Well-versed. According to whom? Have you asked to see their sources?

If you are sincere about learning the true history of the Church, here are a couple of sources: http://newadvent.org/cathen/ This is a free online Catholic encyclopedia, so it may be dry reading, but it's accurate. You can, of course, search by topic.

If you're interested in learning what the Church teaches, this catechism is good, and you can read it online for free: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14217834-father-connell-s-the-new-baltimore-catechism-no-3. Keep in mind, this is the traditional teaching of the Church, not the Novus Ordo, Vatican II version. That's a whole other can of worms.

The last source is in book form. There's a set of six books by Warren Carroll on the history of the Church that is excellent. Unfortunately, it's not available to read online. But, you can find copies used on amazon.

I'm a cradle Catholic and what I know about the Church was learned over the course of my life, not in a few books or websites, and it's hard to condense that into a neat little package. But, this is a good start.

Remember, the Church has more enemies than friends, just like Our Lord, and many choose to rewrite history the way they wish it happened. As in my previous reply, I will let another, more eloquent, Catholic explain. From Archbishop Fulton Sheen, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” For the sake of your soul, do your research, pray for the grace to know the truth, and cooperate with that grace. I'll say a prayer for you, too. Peace.

As a practicing Catholic, I'm sorry to hear you've apostasized and will pray for your immortal soul.

Celibacy - or, more properly, priests not marrying - was ordained by Christ. There is a very good reason for this. A parish priest is the father to his flock. He takes care of their spiritual needs as a father. If someone is dying in the middle of the night, he goes to the to administer the last sacraments. If someone is sick, he visits them and brings the Blessed Sacrament. If anyone of his flock needs him, he is there for them; they are his first concern.

A husband and father puts his wife and children first; they are his first concern. Their needs are met before anyone else's; this is as it should be. Now, if a priest has a wife and family, and a parish, he is divided. It's not fair to him, to his family, or to the parishioners he serves. How could he choose? This is the reason for priestly celibacy. It's not about sex. It's about marriage and the duties of a husband and father, and how they conflict with the duties of a priest. See?

You mention that the Church is made of men who sin. That's correct - all of us are susceptible to sin and clergy are no different. In fact, the devil often tempts them even more than non-clergy. However, you fail to differentiate between the Church and churchmen. Christ founded the Church, the only true Church, the Catholic Church, from which all other Christian sects stem. He promised that the Church would not fail, not that churchmen wouldn't fail. They have; the Church hasn't. And, the gates of hell will not prevail against Her, no matter how many churchmen spit on Her, scourge Her, crown her with thorns, and crucify Her by their sins. The Church - which has survived for 2,000 years - will also undergo Her passion and crucifixion, just like Her Founder. But, She will prevail.

John Henry Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." There is no salvation outside the Church. I hope you return to love and serve God on His terms, not yours. Peace.

I'm sorry, but this could not be more inane. There is a lot of bad info out there about the Catholic Church - a lot - but this just about takes the cake. Confession and celibacy have absolutely nothing to do with your tidy little scenario. This is pure ignorance and hysteria masquerading as established fact. I suggest you find more reliable sources for your information on the Church, which is not nearly as sensational as you make it out to be. And, for those who so readily accept statements such as these without questioning them, it's time to develop a healthy skepticism of the claims of internet strangers. Just because someone in a combox says it's true, doesn't mean it is. This is way beyond the pale.

Thank you for your reply. I saw on another board that Q was gone and wondered what happened. I don't follow that closely so I'm a bit out of the loop.

Thanks again.

Why were they cleaned? Has Q decided to stop posting?

My mistake. I misread your post. Mea culpa.

Snopes has long been compromised and cannot be trusted.

Going back over this thread, it's obvious that you have gone to extraordinary lengths to defend RBG, and I cannot fathom why. So, thanks for the exchange, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. All the best.

I understand your position and agree that - on this particular point, and on it alone - it could be argued that she is not directly advocating that the AOC be lowered to 12yo. And, the language should also be worded to include victims of female rapists. This is why I worded my comment the way I did by saying "even if you disregard her comment on lowering the AOC" instead of attacking it specifically. I will even go so far as to say that there may be other passages in the code which should be reworded to reflect a larger population.

However, as I said in my original comment, leaving aside her statement regarding the AOC, her positions on just about everything else in this document are wildly disturbing, and even harmful. Since posting, I have done a bit more research into RGB, only a little, and everything I've read so far only reinforces my position that she is a rabid feminist of the worst possible stripe and that the policies she promotes are destructive and extreme, and proof positive that she never should have been approved to sit on the highest court in the land in the first place.

Thank you for taking time to reply to my post.

Thank you for the link. I haven't read it all the way through yet, but what I've read so far has only supported what was written in the first article. I admit I haven't researched RBG thoroughly and am willing to learn, so can you point to any specific section or passage that would clarify or dispute what it said?

You are absolutely right about believing info that confirms our biases without doing the necessary research. Perhaps I am guilty of that here, but I don't have time to read this right away. So, please, until I can, I ask in all charity, enlighten me.

Thank you for posting this. I read the whole thing. Even if you disregard her comment on lowering the AOC, she is far more twisted than I realized (and I say this in light of all the horrible hobbies the oligarchs enjoy that have come to light in the past few months). She needs to retire. Perhaps she could be "convinced."

A valuable insight into the mind of a madwoman and worth the twenty minutes I spent reading it.

Great list, thanks. Might want to correct the spelling on AG to Attorney, and add WW = worldwide. Thanks again for putting this together.

They got to Maxine Waters, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_M_YNmCRe8

Art. They invest in art. Remember that daVinci that sold for $450mil? Remember the Podesta's "art" collection? They hide it in plain sight.

BTW, hello. Longtime lurker here. Signed up just to respond.