>VIGANO IS A LYING PIECE OF VATICAN TRASH!
So I'm trying to reconcile why Q would put Vigano's letters to POTUS out there in front of us Anons as if they were a good thing. I realize that the basic gist of the letters implies that POTUS is doing good works, so there's that. I have trouble believing that Q, Q+, & POTUS would not already know that Vigano is Deep State. If Vigano is Deep State, what purpose does it serve for Q to flaunt the letters? Why not just out Vigano?
I've been lurking since around the first of the year. So still a newfag. I read the welcome early on. It is tough sometimes to separate the wheat from the chaff. Still learning.
Regarding the "warrior monk", I thought he was on the same page regarding removal of the evil. I'm no longer clear on his intent. The simple question is, how can one support those in the Vatican who condone or look the other way regarding pedophilia?
As for the BO, it's all good on my end.
As it were, I'm still reading and learning. The Gladio doc is a struggle as it appears to be written for people much more knowledgeable of Catholicism than folks like me.
TY for the response.
>You Mathlets didn't think those numbers through now did you ?.
Your math is Fucked Up…
First off, 2,489 is 0.75% of 330,000
(2489/330000 = 0.0075 x 100 to move the decimal for % = 0.75%)
(Retard math doesn’t move the decimal for percentage)
Next, 2,489 is 61.8% of 4,029
61.8% of 15,249 is 9,424 (rounding to whole numbers)
In other words, IF the entire lot of 15,249 had been interviewed, it is likely that 9,424 would have occurred in Catholic institutions.
Therefore:
(9424/330000 = 0.0286 x 100 to move the decimal for % = 2.86%)
2.86% - I’d call that sizable for a single target group.
Doesn’t it suck when you try to call down the thunder only to find out you blew it?
Get your shit together
>Are you still uncomfortable, Fren?
>Or have you learned enough by now in order to see that everything is going according to Plan?
The short answers are no, not uncomfortable, and I’ve always been on board with the plan. Both Pink Bunnies and Q. In that post I was concerned that just exposure was not enough to effect change because a lot of people would simply plug their ears and yell lalalalalala…
>It is a research thread until the Apologist shill turns it into a Battlefield at which time I destroy the Shill >over and over and over again.
So, I will continue to learn and research here.
>The shill argument is always the same. Stale and static.
>Sounds like you may be now siding with said shill?
Nope.
>I am fine with being wrong yet if at this point you are agreeing with the shill then that means I was >correct about the Sliding.
I took time to do my due diligence with the “warrior monk” but have come to the conclusion that his intent is to defend the indefensible. I cannot abide by that.
>My Shillelagh has many notches.
>Welcome to the Revolution
>The verdict is in, I officially like you.
I guess that could be scary! Kek!
>Can you see now why Q lit up Vigano?
>If anything, Q gave Vigano enough rope/attention to hang himself.
I may be missing it. How specifically did Vigano tip his hand?
So, you come back to slapping with your maths? When it comes to math you are a ridiculous buffoon.
Let’s start with this mathematical wizardry:
>So only 0.75% procent of the Abuse cases would be related to Catholic Institutions.
>That would leave 99.75% to be committed by non-catholics.
Simply regarding the math, not your implication, you are a .5% off. Is it the simple math that is hard?
That number would be 99.25%. From this point on, all your maths are suspect. (Your pic related), when it comes to math, you fall into the stupider half.
Now let’s discuss the other aspects of this.
You need to start here for the Catholics:
By the way, you cherry-picked the fuck out of this…
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/unredacted-volume-16-religious-institutions-book-1.pdf
The Royal Commission’s work on religious institutions:
“As of 31 May 2017, 15,249 people had contacted us about child sexual abuse that fell within
our Terms of Reference. Of these, 7,382 people (48.4 per cent) told us about child sexual abuse
in religious institutions. Many went on to attend a private session. As of 31 May 2017, we had
heard from 6,875 survivors in private sessions, of whom 4,029 (58.6 per cent) told us about
child sexual abuse in religious institutions. We heard more allegations of child sexual abuse in
relation to the Catholic Church than any other religious organization, followed by the Anglican
Church, The Salvation Army and others.”
Above “Terms of Reference” not identified…
Private Sessions:
“The largest proportion of these survivors spoke to us about child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions. We heard from 2,489 survivors about child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, representing almost two-thirds (61.8 per cent) of survivors who told us about child sexual abuse in religious institutions and more than one-third (36.2 per cent) of all survivors we heard from in private sessions. In private sessions we heard about child sexual abuse occurring in 964 different Catholic institutions.”
Other Data Sources:
“Catholic Church authorities provided information about claims of child sexual abuse they received between 1 January 1980 and 28 February 2015 (the Catholic Church claims data). Of the 201 Catholic Church authorities surveyed, 92 authorities (46 per cent) reported having received one or more claims of child sexual abuse. Overall, 4,444 claimants alleged incidents of child sexual abuse in 4,756 reported claims to Catholic Church authorities.”
So we’ll ignore your conflation of the 15,249 reports over a 60-year span and since the top two quotes do not indicate a time frame we’ll use the Other Data Sources.
Now the math looks like this:
35 yr. time span.
5,500 x 35 = 192,500
4,444 / 192,500 = 0.0231 x 100 = 2.31%. Still a large number for a single data point.
I wonder how many of the 5,500 predators, (or 192,500 by your standards), were Catholics? Can’t ignore that now, can we?
(Your pic related), now who’s attempting to use magical math?
I’ll say it again, get your shit together…
>HAHAHA you really don't see it do you ?
>How do you intend to apply 61% to a group of which already 51.6% stated that they were NOT abused in religious institutions ?
The idiot mocks (your pic related)…
It’s one of two things:
A – You are stupid beyond belief.
B – You attempt to confound others with your high and mighty platitudes and self-righteous indignation in an attempt to discredit.
B is the winner! So, for all others reading, ANY post from this poster that include any maths should be filtered, or at the very least, ignored.
Let me explain this post
>They are two DIFFERENT data sets.
In a simpler form that may, just may, stick in your brainlet (really just to discredit your weak mocking).
Math 101:
From the section of the Royal Commission's work that you cherry-picked.
DATA SET 1
Of the 15,249 individuals, you said: “51.6% stated that they were NOT abused in religious institutions”
Therefore, 51.6% of 15,249 = 7,868 (rounding applies)
DATA SET 2
Of the 15,249 individuals, 4,029 were interviewed & 2,489 said it was connected to the Catholic Church.
Therefore, 2,489 is 61.8% 4,029 (2,489 / 4,029 = 0.6177 x 100 =61.8%
We can agree that:
51.6% = 7,868
61.8% = 2,489
By your logic:
You expect to be able to add the resultant percentages to get to 100% (15,249)
51.6% + 61.8% = 113.4% (greater than to 100% is your argument)
7,868 + 2,489 = 10,357 (less than 15,249)
By your argument the two should reconcile, they never will, as they are TWO DIFFERENT data sets.
In data set 1, 15,249 = 100%
In data set 2, 4,029 = 100%
(your pic related) Who’s the bitch now?
Your continued defense of the indefensible seems to know no bounds
You defend your shitty math as well as the Catholic Church’s child sexual abuse…
(You) 2.31% - “but it’s such a small number…”
Fucking outrageous!
What I find most disgusting about your post
is that you completely ignored this from my post:
>In the end, I take it that you think 2.31% of all child sexual abuse attributed DIRECTLY to the Catholic Church is a small number, hence the reason you drag ever other demographic into this. FOCUS! The discussion is about the Catholic Church's role in the child sexual abuse! While I'm not ignoring any of the other 97.69% committed by "others", I'm certainly not the one doing everything he can to deflect away from the Catholic Church and say "But look over here!"
>they might as well stack them creatively.
Reads an awful lot like "desecration". Are you sure you want to stand on that theory?
>I don't care what you read in to it.
I beg to differ. Apparently, you do care. You continue to shill back at me.
You have shown that you have little concept of mathematics, OR, you claim my math sucks, with no proof other than a claim that my math sucks. Shill tactic.
You conflate with this mishmash of B.S. math,
>Explain that then dimwit . how do you figure that 2.489 is 61% of the total of 15.249
and this:
The math does not lie. Go back here:
>It's not like you have shown to be particularly good at comprehensive reading.
I make no claim to be learned on the Vatican RCC. To the contrary, I made it clear that I’m learning.
But one thing I know is math and you either suck or you lie. It is one of the two and I believe it is the latter as I have made the math abundantly clear. The lie outs you…
>Therefore a fact, not a theory.
I’m open to evidence, but unless you have evidence of intent, it remains a theory and your opinion.
>Neither is it a desecration to put bones in a ossuary.
What part of digging up graves is not considered desecration? How nice of you to ignore that little fact.
>Seems like you forgot you switched accounts..
Not hardly. Again, you've not been paying attention. I outed myself indicating I use multiple devices here. So what?
>Also your shark fantasy is retarded.
Try to keep your opponents straight. Not my shark fantasy. While appropriate, others named you “shark poop”, “Vatican apologist”, and “warrior monk”.
I challenge you to find one argument / conclusion that I did not come to, on my own, regarding my perspective on who you are, or purport to be. I watched and read.
I challenged you on your sorry-assed math because it was blatantly obvious that you were pushing a narrative based on shitty math. A shill, it does not make me, just because I happen to agree with others on the point that you minimize / ignore the rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church. You put that on yourself. I’ve challenged you on no other topic, so a shill for the individuals you refer to as the “furrie” and the “pagan”, I am not. There is nothing I offer them in their banter with you.
>And obviously i cant be a shill because my posts don't support any other posters nor do have other posters expressed their support for mine.
You a shill? Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure I agree that the support or consensus requires other posters within this format. My opinion is that you are a shill for the Vatican RCC.
Since you continue to engage me, (the rookie, the noob, the delusional constipated rabbit) I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, (remember, I watched and read).
Legitimate questions:
1.) Why do you downplay / minimize the pedophilia that occurs within the Catholic Church?
2.) Why are you against the exposure / undoing of the Vatican for their crimes?
3.) From here, >>11669958 why do you appear to conflate all Catholics with the Vatican?
4.) Again, from here, >>11669958 why do you continue to push that the accusations against McCarrick have no credibility? Because, as you say, another pedophile accused him?
5.) Here >>11541878 at the bottom, you clearly indicate that the Catholic Church is not corrupt. Am I wrong?
>Your framing
That's what you get when you engage a rookie noob… Who gives a fuck about the way the questions are framed? What's telling is you never answered.
So, filtered on this device as well. Buh By, faggot shill for the Vatican
POPE FRANCIS STRIPS GOD’S WRATH FROM MASS FOR PANDEMIC
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-erases-gods-wrath-from-new-mass-for-pandemic
VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) - The new "Mass in Time of Pandemic," published on April 1 by the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship, has been stripped of all references to the "wrath of God."
"This new version does not express a genuine Catholic understanding of pandemic," eminent English writer Nick Donnelly told Church Militant, "but instead presents a sanitized caricature of God that completely ignores the divine truth revealed in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition; that pestilence can express God's wrath at the human race sunk in the depths of sinful depravity."
Deacon Donnelly explains:
“The new liturgy presents an emasculated God who is reduced to only playing a supporting role to the primary agency of human activity. Nowhere in this humanistic liturgy do we find an acknowledgement that God, through His permissive will, has allowed this pandemic to call mankind to repentance; neither does the new liturgy recognize Him as having sole authority and power to end the pandemic.”
More in link above
Pope calls meeting of key bishops on sexual abuse – Vatican
https://newsbook.com.mt/en/pope-calls-meeting-of-key-bishops-on-sexual-abuse-vatican/
Pope Francis has summoned senior bishops from around the world to the Vatican in February to discuss the protection of minors from sexual abuse, the Vatican said on Wednesday.
A Vatican spokeswoman said the meeting of the heads of national Catholic bishops conferences would take place Feb. 21-24.
The calling of the February meeting comes in the wake of fresh sexual abuse scandals in a number of countries, including the United States, Chile and Australia.
The Catholic Church in the United states has been shaken by a damning Grand Jury report in the state of Pennsylvania that found that 301 priests in the state had sexually abused minors over the past 70 years.
Francis is due to meet on Thursday with U.S. Catholic Church leaders who want to discuss the fallout from the report as well as a scandal involving a former American cardinal and demands from an archbishop that the pontiff step down.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), asked for the meeting after Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano last month accused the pope of knowing for years about sexual misconduct by former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and of doing nothing about it.
**I feel insulted.
Pope calls meeting of key bishops on sexual abuse – Vatican
https://newsbook.com.mt/en/pope-calls-meeting-of-key-bishops-on-sexual-abuse-vatican/
Pope Francis has summoned senior bishops from around the world to the Vatican in February to discuss the protection of minors from sexual abuse, the Vatican said on Wednesday.
A Vatican spokeswoman said the meeting of the heads of national Catholic bishops conferences would take place Feb. 21-24.
The calling of the February meeting comes in the wake of fresh sexual abuse scandals in a number of countries, including the United States, Chile and Australia.
The Catholic Church in the United states has been shaken by a damning Grand Jury report in the state of Pennsylvania that found that 301 priests in the state had sexually abused minors over the past 70 years.
Francis is due to meet on Thursday with U.S. Catholic Church leaders who want to discuss the fallout from the report as well as a scandal involving a former American cardinal and demands from an archbishop that the pontiff step down.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), asked for the meeting after Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano last month accused the pope of knowing for years about sexual misconduct by former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and of doing nothing about it.
**I feel insulted.
>>11873359 pb
I feel like there is a Vatican connection here but have not found it. Any other Anons finding any links?
EPIC FAIL on behalf of the Church
Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church
“The canon law of the Catholic Church requires that clerics "observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".[1] For this reason, priests in Roman Catholic dioceses make vows of celibacy at their ordination, thereby agreeing to remain unmarried and abstinent throughout their lives. The 1961 document entitled Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders stated that homosexual men should not be ordained. However, this was left to bishops to enforce and most did not, holding homosexuals to the same standards of celibate chastity as heterosexual seminarians.[2] In 2005, the Church clarified that men with "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" cannot be ordained. The Vatican followed up in 2008 with a directive to implement psychological screening for candidates for the priesthood. Conditions listed for exclusion from the priesthood include "uncertain sexual identity" and "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[3]
More EPIC FAILS
Researchers Study Gays in Catholic Priesthood
Most Molestation Victims Are Older Boys
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_07_12/2005_09_20_TheBostonChannel_ResearchersStudy.htm
TheBostonChannel.com [New York]
September 20, 2005
NEW YORK – Researchers have identified a pattern in the molestation crisis afflicting the Roman Catholic Church: most of the victims are older boys.
Noting this trend, some high-ranking Catholics have concluded that many abusive clergy are gay, and some church members have suggested purging the priesthood of homosexuals. But abuse experts say that's a simplistic approach that will not end the threat to children.
"What I'm afraid of is we're going into this witch hunt for gays," said the Rev. Stephen Rossetti, a psychologist and sex abuse consultant to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We need to be careful that we don't make anyone - whether it's priests or gays - scapegoats."
In the Vatican's first public comments about the scandal, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, chief spokesman for Pope John Paul II, told The New York Times the church needed to prevent gays from becoming priests.
Estimates of the number of gays among seminarians and the 47,000 Catholic clergy in the United States vary dramatically, from 10 percent to 50 percent. But no credible data exists on the number of abusive priests who are homosexual, said Dr. Fred Berlin, a sexual disorders expert at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
There is also no evidence that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children, Berlin said.
Still, some in the church blame gays for the cases of abuse, in part because most of the abusive priests are not considered pedophiles. In some cases where the victims are adolescents, the encounter can be considered homosexual conduct that although unacceptable can't be classified as a psychiatric disorder, Berlin said.
The American Psychiatric Association defines pedophiles as adults who molest children who have not yet reached puberty. Cases of serial sex abuse of prepubescent children are considered rare in the church.
New Jersey attorney Stephen Rubino said about 85 percent of the 300 people he has represented against the church were males who were adolescents when they were abused.
The distinction is important to clinicians, who say serial pedophiles have little chance of being rehabilitated, while adults who abuse adolescents - sometimes called ephebophiles or hebophiles – respond better to treatment in some cases. Courts also view the abuse of younger children as more egregious, giving harsher sentences since very young victims have a tougher time recovering from the abuse.
But Dr. Robert Miller, a University of Colorado expert on sex offenders, said adults who molest children of any age are psychologically immature.
"These are people with normal sex drives who cannot discharge them appropriately because they are afraid of adult women," Miller said. "They are looking for intimacy, a kind of closeness they can't get with adults. They develop an ongoing relationship with kids. They have the opportunity and the access."
The offenders' targeting of boys versus girls can be a clue to their sexual orientation, but not necessarily, experts say.
In the general population, girls are more often sexually abused, while among priests who target children, boys are more often the victim. Researchers believe one reason is the access clergy members have to boys.
"Some of the traditions within the Catholic Church put boys into closer proximity to priests than girls," said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. "If you had more young women serving as altar girls and there were more opportunities to have these close private encounters with priests, you might get more molestation with girls."
A. W. Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest who works with plaintiffs in sex abuse cases, blames the culture of the church.
"What other profession do you have that has a widespread boys club mentality where everyone has to be a man, where everything is male-revered," Sipe said.
Until more research can be done on why boys are more often targeted, many researchers say the church should focus on improving screening of candidates to the priesthood, teaching seminarians how to handle the pressures of celibate life and strengthening supervision of priests.
"What you may have is not so much a problem with gay people, but with people who have kind of an immature sexuality or a conflicted sexuality," Finkelhor said. "Within the church it may not be so much being a homosexual, as it may be the fact that the celibate lifestyle is a magnet for people dealing with sexual conflicts."
>mafia money laundering you are trying to show with your other post. >>11873359
Not my post from the QR board, but is there a known link to Vatican money with the Recordare laundering?
>Save the Vatican Ship at all costs! IS WHAT IT IS…
It's obvious, if Viganò doesn't save the ship, he's out of a job. And as you've pointed out in the past, he want's the papal crown! Kek!
Just a head's up…
Ignoring this,
https://www.usccb.org/offices/general-secretariat/how-new-pope-chosen
How is a new pope really chosen (criteria) and how does that reflect upon the College of Cardinals? If what I suspect, the College of Cardinals must all be corrupt as well…
OP or e81836
Are you able to correct the image not loading issue with these two posts? TYIA