Francis must severely discipline and defrock this pervert mccarick or lose all credibility he has.

Clock is ticking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Women simply can not be priests. I'm sorry. St. Paul and the Fathers are very clear on this. Accept the Church's teaching or go become an Episcopalian. [u][b]

This whole mess has me quite upset as well.

This is yet another reason I am SSPX. I have absolutely no faith in the mainstream hierarchy. MODERNISM is the problem, not the all-male priesthood. McCarick ought to be sliced up or burnt at the steak. ( a light punishment for his actions) If JPII knew and did nothing, he is not a Saint. The debate would be over. ( the SSPX is certainly right to question his canonization for many reasons) Reading this stuff makes me want to break my IPad in half and slam my fist through the desk

Funny you should say that. I became Episcopalian two years ago. Absolutely the best decision I ever made for my faith and for my family.

You must re-join the Church. Seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Women simply can not be priests. I'm sorry. St. Paul and the Fathers are very clear on this. Accept the Church's teaching or go become an Episcopalian. [u][b]

This whole mess has me quite upset as well.

This is yet another reason I am SSPX. I have absolutely no faith in the mainstream hierarchy. MODERNISM is the problem, not the all-male priesthood. McCarick ought to be sliced up or burnt at the steak. ( a light punishment for his actions) If JPII knew and did nothing, he is not a Saint. The debate would be over. ( the SSPX is certainly right to question his canonization for many reasons) Reading this stuff makes me want to break my IPad in half and slam my fist through the desk

Funny you should say that. I became Episcopalian two years ago. Absolutely the best decision I ever made for my faith and for my family.

Many people are complicit and have turned a blind eye to pedophiles and those attracked to pubescent children. Bank robbers rob banks because that's where the money is. Pedophiles ... well you know the rest of that story.

Pedophiles place themselves where potential victims are located. They are skillful at cultivating relationships and grooming their victims.

They've been in your midst. You've suspected it and in your heart knew it to be true and yet you did nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Women simply can not be priests. I'm sorry. St. Paul and the Fathers are very clear on this. Accept the Church's teaching or go become an Episcopalian.

This whole mess has me quite upset as well.

This is yet another reason I am SSPX. I have absolutely no faith in the mainstream hierarchy. MODERNISM is the problem, not the all-male priesthood. McCarick ought to be sliced up or burnt at the steak. ( a light punishment for his actions) If JPII knew and did nothing, he is not a Saint. The debate would be over. ( the SSPX is certainly right to question his canonization for many reasons) Reading this stuff makes me want to break my IPad in half and slam my fist through the desk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Jesus picked twelve men. I don’t honestly know why. But I know it’s the model we should follow.

He also picked a woman to be the first he revealed himself to at the resurrection, and *she* was the first preacher of the good news. Maybe that's the model we should follow.

[/img]https://giphy.com/gifs/steven-universe-mic-drop-killed-it-3oEdv2e6zgF4ab9IaY[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Jesus picked twelve men. I don’t honestly know why. But I know it’s the model we should follow.

He also picked a woman to be the first he revealed himself to at the resurrection, and *she* was the first preacher of the good news. Maybe that's the model we should follow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Jesus picked twelve men. I don’t honestly know why. But I know it’s the model we should follow.

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

+1. it's really disappointing to see people who want to expand the pool of priests (understandably) jumping to married men rather than women. Women in the priesthood would absolutely help alleviate these and many other problems in the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
And there are practical logistical and pastoral reasons to have priests without obligations of an immediate family, but I know of know logistical or pastoral reasons not to have women priests.

Anonymous wrote:the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

Keep telling yourself it’s not gay problem....

These are not kids, they are teenage boys victimized.

Filth and the stench of Satan.

the latest news has me very upset. i LIKED cardinal mccarrick. i'm just so disappointed.

As for allowing for married priests, married men can be pedophiles too. i get expanding the applicant pool, but allowing women to be priests or nuns to lead, would help, i guess.

Just wow to today's article. Any EVERYBODY in Catholic circles knew it, myself included. Sick puppy.

We need to expand married priests in the Church before there is nothing left.

I shouldn't be shocked by any of it anymore, but this is just sickening:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/nyregion/mccarrick-cardinal-sexual-abuse.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The New York Times take on McCarrick:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/cardinal-mccarrick-abuse-priest.html#click=https://t.co/4EGfQDsX3g

“In 2000, Pope John Paul II promoted Archbishop McCarrick to lead the Archdiocese of Washington D.C., one of the most prestigious posts in the Catholic Church in America. He was elevated to cardinal three months later.

At least one priest warned the Vatican against the appointment. The Rev. Boniface Ramsey said that when he was on the faculty at the Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University in New Jersey from 1986 to 1996, he was told by seminarians about Archbishop McCarrick’s sexual abuse at the beach house. When Archbishop McCarrick was appointed to Washington, Father Ramsey spoke by phone with the pope’s representative in the nation’s capital, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the papal nuncio, and at his encouragement sent a letter to the Vatican about Archbishop McCarrick’s history.

Father Ramsey, now a priest in New York City, said he never got a response.”

Anonymous wrote:This was known for a long time. It's about time. Pope Francis is the only hope the Catholic Church has to restore morality in the institution. It had turned into a pervs paradise.

If Francis is your only hope, you're screwed. Well the kids are...

This church will not stop abusing kids. It will not stop covering for child rapists.