Child Protection Chief of the Catholic Church admits to child porn

I am disappointed in Snorrius. I never thought he would be even more a PC liberastic tolerast then the corrupt and hypocritical We$t! :p
 
This man was clearly broken from being molested.

This comment is opening a can of worms. Just because you are a victim of a crime does not mean you should be using that as an excuse for crimes you are committing.
 
This comment is opening a can of worms. Just because you are a victim of a crime does not mean you should be using that as an excuse for crimes you are committing.

He was molested, surely you realize that people who are molested can wind up very damaged.
 
It is the title of the article in the OP.
 
Is that accurate though? Or was the tabloid simply being sensationalistic in that? I mean 'Child Protection Chief of the Catholic Church' sounds kind of like a big important office, but this guy was a minor functionary.

Isnt that a bit propagandish as opposed to being accurate to parse it like that?
 
Is that accurate though? Or was the tabloid simply being sensationalistic in that? I mean 'Child Protection Chief of the Catholic Church' sounds kind of like a big important office, but this guy was a minor functionary.

Isnt that a bit propagandish as opposed to being accurate to parse it like that?
It is possible the title is wrong. Certainly, we have seen our share of misinformed or misleading thread titles around here, even when it became clear the thread title was rubbish. I don't think there I have ever seen a "Sharia is coming to ____________" thread title changed even though the OP in these threads usually gets a pretty consistent and harsh trip to the woodshed.
 
Is that accurate though? Or was the tabloid simply being sensationalistic in that? I mean 'Child Protection Chief of the Catholic Church' sounds kind of like a big important office, but this guy was a minor functionary.

Isnt that a bit propagandish as opposed to being accurate to parse it like that?

It's intentionally misleading. The man seems to have been a child protection chief, but the article title makes it look like he had a much larger jurisdiction than he did.
 
Is that accurate though? Or was the tabloid simply being sensationalistic in that? I mean 'Child Protection Chief of the Catholic Church' sounds kind of like a big important office, but this guy was a minor functionary.

Isnt that a bit propagandish as opposed to being accurate to parse it like that?

This is pretty pervasive, where they give a person [insert important sounding title that doesn't exist].

The media is pretty bipolar, one second they are bashing Catholic "prudes" the next they say stuff like "monasteries are hotbeds of sodomy". Like for example on World Youth Day protestors were bashing the youth for being anti-sex, but they also decided that they would need tons of condoms, srsly pplz?
 
Like for example on World Youth Day protestors were bashing the youth for being anti-sex, but they also decided that they would need tons of condoms, srsly pplz?
Purity Ring types and abstinance only types have fairly robust teen pregnancy rates, so srsly.
 
Purity Ring types and abstinance only types have fairly robust teen pregnancy rates, so srsly.

Purity rings are lame, a lot of kids get them to deal with their parents
 
It generally signifies that sodomy is on the table as a potential end-of-date activity.

I view purity rings as meaningless because so many people are insincere about them.
 
Same thing goes for religious affiliation, in my book.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-MKG
 
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
That is a spectacular quote and frequently so true.
 
Back
Top Bottom