Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPUS Dei is a cult.

No, it is a personal prelates of the Catholic Church. This was discussed above. Also, it does not confirm to the definition of cult. Religious experts do not consider it a cult.

All religions are cults. Of course religious figures will argue otherwise.

+1. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPUS Dei is a cult.

No, it is a personal prelates of the Catholic Church. This was discussed above. Also, it does not confirm to the definition of cult. Religious experts do not consider it a cult.

All religions are cults. Of course religious figures will argue otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:OPUS Dei is a cult.

No, it is a personal prelates of the Catholic Church. This was discussed above. Also, it does not confirm to the definition of cult. Religious experts do not consider it a cult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Teacher: someone whose job is to teach in a school or college

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teacher

You must be our limited reading comprehension person. In your same link, it also includes, "a person who instructs or trains others".

.

And you must be our resident meanie

Information is mean? 🧐

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Teacher: someone whose job is to teach in a school or college

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teacher

You must be our limited reading comprehension person. In your same link, it also includes, "a person who instructs or trains others".

.

And you must be our resident meanie

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Teacher: someone whose job is to teach in a school or college

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teacher

You must be o

ur limited reading comprehension person. In your same link, it also includes, "a person who instructs or trains others".

In addition to priests, rabbis are teachers. "rebbe" = teacher.

Allegedly, Jesus was a Jewish "teacher."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Teacher: someone whose job is to teach in a school or college

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teacher

You must be o

ur limited reading comprehension person. In your same link, it also includes, "a person who instructs or trains others".

In addition to priests, rabbis are teachers. "rebbe" = teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Waiting for this poster to directly answer whether he thinks the aforementioned do not engage in any aspect that may be called teaching to see how ludicrous his assumption actually was.

Could be that the poster simply has not been back to the religion forum since posting that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Waiting for this poster to directly answer whether he thinks the aforementioned do not engage in any aspect that may be called teaching to see how ludicrous his assumption actually was.

OPUS Dei is a cult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

+1

+10000000

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Teacher: someone whose job is to teach in a school or college

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teacher

You must be our limited reading comprehension person. In your same link, it also includes, "a person who instructs or trains others".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

I've read a lot of the survivor stories. It doesn't happen at school as much as it's centered around church activities. The teachers in K-8 do tend to be lay women. There have been a few cases of nuns who SA.

A lot of the children did something at the church like be an altar boy. The priest was often a family friend or made an effort to because friendly with the family. Then they did other activities with the child like taking them on outings or trips as trust was established with the parents.

It happens at all ages and does also involve teachers but mostly with teenagers. In my community there was a high school teacher who did the same but chose kids from school clubs and activities where he was the advisor. The kids do extra work on the activity after hours at the school or rectory or they go on field trips or overnights. Also coaches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do people expect when you limit your teachers to no marriage and celibacy? Then, you put a bunch of vulnerable children in their care.

Its like asking a starving lion to look over lambs.

Simply preposterous assertions.

To begin with, the vast, vast majority of teachers in Catholic facilities have always been women, and in the last fifty years mostly lay women who are free to marry and typically are married.

In any event, there is no evidence linking celibacy, particularly among women religious, to molestation of minors.

Celibacy obviously is not a factor in public schools, which are protected by sovereign immunity and unlimited public defense funds, and where the rate of abuse is estimated to be 100 times higher than that ever alleged against Catholic institutions.

The majority of alleged abusers are married men, and typically related to their victims.

LOL. You assumed that by poster using the word teachers she meant literal teachers in classrooms. Shows your sexism. S

he meant it as priests/preachers in a broader context as ones who "teach" Christianity to their pulpit.

LOL I assumed nothing. Catholic clergy are called “clergy,” “clerics,” and more typically “deacons, priests and bishops.” The only context in which the word “teachers” makes even vestigial sense is in the context of schools, which coincidentally are the only place one typically would find children gathered in a Catholic institution.

And nobody “teaches Christianity to their pulpit.” Well, maybe some people fo, but the pulpit, being inanimate, is unlikely to learn much.

So pitiful “rebuttal,” and completely ignores the complete failure of the PP blaming alleged abuse on celibacy when that is an irrelevancy.

Are you trying to argue that "clergy, clerics, deacons, priest, and bishops" do not engage in any form of teaching?

Teacher: someone whose job is to teach in a school or college

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teacher