good priest that can be a second masculine role model for him...and I don't know how easy that's going to be, really.

(06-29-2017 12:14 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  My family used to be Catholic in the days before their stance on Islamic encroachment became "we worship the same God."

Yeah, John Paul II is knocked as "The Koran-kisser" with pretty good reason, even if I admired his conservatism when it came to sex and the USSR.

Post: #16

(06-30-2017 01:15 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Yeah, John Paul II is knocked as "The Koran-kisser" with pretty good reason, even if I admired his conservatism when it came to sex and the USSR.

John Paul II also allowed priests to be full-on Freemasons and did a few other gimmicks.

Also he had a son -





He celebrated every Christmas with that family - the husband his woman was given later divorced the wife, but Cardinal Wojtyla still visited her often up until the end 1970s. It was actually no big secret in Krakow - he was seen there often especially as he was younger.

John Paul II was super-intelligent bloke (I met an old university classmate of his once and he said that he not only had a monstrous IQ, but also read and studied 24/7 when young), but he was a normal man, had a woman, a kid (who later wrote a book). Many priests did this in the past. The church only stopped marriage of their priests due to simple financial reasons (implemented in the years 1000-1400). The protestant reformers were right in allowing their priests to marry again.

In fact the Catholic church could reinvigorate itself by letting go of that rule. But the church similar to the US churches has been utterly infiltrated. They are globalist mouthpieces aside from some priests who speak their minds and oppose the traitors. I think that they would rather allow women and Imams preach in churches before they let priests marry again.

Post: #17

(06-30-2017 03:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  John Paul II was super-intelligent bloke (I met an old university classmate of his once and he said that he not only had a monstrous IQ, but also read and studied 24/7 when young), but he was a normal man, had a woman, a kid (who later wrote a book). Many priests did this in the past. The church only stopped marriage of their priests due to simple financial reasons (implemented in the years 1000-1400). The protestant reformers were right in allowing their priests to marry again.

In fact the Catholic church could reinvigorate itself by letting go of that rule. But the church similar to the US churches has been utterly infiltrated. They are globalist mouthpieces aside from some priests who speak their minds and oppose the traitors. I think that they would rather allow women and Imams preach in churches before they let priests marry again.

Plenty of other churches are dying despite having married priests: the Anglicans, for one.

While the rule against marriage for priests is comparatively recent, the demand for chastity from priests is much older: 304 AD to be exact at the Council of Elvira, predating the Council of Niceaea in 325 with its codification of the Nicene Creed which forms the guts of Catholic belief and is still recited in mass today.

Nicaea didn't prohibit priests being married -- in fact it rejected a demand from Spanish clerics for precisely that prohibition -- but it did not overturn Elvira's edict that "bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics” were to “abstain completely from their wives and not to have children.” That rule gradually grew over the next seven hundred years until the Council of Trent in 1139 (same time as they banned the use of crossbows) laid down the rule that priests couldn't marry.

There is a qualitative difference, though, in how strong the rule is. The rule of priests being male is irreversible, a matter of papal decree. The rule against married priests and is a regulation: some priests already married when they convert across to Catholicism are obviously permitted to continue, these being exceptions to the rule. As such the rule against marriage could be reversed pretty easily, but the rule against celibacy might be something else.

Either way, the problem of paedophilia in the church is not because priests can't take and fuck wives. It is a problem of power imbalance between a priest and a child, and an unwillingness to criticise an institution.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #18

Summerizing the MSM coverage in a GIF:

Post: #19

Post: #20

Q: What's the one thing you'll never find inside of a Catholic Church.

A: A Bible.

Post: #21

(06-29-2017 05:40 AM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  I may be wrong on this but the Roman Catholic Church technically existed before the New Testament was transcribed.

That's the claim at least, if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is actually tied to the first disciples. Jesus' ministry ended in either 30 or 33, and Peter had been appointed the head of the disciples (and first Pope).

The first written work in the NT is likely 1 Thessalonians, which dates to AD 49 or 50.

Post: #22

A Catholic priest has been arrested after Vatican police raided his apartment where a drug-fuelled homosexual orgy was taking place.

The New Testament never forbade a church leader to marry, I dont know where these bloody Catholics came up with that, but it has had some devestating consequences.

Post: #23

(07-05-2017 11:44 PM)sonoran_ Wrote:  A Catholic priest has been arrested after Vatican police raided his apartment where a drug-fuelled homosexual orgy was taking place.

The New Testament never forbade a church leader to marry, I dont know where these bloody Catholics came up with that, but it has had some devestating consequences.

All due respect, but this is about the third time in the thread that people are suggesting that if priests got to bang wives the problem of paedophilia in the church would go away. This is, again with all due respect, a completely asstastic idea. Outside the church, the perpetrator most likely to finger or screw a child is a family member, i.e. people who usually have opportunities for sex elsewhere but who choose to bang children either out of propensity or out of opportunity. It has zero to do with the amount of sex the person is getting, any more than if you or I got turned down by a 10 in a club we'd feel the need to go grab some woman in an alley and rape her.

Think about this: implicit in your statement that "celibacy and/or marriage prohibition causes paedophilia" is that for a man, a 21 year old's cunt and a 9 year old boy's arse are equally desirable, or that one will substitute for the other in a pinch. Are you fucking insane? Have you seen the profiles of paedophiles, inside the church and out? These guys are not generally frustrated frigging virgins, they are people with a completely fucked program on sexuality. Whatever the church's problem on paedophilia, it's not being caused because priests can't have regular pussy.

As for the rule of priestly celibacy: the idea has a very deep Red Pill root, I wouldn't so quickly sneer at it.

Most ancient traditions, from Judaism through to Hinduism, right through to Greek and Roman mythology, recognise that aspects of women are inherently dangerous, have a great power to corrupt man. Or perhaps corrupt or corrode a man whose purpose is something other than wife and children.

In Judaeochristian tradition the metaphor is expressed most powerfully in Eve's hold over Adam: the Devil didn't tempt Adam, he went after Eve first, and thereby corrupted Adam because Eve would not refuse her. In Hinduism, Kali, the destroyer, goddess of death/change/the netherworld, or as the shadow aspect of the radiant god Shiva (I recommend Dan Simmons' first novel, The Song of Kali on this) is always portrayed as female. In Greek mythology, where the stories are meant to teach rather than explain, women are sagely observed in metaphor as carrying great potential for darkness in them: from Medusa to the Harpies to the Propoetides (the first prostitutes, the women cursed by Venus who inspired Pygmalion's distaste for all woman and his carving of Galatea) as monsters, through to the goddesses: Hera the carping and deceitful wife of Zeus; vain Aphrodite the jealous goddess of love; Athena the bloodthirsty and mannish goddess of wisdom; Artemis the lesbian-ish goddess of the hunt, there is a deep vein running throughout civilisation, East and West, that says women are a constant temptation for a man who would devote his life to something else.

In the Christian tradition, Jesus himself, rebuking the very concept of Jewish divorce, says that a man and a woman who marry become one; they are not divisible from the day of marriage, what God has joined let no man put asunder as he says. A priest has a special status, a status of a life that is devoted to God and no other. A priest who is married is going to be tempted by his wife, always, and is always compromised: he must always choose between his wife and God. This is a cruel situation to put on a wife with a husband devoted to God, and it's a cruel situation to put on a husband who wants to be devoted to God but has to choose his wife.

I don't say that this is necessarily the thought line that applies theologically, but that's the central point behind the chastity of priests and later the forbidding against marriage. It springs out of a spiritual recognition that many people here hold: women are a temptation for a man, not princesses, not angels, just human beings.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #24

(07-06-2017 10:11 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As for the rule of priestly celibacy: the idea has a very deep Red Pill root, I wouldn't so quickly sneer at it.

All respect, no way no way it's red pill. The Bible says pastors and deacons must be the husband of one wife in order to qualify for the position. Why? so they can prove their leadership and management capabilities. It's all about setting the example. And in leadership, setting the example is not the main, it is the only thing. If they can't rule their own house, how can they take command in a house of God? How can they serve as an example of marriage to other families in their congregation? As a man, if tough times come to your family, who would you rather have as a role model to turn to seek advice if you needed. A man whose been in your shoes, or a childless man who wears a dress, calls himself father, and doesn't have woman in his life? And if a man can't simply handle and lead a woman because they're "inherently dangerous", personally, he shouldn't be a pastor anyway until he can get a pair of balls.

I don't know about you, but seeing a man who can successfully raise both a family and run a church is far more admirable and in deserving of respect. I get it, Catholic priests say they are "father's of many" by foregoing siring children in order to take care of their flock. But it's rooted in Catholic history simply so their assets and cash didn't go to their wives or children upon death and went to the church instead. It's got nothing to do with honor, or their devotion to God no matter how they rationalize it.

Post: #25

More concerning to those of the roman catholic faith should be the drastic structural changes, the globalist statements, and overall institutionalization of christianity desired by one Jorge Bergoglio. Things like this are but another byproduct.