A woman reported from Columbia that her infant son of four weeks walks and breathes fire!
Black magic and evil spirits have captured the soul of a new-born baby in Colombia who can apparently already walk by himself and produce fire, his own mother has claimed.
Ana Feria Santos gave birth to her son last month but says her joy quickly turned to fear when she noticed that he had ‘several abnormalities’ – leading to fears in her community that he is the ‘devil in disguise’.
She says the boy can already stand up and walk – quite a feat for a child of just four weeks.
Much like the 1976 horror film The Omen, the mother-of-five says he frequently hides around the house, cackles in an ‘adult’ way for hours on end and has an ‘intimidating’ pair of eyes.
She told the RCN Radio station: ‘He walks like an adult, sometimes going off and hiding underneath the bed, in a suitcase, in the washing machine or in the fridge.’
A worry for the neighbours: The family live in Lorica, Columbia.
Damien, The ‘Omen’ Child’
Her neighbours in the town of Lorica, near the Caribbean coast, also say he is possessed by a ‘malign spirit’ and that he is capable of producing fire.
This, they say, is because burn marks have been found on his clothes and a sofa where he regularly sits.
It has led to vigilante attacks on Santos and her taxi-driver husband Óscar Palencia López’s house, which is allegedly being pelted with stones on a nightly-basis by frightened residents.
But the 28-year-old’s story has not been believed by doctors, who have now launched an investigation into the possibility that the new-born could have been abused.
The Colombian Family Welfare Institute, the National Police and the Catholic Church have also all refused to assert the claims that black magic is involved.
A team of psychologists, a social worker, a nutritionist and a lawyer will now look into the case, with a source saying: ‘The child shows signs of abuse.
‘Two small burns were found on the palm of the left hand and for that reason a restoration measure was adopted to [safeguard] the family environment.
‘The parents received a warning while the facts are being clarified.
I have often maintained that if Jesus Christ were to be reborn, he would not be able to find the Religion he founded!
Such is the behaviour of the professed Christians, Catholics, let me hasten to add lest I may provoke other sects(In a Religion which states that there is no division among them!)
Where is the Germany born Pope?
Delivering message of peace and reconciliation among the Faiths?
Story:
St.Peter’s Basilica
Germany‘s Catholic Church will deny worshippers the right to Holy Communion and religious burials if people do not pay a special church tax.
A newly-enforced German bishops’ decree says anyone failing to pay the tax – an extra 8% of their income tax bill – will no longer be considered a Catholic.
All people in Germany must pay this tax if they want to worship in either Catholic or protestant churches, or Jewish synagogues.
Last year millions of files spanning decades were handed over to criminal investigators by all 27 dioceses of the Catholic Church hierarchy in Germany in a bid to get to the heart of child sex abuse by priests.
It was seen as an attempt to staunch the flow of leavers who made it plain the scandal, and the inability or unwillingness to deal with it, was the reason for their departure.
In 2010, 181,000 people left, an increase of 50 percent on the previous year. Last year 126,000 left.
Over the past twenty years, the number of members of Germany’s Roman Catholic Church has fallen from 28.3 million to 24.6 million or 30.2 percent of the country’s population.
The Catholic Church has seen numbers fall in recent years, particularly in Germany
Many parishioners said they were sickened that offending clergy were often simply moved to new jons where they were free to commit more crimes.
Now comes the new hardline from the church which is also partly in response to a test case that has been griding through the courts and due for a decision by a court in Leipzig on Friday.
English: image of marriage license (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The argument that problems arise need not be a reason for negating the marriage.
If the logic of uneasiness in facing or solving problems is the issue then living itself is a problem.
People tend to enter the bond of Marriage with the mind-set ‘what can I get’, with out realising that Marriage, as in other things in Life is a two-way traffic.
One has to bear in mind the partner also has expectations and as no one is perfect, disappointments are bound to be there.
If Divorce or ‘Fixed time Marriage’ is the solution, what next?
Do you propose to remain Single?
If not, what is the guarantee that the same incompatibility would not creep in again?
After your first Relationship did not last because of inability to compromise.
There can be no Relationship without Commitment and reciprocity.
In Life unless one learns to compromise, there is no Happiness.
Our Survival itself is because of Compromises .
Story:
”
When you live in a place with a 50 percent divorce rate, is “till death do you part” even a realistic concept? In a radical rethinking of matrimony, Mexico City’s assembly is mulling a proposed civil code reform that would enable the city to issue marriage licenses with time limits.
The idea, explains assemblyman Leonel Luna, is to help couples avoid “the tortuous process of divorce.” Instead, couples could opt for a renewable contract for a minimum two-year term, complete with provisions for the division of assets and custody of children. “If the relationship is not stable or harmonious,” Luna says, “the contract simply ends.” Luna says there could be a vote on the new marriage contracts by the end of the year.
Unsurprisingly, the Catholic Church, still fired up over Mexico City legalizing same-sex unions in 2009, is none too pleased with the move. Mexican archdiocese spokesman Hugo Valdemar told Reuters this week that “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage. It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.” Because anything other than a lifetime binding contract between a man and woman is hooey!
There’s something irresistible about the notion of a love that can last forever. But matrimony has always existed as both a business relationship as well as a romantic one. Sure, plenty of arranged marriages have led to deep and lasting love, but they’ve also been built on practical social alliances between families. The blending of fortunes, the rearing of children — they all factor into the culture of marriage. Just ask Patti Stanger. It’s not just about eternal ardor. So why not make it easier for couples to openly acknowledge another practical aspect of marriage – that it doesn’t always last until one person gets the privilege of burying the other one?
Love, even under the best of circumstances, is not a static condition. Even if you’re with the same person, the relationship you’re in at 24 isn’t the one you’re going to be in at 64. And though it may sound harsh to subject it to periodic review, there is in fact both a pleasantly incentivizing reason to do so and a luxuriously liberating one as well. Think of any couple you’ve ever known — or possibly participated in — in which domesticity was taken as Let Yourself Go pass. Partnered life doesn’t have the urgent frisson of early dating, but it’s not an excuse to stop putting in the work, either. How different might the experience of marriage be if both participants in it were subject to periodic, mutual review? The chance to say, here’s what’s working, here’s what’s changed, here’s what needs improvement? The opportunity, even, to say, maybe it’s time to move on? Why not acknowledge that a great five-year run could be more satisfying than a 30-year sentence? After all, we leave jobs and houses and quietly distance ourselves from old friends all the time, and it’s rarely considered failure. Instead it’s understood to be part of growth and the nature of life. So why is permanence so highly prized? Why is endurance equated with commitment?
Worse is the behaviour of the News paper which’scrubbed ‘the portion.
:Father Benedict Groeschel,Defender of Paedophiles.
‘A Catholic newspaper has removed an interview from their website in which a priest said that pedophiles are seduced by children in “a lot of the cases” and the abusers should not go to jail.
“People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case,” Groeschel explained. “Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”
“Well, it’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that,” he continued.
Groeschel called the abuse “an understandable thing,” and pointed to Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who he called a “poor guy.”
“Why didn’t anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn’t break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn’t think of it in terms of legal things.”
Groeschel pointed out that “sexual difficulties” were rarely prosecuted 10 or 15 years ago, and now if “any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they’re done.”
“And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime,” he added.
“Father Groeschel’s suggestion that sex abusers of any profession should not get jail for a first offense — because, he claims, they don’t ‘intend’ to abuse — is simply incomprehensible,” one Catholic told columnist Matt Abbott. “Doesn’t he know that a good intention does not by itself make an act good? Hasn’t he read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?”
“Moreover, with all due respect to Father Groeschel, it is utterly irresponsible to suggest that a priest, who is in a position of moral authority, should be excused for permitting himself to be ‘seduced’ by a young person.”
Groeschel has a PhD in psychology from Columbia University and hosts a television talk show on the Eternal Word Television Network, which also owns National Catholic Register
As an after thought , the priest has tendered an apology!?
The excuse is more insulting than the comment.
Look at the tone and tenor.
Akin to ‘Sorry, I should not have called you a bastard’
‘
A prominent Catholic friar has apologized for saying that child victims of sex abuse may at times bear some of the responsibility for the attacks because they can seduce their assailants, and that first-time sex offenders should not receive jail time.
“I did not intend to blame the victim,” the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, said Thursday. “A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible.”
As founder of the Trinity Retreat House, which operates “to provide spiritual direction and retreats for clergy,” Groeschel has worked with priests involved in abuse.
His initial comments were published by the National Catholic Register, a conservative Christian publication, which also issued an apology.
“Child sexual abuse is never excusable,” the newspaper said in a statement. “The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel’s comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.