What is bigotry?

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
7,024
Romania
Proselytising is not permitted on Historum - to white, trying to make other people believe in the same religion or religious tenets as you.

You're entitled to your faith. What you're not entitled to, on this site, is to demand other people believe as you do.
In what I am concerned I know it very well, but if someone makes false statements about your religion, is explaining it to him called "proselytism"? My position was never "my religion is the true one and you should believe in it", the only thing I did was to show, sometimes resorting to quotes from the Holy Scripture and Holy Fathers, what we actually believe and why we actually believe, so that those ignorant in regard to our religion may learn something about it and cease to repeat their false statements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: David Vagamundo

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
In what I am concerned I know it very well, but if someone makes false claims about your religion, is explaining it to him called "proselytism"? My position was never "my religion is true and you should believe in it", the only thing I did was to show, sometimes resorting to quotes from the Holy Scripture and Holy Fathers, what we actually believe and why we actually believe, so that such false claims may never be repeated.
You're not correcting him. You're quoting scripture or thousand year old dogma. Graham is writing about an active institution that exists in 2018 and the ridiculously outdated and criminal rules and codes it follows. The manner in which you reply is that the only way he's to accept what you're saying is to have faith in dogma and scripture, which is not how to win an argument about pedophile priests diddling alter boys.
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
I hope Pell goes down, I truly do. That would really open the flood gates I think. But maybe the rot is too deep for the Church to change itself, not with its current leadership.

'The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.'

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse

To think how long that was Vatican policy. It means EVERY senior clergyman is tainted, they're all massively guilty. They could not have risen in the Church unless they'd been complicit, it would literally have been impossible to disobey and try to expose the crimes of the Church without threat of excommunication, at the very least zero chances of promotion. "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
I’d suggest you read through the whole document, as I have done. It applies ONLY to those taking part in trials of priests who have been accused of violating the confessional. As what is said in the confessional is to be kept secret,under penalty of excommunication, it follows that those involved in trying this crime also be adjured to secrecy.
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Proselytising is not permitted on Historum - to white, trying to make other people believe in the same religion or religious tenets as you.

You're entitled to your faith. What you're not entitled to, on this site, is to demand other people believe as you do.
Comment deleted
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I’d suggest you read through the whole document, as I have done. It applies ONLY to those taking part in trials of priests who have been accused of violating the confessional. As what is said in the confessional is to be kept secret,under penalty of excommunication, it follows that those involved in trying this crime also be adjured to secrecy.
Absolutely wrong. They're not talking about violating the confessional and revealing secrets, the entire thing is about using the confessional to molest people, but also goes as far as saying it also applies completely outside confessional settings, which basically means any time the priest is acting in any real professional role.

Page 1:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

Solicitation for what? Revealing secrets from a confession? No. Solicitation for sex.

Saddest part, you didn't read it. You literally went to the part of the Guardian article where a spokesman for the Vatican replied to the claims and essentially just regurgitated what the lie that the spokesman made, a lie which is what spokesman do as its their jobs to cover up and make controversies go away.

This article has been proven true in umpteeth criminal cases where massive conspiracies were proven in courts of law, such as the massive grand jury report that just released detailing the diaceses in Pennsylvania, United States.

Report details sexual abuse by more than 300 priests in Pennsylvania's Catholic Church

STOP TRYING TO COVER UP THESE CRIMES!
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Absolutely wrong. They're not talking about violating the confessional and revealing secrets, the entire thing is about using the confessional to molest people, but also goes as far as saying it also applies completely outside confessional settings, which basically means any time the priest is acting in any real professional role.

Page 1:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

Solicitation for what? Revealing secrets from a confession? No. Solicitation for sex.

Saddest part, you didn't read it. You literally went to the part of the Guardian article where a spokesman for the Vatican replied to the claims and essentially just regurgitated what the lie that the spokesman made, a lie which is what spokesman do as its their jobs to cover up and make controversies go away.

This article has been proven true in umpteeth criminal cases where massive conspiracies were proven in courts of law, such as the massive grand jury report that just released detailing the diaceses in Pennsylvania, United States.

Report details sexual abuse by more than 300 priests in Pennsylvania's Catholic Church

STOP TRYING TO COVER UP THESE CRIMES!
I read the whole thing. I didn’t read the Guardian article, as it didn’t have to do with soccer football,which is the only subject on which I view it as authoritative. The crime is abusing the confessional by soliciting sex. I suggest you reread the statement you quoted: “the crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent.” A penitent is someone seeking, confessing, or just having confessed

By the way, you just libeled me three times:

You accused me of commenting on a document I hadn’t read.

You accused me of reading the Guardian

You accused me of covering up crimes. As I am a lawyer (as you should know if you bothered to read my bio), this last libel is actionable. If I know of any crimes—including any priests commiting crimes—I report them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JoanOfArc007

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I read the whole thing. I didn’t read the Guardian article, as it didn’t have to do with soccer football,which is the only subject on which I view it as authoritative. The crime is abusing the confessional by soliciting sex. I suggest you reread the statement you quoted: “the crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent.” A penitent is someone seeking, confessing, or just having confessed

And just how did you “know” I hadn’t read the article?

By the way, you just libeled me by saying I’m trying to cover up crimes. As I am a lawyer (as you should know if you bothered to read my bio) that libel is actionable. If I know of any crimes—including any priests commiting crimes—I report them.
So, miraculously, the guy who was previously defending the Church regurgitates the exact same talking points as a Vatican spokesman. Wow, somebody ticked off the one miracle necessary for sainthood!

I know you didn't read the article because you jumped on the "As what is said in the confessional is to be kept secret,under penalty of excommunication, it follows that those involved in trying this crime also be adjured to secrecy" argument when that is clearly not at all what the papal decree was about. Its about the Church policy for covering up priests soliciting sex through the confessions, but also outside of confessions (as the language used, which I quoted before, specifically says the crime occurring outside the confession still relates to the purpose of the decree).

LOL. Claiming I libeled you. That only applies if its not true. If you're a lawyer, you know you have zero case to play the innocent. If not, spend the money, place a lawsuit against me, let the courts decide whether I libeled you in Historum by claiming you were attempting to suppress the truth about the Catholic Church conspiring to cover up sexual abuses, and risk ruining your reputation and name and business over an online argument after already ruining your online rep spending multiple pages now attempting to defend the Church against a proven conspiracy involving the abuse of untold number of boys and girls. You really think that's a good idea? Feel free to private message me for more dialogue about your threat.
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
So, miraculously, the guy who was previously defending the Church regurgitates the exact same talking points as a Vatican spokesman. Wow, somebody ticked off the one miracle necessary for sainthood!

I know you didn't read the article because you jumped on the "As what is said in the confessional is to be kept secret,under penalty of excommunication, it follows that those involved in trying this crime also be adjured to secrecy" argument when that is clearly not at all what the papal decree was about. Its about the Church policy for covering up priests soliciting sex through the confessions, but also outside of confessions (as the language used, which I quoted before, specifically says the crime occurring outside the confession still relates to the purpose of the decree).

LOL. Claiming I libeled you. That only applies if its not true. If you're a lawyer, you know you have zero case to play the innocent. If not, spend the money, place a lawsuit against me, let the courts decide whether I libeled you in Historum by claiming you were attempting to suppress the truth about the Catholic Church conspiring to cover up sexual abuses, and risk ruining your reputation and name and business over an online argument after already ruining your online rep spending multiple pages now attempting to defend the Church against a proven conspiracy involving the abuse of untold number of boys and girls. You really think that's a good idea? Feel free to private message me for more dialogue about your threat.
I edited my comment, BTW—you are now acusing me of lying about whether or not I read the Guardian article. I didn’t read it
Moreover, I didn’t threaten you—just pointed out the legal effect of your comment.

As I’ve tried to make plain numerous times, I am not defending the Church; just trying to put this whole scandalous episode in context. Even bboomer commented that your comments are not supported by your authority.

Now I’m acusing you of being a bigot, and your comments are a good example of the subject of this thread. I generally read and agree with your comments on other subjects on this Forum, so I can only put your attitude to me personally down to religious bigotry.
 
Last edited:

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I edited my comment,
And yet you still didn't bother reading anything. Like that quote I provided. You either stopped reading after 11 words, or you purposely omitted the rest because it didn't fit your narrative. That paragraph didn't end with "tempt a penitent", it kept going for a massive sentence.

The 11 words you pasted:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent "

The whole thing including underlined that you omitted for whatever reason (hopefully not purposeful):

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

The wording makes it absolutely plain that it doesn't have to happen inside the actual confessional, or during. And that the crime is not about breaking secrecy of the confessional (that you think it does shows you didn't read the PDF).

And its pretty clear you read the Guardian article. You regurgitated the Vatican spokesman talking point. You definitely read enough to know where to open the PDF.

You are claiming to be a lawyer while, numerous times including an edit, seriously threatening someone online with a lawsuit over libel over someone claiming you did read an article you're claiming you didn't, or that you didn't read a PDF document that you said you did. You really want to advertise you're that bad at your profession. The judge would laugh you right out of a court. Rightfully. You weren't libeled, you were ridiculed because you made ridiculous comments. You should know the difference, if you are a lawyer.

And threatening an anonymous online poster with threat of lawsuits because you've debated yourself into a corner is childish to say the least. Frankly its insulting. I've ducked sniper fire. I've been blown up by IEDs. I've survived cancer. I've held my twin babies who were born so premature they fit in my palm. You really think you're scaring me?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
Hmm. So what St John of Chrysostom is basically saying is "don't waste time thinking for yourself".

St John of Karpatos is talking nonsense. One doesn't need faith to be made to realise that an ant grows wings, as an evidence based approach clearly shows that to be true (at least for some ant species). Even in the days before biologists were able to explain why it happened, people could still see that it did happen, meaning they were using their rationality (not faith) when asserting that ants grew wings.
Yep. he and Luther make a good pair.

Don't you just love being told you don't understand. Classic ad hominem response .

Luther wrote:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther

Quote by Martin Luther : “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that fait...”
 
Similar History Discussions History Forum Date
Philosophy / Sociology
Similar History Discussions
What is bigotry?