Discussion:
Here we go again. Bishop of Broome stands down.
(too old to reply)
Dechucka
2020-03-11 07:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Fran
2020-03-11 08:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
'The Aus' has a headline that says that Pell may face new charges as of
yesterday. Can't read it because of the firewall:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/full-high-court-bench-to-hear-george-pell-case/news-story/dbc0d5593894db914340ae179dad10eb
Patrick B
2020-03-11 09:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
Ned Latham
2020-03-11 10:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/
broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-
serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
Only in recent years. Up until the twentieth century they were able
to get away with their perversions.
Dechucka
2020-03-11 18:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
Patrick B
2020-03-11 20:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
Dechucka
2020-03-12 01:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
The RCC to act better
Fran
2020-03-12 01:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
d***@cox.net
2020-03-12 12:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-12 19:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
Patrick B
2020-03-12 20:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
What is a pommy?
Dechucka
2020-03-12 20:12:04 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
What is a pommy?
Like septic means an American a Pommy is from Britian
Patrick B
2020-03-12 21:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
What is a pommy?
Like septic means an American a Pommy is from Britian
OK then..... ???
Fran
2020-03-13 02:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
His point is that he is as ignorant as Paddy is of the history of the
American colonies.
Patrick B
2020-03-13 12:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
His point is that he is as ignorant as Paddy is of the history of the
American colonies.
There were penal colonies in the Americas, of course (perhaps some
even in North America), but the only country of the Americas which
received sentenced people for a time was Brazil. Portugal extensively
use the penalty of degredo (exile) to get rid of undesirables in an
easy and profitable way.
America as a whole was not considered a penal colony. Not like
Australia. It was fairly common for England to deport convicts to
Virginia, but not to the other mainland colonies. Barbados, Jamaica
and Antigua also received convicts, especially Irish rebels, but I
assume you meant "America" in the sense of "the future United States,"
not "North America and associated islands."
Now, The state of Georgia was not a penal colony in the sense usually
meant, although it was initially settled almost entirely with
convicts. Its founder was given the authority to take volunteers from
the royal gaols, and he relied on debtors, prostitutes and the odd
pickpocket for most of his initial population. No violent offenders
were invited to become colonists, and no one was sentenced to Georgia
directly by a judge; they were sentenced to gaol the usual way and
then approached by a colonial agent with a (presumably tempting)
alternative to serving their sentence. In fact, Oglethorpe pitched the
colony to George II as a rehabilitative measure (and to relieve the
crown of the cost of the gaols).

America was a place where people whose religion or political views
were outlawed in England could seek refuge. The Puritans who settled
in Massachusetts in 1620 were the first of many such immigrant groups.
Many British criminals were sentenced to exile or transportation, as
it was called, but these were not sent to any particular place in
America.
Dechucka
2020-03-13 19:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
His point is that he is as ignorant as Paddy is of the history of the
American colonies.
There were penal colonies in the Americas, of course (perhaps some
even in North America), but the only country of the Americas which
received sentenced people for a time was Brazil. Portugal extensively
use the penalty of degredo (exile) to get rid of undesirables in an
easy and profitable way.
America as a whole was not considered a penal colony. Not like
Australia. It was fairly common for England to deport convicts to
Virginia, but not to the other mainland colonies. Barbados, Jamaica
and Antigua also received convicts, especially Irish rebels, but I
assume you meant "America" in the sense of "the future United States,"
not "North America and associated islands."
Now, The state of Georgia was not a penal colony in the sense usually
meant, although it was initially settled almost entirely with
convicts. Its founder was given the authority to take volunteers from
the royal gaols, and he relied on debtors, prostitutes and the odd
pickpocket for most of his initial population. No violent offenders
were invited to become colonists, and no one was sentenced to Georgia
directly by a judge; they were sentenced to gaol the usual way and
then approached by a colonial agent with a (presumably tempting)
alternative to serving their sentence. In fact, Oglethorpe pitched the
colony to George II as a rehabilitative measure (and to relieve the
crown of the cost of the gaols).
America was a place where people whose religion or political views
were outlawed in England could seek refuge. The Puritans who settled
in Massachusetts in 1620 were the first of many such immigrant groups.
Many British criminals were sentenced to exile or transportation, as
it was called, but these were not sent to any particular place in
America.
More plagiarism
Patrick B
2020-03-13 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
His point is that he is as ignorant as Paddy is of the history of the
American colonies.
There were penal colonies in the Americas, of course (perhaps some
even in North America), but the only country of the Americas which
received sentenced people for a time was Brazil. Portugal extensively
use the penalty of degredo (exile) to get rid of undesirables in an
easy and profitable way.
America as a whole was not considered a penal colony. Not like
Australia. It was fairly common for England to deport convicts to
Virginia, but not to the other mainland colonies. Barbados, Jamaica
and Antigua also received convicts, especially Irish rebels, but I
assume you meant "America" in the sense of "the future United States,"
not "North America and associated islands."
Now, The state of Georgia was not a penal colony in the sense usually
meant, although it was initially settled almost entirely with
convicts. Its founder was given the authority to take volunteers from
the royal gaols, and he relied on debtors, prostitutes and the odd
pickpocket for most of his initial population. No violent offenders
were invited to become colonists, and no one was sentenced to Georgia
directly by a judge; they were sentenced to gaol the usual way and
then approached by a colonial agent with a (presumably tempting)
alternative to serving their sentence. In fact, Oglethorpe pitched the
colony to George II as a rehabilitative measure (and to relieve the
crown of the cost of the gaols).
America was a place where people whose religion or political views
were outlawed in England could seek refuge. The Puritans who settled
in Massachusetts in 1620 were the first of many such immigrant groups.
Many British criminals were sentenced to exile or transportation, as
it was called, but these were not sent to any particular place in
America.
More plagiarism
Yup.
It goes to show you that I am not the only person who knows more about
your penal colony than you do.
BTW, if any of the above is incorrect, tell me.
I will be glad to provide others' correct history also.
Dechucka
2020-03-13 19:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
His point is that he is as ignorant as Paddy is of the history of the
American colonies.
There were penal colonies in the Americas, of course (perhaps some
even in North America), but the only country of the Americas which
received sentenced people for a time was Brazil. Portugal extensively
use the penalty of degredo (exile) to get rid of undesirables in an
easy and profitable way.
America as a whole was not considered a penal colony. Not like
Australia. It was fairly common for England to deport convicts to
Virginia, but not to the other mainland colonies. Barbados, Jamaica
and Antigua also received convicts, especially Irish rebels, but I
assume you meant "America" in the sense of "the future United States,"
not "North America and associated islands."
Now, The state of Georgia was not a penal colony in the sense usually
meant, although it was initially settled almost entirely with
convicts. Its founder was given the authority to take volunteers from
the royal gaols, and he relied on debtors, prostitutes and the odd
pickpocket for most of his initial population. No violent offenders
were invited to become colonists, and no one was sentenced to Georgia
directly by a judge; they were sentenced to gaol the usual way and
then approached by a colonial agent with a (presumably tempting)
alternative to serving their sentence. In fact, Oglethorpe pitched the
colony to George II as a rehabilitative measure (and to relieve the
crown of the cost of the gaols).
America was a place where people whose religion or political views
were outlawed in England could seek refuge. The Puritans who settled
in Massachusetts in 1620 were the first of many such immigrant groups.
Many British criminals were sentenced to exile or transportation, as
it was called, but these were not sent to any particular place in
America.
More plagiarism
Yup.
Thankyou
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 12:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
His point is that he is as ignorant as Paddy is of the history of the
American colonies.
Now you're talking about the greatest country in the history of the modern
world, doggirl.
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 12:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
But Australia was.
the dukester, American-American
and America was a dumping ground for pommy convicts. Your point is?
Give me a brake. What is a pommy - some new aussie animal?
the dukester, American-American
Patrick B
2020-03-12 13:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
What was it then.
Dechucka
2020-03-12 19:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
What was it then.
A colony
Fran
2020-03-13 02:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual.  WA was never a penal colony.
What was it then.
A colony
:-)) Watch what we responded do a woosh over Paddy head.....
Fran
2020-03-13 02:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
What was it then.
A colony.
Patrick B
2020-03-13 12:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Fran
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
What do you expect in the penal colony?
You are wrong as usual. WA was never a penal colony.
What was it then.
A colony.
The Colony of Western Australia (also known as Swan River Colony) was
established as a free colony on 2 May 1829 when Captain Fremantle
formally took possession of the land of Western Australia in the name
of the King of England. The Western Australia Act 1929 received Royal
Asssent in England on 14 May 1829 confirming the settlement as a
British colony. From 1849 to 1868 the settlement became a penal colony
accepting convicts by transportation from England. In 1890 the Colony
gained self-governance and at the time of Federation, 1 January 1901,
it became the State of Western Australia.

The Colony of Western Australia was claimed by Captain Fremantle on 2
May 1829 and the party settled at the mouth of the Swan River. This
led to the colony also being known as the Swan River Colony. The
Documenting a Democracy website transcribes the Western Australia Act
1829 which claimed the settlement was 'upon certain wild and
unoccupied lands on the western coast of New Holland and the islands
adjacent' with no acknowledgment of the Aboriginal communities that
lived there.

The Lieutenant-Governor had complete power but in 1832 he established
a council of 4 government officials to help him govern the colony. The
colony was also referred to as the Crown Colony of Western Australia
until 1890, as it was ruled by a governor who had been appointed by
the monarch.

In May 1849 the British authorised the conversion of Western Australia
to a penal colony and the colony received over 9000 convicts during
the next 19 years. The last transportation of convicts arrived in the
colony in 1868 and Western Australia once again became a free
settlement.

https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/ref/wa/biogs/WE01504b.htm
d***@cox.net
2020-03-12 12:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-12 19:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 12:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-13 19:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
d***@cox.net
2020-03-14 18:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-14 19:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
d***@cox.net
2020-03-15 15:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...

Nov 11, 2017 · Adult sexual contact with an underage minor is a crime and a
serious moral wrong. Pedophilia, by contrast, is a psychiatric disorder
involving primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children (not
just any person under the age of 18), which — if acted on — is a crime and a
serious moral wrong.
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-15 19:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...
So? Both occurred in the RCC was not reported to authorities and abusers
moved where they continued to abuse

snip
d***@cox.net
2020-03-16 12:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...
So? Both occurred in the RCC was not reported to authorities and abusers
moved where they continued to abuse
Pedophilia is not abuse unless that next step occurs.
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-16 19:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...
So? Both occurred in the RCC was not reported to authorities and abusers
moved where they continued to abuse
Pedophilia is not abuse unless that next step occurs.
Keep trying to justify the shit that went on in the RCC, you ATTEMPT at
pedantics is bullshit
d***@cox.net
2020-03-16 21:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...
So? Both occurred in the RCC was not reported to authorities and abusers
moved where they continued to abuse
Pedophilia is not abuse unless that next step occurs.
Keep trying to justify the shit that went on in the RCC, you ATTEMPT at
pedantics is bullshit
You have a lot to learn. You just refuse to come to grips with the truth. It's
over in the US. What's your countries problem?
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-16 22:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Keep trying to justify the shit that went on in the RCC, you ATTEMPT at
pedantics is bullshit
You have a lot to learn. You just refuse to come to grips with the truth. It's
over in the US. What's your countries problem?
Hopefully the covering up and other disgusting behavior by the RCC has.
Child abuse occurs everywhere but it is organizations response to it
which is important
d***@cox.net
2020-03-17 14:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Keep trying to justify the shit that went on in the RCC, you ATTEMPT at
pedantics is bullshit
You have a lot to learn. You just refuse to come to grips with the truth. It's
over in the US. What's your countries problem?
Hopefully the covering up and other disgusting behavior by the RCC has.
Child abuse occurs everywhere but it is organizations response to it
which is important
The US house was cleaned last century on order of the Pope..
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-17 19:27:58 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by d***@cox.net
The US house was cleaned last century on order of the Pope..
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex abuse
in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse again is
disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
Ned Latham
2020-03-17 23:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex
abuse in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse
again is disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
Probably not. A few sacrificial goats were scaped while the coverup
expanded, more like.
Patrick B
2020-03-18 00:23:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:13:22 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dechucka
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex
abuse in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse
again is disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
Probably not. A few sacrificial goats were scaped while the coverup
expanded, more like.
Are ya jealous?
Or pissed because you didn't get a piece of the pie?
Dechucka
2020-03-18 00:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:13:22 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dechucka
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex
abuse in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse
again is disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
Probably not. A few sacrificial goats were scaped while the coverup
expanded, more like.
Are ya jealous?
Or pissed because you didn't get a piece of the pie?
Goat pie? Yum
--
Remember, STAY SAFE, wash your hands as if you've iust shaken hands with
SloMO
Patrick B
2020-03-18 09:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:13:22 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dechucka
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex
abuse in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse
again is disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
Probably not. A few sacrificial goats were scaped while the coverup
expanded, more like.
Are ya jealous?
Or pissed because you didn't get a piece of the pie?
Goat pie? Yum
You guys eat wierd shit down on that side of the world.
https://www.eatingthaifood.com/how-to-eat-a-giant-water-bug-maeng-da-thailand/#:~:text=These%20giant%20water%20bugs%2C%20known,fried%20and%20then%20salted%20heavily.
Dechucka
2020-03-18 19:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:13:22 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dechucka
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex
abuse in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse
again is disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
Probably not. A few sacrificial goats were scaped while the coverup
expanded, more like.
Are ya jealous?
Or pissed because you didn't get a piece of the pie?
Goat pie? Yum
You guys eat wierd shit down on that side of the world.
https://www.eatingthaifood.com/how-to-eat-a-giant-water-bug-maeng-da-thailand/#:~:text=These%20giant%20water%20bugs%2C%20known,fried%20and%20then%20salted%20heavily.
What is wrong with eating insects?
--
Remember, STAY SAFE, wash your hands as if you've iust shaken hands with
SloMO
d***@cox.net
2020-03-18 14:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by d***@cox.net
The US house was cleaned last century on order of the Pope..
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex abuse
in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse again is
disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
No moving for the purpose of new territory to abuse. WOW, your are one sick
puppy.
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-18 19:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by d***@cox.net
The US house was cleaned last century on order of the Pope..
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex abuse
in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse again is
disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
No moving for the purpose of new territory to abuse. WOW, your are one sick
puppy.
and you are totally out of touch with reality
d***@cox.net
2020-03-19 14:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by d***@cox.net
The US house was cleaned last century on order of the Pope..
You mean the RCC in the US had to be told that the cover up of sex abuse
in its ranks was morally wrong and that moving perps to abuse again is
disgusting. WOW that is one sick Church
No moving for the purpose of new territory to abuse. WOW, your are one sick
puppy.
and you are totally out of touch with reality
Our problem ended last century. You really need to come up to reality and stop
the fear mongering.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-17 17:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...
So? Both occurred in the RCC was not reported to authorities and abusers
moved where they continued to abuse
Pedophilia is not abuse unless that next step occurs.
Keep trying to justify the shit that went on in the RCC, you ATTEMPT at
pedantics is bullshit
Very true the next step is to sick Duke on you.
d***@cox.net
2020-03-18 14:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
In simple terms, what policy are you referring to?
'Towards Healing"
Healing takes an aussie's desire. You're still a long way behind the US in
correcting the problem.
LOL who cares it is ONE RCC
But men with different ideals
One RCC under the POPE
Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse Are Two Different Things ...
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are...
So? Both occurred in the RCC was not reported to authorities and abusers
moved where they continued to abuse
Pedophilia is not abuse unless that next step occurs.
Keep trying to justify the shit that went on in the RCC, you ATTEMPT at
pedantics is bullshit
Very true the next step is to sick Duke on you.
He's already sick.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-12 18:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
tesla sTinker
2020-03-12 22:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
There were some that were married Mattb. Do not use that word all. It
shows you are under the sin of presumption, do you not think people
would listen to you if you used that kind of sic prudence? No, its
not all of them, just the many some, and today, the others are not
there. They left it. Just as Jesus showed to them, when He walked away.

what does God say right here Mattb...


Book of Amos.

"""4 Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of Juda, and for four I will
not convert him: because he hath cast away the law of the Lord, and hath
not kept his commandments: for their idols have caused them to err,
after which their fathers have walked."""

And believe me, that is what that altar of Dukes and Patricks is now.
Idoltry of witchcraft....

And you can plainly see, what God said. Once they passed the number,
God will not convert them. And that is what Jesus told as well, 70
time seven. Punishment for sins is four fold, 4 times. And sometimes,
it is in this way. they do go to hell, no chance at to heaven.

Book of Amos.

"""Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of Israel, and for four I will
not convert him: because he hath sold the just man for silver, and the
poor man for a pair of shoes. 7 They bruise the heads of the poor upon
the dust of the earth, and turn aside the way of the humble: and the son
and his father have gone to the same young woman, to profane my holy
name."""
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 11:18:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:29:18 -0700, tesla sTinker
<***@truecarpentry.org> wrote:

Go built a cabinet. You're not even a church organization.
the dukester, American-American
tesla sTinker
2020-03-12 23:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
Prophecy of today now.
Open your small ears.
2nd book of Timothy New testament

"""3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away
their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be
thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist,
fulfil thy ministry. Be sober. 6 For I am even now ready to be
sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand. 7 I have fought a
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. """
Mattb
2020-03-12 23:54:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:06:06 -0700, tesla sTinker
Post by tesla sTinker
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
Prophecy of today now.
Open your small ears.
2nd book of Timothy New testament
"""3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away
their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be
thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist,
fulfil thy ministry. Be sober. 6 For I am even now ready to be
sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand. 7 I have fought a
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. """
Yes this was done in about 300AD with Constantine's help. and the
false doctrine was forced upon the world on penalty of death and
torture.
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 12:11:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:06:06 -0700, tesla sTinker
Post by tesla sTinker
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
Prophecy of today now.
Open your small ears.
2nd book of Timothy New testament
"""3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away
their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be
thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist,
fulfil thy ministry. Be sober. 6 For I am even now ready to be
sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand. 7 I have fought a
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. """
Go cut some wood. You're not a church organization.
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 12:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
Well, that's show you how stupid you are.

Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-13 20:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
Well, that's show you how stupid you are.
No it is written about in some 18th century books.
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-13 20:07:06 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
Mattb
2020-03-13 20:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
d***@cox.net
2020-03-14 18:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-14 19:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-15 15:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-15 18:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-16 13:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-16 17:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-16 21:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood. What
man but you would turn to a child becasue he can't have a woeman?

Geez, what an idiot.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-16 23:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
Post by d***@cox.net
What
man but you would turn to a child becasue he can't have a woeman?
Geez, what an idiot.
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-17 14:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
What
man but you would turn to a child becasue he can't have a woeman?
Wow, no answer?
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Geez, what an idiot.
the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-17 17:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they and they are still into little boys more than adult women.
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
What
man but you would turn to a child becasue he can't have a woeman?
Wow, no answer?
The answer seems to be Catholic Priest, perverts.
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Geez, what an idiot.
the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-18 14:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Post by Mattb
and they are still into little boys more than adult women.
House cleaned. More news you are void of. Your chief must really be
embarrassed by you.
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
What
man but you would turn to a child becasue he can't have a woeman?
Wow, no answer?
The answer seems to be Catholic Priest, perverts.
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Geez, what an idiot.
the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-18 17:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
and they are still into little boys more than adult women.
House cleaned. More news you are void of. Your chief must really be
embarrassed by you.
Earl Weber's racism aside, I do not believe the house is clean as
the Church has not come clean about it's evil and repented.
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
What
man but you would turn to a child becasue he can't have a woeman?
Wow, no answer?
The answer seems to be Catholic Priest, perverts.
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Geez, what an idiot.
the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-19 14:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
and they are still into little boys more than adult women.
House cleaned. More news you are void of. Your chief must really be
embarrassed by you.
Earl Weber's racism aside, I do not believe the house is clean as
the Church has not come clean about it's evil and repented.
You're just a stupid asshole.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-19 16:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
and they are still into little boys more than adult women.
House cleaned. More news you are void of. Your chief must really be
embarrassed by you.
Earl Weber's racism aside, I do not believe the house is clean as
the Church has not come clean about it's evil and repented.
You're just a stupid asshole.
Earl Weber your opinion really doesn't matter you are just a fat
wuss and powerless.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-20 13:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Then you must be brain dead.

the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-20 17:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Then you must be brain dead.
You still haven't shown where the "priesthood itself elected to
institute celibacy".

Do so here if you do not lie yet again.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-20 18:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Then you must be brain dead.
You still haven't shown where the "priesthood itself elected to
institute celibacy".
Do so here if you do not lie yet again.
Maybe I can't send you a dictionary so you can look it up. You do know how to
use a dictionary, don't you
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-20 18:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Then you must be brain dead.
You still haven't shown where the "priesthood itself elected to
institute celibacy".
Do so here if you do not lie yet again.
Maybe I can't send you a dictionary so you can look it up. You do know how to
use a dictionary, don't you
You do know that info would not be in a dictionary? Correct?

If you meant in encyclopedia then give me a link if you can. All
historical records I see show it was decided by a Pope who might well
have been a pedophile himself or women hater.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-21 16:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Then you must be brain dead.
You still haven't shown where the "priesthood itself elected to
institute celibacy".
Do so here if you do not lie yet again.
Maybe I can't send you a dictionary so you can look it up. You do know how to
use a dictionary, don't you
You do know that info would not be in a dictionary? Correct?
The dictionary is to help you understand the subject in discussion.
the dukester, American-American
Mattb
2020-03-21 17:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification. He is
sicker than patdick
I believe you are correct, though both are to me sickening.
That's ok. WE KNOW you are sick.
Yes to Earl Weber anyone who opposes pedophilia, the cover up and
false doctrines is sick.
But you don't oppose pedophilia. You love sexual abuse of children.
You don't realize how that comment shows you to be a liar and con
artist. I think everyone here except Patshit knows you to defend
pedophiles and lying to do so.
You love sexual abuse of children, don't you. .
No that would be you are your post show. You've even defines it
for us and said it would be OK if there wasn't a civil law against it.
More lies.
Post by Mattb
The RCC had it in the 1800s and I wonder if that wasn't the real
reason priest were required to not marry by the Popes, no wives to
speak up for abuse of children.
Stupid man. Jesus said you was desirable for the celibate priesthood.
You do not know the difference between 'desirable' and 'required'?
The priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy.
Did they
Yep, you know so little about so much.
Then explain this. Remember you claim "The priesthood itself
elected to institute celibacy" where and when and how was the vote
taken?
It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church
began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century
Yes I know this and yet you still haven't shown where the
"priesthood itself elected to institute celibacy"
Then you must be brain dead.
You still haven't shown where the "priesthood itself elected to
institute celibacy".
Do so here if you do not lie yet again.
Maybe I can't send you a dictionary so you can look it up. You do know how to
use a dictionary, don't you
You do know that info would not be in a dictionary? Correct?
The dictionary is to help you understand the subject in discussion.
the dukester, American-American
Again a dictionary would not have that info just the Def or
individual words.

dictionary definition
"a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language
(typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives
the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing
information about pronunciation, origin, and usage."

Now can you provide a source or is this another Duke/Earl Weber lie?
d***@cox.net
2020-03-14 18:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification.
Sexual gratification with a child under 13.
Post by Dechucka
He is sicker than patdick
You inability to reason is destroying you.
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-14 19:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
He believes it was done out of love not for sexual gratification.
Sexual gratification with a child under 13.
Not with child abuse
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
He is sicker than patdick
You inability to reason is destroying you
PKB
d***@cox.net
2020-03-14 18:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Mattb
Post by Dechucka
Post by Patrick B
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Being a Catholic cleric in Australia is dangerous.
This time the RCC didn't even follow its' own policy
I have thought for some time that pedophilia has been a tradition of
Catholic priest for centuries.
Well, that's show you how stupid you are.
No it is written about in some 18th century books.
Post by d***@cox.net
Besides, you don't know what a pedophile is: A pedophile is a person who has a
sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger,
Blanchard says. Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa)
You believe your definition makes what those RCC Priest and such did
OK? Tell me more.
You're sick in the head, redman with a black heart.
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-03-12 12:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Has he been found guilty yet? Are you now pushing jailtime for a suspect?
the dukester, American-American
Dechucka
2020-03-12 19:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Has he been found guilty yet?
No
Are you now pushing jailtime for a suspect?

No
d***@cox.net
2020-03-13 12:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by d***@cox.net
Post by Dechucka
Historic sex abuse allegation. Has been investigated for the last 18
months but was not stood down by the RCC as "towards Healing" says they
should for people under abuse investigation.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-bishop-christopher-saunders-stands-down-over-serious-allegations-20200311-p5494o.html
Has he been found guilty yet?
No
Are you now pushing jailtime for a suspect?
No
I thought you were.
the dukester, American-American
Loading...