Posts by Richard James2

I wouldn't go so far as to swear up and down that economic cooperation would take a massive hit, or that anything involving lining people's pockets would suddenly dry up. It’s just my gut feeling—based on how quickly principles tend to fly out the window whenever there's money on the table.

What, you want me to do your homework for you?

Take this, for instance: Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees. They require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.

Or maybe this — which, despite how it's framed, isn't some groundbreaking or revolutionary set of guidelines. To suggest otherwise would imply that the decade-old guidelines from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops don't exist, or that they were somehow flawed. And since they were adopted by a secular government...

The idea that earlier documents were misinterpreted—whether out of pure ignorance or actual malice—as implying non-cooperation with civil authorities is a completely different matter. That’s exactly what happened with the Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela document, where it felt necessary to clarify once again:

This directive from Rome, which effectively encouraged bishops to commit criminal offences in many jurisdictions, including Ireland, by not reporting the crime first to the police.” This statement is both wrong in fact and a seriously damaging assertion.
These give guidance to bishops throughout the world on how to conduct internal disciplinary procedures in a consistent manner when a priest commits one the crimes specified by the norms, for example, the sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric. Importantly, these norms do not preclude a bishop reporting this crime to the civil authorities.
These norms apply only to the internal disciplinary procedures of the church and are not intended to frustrate or undermine any civil investigation or prosecution.

You can find canon law online if you actually bother to look.

Here is the perspective from religious law experts:

click

One constant complaint against The Catholic church is that its rules do not explicitly state that any cases of child abuse must be reported to the police. This ignores the fact that The Vatican rules do not prevent any bishop or priest reporting any crime to their civil authorities and they do not prevent local churches requiring that any allegations must be reported to their local authorities, as the British and American churches now do. However The rules laid down by The Vatican apply to The church throughout The World not Just in America or Britain and as such They apply within countries with very varied standards of judicial and polica behaviour and with a variety of views as to what constitutes criminal behaviour.

On top of all that, I’ll say it again: none of this negates or minimizes the other abuses, the ignoring of issues, the cover-ups, or any of the other grotesque activities that often originate from the highest levels of command.

Thanks for listening.

Austin Martinez20 said:How are we supposed to expect Bozanic to report pedophilia when even the Pope is protecting them?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/victims...-article-326668

http://www.nytimes.com/article/80703/...titio-pedophiles

In your rigid, legalistic little worldview, does an accusation automatically equal a conviction?

By the way, you should really update your blog - http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...to-avoid-loss/ - because while some things are happening in deafening media silence, they are still happening.

And honestly, I get a kick out of watching SNAP scream for justice while simultaneously bragging about publishing fake data and basically looking out for child pornography dealers among their own ranks.

bluemarlin19 said:Richard, you're ignoring everything else because you're caught in a lie, digging yourself even deeper, and you aren't even bothering to fact-check the Catholic pamphlets you're translating for me...

Let me repeat: you lied when you claimed Crimen Sollicitationis mandates reporting to secular authorities and that priests worldwide have an obligation to report today. A recommendation from 2011 and a legal obligation are two very different things. Now you're even bringing up Canon 2368, which has absolutely nothing to do with reporting to secular authorities.

What a bizarre way to argue. You go out of your way to cite specific legal documents—which I, in my infinite "foolishness," am actually trying to interpret—only to then sneer at them and dismiss them as nothing more than Catholic pamphlets. Then, based on your own little version of reality, you act like you have the right to interpret them however you please, as if they were some restaurant menu tailored to your personal preferences. That is exactly what you’re doing. Honestly, if someone calls you out on that kind of reasoning, they aren't wrong; it's pretty clear why you're being called out. Liar.You, on the other hand, are just caught up in a blatant attempt at manipulation and pure opportunism. activists.

Let me repeat myself: I’m telling you, it was all rigged. It wasn't just a mistake; it was a calculated setup. Everything about how this went down feels completely manufactured from the start. Does *Crimen Sollicitationis* actually mandate reporting these things to the secular authorities?

Let me make this clear once again: since we can't just assume everyone is an expert in legal jargon, I pointed out that this document was drafted strictly in accordance with canon law. I also went out of my way to clarify exactly what that means—you can't have Crimen Sollicitationis without canon law, period. And let’s not forget that canon law actually mandates reporting the most severe cases to the police, alongside the internal church investigation.

And honestly, priests all over the world are facing the exact same reality today.
They have a mandatory obligation to report it.

Exactly. I’ve personally cited at least four different Church documents that completely debunk the lie you're peddling—which you conveniently chose to ignore while simultaneously throwing accusations my way about being dishonest. Look, being ignorant isn't a valid excuse for having such a toxic approach to a conversation.

I’ve got a recommendation for you. 2011. And let’s be crystal clear about one thing: those two are completely different concepts. They aren't interchangeable, and treating them as if they are is just plain wrong.

It’s honestly the move of a desperate person to play these semantic games, trying to twist my use of the word "recommendation" just to mask the reality of the situation. Let's be clear: the Pope MANDATES that bishops report these matters to the police. I highly doubt you're actually unaware of that.

And now you’re bringing up canon 2368, which honestly has absolutely nothing to do with reporting matters to the secular authorities.

You're being tedious. I’m assuming you haven't quite grasped that one doesn't just "master" these things—they aren't separate issues. One is completely invalid without the other.

Look, it's pretty obvious: you'll just interpret things however you need to. If it suits you, you'll point to those incriminating documents; if not, you'll just hide behind some dusty old Catholic pamphlets. 🙂

rowdyowl said:Man, Richard, I expected this from plenty of people, but not from you.

To me, it doesn't matter if the people running Mexico are socialists or some far-right extremists like Marine Le Pen.
That whole concept of a "region" only exists in news media and trashy celebrity talk shows.

Look, what do you want me to say? We clearly see things differently. For me, it's enough to know that under that whole pro-European administration, they basically gave a green light to rehabilitate a straight-up collaborator—though I won't even dignify a description of the twisted mindset held by those local nationalists.

I can't claim I don't care about who's running the show in our neighboring country; I really don't, even if Mexico has been firmly placed within its own predictable reality over the last few decades.

By definition, any potential mess brewing in Mexico is something that America and the rest of the so-called region ought to be keeping a very close eye on.

Austin Martinez20 said:You're the ones crying because fewer people show up to church every single day. Me? I’m just laughing at people like you:

Kisses...

Oh, shit, KC isn't just Austria. The depressing part is that the numbers are actually going up. 😢 Even the clergy. 😢 And don't even get me started on how those powerful Anglicans are flooding in.

Fak.

bluemarlin19 said:Richard, Crimen Sollicitationis is the document that places these offenses under the direct jurisdiction of Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it explicitly imposes an obligation on everyone involved in the process, during and after, to maintain absolute secrecy regarding everything related to the proceedings under threat of automatic excommunication and it nowhere, absolutely nowhere, mandates reporting to secular authorities.

So—YOU ARE LYING.

On top of that, you're completely contradicting yourself. First, you justify the Vatican's warning to Irish Bishops that reporting to secular authorities goes against canon law, and then you claim it was a requirement back in '62 (which is a lie; even today, reporting pedophiles to secular authorities is not mandatory under church law).

And in the end, whether or not a bishop is required by church law to report a pedophile is completely irrelevant to the whole story.
The Church, just like any other institution, needs to respect the secular laws of the country where it is located, PERIOD.

And they didn't.

That single sentence alone just goes to show how much you're completely out of your depth here. Crimen Sollicitationis Look, by definition, this stuff falls under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s not like we need to debate whether something should be placed under their authority; they own it by default. It makes zero logical, theoretical, or even practical sense to suggest otherwise. If you see the mere existence of a church body dedicated to handling these kinds of deviant anomalies as some kind of grand conspiracy, well, that’s your problem, not mine.

Just as an aside, back when "Ratzinger's CS" was being published, Ratzinger was still busy handling his duties over in Germany.

There is absolutely no ambiguity here: every single participant involved in this process—whether they are active during the proceedings or merely involved after the fact—is bound by a strict, non-negotiable obligation to maintain absolute secrecy regarding everything related to the case. Under the constant threat of automatic excommunication. And let me be crystal clear: there is absolutely nowhere in there that mandates reporting these matters to secular authorities.

If I were you, I’d make it a priority to sit down and actually read Canon 2368 these days. Trust me on this one.

So—LAZES.

No, you can forget about it—your attempts at manipulation aren't working on me.

And on top of all that, they’re basically just talking to themselves in an echo chamber. First, they start making excuses for the Vatican's warning to the Irish Bishops—claiming that reporting these crimes to secular authorities actually goes against canonical rules. It's a joke.

That would be the truth if anyone had actually said something like that, but they didn't. What was actually stated was that opening everything up to public trials creates serious flaws when it comes to protecting the anonymity of those involved. Let me be crystal clear here: there was absolutely no ultimatum issued, nor was there any recommendation to violate established norms by withholding prosecutorial material in a letter. It simply doesn't exist.Not in this one.

Do you want me to drop some links showing exactly what happens to people who get dragged through a public trial, only for it to turn out later that they were innocent all along?

And then you have the nerve to claim this was some mandatory obligation dating back to '62. That’s just a blatant lie. Even by today's standards, reporting pedophilia to the secular authorities isn't even a requirement.

Listen, let’s get one thing straight: CS isn't some brand-new invention designed to hide things. It’s actually just a modification of a document that dates all the way back to 1922. They updated it in the eighties, long before the media started breathing down everyone's necks and making a massive spectacle out of everything. Back then, it was handled in direct correlation with canon law, which actually required reporting incidents to the secular authorities. It wasn't some secret conspiracy; it was how the system functioned. I don't know about you, but I’ve reached a point where I just can't be bothered with the whole "commitment" charade anymore. It's all just noise. There's this pervasive sense of casualness everywhere now—this constant, exhausting push toward being noncommittal about everything. People jump from one thing to the next without a second thought, treating life like a revolving door. Honestly? I'm over it. Sometimes, leaning into that lack of obligation is the only way to stay sane in a world that demands too much of your time and energy. Document Decalogue document Back in 2002, the Church here in America—with a green light from the Vatican—explicitly mandated full cooperation with civil authorities. It wasn't just a suggestion; it was a formal requirement to work alongside law enforcement and government agencies. The platform for child and youth protection.Furthermore, this approach was actually adopted by the Scottish government, and their specific guidelines also mandate reporting these matters to civilian authorities, along with... de delictis gravioribus Look, regarding that recent recommendation being pushed on bishops to report everything to the police and whatnot—those guidelines aren't just pulled out of thin air. They are fundamentally rooted in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is essentially a derivative of the Crimen Sollicitationis. It’s all connected.

What really sets today's CS apart—and the reason they took such massive heat back then—was the fact that they didn't bother suspending priests under investigation while the process was still moving. You don't need to sit here and lecture me on how certain prelates completely ignored Church rules; trust me, I've seen plenty of it, and I'm sure we'll see more of the same in the future.

A little less screaming and fewer personal attacks wouldn't hurt, and honestly, maybe spend a bit more time actually learning the subject matter.

There’s really no need to ramp up the tension over stuff like this. 😬 People have every right to try their hand at web activism, and honestly, I am all for it.

bluemarlin19 said:Can you please explain this part of the letter to me:
"The text, however, contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems."

"In particular, the situation of „mandatory reporting‟ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature"

Someone I personally respect, though unfortunately not very well known, is Father Gerald Fitzgerald, who wrote numerous warnings to local bishops as well as to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"Back in 1962, Gerald Fitzgerald put together a report after being asked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which everyone called the Holy Office back then). In it, he laid out the different kinds of sexual issues cropping up among priests, specifically touching on the abuse of minors.
He talked about 'the massive issue created by priests who, due to a total lack of discipline, have turned into a major headache for Mother Church.'
When it came to priests who had 'slipped into repetitive sins... particularly the abuse of children, we feel quite strongly that these unfortunate individuals should be offered a choice: live out their days retired behind monastery walls or face full laicization.'
So, they were warned about this mess as early as '62, yet fast forward to '97 and they're still 'thinking about what to do'...

The exact same priest was sitting down with the Pope just one year later:
By August of the following year, he was meeting with the newly elected Pope Paul VI to brief him on his findings and the specific issues he saw plaguing the priesthood. His follow-up letter was blunt: "On a personal level, I’m not optimistic about priests returning to active ministry if they’ve struggled with abnormal behaviors, especially involving minors. That said, the practical needs of the Church have to be weighed, so reinstating priests who seem to have reformed might be an option—but only if they can be strictly guided and supervised. If there's any sign they won't change, given the massive scandal it would cause, I’d strongly advise stripping them of their clerical status entirely."

Then you've got Tom Doyle weighing in on William Levada, who eventually took over Ratzinger's old job running the Inquisition:

'I remember like it was yesterday briefing Levada in May of 1985 while he was serving as an auxiliary bishop regarding the sexual abuse crisis. I’ve personally pored over stacks of documents and sworn deposition testimony that make it crystal clear: most, if not all, bishops were fully aware that priests were raping and sexually abusing children as far back as the 1940s... and I’m only looking that far back because that’s how far I’ve dug into the files. Either way, Levada’s claim is either a flat-out lie or proof he has a incredibly narrow grasp on reality.'

And don't forget, during that whole period, Levada was actually working closely with Ratzinger...

And so on...

Basically, everyone knew, except for the guys at the top. It’s the classic "how could they not know?" scenario.

Look, it's obvious. We're talking about privacy violations that hit the victims and even potentially innocent people—which actually happened—subjecting them to mandatory public proceedings, which might actually scare some people off from coming forward about predators. Either way, the potential fallout is massive. Being cautious about something (and in this case, you logically *should* be cautious about something this vital) doesn't mean you're advocating for actively undermining the process. At least, that isn't what we see happening here.

Someone I personally admire, though unfortunately not widely known, is Gerald Fitzgerald. He wrote numerous warnings to local bishops as well as to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

To you, dear priest, despite your relatively good intentions, you are suggesting a sort of isolated life and depopulation as a way to handle the problem, while Crimen Sollicitationis, for instance, has required the mandatory reporting of serious cases to secular authorities since the 60s.

In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."

This is clearly a well-meaning attempt to offer solutions, though in my view, they fall short. That becomes much more obvious looking back from today's perspective. The John Jay report claims one of the main reasons this mess was handled so poorly was a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pedophilia—specifically, the fact that mere isolation is worth absolutely nothing without strict oversight. Without that, you just have a half-measure, especially since some of those "isolated" individuals ended up sliding right back into their old habits.

Then there's Doyle on William Levada, Ratzinger's successor in heading up the whole Inquisition:

I vividly recall briefing Levada in May, 1985 when he was an auxiliary bishop, about the sexual abuse crisis. I also have seen volumes of documents and sworn testimony from depositions that clearly shows that most, probably all, bishops clearly knew that priests were raping and otherwise sexually abusing kids as far back as the 40's….and I limit it to that era because I have not gone beyond that in studying documents. So, Levada’s statement is either an outright lie or evidence of a very narrow understanding and perception of reality.

When someone claims they "vividly remember" something, they don't get the luxury of using weak, non-committal language like "probably" when dealing with topics this heavy. It just doesn't add up. If you actually saw it with your own eyes—which is what Doyle is implying here—then you aren't guessing or making assumptions. If he tried to present an argument like this in a courtroom, he’d be torn to shreds instantly. It’s honestly baffling to see a canonical lawyer stumble into such logical gymnastics.

And let's not even get started on Doyle himself. I know his work inside and out, and he has this habit of making these massive, nonsensical rhetorical leaps—jumping from theorizing about "recommending protections for those accused of pedophilia" straight to "the Vatican absolutely had no intention of protecting them."

so everyone knew but the top brass didn't? how does that even work...

Pure skepticism wrapped in fancy sarcasm isn't much of an argument, and don't go twisting my words: I clearly stated that it isn't a given that every single local report of misconduct ends up at the CDF. Because it doesn't.

bluemarlin19 said:witnesses

By the way, a girl already posted on this thread about her own abuser, who is still a priest today. He’s currently serving as a parish priest in a small town in rural southern America, having been shuffled around multiple times because of various "incidents"...

Like I've said before, sexual abuse within the Church has always been treated as a grave crime. That means it had to be reported directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was headed by Ratzinger. The whole process is considered a breach of pontifical secrecy, and you can face excommunication for leaking it..

There is a strict pyramidal hierarchy within the KC, which means it's impossible that Ratzinger didn't hear about these abuse cases happening all over the world. If he didn't know, then John Paul II must have known as his boss, and Bozanic would have known too as the link right before them in the chain.

The Apostolic Nuncio lays all of this out clearly in this letter (pdf)

Yeah, look, it’s considered strict pontifical secrecy, primarily to protect the anonymity of everyone involved in the proceedings. It only stays in effect while the process is actually ongoing, and let's be clear: this isn't some workaround or a substitute for facing justice in a secular court of law.

Look, let’s be real here: the hierarchy within the KC is built on a rigid, pyramidal structure with rules so strict they leave zero room for "accidental" ignorance. There is absolutely no way Ratzinger could have been kept in the dark about the abuse cases happening all over the globe. If he didn't know, someone failed at their job, but more likely, he was fully briefed. And if we're talking about accountability, John Paul II had to be aware of it too, given he was the boss, and Bozanic was the previous link in that entire chain of command. It’s a straight line of responsibility, plain and simple.

Just because there are guidelines in place doesn't mean they’re actually being enforced—and honestly, they aren't always. Just because a hierarchy exists, it doesn't automatically follow that every single scandal climbs all the way to the top. It doesn't work like that. We've seen plenty of examples where things just don't make it to Rome or the CDF, let alone the Pope. You can't just assume everything is being reported up the chain. Especially when you look at cases where it was blindingly obvious that a local bishop simply refused to follow the law on the matter.

Everything about this is laid out clearly by the Apostolic Nuncio. ovom pismu (pdf)

Hardly. These stories wouldn't even be on anyone's radar if they hadn't been broken by a compromised reporter at the New York Times instead of a legal expert. For me, the smoking gun is pretty obvious: the only victim advocacy group to actually step up was SNAP, which is led by some incredibly shady and discredited people.

So, here’s the deal: Look, let's get one thing straight because the media loves to muddy the waters: The Congregation for Clergy is not the same as The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith. People constantly trip over this, but it matters. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict) ran the doctrinal side of things; he wasn't running the Congregation for Clergy. Back in 1997, that role was held by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. Here is the bottom line, and I say this because the press has this relentless, predictable habit of viewing every single Vatican move through the lens of the Pope himself: Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has absolutely zero connection to this letter. It wasn't even his department. Period.

(...)

The only actual "consequences" laid out in this letter involve the sheer embarrassment a bishop would face if he botched a case, resulting in a miscarriage of justice that eventually gets overturned by Rome on appeal. That's it. Yet, Goodstein makes it sound like the letter is some sort of heavy-handed threat, implying bishops will face retaliation if they don't "obey." Honestly, that interpretation is wrong on so many levels. This isn't an ultimatum, and it certainly isn't a list of commands. It’s an advisory statement—a warning to the American bishops that they need to stick to canon law to ensure they don't commit errors that end up being struck down during an appeal. Let’s be clear: there isn't some looming threat of retaliation happening here.

Goodstein makes IT appear that The Vatican is trying to intimidate bishops into silence if they take the step of notifying the police about predators. Honestly, the whole debate over mandatory reporting hasn't even hit the table yet. Furthermore, her claim that the letter mandates "bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels"—implying they shouldn't go to the cops—is just plain incorrect. The document doesn't say any of that. There is absolutely nothing in this text requiring a bishop to keep information regarding predators under wraps.

http://jimmyakin.com/2011/01/vatican...ild-abuse.html

My bad. I just realized I'm replying to a post from a year ago. Doesn't really matter, though; I guess Austin Martinez20 felt the need to bump this thread just to push his blog, even if he didn't actually contribute anything useful to the conversation.

Larry Walker24 said:btw. I get written up too! And it's brutal!

Now Linda is being vocal—just look at the threads for FOX, Discovery Channel, and ABC

Look, I don't really follow those specific threads. 🤷 But honestly, I know you're capable of starting your own topic 😁>, so if you think some absolute garbage has spread like wildfire, just sit down, gather your thoughts, and frame it into a formal complaint thread or whatever. I don't know what else to tell you. Getting a ban isn't necessarily the end of the world.

Look, go ahead and complain, for crying out loud. 😁 File the report. When you think about those PDF issues at FOX, just remember how they handled that one employee—everyone was making a huge stink about it, and the guy basically got tossed under the bus. Don't go thinking this is some conspiracy against you or any kind of vendetta. It really isn't.

To quote Kelly Bundy, "I breast my case." Just do what you think is right. Honestly, I think you’ve already made it pretty clear exactly what's bothering everyone. Cheers.

Larry Walker24 said:And I don't just post copy-pastes! Feel free to go check out my other posts!

I swear on everything holy that the whole point of those posts from the other site is to improve the discussion and nothing else! How many posts I have? That doesn't matter to me.

First, I got attacked over that invasive species thread, claiming I was just copy-pasting to make the thread hit three pages!

Alright, look, it’s probably best if we just go with that. Exclusively. Copycat. 😁Look, I didn't even say that. But let’s be real—when you start pumping out posts like that so blatantly, people notice. A huge chunk of the users on Reddit can see exactly what you're doing. And for God's sake, you don't need to swear on anything; stop overdoing it.

Look, you and c/p are basically like Wizard and his endless list of links. You take up so much space just to offer next to nothing in the way of actual opinions. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’ve got nothing against you personally, but seriously, man—when you see a headline about a Bengal tiger vomiting in a zoo visitor's face, there is absolutely no reason to start a whole new thread just so it shows up on the board. Do what you want, obviously; I’m not a moderator here, thanx god for Small pleasures, but I'm telling you, it's unnecessary.

Larry Walker24 said:Look, I'm literally dropping links to show where I'm getting my info! 😕

Everything I'm doing is just to get people talking.

Sure, you managed to do that, fair enough. But let’s be real: just being a mindless copy-paste machine doesn't make you someone worth debating. Personally, I think—and hey, maybe I'm wrong here—that you're either just padding your post count or you have this burning desire to nail something on this board that looks interesting to you, despite having zero actual stance or expertise on the subject. Again, you and posts like yours aren't "discussion starters" simply because they even made it onto the board. If that's the case, what's the point of a forum? We might as well just scroll through news portals and call it a day. Adios.

Larry Walker24 said:If you can't stand me, just hit that ignore button already!

Look, you don't need to take this personally. Your style really grinds my gears—you have this constant, blatant disregard for the rules—but that doesn't mean I’m going to start cursing you out or telling you where to go every time I see your username pop up. 😁

Henry Hernandez7, look, you don't need to be the spice in every single dish.

This is straight-up disrespect at this point. They're basically treating the other members here and the mods like we're total idiots. Honestly, "at this point" is an understatement—it's been like this since the very second they decided to ignore that first warning and just kept doing the exact same thing. First it was one person, then another, now it's a pattern.

Either that, or we're all caught up in some incredibly bizarre, twisted joke.

Samuel Walker7 said:My heart was racing like a jet engine seeing our guys celebrating like that...

Man... 😍 I was absolutely beaming. You could tell they finally found some peace after all the chaos and the absolute nightmare of the last few days. This wasn't just about celebrating a bronze medal; it was about relief.

Poor Ratko Mercer, back when he was an officer in the American People's Army during his absolute prime, being forced to sit there and listen to all that mindless, mystical nonsense—you can practically see the sheer discomfort written all over his face.

That whole "backup plan" concept isn't actually baked into every religion. It completely ignores the sheer amount of opportunism and blatant dishonesty people use when dealing with their higher authorities—especially if they don't view that sovereign power as some sort of total, brainless pushover.

Honestly, this kind of grandstanding is on par with those online godless activists who start dropping YouTube links from some backwater corner of Alabama—where, for the sake of argument, a father might hang his wife because he thinks Satan possessed her—just to try and validate the evil of Christianity. Even though such extreme cases are incredibly rare and frankly obscure, they use them to push a specific theory, completely ignoring the fact that if they kept posting links like that, they’d be forced to renounce atheism instantly by their own logic. Look, even though the old communist regime in the former America was overtly and aggressively godless as its official doctrine and social standard, the fact that that worldview was baked into the state apparatus—and that most of the butchers in the North America operated within that commissar hierarchy—doesn't actually tell you much about people who hold those views today when there's no coercion involved and they're just following their own conscience. We need to be way more careful with these sweeping generalizations and loaded terms. He really ought to apologize, or at least clarify his stance, regardless of whatever media circus comes his way.

The Bishop would have been better off quoting the late Saint Paul, a practical(?) believer who, amidst the twilight of all that wartime madness, wrote about how Mexicans and Americans could never coexist. But hey, let's not get in the way of the ecumenical spirit; we've got Irenaeus right here, and apparently, the only people getting under his skin are Muslims.