First, who knew that the Boston Herald would run a story about the New York archbishop? And if they did, that the story would involve the archbishop defending the pope against the sex abuse furor:
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan was greeted with applause after ⦠defending Pope Benedict XVI against suggestions he aided coverups of reports of child abuse. â¦
The leader of the nationâs second-largest diocese urged his congregation to pray for the pope, saying he was suffering some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus.
Who knew that Jesus hid reports of his apostles raping young boys? Apparently the Archbishop of New York knew, and is finally telling the world.
More like this
What a charming representative for Christianity!
A while back, I posted about the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury had unambiguously condemned creationism.
Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard has written a book in which he reveals Catholic thinking about AIDS.
The Catholic Church still doesn't get it
By Adrian Liston
They post it without editorial comment. As if it stands on its own merits.
Who knew indeed. Now I do.
At least now we know that the Pope's response was a result of WWJD.
Um, it's been a while since I read the Gospels, but when Jesus was tried by Pontius Pilate, didn't he pretty much admit to all the charges against him? I don't remember any false charges against Jesus -- yes, people called him King of the Jews and he didn't deny it. Yes, he interrupted a stoning, claimed to perform miracles, preached the law contrary to the Pharisees, yada yada yada. Jesus denied nothing. That's why Pontius washed his hands of the whole thing -- there was nothing he could do to stop the sentence being carried out.
[a few minutes later] Ah, here's what the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has to say. Depending on what verse you read, He either denied nothing, or confessed to everything (in a really shitty, passive-aggressive way, according to John).
I told Rabbi bin Joseph not to recruit among the Greeks, but would anyone listen to me? Oh, nooooo.
I'm just wondering how he is so readily able to determine which accusations against the Pope are just, and which unjust. On the other hand, it may be that all such accusations are unjust, in which case we can give Infallibility one more vote of thanks, for saving us a good bit of trouble in the judging.
On the other hand, it may be that all such accusations are unjust, in which case we can give Infallibility one more vote of thanks, for saving us a good bit of trouble in the judging.