Cardinal Tagle urges people not to revenge on molester priests!

[noy.juan]

---

Pwerting bawala . And you dont need to get my attention by making GIANT FONTS . Unsay pag tuo nimo nako ?

9. Don't use needless or excessive usage of Line-breaks, ALL-CAPS, nested quotes "quoting of quotes" (max is 3), GIANT fonts, swearing or derogatory terms.

is it needless or excessive? i dont think again, then again who am i to question the implementation diba? you guys are the authority we are just followers...

now what i think of you? you are not directly answering my post daghan pakay ka ug liko... your'e making an issue on how others reacted...

Didnt I just answer your question ? My opinion was about how you act your reservations here .

the question is not about how others reacted, or theyr'e reservations, the question is basicly about the issue.. now i would consider that as OffTopic kay ni lihay ka sa original nga pangutana... but thats on my playing field ra...

At least kat-on naka ug malumanay na sibya .

from beginning i try to ask this its conservatively constructed like what i said above is it needless or excessive ba? dont you think you just did when you answer my post? i dont think soo.. then again im just a member here... now going back

now for the last time... what is your opinion to the issue?

wether mo liko gihapon ka o dili, ill stop replying nalang kay mao ra istoryaha... wala mi dag-anan... ive seen you post on other thread about the church and i see some issues there but then again we are all entitled to our own opinion diba...

ps: its kinda ironic what you just did is the similar reaction when the church errr (some people are accused)... they started to make an issue sa nag accused... turning the question back... a classic legal strategy... if you cant defeat the evidence... destroy the witness credibility and confidence...


therefore i will rest my case...

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I wasn't looking for a reconciliation of opinion actually. I just want to hear it. By the way, I want your opinion on the issue and not your opinion on the post by the TS and the replies here.

Isnt that what you guys were rooting for ? Kay if I abide on the opinion of others ? Aw MASS BAN or MASS MUTE mahitabo but I did not for the sake of discussion and letting them know na sayop sila and di sila sakto because it crossed my opinions . Just plain wrong , no more and no less . Mao na ang basehan nimo .

Ang imung pasabot sah mga ni judge, para rah nah sa nibasa sa TITLE only and not the entire article.
But still, it's their right to make their opinion.
No matter how baseless. No matter how crass.
And how would you know they did not read it entirely?

A person in the right mind and sanity would not say those BASELESS ACCUSATIONS if they have read the ENTIRE ARTICLE . Its as simple as that . Mao they should be ready to labeled as IGNORAMUS because of their reservations . They preferred still to say something because of their pre programmed mentality towards the CHURCH / RCC when in fact we are talking about the CARDINAL here . Siya ang gi interview and di ang simbahan .

Even you are forming opinion based on what you only read here in istorya.
Your opinion on us, your opinion on other posters.
Because some of the posts do not appeal to you, or
because some of the posts are insensitive, you immediately think that
they did not read the entire article.

Bai usbon nako .... dont you think it is not OBVIOUS enough not to know who read and who did not ? Yes ... I formed my PERSONAL POINT of VIEWS but these are BASED on something . Unless you thought of na baseless siya kay mugna ra nako then you are wrong .

In my case, I read the article here in istorya, also the one in the link.
I also read estor's article from GMA.
I also read the article from CBCP news.
I still stand by my opinion.
He was subtlely telling people that such issues are better if they are spared from media attention and legal action.

Spared from LEGAL ACTION ? Says who ? Says the CARDINAL ? Says the CHURCH ?The media attention being and knowing what we have here makes these burst out of proportions which happened already . Heck mao bitaw ni pinaka reason why the thread existed , this is another form of MEDIA . he only emphasized that it adds pain to both subjects because of the acceptance of the society . tan-awa gud na thread title o ? Lols .... revenge ? Ngano gud uroy mag revenge ka a ALLEGED pa lang .

Edited: Am I 100% spot on? I am sure I'm not. But based on the materials available, and looking at history and current events, that's what I think.

Were you DISRESPECTFUL and ARROGANT and thinks like you are all BADASS ? Nope . You clearly displayed your OPINION in a manner where it is deemed CIVILIZED . Mao na ang saktong FREEDOM of SPEECH , being responsible and knows how to balanced things maski naka pili na ka asa ka na side .

@NOY.JUAN

Mura man sad ka ug TS diay .... mao it shows why reactions ninyo sumpay sa tinae .

Read again my reply to you kay gipag bigyan na tika sa request nimo . Or i rephrase nako ang akong OPINION ?

Dakong sayop ang THREAD TITLE and SELECTED COPY and PASTED STATEMENTS na gi post sa TS .

[<SMILE>]

Pareho ra na ini nga comment

First, it is important to point out that “so many” is not an accurate characterization. It may seem like many evangelical Christian leaders are caught in scandals, but this is due to the vast amount of attention such scandals are given. There are thousands of evangelical Christian leaders, pastors, professors, missionaries, writers, and evangelists who have never participated in anything “scandalous.” The vast majority of evangelical Christian leaders are men and women who love God, are faithful to their spouses and families, and handle their activities with the utmost honesty and integrity. The failures of a few should not be used to attack the character of all.

Source: Why are so many evangelical Christian leaders caught in scandals?

Unsa man gyuy katuyoan ining uban,
are they prosecutors in their own behalf, maora na unya na
ug kangaroo court, let the legal process take it's course, kay wala gyud ta kahibalo
unsa gyuy tinuod, it is quite so easy to invent statements.

[Scott Bernard]

In my opinion, the Church might forgive the scalawag priests but it does not exempt them from the justice of the State.... Dili pod na mag manipulate ang simbahan sa mga korte para lang madapigan ang mga pari nga nakasala.

[Joseph Ratzinger]

Of course Allen would say that. He's from the National CATHOLIC Reporter.

We were discussing SNAP's endorsement of Tagle when you posted that link. Next time, don't muddle the issue the way Catholic fanatics like to do. No need to explain if you know what you're doing.

Do you even know what the NCR is? They're a Catholic newspaper but they're independent. They even have some articles that pissed some ultra-conservatives off. And it was obvious that I placed from the NCR. Oh well, coming from someone who probably just read the TS' post and judges right away, that's understandable.

As for endorsement, not officially of course because one should not be endorsing a certain Cardinal as Pope publicly. But the mere fact that they had to mention Tagle when they could have said non of the above just goes to show his track record when it comes to the *** abuse issues. The problem with you people are that you are all so quick to judge without even understanding his statements. I rest my case.

[redemption32]

Bro, Cardinal Tagle never said that the accused will not have his day in court. SNAP would not have endorsed him as one of the two Cardinals they preferred to become Pope if he was protecting abusers. SNAP is a group representing the victims that were abused by priests. Here's the article on why they picked him: Abuse victims' group names preferred picks for new pope - CNN.com


I have said this the third time already. hahaha..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ivors-new-pope

"The group – which specified that its praise did not equate to any kind of endorsement of the cardinals – released a "dirty dozen" list earlier in the week of their counterparts it deemed unfit to lead the church"

Unsa mani father Joseph? Misunderstanding nasad ni? I thought you said SNAP endorsed him??

Three times pa nimu gisulti. Sayop man sad.

[Joseph Ratzinger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ivors-new-pope

"The group – which specified that its praise did not equate to any kind of endorsement of the cardinals – released a "dirty dozen" list earlier in the week of their counterparts it deemed unfit to lead the church"

Unsa mani father Joseph? Misunderstanding nasad ni? I thought you said SNAP endorsed him??

Three times pa nimu gisulti. Sayop man sad.

Not officially endorsing, yeah. And usbon nasad nako ug sutli kay murag di dyud ka mo basa.

1. Officially endorsing a Cardinal as Pope is not allowed. So no group would likely officially endorse someone.

2. They could have opted not to choose any Cardinals that they preferred but they did.

Sayop ko? hahaha... Mas labaw pa kang sayop kay diretso ra kag assume na si Tagle mo protect ug *** abusers based on a post by some TS when it's not even true. He never stated that he would let the abusers go nor hide them. He has a point about the victims suffering more if the media gets involved since as mentioned by me and some others here that the media can blow things out of proportion and sensationalize this. I have never seen anything in his statement that says hey, let's hide the abusers. Based on his track record, he would never do such a thing. People should read Tagle's background before jumping into conclusions.

[Eve's Apple Project]

Atot ani nila oi..nya sa RH bill, naghimo pasila og Line up nga TEAM patay.. wa man kahay revenge? consistent na kaayo dah. if nakasala ang pari, dapat prisohon jud na, they should not be exempted. molestia (or even rape) is rape. just imagine the trauma sa mga na abusaran..then atong stand is to just pray for them nalang? di na mahimo oi.

[Joseph Ratzinger]

Atot ani nila oi..nya sa RH bill, naghimo pasila og Line up nga TEAM patay.. wa man kahay revenge? consistent na kaayo sila dah

Cardinal Tagle has nothing to do with Team Patay. It's the Bacolod Diocese.

[redemption32]

Not officially endorsing, yeah. And usbon nasad nako ug sutli kay murag di dyud ka mo basa.

1. Officially endorsing a Cardinal as Pope is not allowed. So no group would likely officially endorse someone.

2. They could have opted not to choose any Cardinals that they preferred but they did.

Sayop ko? hahaha... Mas labaw pa kang sayop kay diretso ra kag assume na si Tagle mo protect ug *** abusers based on a post by some TS when it's not even true. He never stated that he would let the abusers go nor hide them. He has a point about the victims suffering more if the media gets involved since as mentioned by me and some others here that the media can blow things out of proportion and sensationalize this. I have never seen anything in his statement that says hey, let's hide the abusers. Based on his track record, he would never do such a thing. People should read Tagle's background before jumping into conclusions.

“So if the Church could address this issue swiftly, by being the caring, healing, and just community that it is supposed to be, I think for Asia, it will work,” he said.

Why would the Church even address this issue in ANY way?? If they had a priest who has allegedly molested someone, let the legal system address the issue!! No need for them to be caring or healing. They just need to stay out of the way. Any more than that, yeah, that's protecting them molesters!!

Again, choosing the "least worst" isn't the same as endorsing a preferred candidate for the Papacy.

Though, I am willing to admit that my "priest molesters protector" (or something to that effect) jab is way out of line on my part, I'm still opposed to his statements. If he truly wants transparency, he should get out of the way.

I apologize for my baseless, inaccurate and crass comments on Tagle. After a brief research, I can submit that he indeed could be part of the Church's solution.

But I still do not agree with his statements. Why would he even say that legal action adds to the pain to the accused? It's a given!!
Is he trying to tell us not to expose the accused to legal action or media attention because we add to their pain?? He should have just said nothing on that light.

If he was not trying to tell us that, then what?? He was just stating the obvious that media attention and legal action adds to the pain of the accused??

Was he wearing Captain Obvious' mask??