This is the thread to discuss the scandal that is currently rocking the institution known as the Catholic Church. This is NOT the thread to discuss side issues that do not directly relate such as the Catholic Church in general, gay issues, general pedophilia, etc. There are other threads for those topics
As always, stay topical and keep the insults to a minimum. I dislike moving posts, but will if there is a disruption to the topic flow.
This thread is a little late in opening due to the new set of posts which is what I culled from the past month’s activity in Religion and Philosophy. Again, post there for the more ‘meta’ issues. I got the conversation as best I could and am really not interested in complaints about my moving job. Thanks in advance.
I’ll let mgleason add anything she feels necessary.
2. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:43:35 PM
16018. christipeters - 3/24/02 6:13:59 PM
To me, the problem with sexual abuse by priests is NOT that there are a "few bad apples" in the priesthood. Heck, I am very well aware that priest and ministers are human beings with human failings and sometimes someone will choose that profession who should not have done so.
Nope, to me it is totally about how the problem is handled by the church. If priests (or ministers) who are found to have committed acts of sexual abuse, whether with young children or with teens of either sex, are seriously disciplined, given counseling, and removed from any position where they have access to young people, this would be a total non-issue to me.
News of a clergyman found out in such behavior, but so disciplined, would provoke from me a sad hope the kids get counseling and recover and sigh of relief that the problem has been identified and handled, but no outrage.
The cover-up that it is being reported the Catholic church has engaged in, does provoke outrage in me. I hope someday the curch gets that.
16019. Cellar Door - 3/24/02 6:45:40 PM
Just when you think it can't get any worse -- IT DOES!
16048. Cellar Door - 3/26/02 5:31:33 PM
The Cover-Up Continues Unabated!
16049. wonkers2 -3/26/02 9:24:17 PM
Time Magazine Cover April 1: "Can the Catholic Church Save Itself?"
3. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:44:23 PM
16058. Cellar Door - 3/27/02 2:30:07 PM
Mo Dowd kicks clerical butt again!
16059. christipeters - 3/26/02 9:52:54 PM
From the article Cellar Door linked in #16058:
""People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained," the pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said recently.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing, and the Vatican makes matters worse by seeming to conflate the two. Moreover, child sexual abuse is not an orientation — it's a behavior and a crime.
"If a 30-year-old man abuses a 7-year-old girl, you don't hit yourself on the head and say, `That dirty heterosexual!' " says Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk and priest who has written extensively about the sexuality of the clergy."
Why don't people understand this? It doesn't seem like that difficult a concept.
16062. wonkers2 - 3/27/02 9:22:42 PM
Polish Archbishop accused by priests of molesting young seminarians
16063. wonkers2 - 3/28/02 2:41:17 PM
Here's an insightful analysis of the church's sex abuse scandal For the Faithful, Trying to Reconcile Morality and Scandal
16064. wonkers2 -3/28/02 2:48:58 PM
For Priests Days of Hope in Time of Trouble
16109. wonkers2 - 4/2/02 5:51:14 PM
Some priests prefer little girls.
5. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:52:34 PM
16110. judithathome - 4/2/02 5:56:51 PM
After admitting to affairs with parishioners, Father Lenihan was removed from public ministry last fall and has agreed to leave the priesthood
Last fall??? Well, I guess 24 years later is better than nothing.
16111. wonkers2 - 4/2/02 5:59:37 PM
Quite a catharsis is going on.
16112. judithathome - 4/2/02 6:01:33 PM
Latest social trend, I guess.
16114. wonkers2 -4/4/02 2:27:34 AM
Secrets, Celibacy and the Church--Dealing with a complex culture of gay priests. This is quite a thoughtful op-ed.
16125. Cellar Door - 4/4/02 6:34:32 PM
My favorite Catholic sex scandal story to date.
16128. wonkers2 - 4/5/02 5:39:51 PM
Abuses by Clergy Become New Focus for Prosecutors
16129. ronski - 4/5/02 5:43:37 PM
It's about time.
16130. wonkers2 - 4/5/02 5:45:07 PM
We can agree on that.
6. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:54:24 PM
16136. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 1:41:23 AM
One Rapist Less!
16141. wonkers2 - 4/6/02 2:01:53 PM
Plenty of straight men succumb to the wiles of underage girls or lead them astray. Sometimes the are caught and punished. That's not the point. The Catholic church institutionally failed to deal with its problem, instead covering them up and allowing abusers to continue their predation as in the case of Father Pipala'a "Hole Club."
16142. wonkers2 - 4/6/02 2:07:52 PM
Cardinal Richard Mahony of Los Angeles Argued for Quietly "Slipping the Names to the Police."
16143. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 3:16:32 PM
Sorry jex, but as an ex-Catholic I can't help but enjoy the spectacle of chickens coming home to roost.
And as this story in today's NYT shows the matter is systemic to church.
16144. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 3:20:30 PM
And thanks for that link, wonkers. Mahoney is a serial LIAR whose story changes every day. The problem in L.A. is that the church owns so much land and is such a power in the city that the D.A.'s office has been loathe to toss the lying creep in the slammer for aideing and abetting sex crimes. That he may have a sex crime of his own to hide is. . . . .typical.
16145. wonkers2 - 4/6/02 3:29:31 PM
The church in Ireland has paid out $110 million in sex abuse settlements. The Church made the cover of this week's Business Week in a story about the serious and growing financial implications for the Church of sex abuse settlements.
8. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:55:56 PM
16146. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 3:57:12 PM
Will the last person to leave the Catholic Church please turn out the lights.
16147. Rama - 4/6/02 5:01:27 PM
Innumeracy strikes again.
16148. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 5:22:13 PM
But just because the Church is Going to Hell, that doesn't mean we all can't do a little Catholic Shopping!
16150. Cellar Door - 4/8/02 1:11:16 AM
Inside the Recovery Factories for Pedo Priests
16152. Cellar Door - 4/8/02 5:25:06 AM
The woman accusing Mahoney is doubtless a flake but this has nothing to do with the other outstanding charges against him. He will no doubt use it as a shield. I just hope no one will be suckered into believing that she's the heart of the story -- which she isn't. She's just a side-show. The story is the ver changing number of priests Mahjoney allowed to molest parishoners over a considerable span of time.
16154. Cellar Door -4/9/02 4:17:02 PM
Church enables pedo-priest's reign of terror.
9. thoughtful - 4/24/2002 1:56:01 PM
I'm just wondering, given the church's willingness to cover up these crimes, if there aren't other crimes they cover up too. Drunk driving? Money laundering? Why is it the focus is only on sexually abusing children? What about physical abuse? Has anyone not heard about nuns and their rulers?
10. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:56:53 PM
16154. Cellar Door - 4/9/02 4:17:02 PM
Church enables pedo-priest's reign of terror.
16155. wonkers2 - 4/9/02 6:18:29 PM
Cellar, you beat me to it. The NYT front page article tells an incredible story about how Boston priest, Father Frank Shanley, molested, at latest count, 26 boys in Boston, participated in the founding of NAMBLA, and was rewarded for his efforts with a plum assignment in California after he became too radioactive from molestation complaints in Boston.
"Mr. Ford and Paul Busa, 24, say that beginning at age l6 , they were pulled out of catechism classes by Father Shanley each week at St. John the Evaqngelist Church in Newton. Mr. Busa said in an interview on Friday that Father Shanley molested him in the bathroom, the rectory or the confessional, sometimes while he had Mr. Ford and another boy, Anthony Driscoll, waiting in another part of the church.
"He called it 'special duties,' Mr. Busa said. 'I remember him telling me that if I told anybody, nobody would believe me.'"
16156. wonkers2 - 4/10/02 1:02:34 PM
Cardinal Law should resign. If he doesn't he should be removed. And, if it can be done, he should be indicted and tried for obstruction of justice or whatever the appropriate charge is for his repeated cover-ups and reassignments of child abusing priests. His crimes are worse that those of the officials of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's law firm and investment bankers like Merrill Lynch (recently indicted for fraud? by the Attorney General of New York for causing analysts recommendations to be influenced by investment banking considerations). Cardinal Law clearly belongs right up there in the pantheon with Ken Lay, Skilling, Fastow and Andersen partners.
11. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:57:09 PM
16157. Indiana Jones - 4/10/02 4:31:48 PM
Isn't that an extremely apples and oranges comparison, wonkers? I don't think the Cardinal's actions meet the legal definition of "obstruction of justice". Did an actual legal investigation exist that the Cardinal impeded?
I guess what strikes me about your post is the transposition of the Enron folks as the ultimate evildoers, whereas I would have thought child abuse is as bad as it gets.
16158. Property of Jesus - 4/10/02 9:30:54 PM
Sources of Renewal
16159. betty - 4/10/02 9:40:13 PM
i think accessory and endangerment more aptly fit the good cardinal
16160. wonkers2 - 4/10/02 9:42:21 PM
I'm not sure. That's why I qualified my statement with "if it can be done." It may well be that he violated no law and/or that the statute of limitations has expired. Apparently in Massachusetts and many other states churches are not required to report claims of child abuse. And yes, I think what Cardinal Law did and what he failed to do is worse than what the folks at Enron, Enron's lawyers, Andersen and the investment banks did. That was my point. They are being criminally investigated and, in one case already, criminally indicted while Cardinal Law is still occupying the Cardinal's chair.
16161. wonkers2 - 4/10/02 9:44:07 PM
However, Cardinal Law has not been accused of child abuse, only of ignoring, enabling and covering it up.
12. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:57:46 PM
16163. wonkers2 - 4/11/02 12:28:41 AM
accessory/endangerment--works for me!
16173. Cellar Door - 4/11/02 4:23:07 PM
The latest from Boston.
16174. ashleysrancher - 4/11/02 5:40:57 PM
were you going to say something cellar?
16175. Cellar Door - 4/11/02 7:08:05 PM
Say what? That the Roman Catholic Church is a pedophile Cult run by a pack of lying scumbags, perchance?
16179. wonkers2 - 4/11/02 9:28:16 PM
Cardinal Law is dead meat!
60% of Massachusetts Catholics think he should resign.
Fat cat Catholic contributors to Catholic charities in Law's Diocese have voted with their wallets and sharply reduced contributions.
The editor of Catholic publication Crisis said on CNN that the Pope should fire Law, not allow him to resign in order for the Church to make a clear statement on the subject.
The Shanley case has put Law's situation over the top. Judy Woodruff quoted in big print the Law's 1997 congratulatory letter to Shanley on his retirement. She also pointed out that Law, knowing he was a pedophile, put Shanley in charge of of a hostel for wayward youth. This shows how dishonest Law himself has been on the handling of the child abuse scandal.
None of the three CNN commentators, from Time, Crisis and the Kennedy School believed, however, that Law's departure would allow the Church to put the matter behind it. The Time reporter pointed out that the problem is not confined to the U.S. but is worldwide. He opined that the celebacy policy is on the table whether the Pope likes it or not. (Obviously not.)
13. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:58:10 PM
16180. judithathome - 4/11/02 9:33:30 PM
Some guy tried to make a citizen's arrest of Law earlier today...he was escorted away from the scene but not arrested. He claimed to be a victim of one of the priests Law "protected".
16181. wonkers2 - 4/11/02 9:37:46 PM
That's a good one!
16182. judithathome - 4/11/02 9:45:48 PM
Yeah, if the church won't do it, let the victims loose on the guy!
16185. Cellar Door -4/12/02 12:51:02 AM
Because a "citizen's arrest" means public humilation. It's an important weapon against these scumbags.
16192. judithathome - 4/12/02 6:56:41 PM
Apparently, Cardinal Law isn't going to step down...he feels he is needed to lead the Church through this crisis. CNN
16193. Absensia - 4/12/02 7:14:04 PM
Laws no doubt vary from state to state, but generally a citizen's arrest is valid in cases of misdemeanors or felonies committed in their presence.
16194. wonkers2 -4/12/02 10:30:24 PM
Too bad Cardinal Law can't see himself as others see him. Anyway, I'm betting he won't last another six months. All he needs is a discreet delay for a face saver. Then he's history.
16198. wonkers2 -4/13/02 2:51:43 PM
Cardinal Law Rejects Calls to Resign in Sex Abuse Scandal
16200. wonkers2 - 4/13/02 2:56:16 PM
Abuse by Clergy Is Not Just a Catholic Problem--The Infamous Patrick Thomas Jr., former Lutheran Pastor
14. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:58:31 PM
16201. wonkers2 - 4/13/02 3:02:42 PM
Renegade View on Child Sex Causes a Storm--In 1990 the Dutch parliament made sex for people between the ages of 12 and 16 legal as long as there was mutual consent; the law excludes adult family members and authority figures like teachers and members of the clergy.
16203. Cellar Door - 4/13/02 8:08:40 PM
Check out the documents link in this "Boston Globe" piece about Shanley
I do believe I met Father Shanley in Palm Springs back in 1990.
But he wasn't wearing a cassock at the time.
16204. wonkers2 - 4/14/02 2:29:36 AM
HaHaHa!
16205. ronski - 4/14/02 3:12:19 AM
wonkers,
Still, the gap between the ELCA's handling of transgressing pastors, which it usually dismisses, and the Catholic Church's handling of transgressing priests, which it, sad to say, has often merely moved to another parish, is significant.
I am ELCA, and perhaps biased, but I do think we have done a better job at this than the Catholic hierarchy.
My suspicion is that the Catholic leadership values obedience and authority too highly. To admit any wrongdoing, any mistakes in judgment, frightens the Catholic hierarchy into thinking the faithful will lose faith in the infallible judgment of the church. The hierarchy is wrong in this, of course. Catholics would honor the leadership more if it could admit its errors more frequently. Certainly, American Catholics would.
16206. wonkers2 -4/14/02 3:26:26 AM
I agree completely. Hierarchical organizations have a hard time correcting their mistakes. And the more hierarchical the harder it is. Especially when the head man is infallible. The auto companies didn't invent recall campaigns. They were jammed down their throats.
15. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:58:46 PM
16208. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 6:03:15 AM
Mo Dowd Kicks Clerical Butt Again.
Go, Mo, Go!
16209. wonkers2 -4/14/02 1:32:24 PM
Maureen will burn in hell for that op-ed!
16210. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 3:20:05 PM
If so she'll have Patrick Gale to keep her company.
16211. wonkers2 - 4/14/02 3:55:56 PM
Criminal Prosecution of Cardinal Law Would be Difficult but not Out of the Question
16212. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 4:24:00 PM
The Tip of the Icberg
16213. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 6:00:18 PM
This just in from Milwaukee.
16214. judithathome -4/14/02 6:04:29 PM
Fourteen years ago, he established a program that has been lauded as an example of how dioceses should reach out to victims and swiftly deal with perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Maybe he did this to make up for the fact he was setting loose priests who were abusers on unsuspecting congregations where he reassigned them...after all, it seems the least he could do, offer help to the victims after the fact. Jeez, these stories are sickening.
16. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:59:18 PM
16215. Absensia - 4/14/02 6:13:41 PM
Sadly, but not surprising, the Pope has washed his hands of the matter (what historical biblical figure does this sound like?) and is leaving the resolution to the American clergy, while expressing support for the American clergy. (CNN, WashPost, and NYT)...and Mo Dowd.
16218. Property of Jesus - 4/15/02 2:12:04 AM
The truth about the troubles
16219. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 2:19:41 AM
Freepers on the Catholic Church?
ROTFALMAO!!!!!
16220. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 2:25:54 AM
Here's an especially choice bit from Donahue:
"I was in a Catholic college and you should see the anti-Catholicism that existed there at the highest ranks, including the nuns who ran the place and who didn't want anybody with a collar, namely a monsignor, any priest, to get the job."
LOL!
"Damned Dykes -- who put THEM in charge? Could it be. . . . .Satan ?"
17. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:59:53 PM
16223. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 3:55:44 AM
"The truth about the troubles" is only the partial truth. Jenkins may be correct about the incidence of clinical pedophiles not being higher among priests than elsewhere. But the problem of child abuse isn't confined to clinical pedophiles. The church has failed to deal with priests priests who technically may not be pedophiles but who have used their position of trust to abuse teenagers and seminarians. Clearly, when this group is included the number goes well beyond the two percent Jenkins figure cited by Donohue. The church hierarchy has failed to make it clear to priests that altar boys are off limits whatever their age is. Gays should not be excluded from the priesthood, teaching, the military or any other profession. But they should be expected to obey the law and behave in accordance with their position of trust. Those who don't should be dealt with severely. For various reasons this hasn't happened in a significant number of cases.
Just yesterday I read some comments by Donohue, who considers himself a Catholic but was divorced and remarried without as he put it "begging and paying for an anullment" and so is not in good standing. He advocates reform including making celibacy optional and allowing priests to marry and allowing women to be ordained as priests. He had a lot to say about the need for reform in the church.
16225. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 4:07:16 AM
Anyway, what is critical is what the church is going to do to rectify its abysmal failure to deal honestly and effectively with child abuse by priests, not whether the incidence among them is higher, lower, or about the same as in other religions and professions.
18. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:00:38 PM
16226. Absensia - 4/15/02 4:15:36 AM
Since the Pope has washed his hands of the entire matter, it's not going to be the hierarchy that deals with it...just the American Catholics...so we have to rely on Archbishops and a few Cardinals around the country to figure out what is to be done. And it seems that each area has it's own power, with no universal requirements.
16227. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 4:29:53 AM
Well, the head of the Bishops conference or whatever they call it seems to have his head screwed on right. And he and others are working on it in preparation for the next meeting of the Bishops.
16228. Absensia - 4/15/02 4:41:50 AM
Yes, but exactly how much authority do they have over Cardinals and other Bishops....I do hope they speak out and at least apply pressure for significant changes, resignations, record keeping, and specific methods of how the Church will deal with known child abuse, what safeguards they will take against it, and how they will deal with later charges of early abuses.
16229. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 5:00:40 AM
I'm optimistic that it will eventually worked out satisfactorily and that the church will survive. Despite my criticism in this thread, I hope the issue is resolved without crippling the church. I have tried to keep the issue alive because I sensed from the beginning that it was more than a blip on the horizon. Anything that makes the fron page of the NYT nearly every day for a couple of months is worth paying attention to.
16230. Absensia - 4/15/02 5:21:16 AM
Oh, I am sure the Church will survive...it's just a matter of how and will it lose such standing that people leave the church, others no longer join it, and the number of vocations goes down.
19. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:00:57 PM
16232. Property of Jesus - 4/15/02 12:35:29 PM
I'm all for the church selling much of its real estate that they inherited from hard-working people. Lawless, the bishop of Boston, lives in a tony mansion on a 62 acres estate in the Bay area. Put it back on the tax rolls.
16234. Rama - 4/15/02 3:20:03 PM
I'm all for the church selling much of its real estate that they inherited from hard-working people.
Yes, attitudes like this are what is really behind a lot of the excitement over this "scandal".
16236. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 4:07:26 PM
How Father Shanley Spent His Summer Vacation.
16240. Cellar Door -4/15/02 4:41:22 PM
Way back when priests couldmarry. But that would mean their money and property would go to their families and heirs, not the church.
Therefore, purelyout of greed, the Church decided that priests could no marry. They claimed that celibacy placed them in a special higher plane closer to "God" (that famous invisible person who lives in the sky, doncha know.) But you cannot squelch the human sexual drive.
You can only pervert it.
But thanks to the success of the Gay Liberation movement, men who once would have become priests in order to squelch their sexuality are living useful out lives.
So where does that leave the church? With the dregs. REAL perverts who not only find the place a shelter but an opportunity .
It's all about power. Priests have power over ordinary mortals. The church has power over the society.
20. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:01:14 PM
16241. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 4:42:59 PM
As I'm sure I've said before, if a thief broke into the rectory and stole a chalice they would call the police.
If Father Flotski is caught fucking an altar boy in the rectory, they call their lawyers.
16243. Rama - 4/15/02 5:21:11 PM
Way back when priests couldmarry. But that would mean their money and property would go to their families and heirs, not the church.
Therefore, purelyout of greed, the Church decided that priests could no marry.
This is not true. It makes a nice story, but well documented history tells a different one.
hey claimed that celibacy placed them in a special higher plane closer to "God" (that famous invisible person who lives in the sky, doncha know.)
Yes, it is clear how unbiased your view of this organization is.
But you cannot squelch the human sexual drive. You can only pervert it.
While that may be your personal experience, it is not the experience of most of humanity.
It's all about power.
For you, I am sure that is true.
16245. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 5:45:42 PM
Well-documented history will bear me out,"Rama."
There was a "Salon" story about this just last month. Plus there's John Boswell's book on Same-Sex Marriage in the early days of the Church.
21. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:01:28 PM
16249. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 6:36:29 PM
"The sex drive developed for reproductive purposes. Many human beings have no trouble making the conscious decision to control their own reproduction, despite the "dictates" of nature. Why not accept that they can also control their need for sexual intercourse? Or that as some have a desire toward the same sex, some don't have any desire at all?"
Because controlling a "need for sexual intercourse" and controlling a "desire for the same sex" are not the same thing.
I have seen far too much evidence of the lie of celibacy in all manner of religious practices to believe in it for one further nanosecond.
If I haven't mentioned that scene in The Red Shoes before, let me do it now.
The Ballet impressario Lermontov (Anton Walbrook) insists that his ballerinas have no romantic lives whatsoever. When his prima ballerina (Ludmilla Tcherina) announces that she's getting married he immediately begins to denounce her as an inferior dancer. This greatly annoys his second in command, Sasha (Leonide Massine) who has just remarked that the joy of her impending marriage has brought a new liveliness to her performances. Lermontov insists that a great dancer must put aside all "worldly" things.
"That's all very well and fine, Boris, but you can't change human nature," Sasha says.
"I can do better that that," Lermontov replies, "I can ignore it !"
And so he does. To his ruin and that of the ballerina on whom he had placed all his hopes and dreams(Moira Shearer)
I cannot pick a better image to evoke the hubris of the Church -- or any other religion that by squelching sexuality only serves to pervert it.
And ruin countless lives in the process.
16250. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 7:18:17 PM
The lure of denial.
22. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:01:44 PM
16251. PelleNilsson - 4/15/02 7:23:26 PM
It is a fact that the introduction of celibacy as a requirement on priests (about a thousand years after the founding of the church) can best be described as a political act aimed at ensuring the power of the central authority. It was not so much a question of property as a reaction against priests turning parishes and - far more seriously - bishoprics into hereditary fiefs. That it was dressed up in religious terms is in the nature of things.
It didn't quite solve the problem, though, because priests tried to push preferment for their nephews and other relatives.
Priests having mistresses was "a crime" not generally prosecuted with much vigour. The important thing was that they didn't produce any legitimate heirs.
16252. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 7:27:55 PM
THIS JUST IN! Look's like the fecal matter is about to hit the ol' Vatican fan.
16253. zojak quafeth - 4/15/02 7:34:10 PM
I wonder what the comparisons on abuse are with other religions/denominations where celibacy is required.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church for example, priests can marry, but cannot rise above the rank of priest if they do so. So priests, archbishops, metropolitans and the Patriarchs are supposedly celibate.
16254. zojak quafeth - 4/15/02 7:36:27 PM
I'd guess though that bishops etc., both in the Catholic and Orthodox Church have less per capita cases of abuse simply because there is less access/more oversight of schedule.
A priest can go out and plat basketball with little Johnny and join him in the shower later. A bishop probably can't since his staff would have to be along (his OTHER staff that is).
23. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:02:07 PM
16298. Absensia - 4/15/02 11:27:20 PM
Well, I saw today (CNN) that the pope has reversed himself, and, instead of leaving all this in the hands of the American bishops, he is calling all US Bishops to Rome...apparently next week. This will be, I hope, a good thing.
16299. Rama - 4/15/02 11:51:12 PM
Well, I saw today (CNN) that the pope has reversed himself, and, instead of leaving all this in the hands of the American bishops, he is calling all US Bishops to Rome...apparently next week. This will be, I hope, a good thing.
This doesn't look like a revarsal to me.
16347. Cellar Door - 4/16/02 7:18:01 PM
Sure we have an answer. Pedophilia may very well be Christianity's defining moment.
16475. wonkers2 - 4/18/02 2:16:54 PM
Pope summons Law to Vatican for secret ass chewing, but fearing domino effect among bishops who participated in Geoghan and Shanley cover-ups, tells Law to stick around and clean up his own mess. Cardinals McCormack, NH, Banks, WI, Daily, Brooklyn and Hughes, NO, implicated in Geoghan and Shanley cover-ups in Boston under Law
16481. Cellar Door - 4/18/02 3:04:19 PM
Meanwhile here in Sunny Cal.....
16487. wonkers2 -4/18/02 4:44:03 PM
Maybe we should have a ballot on which Cardinal is worse, Law or Mahony! Sounds like a dead heat.
24. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:02:42 PM
16488. KuligintheHooligan - 4/18/02 5:03:25 PM
re: article
It is really sad what people will do. It's another example of sinful human nature and how depraved we can get. People can do some pretty sick stuff and go on justifying it all the while. Human nature continues to prove itself unworthy of acolades.
16492. theDiva - 4/18/02 6:49:44 PM
Wonkers:
"Since 1993, the Archdiocese of Washington -- which covers the District and five Maryland counties -- has had a policy of requiring any credible allegation of sex abuse against a clergyman to be reported immediately to civil law enforcement authorities. Such allegations have resulted in the removal of six Washington area priests since 1995."
The entire article may be found here.
16503. wonkers2 - 4/18/02 8:33:36 PM
Diva, thanks. That was a good article. Stories of people who are doing the right thing apparently don't sell newspapers. Cardinal McCarrick deserves more publicity. I would also like to hear from some gay-oriented but celibate and hetero-oriented but celibate priests who I imagine comprise the vast majority of the priesthood. A lot of people like our friend Kuligan seem to be drawing the conclusion that gay priests or teachers are less trustworthy with children than are hetero-oriented priests or teachers. This is unfair to gay priests or teachers. Teachers in our district have been found to have molested both male and female students, in more or less equal numbers. At least that is my impression without seeing the statistics.
25. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:03:26 PM
16520. Cellar Door - 4/18/02 9:16:28 PM
If you're gay the church says "You're going to hell!"
If you're a pedophile priest the church says "You're going to San Bernadino."
16532. pelty - 4/18/02 10:38:07 PM
If you're gay the church says "You're going to hell!"
If you're a pedophile priest the church says "You're going to San Bernadino."
Tripe, plain and simple. I venture to say that the Church would say that a pedophilic priest should don warm weather gear.
16534. wonkers2 -4/18/02 10:53:25 PM
That's exactly what's been happening--ie sending the pedophiles to San Bernardino. As betty said one of Cellar's better lines.
16536. Rama - 4/18/02 10:59:24 PM
That's exactly what's been happening--ie sending the pedophiles to San Bernardino. As betty said one of Cellar's better lines.
This seems to me to be drawing an artificial and unwarranted distinction between hell and San Bernardino.
16537. concerned - 4/18/02 11:01:41 PM
I thought Pomona was hell.
26. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:03:53 PM
16538. pelty - 4/18/02 11:01:50 PM
Sure it has been happening, but CD makes it seem as if the Church does not believe that pedophilia is a sin worthy of hell. I find that difficult to believe. It is a catchy turn of phrase, but likely untrue. This is my point.
16544. Cellar Door - 4/18/02 11:26:46 PM
You may find it difficult to believe but the record speaks for itself. The church sent its pedo-priests to shrinks that claimed they could "cure" them, then sent the priests off to other parishes -- where they continued to molest children.
All the Church has ever cared about is the maintenance of its own image as Perfect and Inviolable.
16545. pelty -4/19/02 12:06:51 AM
"All the Church has ever cared about is the maintenance of its own image as Perfect and Inviolable."
Well, I can't totally disagree with that, unfortunately. Although again, your penchant for overstatement steals from the weight of your argument.
16546. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 1:14:28 AM
What overstatement? As I'm sure I've said before if they caught someone breaking into the rectory and stealing a chalice they would call the police. But if they find Father Flotski in the rectory fucking an altar boy, they call their lawyers.
27. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:04:12 PM
16548. pelty - 4/19/02 2:15:01 AM
...
CD
"What overstatement? As I'm sure I've said before if they caught someone breaking into the rectory and stealing a chalice they would call the police. But if they find Father Flotski in the rectory fucking an altar boy, they call their lawyers."
You will get no argument from me on this. I find the behavior of those involved deeply troubling, as I am sure you do too. My only point is that it is not fair to simply state that the Church does not believe pedophilia to be a sin worthy of hell. If you cornered the a number of priests on this topic, I would guess (and certainly hope) that they would view the actions of their brethren in the worst possible light. It is quite disturbing, though, that Rome has been so slow to action on this. In my opinion, those involved here in the US should be booted from their positions immediately. The RCC (and the Church universal, to a certain extent) is losing the trust of the people in a day and age where they can ill afford to lose any more than they have already lost
16556. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 5:41:06 AM
Here's an important interview with someone that I recall was being dissed by CalGal a few weeks back.
16557. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 3:11:02 PM
The story behind the story: How Do You Report the Scandal when the Archbishop is lying to your face?
28. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:04:31 PM
16564. wonkers2 - 4/19/02 3:32:22 PM
On the other hand, Joaquin Navarro-Vals, a papal spokesman, has said homosexuals "just cannot be ordained" demonstrating that as usual the Vatican has a clear grasp of the situation. Moreover, it's reassuring that Vatican progressive, Cardinal Ratzinger was recently named worldwide czar of sexual abuse. His first act was to force the resignation of a bishop in Berlin accused of sexually abusing a female Mainz University math professor, Anne Baumer-Schleinkofer, while performing an exorcism. Professor B-S said she sought to consult the church in 1999 over "visions" that came "directly from God." Hmh. Ratfinger
16572. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 5:24:18 PM
Phoney Baloney Mahoney treats reporters like trained seals.
16573. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 6:05:24 PM
A Problem of Credibility.
16605. wonkers2 - 4/20/02 11:16:24 PM
Speedy Jiminez, Colombian priest, leaves a 20 year trail of child abuse in three countries.
16606. wonkers2 - 4/20/02 11:23:17 PM
Speedy Diaz, not Jiminez.
29. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:04:48 PM
16629. Cellar Door - 4/21/02 5:08:43 PM
A letter in today's "Los Angeles Times":
Twenty-two years ago I left the priesthood in order to get married. In all this time I have been proud of my service as a priest and enjoyed sharing with friends and co-workers about what it was like to be a priest in the difficult yet rewarding life of working in parish ministry.
But for the first time in my life I am embarrassed to tell people that I was a priest. I am angry and feel betrayed by the cardinals and bishops who have allowed the good name and work of priests to be smeared by protecting bad ones. It is as if they believed that the worst priest was more important than the best layman.
And that, I think, is the heart of the problem. They believe that the shepherds of the flock are more important than the sheep. Look at Cardinal Bernard Law, who recently went to Rome to receive advice and consultation about whether he should resign as cardinal of Boston ("Cardinal Is Backed by Vatican," April 17). The opinion of the Vatican is more important to him than the opinion of the people in his diocese.
I will always love the church for the good it brings people, but I can no longer respect these leaders.
Dennis Heney
Huntington Beach
16649. Property of Jesus - 4/22/02 1:21:06 PM
SPEAKING TRUTH TO PC POWER
Edward Cardinal Egan's stand-in at St. Patrick's Cathedral pointedly blamed the priest sex abuse scandal yesterday on homosexuality, a "sex-saturated" society and a constant assault on celibacy by liberals.
16650. bubbaette - 4/22/02 1:27:48 PM
The classic "look what you made me do" defense.
30. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:05:09 PM
16654. magoseph - 4/22/02 1:53:31 PM
If religious fanaticism was ever established as a causative factor in the lack of the ability to reason, it certainly was expressed today by the absurdities voiced by Cardinal Egan.
16655. bubbaette - 4/22/02 2:00:47 PM
Yeah, just when you think that they've hit rock bottom in their rationalizing the problem, someone like Egan picks up a shovel and starts digging himself in deeper.
16656. betty - 4/22/02 2:06:54 PM
but it's lefties who don't want personal accountability! The Church and the Right don't blame other people for their problems, you two must have misunderstood.
16657. mgleason - 4/22/02 2:23:45 PM
If religious fanaticism was ever established as a causative factor in the lack of the ability to reason, it certainly was expressed today by the absurdities voiced by Cardinal Egan.
You couldn't be more mistaken. There is nothing the matter with Cardinal Egan's reasoning ability; he's making a calculated pitch to what he considers the bedrock of the Church - those who trace back every current evil to the Second Vatican Council. The Princes of the Church have no truck with religious fanaticism - that's for sheep, not shepherds.
31. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:05:44 PM
16695. wonkers2 - 4/23/02 1:07:10 PM
Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh battled for years to remove an abusive priest and ultimately persuaded the Vatican's highest court. here
16696. betty - 4/23/02 1:18:37 PM
It's sad to think that I almost wrote this Ra! Ra! Ra! post for Bishop Wuerl...but then I realized, all he was doing was doing his job. Nobody congratulates me for doing a great job when I answer the phone at work...It makes me realize just how bad the situation is when I'm excited to hear of a Bishop doing what he's supposed to do.
16700. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 3:24:04 PM
Lying Monsignor backtracks in record time -- under 12 hours!
16710. PelleNilsson - 4/23/02 5:48:52 PM
I see that the debate within the church now centers on celibacy and the ordination of gays. I think that completely misses the point. The real question is why the church has tacitly accepted and covered up child abuse.
16711. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 5:51:25 PM
That point is easily met - because certain segments of Catholic church leadership is archaic, secretive, ignorant of the deviance, and backward in management, to the point (in some cases) of criminal culpability.
32. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:06:01 PM
16712. zojak quafeth - 4/23/02 5:54:19 PM
Pelle-
It's window dressing. Abuse/inappropriate behavior is not limited to people who are [alegedly] celibate, gay, married, single people.
There are stereotypes that can be attacked easily to show that a church is concerned, but if they really cared they would have aggressivley investigated, reported, and assisted in prosecution to the fullest extent of the law
16713. mgleason -4/23/02 6:06:39 PM
Pelle,
If the Church can frame the debate around those issues, it wins. The thinking is that if the faithful who think that Vatican II was satanically inspired are energized to think that this is one of a series of baseless attacks on the faith, everything will be peachy-keen. Sure, some liberals (read godless Communists) will leave, but those troublemakers don't go to church, and it's much easier to ignore them when they're on the outside looking in.
If the Church admits the cover-ups, the 'winds of change' brought about by Vatican II will be dwarfed by a tsunami that will strip the hierarchy to its collective shorts. Why do you think Cardinal Law won't resign? He can't; if Law goes, Mahoney goes. If Mahoney goes, Egan goes, and so on, all the way up the line.
The numbers of good and loyal men of the cloth vastly outnumber the predator priests. But that's not the point; the point is that the hierarchy responded in a negligent and even criminal fashion to their depradations. When it came to protecting their flock, the wolves among them were given a free pass so as not to bring scandal upon themselves. Their concern was never for the Church, which is made up of the people - it was all for themselves and their careers.
16714. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:08:18 PM
Exactly.
33. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:07:37 PM
16715. ronski - 4/23/02 6:11:41 PM
I think they may get by sacrificing Law, alone.
But few in the U.S. are buying the attempts to blame the mess on gays.
16716. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 6:12:00 PM
The latest from the L.A.Times Pay very close attention to the last few paragraphs of this story. I think they isolate the heart of the problem. Because if the Church insists "Once a priest always a priest," there's no way of getting rid of pedophile priests!
16718. mgleason - 4/23/02 6:17:34 PM
Once a priest, always a priest, but that's true of priests who get married, for example. Ordination can't be reversed, but you need permission to function as a priest, and it's not difficult to revoke that.
16719. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 6:22:34 PM
It isn't? Then why did Law keep moving these predators around?
We're back to Square One, folks.
34. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:07:56 PM
16720. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:23:05 PM
Interesting segment on NPR yesterday pointed out that allegations of abuse are handled pretty much the same way in both Protestant and Catholic churches.
Sound clip:
April 22, 2002: Protestants Struggle with Their Own Sex Scandals
They also point out that the sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church gets more publicity because it involves so many boys----notice how there's hardly any mention of the girls that have been abused---- and also because the rigid nature of the Church hierarchy provides such damning proof of the irresponsibility of Church leaders.
The specific Protestant pastor discussed in the segment is certainly a sexual predator, but I think it's less shocking to people when a 26yo seduces a 16yo or even several of them than when younger children are involved or when it can be combined with homosexual acts.
16721. ronski - 4/23/02 6:24:45 PM
An observation: Institutions like the Catholic and other churches, public and private schools, the Boy Scouts, and other large institutions are seemingly rife with child abuse allegations, but gay-run social service agencies that provide outreach to gay youth in places such as New York and L.A. are not. These agencies are of course dealing with much, much smaller populations, and so this may have to do in part with matters of scale, but I think it has more to do with an understanding that not all adults who want to work with children have the latter's interest at heart, and with a strong resolve not to tolerate even the hint of wrongdoing.
35. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:09:32 PM
16722. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:29:56 PM
ronksi
It may be in part definitional, part age-based.
For example, if I'm a 17 year old gay kid, and I go to a gay-run social service agency, the sexual issue is out and I'm not exactly a kid.
I'd be curious to know how many 11 year old gay kids go to a gay-run social service agency.
16723. zojak quafeth -4/23/02 6:29:59 PM
RCC in England and Wales ordered to appoint child protection specialists:
The Roman Catholic church was told yesterday that it must appoint child protection representatives in every parish in England and Wales to head off the wave of criticism that has broken over the church after a series of high-profile abuse cases involving clergy.
Even closed religious orders will be required to select protection coordinators as part of a 50-point strategy recommended by an independent committee headed by Lord Nolan, the man who laid down standards for parliament. Everyone working in the church - staff, volunteers and clergy - will be subject to police checks and all applicants will be asked to disclose details of any criminal offences against children and young people.
The 35-page report represents an all but unprecedented, wide-ranging secular assault on the practices of a church where bishops and clergy have traditionally had unquestioned authority.
Lord Nolan told a press conference in London: "The care of children is at the forefront of the teachings of Christ. We believe that the Catholic church in England and Wales should become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it.
36. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:10:00 PM
16724. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:31:21 PM
Then why did Law keep moving these predators around?
That's the 64 thousand dollar question. Although, with the number of cases being brought and the deep coffers of the Church I imagine the price of the question has increased exponentially.
The only thing I can imagine is that once they'd covered it up the first time to avoid scandal they had to keep covering it up or face not only scandal for the abuse but also scandal for the coverup. The initial lies required more and more lies and I think it's exactly as Maria says: there were enough people in power who were only concerned with saving their own reputations and not at all concerned with protecting the flock that the guilty went not only unpunished but often rewarded.
What I cannot understand in any way, however, is why they would continue to place these men in positions where they had access to children. It's bad enough to cover it up, but to actually enable them is unbelievable.
16725. mgleason - 4/23/02 6:31:37 PM
Then why did Law keep moving these predators around?
Hubris. It's the same old dynamic that was at work between Henry II and Thomas Becket - the belief that clerics should not be subject to secular rules.
37. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:10:27 PM
16726. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:36:54 PM
For a literary answer (and a hell of a read), I recommend John Gregory Dunne's True Confession.
An unidentified murder victim - 'The Virgin Tramp' - is found in a vacant lot in the shadow of the L.A. Coliseum and precipitates a storm centre in the lives of scores of people. The Right Reverend Monsignor Desmond Spellacy is the chancellor of the archdiocese of L.A., a man clearly on the rise to even greater eminence in the church. His brother, Homicide Lieutenant Tom Spellacy is in charge of the murder investigation. Tom and Des inhabit the world of favours and fixes, power and promises, priests and pimps, cops and contractors, boxers and jockeys, lesbian fight promoters and lawyers who know only how to put the fix in.
True Confessions is a vital, vibrant novel about a crime that has no solutions, only victims, and about the complex relationship between brothers tainted by guilt and hostility, who ultimately find their salvation in each other.
16727. ronski - 4/23/02 6:38:35 PM
From my days when I was associated with such a group, I recall that 11 and 12 year olds were a rarity, but around 13 years and older they were pretty well represented. That's about the age gay kids start feeling different, start getting bullied in school, start getting thrown out of their homes for being gay, or run away.
16728. bubbaette - 4/23/02 6:40:41 PM
notice how there's hardly any mention of the girls that have been abused
I've noticed that too. I guess that Man-Girl pedophilia is to be expected -- only man-boy generates the lawsuits.
38. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:11:10 PM
16729. ronski - 4/23/02 6:42:10 PM
I think more of a problem than personal hubris is the fear of admitting anything that might undermine the authority of the church.
16730. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:43:35 PM
JC,
Ronski makes a good point. The common consensus seems to be that "children" don't have sexual identites, so an 11 or 12yo is at a disadvantage in this matter. If he isn't acknowledged capable of having a sexual identity it isn't likely that he will be able to articulate that he has an alternative sexual identity.
Did you read the article that Cllr linked in the other day? I think it was from Salon, but it's about the woman who's under fire for her book about the sexuality of children in America, age of consent laws, etc.
16731. mgleason - 4/23/02 6:46:16 PM
It's not personal hubris, Ronski, but institutional.
16732. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:48:58 PM
Ms.
The age of consent is both mythical and critical. It is less important that it be 17 or 15 or whatever, and more important that whatever cut-off has been established, it be rigidly enforced. There is no area where the slippery slope could lead to more disastrous results.
As for the other point, I don't know the statistics on gay-run services (or the Boy Scouts, for that matter), but I do know that a lot of people run to the Church trying to cast out demons that plague them, and the cruel twist is that those demons then place them in the greatest proximity to children.
Worse, like bank robbers, many a molestor just goes where the money is.
39. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:11:39 PM
16733. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:49:37 PM
Bubba,
At least the molesting priests aren't making the girls (gasp!) g-a-y.
That's what gets me really steamed. There's all this focus on homosexuality which has nothing at all to do with child molestation.
It's far more common for priests to break their vows of celibacy with their peers---other priests, nuns or adult parishoners. Non-celibate gay priests have sex with other men. Pedophiles have sex with children.
16734. Rivendell - 4/23/02 6:55:23 PM
Institutional hubris indeed.
Some of the quotes in this CNN article deepen already deep feelings of sadness.
Others come close to making me want to throw up.
16735. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 6:59:32 PM
But what you're talking about Ms. No, is the across-the-board failure of the Church to deal with the realities of human sexuality in all its forms.
"Sin" just doesn't cut it.
40. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:03 PM
16736. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:00:10 PM
Jules,
I only meant to point out that 11 and 12 year old kids aren't generally "out" to the point where they'd seek the services of a gay outreach center, so the age thing is kind of moot.
I agree with you, though, that people who prey on children tend to gravitate toward the professions and opportunities that allow them to indulge their proclivities. It's also true that the places where one goes for help attract those most in need of it and that can be a problem. I don't know if you've ever attended any "Anonymous" meetings, but it's the quickest place to meet drug addicts of all sorts and eventually to score. There's always at least one in every group who's going to fall off the wagon.
16737. bubbaette -4/23/02 7:02:55 PM
Ewww. As far as I'm concerned, these folks are just digging themselves in deeper.
16738. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 7:03:37 PM
"The important thing in seminary formation is to ask whether or not a candidate is capable of marriage and family," he said, "because an ordained priest is a married man. He's a committed man, the bride of Christ. The difficulty in formation ... is whether a man can see himself as married and bringing forth new life, which is what a priest is supposed to be."
So if you're priest you're a "Bride of Christ," yet you're supposed to be straight?
ROTFALMAO!
41. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:21 PM
16739. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:07:58 PM
Cellar,
I agree that the Church is in denial about the realities of human sexuality and that they refuse to deal with it, but I don't know that this is what prompted people to cover up child abuse unless you're making the argument that they covered it up like they cover up for non-celibate priests who have relations with other adults.
Even still, I don't think they've covered it up because they don't "get" sex, I think it's because they refuse to admit that the Church might make a mistake. Maintaining the Authority of the Church is to some people the most sacred, important duty they have. They have, sadly, lost sight of what their real duty is.
16740. mgleason - 4/23/02 7:08:09 PM
It is deeply saddening, Riv.
I'm interested in Cardinal George's comment about a priest being the 'bride of Christ.' Even ignoring the gender-bending implications, a priest used to be considered an alter Christus (other Christ) married to the Church. What's up with elbowing out nuns for bridal status?
16741. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:11:41 PM
Institutional hubris is not even enough of a description.
At the deeper heart of this is the panic - the mind numbing fear - that getting rid of any priest will make the current shortage unmanageable. There are over 6,000 fewer priests in the US today than in the 1960s. In a direct ratio there are more than 5,500 parishes without a resident pastor.
If the pastorless parish number grows much larger then the discontent of the parishoners will reach critical mass and, God forbid (pun intended) the case against women priests becomes much harder to defend.
These guys are crapping down both legs to prevent that situation.
42. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:35 PM
16742. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:13:31 PM
Maria,
That caught my eye too. I wonder if it wasn't just a thoughtless use of that prevalent metaphor in reference to sisters.
16743. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:16:38 PM
Riv,
If they did allow women to be ordained, and/or lifted the policy against married priests that would remove the barriers to re-joining with the Anglican Church.
16744. christipeters - 4/23/02 7:16:41 PM
"...if the Church insists "Once a priest always a priest," there's no way of getting rid of pedophile priests!"
Are there no positions for Priests within the Catholic Church which do not involve contact with children? Could the Catholic Church keep Priests who have been shown to be pedophiles, but keep them away from children?
16745. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:20:20 PM
Joan Vennochi is a bit more of a fire breather than I am about this subject. But her column in today's Boston Globe is, I'm sad to say, exactly how I read the quotes in that CNN article in the earlier link.
As a footnote, it is interesting to follow this story through the eyes of the Boston papers.
43. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:52 PM
16746. mgleason - 4/23/02 7:21:04 PM
If married priests can't be allowed to serve as priests, certainly pedophiles and ephebophiles shouldn't be allowed to serve. Forgiveness, yes; a nudge and a wink, no. These priests are criminals and don't need positions that bring them into contact with children to take advantage of their roles.
16747. Property of Jesus - 4/23/02 7:23:26 PM
YIKES!!!
Catholic Church said to be struggling to ensure that the priesthood is not "dominated by homosexual men."
16748. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:25:06 PM
Christi -
The sisters seem to find a way to shuttle off problem people to out of the way assignments. John Paul even mentions the need to work for redemption of souls.
Again though, in the case of priests, doing that would have taken them out of the role of pastor.
Up till now that seemed to be more of a problem than the safty of the helpless ones in their care.
16750. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:32:00 PM
Riv,
I'm with you on that. I'm disgusted by Law's responses. I feel that he should resign and if he doesn't resign that he should be dismissed and that no matter what happens he should be held accountable in a criminal court for his actions.
At the same time, I don't want Law to be offered as a sacrificial lamb so that others in the Church can then deny their own responsibility. Law must go, but the Church must answer to the allegations as well and become more accountable.
16751. wonkers2 - 4/23/02 7:34:04 PM
He should resign and go to jail if there is a charge that fits.
44. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:13:09 PM
16754. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:41:59 PM
Bernard Law was bishop of the small (population wise) diocese of my birth. I remember vividly the day he came to speak to my class in high school. He is one of the most gentle people you'd ever meet. In one or two of his quotes I can still hear the voice of that person who, if was not genuinely caring was a scarily effective actor. When Law celebrated his 50th anniversary as a priest he came back to my old home parish church because he was enamored of the restoration work done on the 150+ year old building.
It hurts to watch this happen to him.
But if his actions warrant prosecution for endangering minors then I hope he spends a sufficient time cooling his ass in a jail cell.
16757. PelleNilsson -4/23/02 7:55:12 PM
maria Message # 16713
That was the point I was trying to make, in shorthand. Thanks for spelling it out.
16769. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 9:35:56 PM
Signorile's Latest
16777. uzmakk - 4/23/02 10:20:14 PM
Heard this reported on the radio news--
"It is a constant struggle to keep the church from being dominated by homosexual men".
Don't know who said it. Should I find out?
16778. uzmakk -4/23/02 10:20:58 PM
Clever politics?
16779. uzmakk - 4/23/02 10:22:13 PM
Topic of story was the Pope-Cardinals meeting.
16780. uzmakk - 4/23/02 10:22:40 PM
Couldn't be true.
45. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:13:24 PM
16782. ronski - 4/23/02 10:25:18 PM
uz,
Bishop Wilton Gregory, in yet another attempt to blame the current problems on gays rather than admit to where they truly lie, which is among a hierarchy that refused to report sexual predators to civil authorities.
16783. Rama - 4/23/02 10:34:26 PM
This seems like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" principle carried to a new level. "Homosexual men who have sex with teenaged boys don't cause scandals, men who don't report those men to the police cause scandals"?
16784. ronski - 4/23/02 10:42:35 PM
Nonsense. The church hierarchy is clearing trying to shift blame from itself by scapegoating all homosexuals, including those in the priesthood who do not abuse their roles with children and those who are chaste.
How can pedophiles and ephebophiles be brought to justice if the hierarchy protects them?
And guns don't kill people.
16786. ronski - 4/23/02 10:57:09 PM
...clearly trying...
And I've yet to see anyone claim that priests, of whatever orientation, abusing young people is not outrageous in and of itself.
46. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:13:49 PM
16787. zojak quafeth - 4/23/02 10:57:09 PM
Rama -
As Ricky Ricardo would say lemme esplain sumthin to yoo.
1. NO one here disagrees that the individual priests who commited the acts were WRONG.
2. Other than you apparently, I don't believe that anyone else here thinks that the RCC handled issue 1. in the appropriate manner.
They should have reported and assisted in prosecuting.
You're guilty of at least 2 misconceptions/misrepresentations in your post.
1. You ignore issue 2 completely. Are youy by chance an archbishop?
2. You distort issue 1. to condemn all homosexuals whether they are pedophiles or not and try to foist the blame of issues 1 and 2 on homosexuals in general.
So, what about hetereosexual priests who abuse little girls? Should all us hetero men be tossed into a hold of a ship, taken out to sea and sunk in the marianas trench? That would solve the problem right?
16788. Rama - 4/23/02 11:07:11 PM
Nonsense. The church hierarchy is clearing trying to shift blame from itself by scapegoating all homosexuals, including those in the priesthood who do not abuse their roles with children and those who are chaste.
It seems the principle of "scapegoating all X" would apply as well to the "church hierarchy" as it does to "homosexuals".
How can pedophiles and ephebophiles be brought to justice if the hierarchy protects them?
How can it be justice, if they are not responsible for their own actions?
Just out of curiosity, why do we have the word ephebophiles, but we don't have a similar word to use when Protestant youth leader engages in inappropriate "counseling" with a member of the opposite sex?
And guns don't kill people.
True, it is the disruption of bodily functions resulting from the bullets passing through tissue that kills people.
47. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:14:39 PM
16790. Rama - 4/23/02 11:23:24 PM
1. NO one here disagrees that the individual priests who commited the acts were WRONG.
I am sure that everybody here believes that sex with children is wrong. I am fairly sure that everybody here thinks sex between authority figures and teenagers is wrong. I am pretty sure that there are people posting here who do not think that sex between adults and teenagers is wrong.
2. Other than you apparently, I don't believe that anyone else here thinks that the RCC handled issue 1. in the appropriate manner.
Nothing I have posted indicates that I believe the RCC has handled this issue well.
1. You ignore issue 2 completely. Are youy by chance an archbishop?
Sorry for not being politically correct. As you said, everybody is addressing issue number 2. To such a degree that any reference to issue 1 is treated as being mere excuse making for issue 2. Besides being somewhat illogical, it will make it very difficult to actually deal with issue 1.
2. You distort issue 1. to condemn all homosexuals whether they are pedophiles or not and try to foist the blame of issues 1 and 2 on homosexuals in general.
I haven't posted anything about "all homosexuals".
So, what about hetereosexual priests who abuse little girls? Should all us hetero men be tossed into a hold of a ship, taken out to sea and sunk in the marianas trench? That would solve the problem right?
Ricky, you been playing your bongos too loud. It has effected your reading ability. Who has been suggesting anybody should be thrown into the deep blue sea? Other than the "RCC hierarchy", of course.
all priests, all religious, and all lay Catholics, but no one is doing that.
48. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:15:15 PM
16793. ronski - 4/23/02 11:36:39 PM
It is hardly scapegoating to blame the hierarchy when we are talking about a hierarchical, authoritarian entity. The buck stops somewhere at the top, and it is the top leadership that has failed in its responsibilities. It would be scapegoating if someone were criticizing all priests, all religious, and all lay Catholics, but no one is doing that.
16795. ronski - 4/23/02 11:41:34 PM
And no one is saying that abusers should not be held responsible for their own actions.
16797. mgleason - 4/23/02 11:43:36 PM
Abuse is a crime; the cover-up of that crime is the meat and potatoes of the scandal.
16800. Rama - 4/23/02 11:54:47 PM
Abuse is a crime; the cover-up of that crime is the meat and potatoes of the scandal.
Is abuse not a scandal? Is a scandal worse than a crime?
16801. Rama - 4/24/02 12:06:35 AM
It appears to me that some priests (A) have been behaving badly with young people. It appears to me that some priests (B) have been behaving badly regarding the priests (A). There may be some intersection (C) between sets (A) and (B). Further it appears that most of the priests (A) are homosexual, as are some of set (B) who are not part of set (C). It also appears that most priests who are homosexual (D) are not part of set (A). Of course, they are all priests. But it seems to me that people are much more concerned about the set of priests (B) who are not in set (A) (who we can call set E) than they are about set (A). But if there were no set (A), there would be no basis for complaint against set (B) or set (E). Or perhaps there would be, but it would require a different basis.
49. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:15:36 PM
16812. Rama - 4/24/02 2:43:48 PM
Several posters have suggested that some of the priests who did not deal well with some of the other priests who had sex with children or teenagers should go to jail, if there is a crime that will fit the behavior. This brings up an intersting philisophical question that frequently has a religious vector: When should behavior that is wrong also be illegal?
16813. bubbaette - 4/24/02 2:47:52 PM
In some professions in some states there are mandatory reporting requirements if you are aware that child abuse is taking place. In those cases, for those professions, not acting on that knowlege is a violation of the law.
16814. Rama -4/24/02 2:54:27 PM
In some professions in some states there are mandatory reporting requirements if you are aware that child abuse is taking place. In those cases, for those professions, not acting on that knowlege is a violation of the law.
This is a good case in point. Child abuse is wrong and illegal. Not reporting child abuse is also wrong, but is only illegal in some cases. Theft is wrong is also wrong and illegal. But not reporting theft is almost never illegal.
50. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:17:14 PM
hmm. may have copied over a little too much. but, at any rate, let's keep the conversation going. i apologize to anyone who posted and it got lost in the deluge of copies!
(missing posts in this thread were due to me messing up the copy)
51. Raskolnikov - 4/24/2002 2:28:48 PM
A priest is taking confession, with a long line of sinners waiting to get into the confessional. But he really has to go to the bathroom. So he looks out of the booth to see if he can find a substitute. The only person he sees is the janitor, so he calls him over.
"I need you to cover confessions for me", he says. The janitor protests that he has no idea what to do. The priest tells him that it is easy, and gives him a cheat sheet that will tell him what penances to assign for the most common sins. The janitor agrees to cover for him, and the priest runs off to the bathroom. The janitor sits in the confessional booth. He hears a young woman's voice say:
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned. It has been one week since my last confession."
"umm, what are your sins, my child?"
"I have taken the Lord's name in vain three times"
The janitor looks at the cheat sheet. He finds it quickly. "That will be three 'Hail Marys'", he says.
"I was late for work, and I lied, saying that I had a flat tire."
The janitor scans his sheet, and finds "petty lying". "That will be two 'Hail Marys' and two 'Our Fathers', he says.
"I performed oral sex on my boyfriend".
The janitor scans the list. He can't find it, either under "oral sex", "sex, oral", or any other term. He gets nervous, and peeks out of the booth to see if the priest as returned yet. Instead, he only sees a passing altar boy.
"Hey, kid, what does the priest give for oral sex?"
The kid thinks for a minute. "A candy bar and a coke."
52. mgleason - 4/24/2002 2:46:43 PM
Nice job, RD. I'm putting together some links for the sidebar, such as Papal statements and a background of the Church/State tension which I believe to be directly related to the actions of the hierarchy.
It would be a grave mistake to discount the ingrained belief that the Church is above the law when evaluating the behavior of those engaged in covering up sexual abuse and misconduct on the part of the clergy. Being 'in the world, but not of it' speaks to much more than spirituality; it is also the battle-cry for those who believe that there is no limit to the Church's sphere of influence, one that admits to no secular constraints.
It will be interesting to see how the Church reacts, beset not only by the usual suspects, but also by the faithful, who are tired of having little or no say in the policies of what is, after all, their Church.
53. mgleason - 4/24/2002 2:57:19 PM
One of the fruits of the current close scrutiny of Church activity is a renewed interest in finances. Each archdiocese is its own fiefdom, with no reporting requirements to those who provide the money, obviously useful when paying off those pesky complainers.
I believe that this is one of many practices that will have to change, as Catholics are already proving adept at voting with their wallets, and this is the real cause of anxiety in the upper echelons.
54. Rama - 4/24/2002 3:29:15 PM
what is, after all, their Church.
What makes it their church? If you pay your fare and get on an airplane, is it your airplane?
55. robertjayb - 4/24/2002 3:32:14 PM
Thanks, y'all, for pulling this stuff together.
Initially it appears that the new sex abuse policy out of Rome will let prior offenders skate but call for one-strike and out for newbies.
Just so they call the cops.
Here is the latest from AP...
56. mgleason - 4/24/2002 3:55:34 PM
God has gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and has established them as the Church.
Vatican II: Constitution on the Church
Thanks, Robert. Here's a link to the Yahoo! coverage of the scandal, which includes links to many other stories and websites. I'll put it on the sidebar when I remember how to do it.
57. Rama - 4/24/2002 3:59:46 PM
God has gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and has established them as the Church.
That would indicate they belong to God's Church, rather than that the Church belongs to them.
58. zojak quafeth - 4/24/2002 4:01:35 PM
What makes it their church?
trying to get philosophical rama? are you skating on thin ice dancing with the devil or even perhaps counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
To answer your question tho, the bible. church is defined as a gathering. It literally is the group of people.
If you pay your fare and get on an airplane, is it your airplane?
Silly, glib example.
59. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:02:27 PM
No, that would indicate that they are the Church, which is a teaching of the Church.
60. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:07:37 PM
trying to get philosophical rama?
I am always philosophical.
are you skating on thin ice dancing with the devil or even perhaps counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
Nope. I am making a point regarding a logical error in analysing this situation.
To answer your question tho, the bible. church is defined as a gathering. It literally is the group of people.
That would be an answer to the question "What is a church?", not to the question "What makes it their church?".
Silly, glib example.
Silly, glib response. Going to a church, putting money in the plate, does not mean the church belongs to you any more than paying your fare and getting on a plane means the plane belongs to you. You no more have a right to say where the church should go than you do where the plane should go.
61. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:08:47 PM
Take it to the Religion thread, please.
62. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:10:44 PM
No, that would indicate that they are the Church, which is a teaching of the Church.
No, that would indicate that they are part of the Church, which is the actual teaching of the Church. Again, that shows that the Church is not theirs, it is God's (according to the teaching of the Church.)
63. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:12:53 PM
Take it to the Religion thread, please.
Take what to the religion thread? Any reference to the Catholic Church that is anything but hostile? Any opinion you don't agree with?
You were the one who brought up the theological statement.
64. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:16:32 PM
The header says this thread is about:"Discuss the current furor surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct and coverup in the RCC"
It looks to me like the furor is based on people who don't like the way the RCC is run, that have little or nothing to due with sexual misconduct or coverup, but rather with pre-existing hostility on other grounds, particularly the position of the RCC on homosexual behavior.
The fact that you are now talking about the finances of the RCC and about who owns the RCC seems to support my impression.
65. mayrose - 4/24/2002 4:21:51 PM
i couldn't write this in the catholic topic and i don't come around
often. how nice of you to call it misconduct. these priests that are
groping or fucking little kids should be given an orange jump suit
and the same for anyone that covers it up. to see dirty old men
covering for each other makes me want to vomit. who cares
what the church says about itself. mistakes have been made
does not cut it. sorry does not cut it.
66. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:25:41 PM
Take to religion what does not belong in this thread, which is dedicated to discussing the current crisis. I will not comment further on my statement, which is correct, your beliefs notwithstanding., and any other off-topic posts will be moved.
67. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:33:44 PM
Take to religion what does not belong in this thread, which is dedicated to discussing the current crisis.
Ok.
I don't think this is a crisis. It is a furor, but not a crisis. The RCC is a couple thousand years old, and the USA is merely a small part of its global operations. The people who are talking about leaving the RCC over this furor probably would be happier elsewhere anyway.
Most Catholics will treat this scandal the same way they treat their politicians "Those other politicians should be thrown out of office, but I'm keeping my senator/congressman/mayor".
68. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:40:50 PM
I don't know to whom you're directing your post, Mayrose, but I don't know of anyone who doesn't the crime of sexual abuse seriously. Those who protected the predators at the expense of their victims were wrong, and though I don't know whether they can be charged on a criminal basis, their conduct certainly ought to be investigated.
There are many, many more fine members of the clergy than there are those who abused their privileges and positions. I don't believe that the Church is corrupt at heart, but there are things that must change if she is to overcome the scandal that threatens to engulf her, one that has come about because those in a position of power forgot that their first responsibility is to their flock.
69. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:51:09 PM
I don't know, Rama. The Church will survive; she always does, but at what cost? Is it worth fighting the battle against transparency and honest dealing, the same impulse that brought this situation to a boil?
Back in 1995, a young Canon lawyer named Doyle predicted this very outcome, and suggested pertinent reforms. For his trouble, he was shunted off the fast track and buried in a military chaplaincy, his warnings largely ignored. The strength of the Church lies not in ostrich-like behavior, but in being able to absorb and adapt, so that she can say 'as has always been taught,' and mean it. Catholics love and back their Church, but this is betrayal at the most basic level.
70. Rama - 4/24/2002 5:05:29 PM
The Church will survive; she always does, but at what cost?
Very little cost, I think. Some dollars, that would otherwise be spent on widows and windows, and some organizational changes, as has happened thousands of times before.
Is it worth fighting the battle against transparency and honest dealing, the same impulse that brought this situation to a boil?
I don't understand what that question is supposed to mean.
Back in 1995, a young Canon lawyer named Doyle predicted this very outcome, and suggested pertinent reforms. For his trouble, he was
shunted off the fast track and buried in a military chaplaincy, his warnings largely ignored.
It seems to me a Church that has a "fast track" and considers a military chaplaincy to be a burial is guaranteed to have a furor like this every few years. There is a strong disconnect between these ideas and a notion that the Church belongs to either God or to the parishoners.
71. mgleason - 4/24/2002 5:18:11 PM
I do not refer to monetary cost, though that is a consideration, but to the loss of trust on the part of the faithful, a much bigger concern. Fighting the battle for secrecy feeds into this problem, as many of the clergy and lay people of the Church have stated, over and over.
The 'fast track' refers to prospects for a career in the hierarchy; one doesn't get there from a military chaplaincy. There is absolutely no disconnect between acknowledging that there is such a career path and the teaching that the people of God are the Church, with Christ as the head, not the hierarchy, who are meant to serve the people. This they have manifestly failed to do.
72. Rama - 4/24/2002 5:27:42 PM
I do not refer to monetary cost, though that is a consideration, but to the loss of trust on the part of the faithful, a much bigger concern.
There have been huge losses of trust in the past (you may recall the recent Reformation). The Church seems all the better for it.
The 'fast track' refers to prospects for a career in the hierarchy; one
doesn't get there from a military chaplaincy. There is absolutely no disconnect between acknowledging that there is such a career path and
the teaching that the people of God are the Church, with Christ as the head, not the hierarchy, who are meant to serve the people.
It looks to me like they are meant to serve God and the Church, just as the people are. The fact that there is a "fast track for prospects in the hierarchy" indicates that they are meant serve themselves.
What corporation was it we were talking about?
75. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 7:45:17 PM
I haven't heard the reports from the Rome conference, but I just heard Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle and a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican named Flynn discussing the reports from the conference. Matthews and Flynn were very critical of an expression of concern by the Pope over the public "perception" that the Church or the Cardinals had not handled sex abuse by priests properly. They both agreed that the Pope and the Cardinals "still don't get it."
Meanwhile, a CNN poll said that 86% believe Cardinal Law should resign and only 14% that he should not.
76. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 7:52:14 PM
All three were critical of a statement by one of the Cardinals to the effect that the problem was less serious than pedophilia because the most of the molestees were not children but teenagers or words to that effect. Barnicle was insensed by a comment which he thought made light of cases of sexual abuse of teenage girls by priests or saying that abuse of teenage boys was no more serious than abuse of girls. [Not sure I got this straight.]
Matthews asked his guests to speculate on whether the failure of the Cardinals to deal with the situation might not relate to their own sexual problems.
All in all, tonight's Hardball was pretty rough on the Rome conference and its participants, including the Pope.
77. Cellar Door - 4/24/2002 9:57:10 PM
Meanwhile in Orange County. . .
78. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 10:55:47 PM
The judgment of the majority of the talking heads on television tonight, most of them Catholics, laymen and clergy, was that what came out of Rome was not clear enough, did not go far enough and that Cardinal Law and maybe others must go.
79. joezan - 4/24/2002 10:56:03 PM
Went to my nephew's confirmation last night - first time I've been in a Catholic church since the scandal broke.
I guess I probably expected things to be a little "off"...maybe people wouldn't be in such a celebratory mood, or something.
But that wasn't the case at all - in fact, it was probably the nicest confirmation I've ever attended.
...until the local Bishop spoke - the standard sermon about the new confirmantes' obligations to the church, the deeper meaning of confirmation, etc. But somehow, for some reason I'll never for the life of me figure out, this gabroni managed to make mention of the abuse scandal three times, during three different points of his 5-point sermon. Each time, it was about the suffering priests (and especially high-ranking priests such as Himself) have had to endure recently.
After the third time, my wife atarted giggling uncontrollably, and I actually had to cover her mouth to shut her up.
Screwed the whole thing up, is what he did. Now, the thing every one of those kids will remember most about their initiation into full membership in the Catholic Church, will be that it happened in the midst of the Pedophile Priests Scandal.
Amazing.
80. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:02:39 PM
You're echoing what Mike Barnicle and others said tonight about the cardinals in Rome--They just don't get it yet.
But several expressed optimism about the upcoming conference of American bishops.
81. Cellar Door - 4/24/2002 11:33:44 PM
"Each time, it was about the suffering priests (and especially high-ranking priests such as Himself) have had to endure recently."
That's absolutely revolting. Nothing about the victims, of course.
And what an insult to that audience. I can't think of less appropriate occasion for a priest to discuss the scandal with parishoners. It's supposed to be about the kids being confirmed. But NO -- it's all about them !
82. concerned - 4/25/2002 12:13:32 AM
I've got one thing to say about this thread:
***yawn***
Wait. I've got another. Why doesn't the Catholic Church countenance married priests?
83. rubberducky - 4/25/2002 9:06:59 AM
bold, bold words....
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- U.S. Roman Catholic cardinals summoned here by Pope John Paul II condemned Wednesday the sexual abuse of minors by priests, but they stopped short of proposing a "zero tolerance" policy toward priest-molesters.
In a communique issued after the two-day meeting called to address the scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in America, the cardinals said they would instead recommend a national policy for the dismissal of a priest "who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors."
"There is a growing consensus that it is too great a risk to assign a priest who has abused a child to another ministry. That's clear," Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the news conference that ended the meeting.
84. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 12:46:32 PM
That's nice to know notorious, serial abusers will be dismissed. However, I'd have hoped the goal would be to dismiss them long before they'd get to the notorious, much less serial, level.
A number of bishops, McCarrick in DC and Gregory (quoted above) for example, already have established the precedent of listening to lay voices on certain issues to a greater extent than in some other diocese.
Even though the American cardinals are throwing up all kinds of other issues, concerns and explanations it seems fairly certain that, if for no other reason than self preservation, most if not all diocese will be giving greater voice to the laity when the issue is possible criminal and/or seriously immoral conduct on the part of any priest, sister, brother or deacon.
I suspect most rational bishops will also make certain the laity are more involved, again self preservation can be a key here, in any decision to pay money to settle a lawsuit. The days of using that money to silence the basis of a lawsuit will, hopefully, be at an end.
85. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 12:54:11 PM
An institution that measures its existence in thousands of years moves painfully slowly. Any cradle catholic is already familiar with the process. When change does occur it is through the establishment of tiny precedents that eventually allow those who fear change the most to say confidently, "That's how we've done it forever."
In the theatre classes we cover just such a cycle from when the church banned theatrical performances after the fall of Rome to when it became the very agent of bringing publicly supported theatre back into existence through it's religious dramas.
That process took a mere 800 years or so.
I hope giving the laity a greater voice doesn't take quite that long. Many good things could come from it. And it is what John 23rd had in mind when he pushed to have the doors and windows of the church opened.
86. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 1:14:41 PM
Looked but couldn't find it to post from the cover story in Time magazine, there was a chart that showed the median age of priests and nuns both were over 60 and that there were more priests over the age of 90 than under the age of 30! Won't have to worry about pedophilia among priests if there aren't any left.
87. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 1:29:24 PM
Thoughtful,
You point out another condition that will increase the level of lay participation. It is also going to keep open the discussion of women priests.
88. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 3:21:22 PM
Riv, maybe but the age of nuns didn't make it any more hopeful, assuming if nuns were able they'd become priests.
Re the glacial speed of change in the catholic church, the daily show did something on that the other night...mentioned how quick they were to apologize to galileo...only took about 400 years.
89. magoseph - 4/25/2002 4:00:25 PM
Right, thoughtful, Rivendell, the present tumult will certainly have a profound effect on the recruitement on candidates for the priesthood. Now a candidate is also presented with the real possibility of a lifetime career being destroyed by a false accusation. Maybe all this is the precursor for change in the church regarding women and celibacy.
90. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:00:57 PM
Thoughtful,
New sister recruitment is in even worse shape than enrollment in the seminaries. I have no studies to prove it, but some sisters have told me the powerless position of the sisterhood within the church heirarchy is a major obstacle when it comes to getting a new person interested in the life. I guess I'd like to think that would change if women were brought more fully into the real power structure through ordination.
I also know many moderate, faithful men and women who think JP's declaration that the subject of women priests is closed - period - was a wishful thinking. The subject is far from closed.
91. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:03:54 PM
Magoseph,
Michael Kinsley wrote an interesting column for this week's Time magazine related to your thought about career destruction. I haven't checked to see if it is online.
92. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:04:36 PM
The apology to Galileo still amuses me.
I mean... I like to tie up loose ends too, but...
93. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:13:15 PM
I can't find the Kinsley column on the Time website. It is also not yet posted on the other site we don't mention in here.
94. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 4:20:56 PM
My impression is that the consensus is that the Pope and the Cardinals bombed in Rome. Seems to me, as an outsider, the Church might want to consider a compulsory retirement age for Popes and Cardinals along with optional celibacy and women priests. A top drawer PR or damage control firm might also be helpful.
95. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:25:11 PM
I understand James Carville is available. He might need more to do now that wife Mary Matalin is angling for Hughes' old job.
96. magoseph - 4/25/2002 4:25:16 PM
Thanks, Rivendell. I'll check it at school tomorrow. My older sister was a nun for fifteen years. She left the order at the same time her future husband did the priesthood. It took three years for my sister to get permission to leave in good standing but only a year and a half for my brother-in-law. To this day, we don't know why the discrepancy. This happened in France, by the way.
97. Rama - 4/25/2002 4:25:17 PM
They should probably drop that whole religion thing, too. They are really good the social services busines, and that whole Jew/Moslem thing has given the whole religion business some really bad buzz.
98. glendajean - 4/25/2002 4:25:50 PM
Here's a headline story from Slate questioning the logic of "this is a homosexual, not a peodophile problem" school of argument.
99. mgleason - 4/25/2002 4:27:12 PM
Here's the Kinsley column, The Thin Line Between Love and Lust.
100. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:29:13 PM
I suppose if one hoped for the type of response we've become accustomed to in American politics then the papal/cardinal conclave was a bust.
Most veteran Vatican watchers said, before the meeting convened, that wouldn't happen.
Like I said, the noises I'm hearing about greater lay involvement are the most positive things I've heard. And before I really wasn't convinced we'd hear even that.
101. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:31:31 PM
Maria,
Thank you! I couldn't find it. I've been thinking a lot about what he says.
102. ronski - 4/25/2002 4:39:45 PM
glenda,
Thanks. The article offers good examples of the general intellectual dishonesty of attacks on gays.
Apart from the issue at hand and subject of this thread, that dishonesty, that inability to demonstrate that gay people as a group are in any way a harm to society (without resorting to illogic, distortion, and falsehoods), is why the gay "agenda" that the homophobes hate so much is slowly winning.
103. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 4:40:39 PM
glendajean, Good slate article. Thanks. Property of Jesus should read it.
104. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 4:41:46 PM
Actually not so slowly as you might think.
105. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 4:45:32 PM
Kinsley loses me with the last lines of his otherwise fine essay.
I have no sympathy for a Cardinal who so willingly sent known pedophile priests to other parishes after going theough the revolving door of "treatment."
106. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 5:03:07 PM
The US cardinals/bishops need every scrap of support they can find right now. This whole nonsense about preventing the priesthood from being dominated by homosexuals is, at bottom, an attempt to keep the Opus Dei(mons), and others of that ilk, on their side.
Besides, if a person remains as celebate as they say they will demand then orientation becomes irrelevant and/or difficult to detect in a halfway decent actor.
107. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 5:08:57 PM
Cellar,
Kinsley's point certainly is stretched to breaking when one thinks primarily in terms of Geoghan and Shanley.
But when it is applied to his earlier point about people with violent tendencies in the military and people who work with youth who are certainly not serial predators, but still cross a line, then it is easier to see.
In the case of Law, though, it is impossible for me to grant the point.
108. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 5:20:03 PM
I don't find Saletan's article very convincing. Ofcourse, this is the Mote and I will have to defend my position. Something which I do not have time to do right now. Maybe this weekend, maybe never.
109. ronski - 4/25/2002 5:22:33 PM
Please give it a try. We might all learn something.
110. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 5:36:01 PM
Down Among the Sheltering Palms.
111. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 5:37:35 PM
I think the church is fearful of a real doctrinal issue which is whether one's sexuality is by choice or by nature. The church likes to think it's by choice so that you can exercise discipline and not have sex or not have gay sex or not abuse children. If the church accepts that a person's sexuality is innate...that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
112. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 5:47:36 PM
My other question is, if the church was willing to cover up this crime...are there other crimes they have also covered up? Money laundering? Drunk driving? Non-sexual child abuse? Freedom from taxation and their separate doctrine and administration makes them a nation within a nation and may allow them the presumption that they answer to a higher authority (apologies to hebrew national) so need not respect the authority of national governments.
113. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 5:52:49 PM
Maybe never. It's probably indefensible.
114. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 5:58:07 PM
wonkers, you little snipe, bet you have your fingers crossed.
115. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 6:03:04 PM
No, my middle finger is extended. There appears to me to be, to use your word, an "infestation" braying asses in the mote of late.
116. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 6:03:46 PM
infestation of braying asses
117. Rama - 4/25/2002 6:09:00 PM
116. wonkers2 - 4/25/02 11:03:46 PM
infestation of braying asses
Was that intended as a definition:
wonkers2 Noun(On-line English, 4/24/02, 11:03:46 PM, from Brit English wonkers)
1) infestation of braying assess 2) . . .
118. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 6:40:40 PM
Cross it, extend it, both conjure an amusing image.
119. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 6:46:42 PM
Actually wonkers, I should say,--
Cross it, extend it, either conjures an amusing image.
I don't want to give you anymore to snipe at than I have to.
120. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 6:47:46 PM
This just appeared in "Slate":
Subject: SALATAN WRITES FROM FAGGOT CENTRAL
From: THE EAGLEMAN
Date: Apr 25 2002 12:35 PM
Don't know how many bothered to read this scummy pervert's writing this AM as featured in the usual Leftist Slate Offerings.
It was supposedly there as an after breakfast mint for all to absorb.
Arrogant Salatan has spent far too much time on his knees.
HE, like most other deviates are desperately scrambling at this minute to
mitigate the involvement of faggots in the conflict taking place within the
Catholic Church.
Salatan, like the GLADD, NAMBLA members, are all rabidly seeking ways
in which to divorce themselves from this scandal, and at the same time, give
forth a positive image for faggots everywhere.....and one is to believe that
devout faggotism is a good thing.
121. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 6:48:01 PM
SCREW YOU, SALATAN, AND THE WHITE HORSE YOU CAME IN ON.
Faggots come in many stripes and colors. Faggots are INDOCTRINATED,
CONDITIONED, & RE-INFORCED into their filthy lifestyle.
THEY ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY, as they would have you believe.
Only with the inception of the whole scummy Clinton Reign of Terror, were faggots
given rise in their stature. It took a deviate and corrupt administration to accomplish
this.
There is hardly ten cents worth of difference between a regular maggot faggot and one that
preys upon young boys.....and with the Lezzies...the young and tender AND impressionable
young girls. Take a deeper look into the Girl Scouts....PLEASE!
The basic deviance is still there.
NOW, they would have America and the rest of the world believe that the Catholic Church is wholly responsible for THEIR concerted and filthy practices.
They have had quite a long time in which to inflitrate an otherwise caring, giving, merciful
Organization.
It was a gleeful party for all faggots involved. Free and continuous access to young boys forever.
122. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:00:25 PM
Cellar:
wonkers is so much more parsimonious, he does the same thing with a finger, but it is still the same thing.
123. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 7:10:16 PM
Did you read the story in my last link, uz?
124. marjoribanks - 4/25/2002 7:18:48 PM
It has long been clear to me that the Church has a fundamental and systemic problem with homsexuals in the priesthood, a problem compounded by the celibacy rule.
I remember, when forced to do one of those pre-Cana things before we were married, listening in utter shock to a priest who when describing his own vows said not "I've vowed to be celibate" but "I've vowed to abjure all sexual activity that is normally associated with marriage." This same priest recommended mutual masturbation as a way to keep our own requirement of abstaining from sex before marriage. He was an outright, unashamed, hypocrite.
Anyway, the problem is this. The Church, particularly recently, has gone out of its way to publicly denounce homosexuals and homosexual activity. Yet, the priesthood is full of homosexuals - in fact it has been virtually a traditional refuge for gays in many conservative Catholic communities I am familiar with.
Priests who know they're gay, and that must be upwards of a third in the priesthood (I'd argue upwards of 50% of the priests I've known -a number well into the hundreds) are forced to do one of two things. The first and more common response is to be a hypocrite, which is a terrible thing to witness in a person who wants to be a moral leader - witness the priest who conselled me in the pre-Cana thingy. The other, even worse, option is to live in perpetual self-loathing, fighting a battle against oneself. I find that the most virulent clerical rhetoricists against homosexuality have always been the ones to me who could also most easily be identified as most likely homosexual.
125. marjoribanks - 4/25/2002 7:19:15 PM
There is only one way forward - the Church must stop its nonsense about homosexuality and its sham of finding reason to demonize it in the Bible. It must also condemn criminal activity of any type, if it wishes it can continue to prohibit all sexual activity by priests but more vigilantly. The celibacy rule would be a good one to kill immediately but it ain't happening so at least the gay-bashing must cease if the entire institution wants to avoid looking ridiculous.
126. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:23:22 PM
Why in the hell is 50% of the Catholic priesthood
gay?
127. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:24:14 PM
I read your link Cellar. So?
128. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:25:43 PM
Given a universe of possible vocations why would a homosexual choose to be a Catholic priest?
129. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:27:02 PM
Gotta go. Wish I could stay.
130. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 7:44:01 PM
"I find that the most virulent clerical rhetoricists against homosexuality have always been the ones to me who could also most easily be identified as most likely homosexual."
Sing Out Louise!
"I read your link Cellar. So?"
I stayed at that hotel (the "Whispering Palms")on my vacations back in '92 and '93. I met both those guys. No idea that they were priests! (Mu less pedophile priests.)
It's a long and exceedingly baroque story that I expect to be relating in full quite soon.
131. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:51:44 PM
This is the story that you mentioned several days ago? It is so long since I read anything baroque.
132. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 7:57:15 PM
Yep, that's the story.
I am awaiting Shandling's reappeance (either in the flesh or on a slab) and then I'll be writing something for some publication or other in the "mainstream."
133. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 8:47:09 PM
134. Jonesatlaw - 4/26/2002 1:11:00 AM
Back in the days, wiseguys burned Holy Cards in intiation and swore oaths to keep silent, went to confession, and prayed that they'd never be hit with a RICO action. Now the guys on the inside of the confessional are doing the same-Hey Fadda, wanna use my mouthpiece?,
135. Erinys - 4/26/2002 2:36:49 AM
I had an absolutely stunning post on the subject* eaten by a vociferous suck-egg Windoze OS, and I can't work up the energy to totally re-create it.
I'm stunned that so many people are shocked at the current scandal, was the gist.
I went on camping trip with a wannabe soon-to-be priest once and he made a big point of rejecting my body, and it made an impression....he had a lot to give up, a lot of power. The power to get people loans at the local bank, power to get people into a hospital just now, power to get flowers sent yesterday, whatever, didn't mean much to me but it did to him. Mmm. It pissed me off at the time, but I also remember scenes from childhood - those nuns were crap-ass awful and isn't it just a moment away from us having lawsuits about them?
*subjective, of course
136. Erinys - 4/26/2002 3:08:27 AM
Nuns battered my psyche; should I sue?
Oh, I've fallen in love with that bright idea.
If you were in my movie
You could be the priest
Long black frock
White collar at the neck
You could come to the confession
You could give a girl a thrill
You could save her from her passion
Keep her body in check
If you were in my movie
If you were in my movie
If you were in my movie
-Vega
137. Erinys - 4/26/2002 4:30:55 AM
Mother the doctor knows something is wrong
Cause my body has strange information
He's looked in my eyes and knows I'm not a child
But he doesn't dare ask the right question
Mother my friends are no longer my friends
And the games we once played have no meaning
I've gone serious and shy and they can't figure why
So they've left me to my own daydreaming
What price to pay
For bad wisdom
What price to pay
For bad wisdom
Too young to know
Too much too soon
Bad wisdom
Bad wisdom
138. marjoribanks - 4/26/2002 6:44:02 AM
Given a universe of possible vocations why would a homosexual choose to be a Catholic priest?
A good question. The majority of catholic priests I know have grown up in conservative communities, usually traditionally-minded Catholic "ethnic" communities. These have a few things in common -
1) homosexuality is unthinkable, something to run away from - with no social sanction whatsoever
2) the priesthood is a totally acceptable and respected profession/vocation to embrace. On this point, if I wanted to become a priest every member of my immediate family would have tried to talk me out of it - but this is not the case for all families.
Then there is (3) -homosexuals already highly conflicted by their Churchs teachings about their sexuality may well (I theorize) consider the Church a release from internal turmoil because they intend on maintaining that celibacy thing. On joining the the Church, like closeted males who enter the military, or go away to liberal colleges, they find many others like themselves and more aware of the whole mess of issues involved.
This is where they need to become hypocrites about sex (if they are sane) or pathological gay-hating schizophrenics (if they're inclined to insanity). The system breeds these two kinds of people thanks to its broken input mechanisms.
139. wonkers2 - 4/26/2002 8:44:27 AM
Abusive Priests Are Varied But Treatable, Center Found
140. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 10:01:20 AM
141. wonkers2 - 4/26/2002 10:14:24 AM
CNN reports that the Boston Herald has reported a rumor that Cardinal Law will be transferred to a post in the Vatican before the Bishops' meeting in June. The transfer will also avoid his having to be deposed on his role in the Shanley affair.
142. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 10:59:12 AM
They're so clever!
143. Property of Jesus - 4/26/2002 11:17:02 AM
SEX, LIES & JOURNALISTS: Blame it on Clinton
144. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 12:57:25 PM
145. Rivendell - 4/26/2002 2:25:04 PM
E.J. Dionne is a moderate catholic voice that is hard to dismiss. He addresses the need for greater lay involvement. Until I read this column I didn't realize specific language on lay involvement had been dropped out of the formal statement from the Vatican meeting.
Banks, I agee with you about the need to end the homosexual bashing. It makes them look more than ridiculous, it makes them look very small.
If the leaders who want to go on a gay witch hunt, these same ones who dropped the language about the laity from the Vatican statement, continue on their present course then they will have done more to harm the church than a hundred Geoghans.
I like how they've announced a day in the future will be set aside for prayer and penance over the child abuse scandal. I'll pray alright. I'll pray the leaders do something to be worthy of forgiveness for what they've done.
146. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 2:40:35 PM
147. betty - 4/26/2002 2:51:09 PM
happening in my neck of the woods.
Catholic layman fired in abuse case, Diocese orders Irondequoit parish to remove him.
148. Marsie Dotes - 4/26/2002 3:52:34 PM
Having attended a Catholic college and university, I have many friends who are priests, or planned to be at one time. Many of these are homosexual. Like most Catholics I know, the fact that a priest is homosexual is less problematic than the true purpose he pursued the priesthood. Does he have a vocation or is he escaping the realities of his sexuality? My friends who sought escape have left their collars behind as the years have passed. And there is little surprise among their friends, and certainly not among their brother priests. But most importantly, I believe most of my acquaintance recognize that homosexuality does not mean pedophilia.
With respect to the current scandal, I think practicing Catholics are angry and speaking out, but will fight to change their church, rather than leave it. My faith isn't rocked by this, but I am plenty annoyed at the cardinals. The laity WILL become more involved in the church, because that is how the church will survive (witness the teachers in Catholic schools are almost entirely lay people.)
149. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 7:18:37 PM
Hey, the Pope gave me permission to have sex with you!
150. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 7:35:33 PM
Doin' the Vatican Rag, Part 2.
151. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 10:01:35 AM
152. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 10:32:48 AM
A LAW Unto Himself
More than anything I've posted recently, thi article spells out why the Catholic Church is is on the fast-track to self-destruction.
153. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 10:48:43 AM
154. Marsie Dotes - 4/27/2002 11:50:09 AM
''These guys just don't get it,''
This sentence says it all. No worries. Law is just a guy who is losing his grip and he knows it.
155. Rama - 4/27/2002 12:15:49 PM
''These guys just don't get it,''
It does say it all.
156. LohrM - 4/27/2002 2:18:39 PM
I've always hated the phrase "you just don't get it" because it's a major cop-out. It makes the speaker feel that he has responsibility to explain or specify.
I think in many ways the Church hierarchy "gets it" very well.
They knew that cases of child abuse would only serve as weapons against the Church if revealed. Their cover-up was inept and probably doomed in any case, but they knew correctly that admitting to anything would only give ammunition to their opponents.
The Church isn't some Protestant sect where the laity are the equals (or superiors, since they often do the hiring) of the clergy. The institutional Church has survived for a couple of thousand years and plans on surviving longer. It can't do that-- it can't be a worldwide ("catholic") Church --if it allows local laity to set agendas, alter doctrine, and oppose central authority.
Too many reformers seem to want the Church to become some neighborhood town meeting and give up the tradition of being a single, central body.
157. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 2:57:47 PM
Well whether the Church wants it or not that may indeed happen, Lohr.
Crunch Time is coming with Law sceduled to give a deposition in one of the (man) civil suits being levelled against the church. If he's "recalled to Rome" it's all ovewr -- in the short run. That's what the Boston papers aresaying willhappen.Law denies it. But if he stays and is put under oath what is he going to do? Claim the privilege of the Confessional?
158. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 3:37:48 PM
"Come to Mewhen the moment is given!"
159. robertjayb - 4/27/2002 10:34:33 PM
Good Catholic Girl Rips American Cardinals...(Maureen Dowd)
160. wonkers2 - 4/27/2002 10:43:36 PM
There is some truth in Lohr's comment about the Church "getting it." I spent a fair number of years in a big company organized hierarchically, much like the Catholic Church. Instead of the Curia, we had the Treasurer's Office and Financial Staff. And like the Church, the company was usually was better at covering up than owning up to its mistakes. And it wasn't very good at rectifying them on its own. Recall campaigns were'nt invented by the automobile companies.
161. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 11:31:49 PM
Man, can that Maureen kick butt!
162. wonkers2 - 4/27/2002 11:39:07 PM
She sure can. Re shades of gray. No doubt there are always shades of gray. But Rome was no time to point that out from a PR standpoint.
163. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 12:12:19 AM
This has been SUCH a PR disaster.
They'll be teaching it in schools years from now as a pluperfect example of what NOT to do and say.
164. Julius Caesar - 4/28/2002 10:13:59 AM
177 priests removed in 28 states
165. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 10:35:00 AM
They were "moved"? What's news about that? It's just Standard Operational Bullshit.
"Turned over to the authorities" would be news.
166. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 10:46:22 AM
It turns out most of them were homosexuals.
Didn't I tell you?
167. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 10:52:30 AM
Let the purges begin...
168. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:09:08 AM
You didn't "tell us" anything.
And there will be no purges. The Church will continue as it has always done -- to ignore reality.
169. judithathome - 4/28/2002 11:17:24 AM
I guess Rosie isn't getting enough attention with his 15+ threads in Politics at the Atlantic...I like that guy's suggestion to boycott them all and he kindly listed them for us so we can avoid them like the plague.
I think Rosie's goal over there is to shut the forum down.
170. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:19:21 AM
He definitely wants control. I cannot but be impressed with the speed with which he operates.
L. Brent Bozell must be very proud of him.
171. judithathome - 4/28/2002 11:21:08 AM
Oops...I guess I should've put that in the Inferno. Move it if you choose...
Can someone tell me why child molesters in the general population go to jail and if released, have to register with the police and many times have their names published in the paper and even have to have signs in front of their houses but these priests are seemingly skating past this same crime with little or no problems from the law?
172. judithathome - 4/28/2002 11:23:23 AM
Cellar, I'm not impressed at all...he is responsible, as usual, for ruining the rest of the forum for the rest of us. His crabbed soul is so warped, he can't stand to see people enjoy anything.
I'll stop now...y'all have a nice day.
173. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:27:33 AM
That's a very good question re registering molesters, judith. That would happen if the crime was reported to the authorities.
And as we know, that's not Church policy.
174. wonkers2 - 4/28/2002 11:29:39 AM
Priests and Zero Tolerance Hypocrisy--A Dissenting View
175. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 12:15:29 PM
Happily, there aren't any buyers for Wolfe's excuses.
176. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 12:59:38 PM
And here are some poll results
177. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 1:52:34 PM
The Catholic Church is not interesting in poll results. However, Sunday donations are another matter.
178. ronski - 4/28/2002 2:03:43 PM
The average emotional and sexuality maturity of a 13-year-old?
179. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 2:14:52 PM
Great link, ronski.
180. robertjayb - 4/28/2002 4:29:35 PM
181. marjoribanks - 4/28/2002 7:13:23 PM
Lohr makes some excellent points. There is indeed, a very good reason why the Church is dealing with this American scandal so very cautiously. It must figure a few things - 1) the shitstorm in the US has come mainly from sources already highly critical/suspicious of the Church 2) the US Church already exists in a society where religion is relatively devalued and not at the center of public life and 3)- the real threat may lie in loosening the reins of this one branch of the Church - if the laity and the judicial system is allowed to have its say it weakens the position of the Church in very many countries where it remains in a position of great social and cultural power.
To the ordinary American observer, the Church has acted mystifyingly slowly and inexplicably to control its American PR debacle. But by the reckoning of the global Church, this is as it must be - the interests of the American laity are subservient to the interests of the institution worldwide. In effect, like Jim Baker who once said something like "who gives a shit about the Jews, fuck 'em, they never vote for us anyhow", the Church is taking the position "fuck the American laity, it's wishy-washy and too independent-minded anyhow" and also "fuck the many critics in the American media, they hate us anyhow". I would not be surprised if there is also a bit of "the Jews always had it in for us."
182. marjoribanks - 4/28/2002 7:13:36 PM
Let us remember just how powerful the Church still is. There are a slew of countries (many of them in Latin America) which still reckon their international positions on any number of issues according to the what the Vatican directive is. All across the Third World and parts of Europe, the Church is in an immensely powerful political and social position. I am certain the thought in the Vatican is - why should we risk this central position, and our policies which have been time-tested for centuries on end, to assuage the short-term firestorm in the US.
Yes, Lohr has a good point. The Church is not acting hamfistedly, its actions are coldly and well calculated.
183. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 8:50:05 PM
True marj. But the lid has been lifted and people are beginning to look inside for the first time. I don't expectan immediate world-wide sort of fall-out, but the Church's weak points have been made plain. It CAN be attacked.
And this is just the beginning.
184. wonkers2 - 4/28/2002 9:06:27 PM
The following from an Episcopal priest and former college roommate may be of interest:
"Some people roll their eyes and sigh when I tell them that, no, I can't drive a foreign exchange student to a meeting in Canada or, for that matter, anywhere else. I explain that Episcopal priests are not allowed to be alone with children and teenagers. Perhaps the next time they ask me, and I reply (since the current scandal), they'll understand better. We've been under that discipline for about ten years. I'd like to say that it was motivated by a concern for the safety of young people. I'm sure that was part of it, but the moving force came from insurance companies who would not otherwise do business with us!"
185. Marsie Dotes - 4/28/2002 10:09:54 PM
wonkers:
That is precisely what is in the future for the RCC priests. I also believe that even in the absence of a "zero tolerance" policy, the treatment of pedophile clergy will be to throw the bums out. The church cannot afford anything less.
186. ronski - 4/28/2002 10:26:46 PM
As has been said, the Catholic Church thinks in centuries. This is not necessarily a good thing for the future of the Catholic Church.
Included in the fallout of this PR disaster is the lessening of moral authority of the Catholic episcopacy. In New York State, a bill opposed by the Catholic bishops sailed through the legislature reportedly because of the sudden loss of moral clout on the part of the bishops.
Of course, the Catholic bishops in New York are on the record insisting that gay people who have sex should be fined or imprisoned.
Really. Think about it. I'm not making this up.
Not only the average hairdresser or florist, but priests who engage in gay sex.
Oh, strike that last part. The Church will protect the gay priests from the civil authorities, as usual. No fines, no imprisonment. Just for the hairdressers, the florists.
Just a new parish, I suppose, for the priests.
187. wonkers2 - 4/28/2002 11:23:07 PM
When I was in high school I used to wonder why my English teacher who I was quite fond of would drive past me in her car after school without offering me a ride. Now I know. She was a wise lady.
188. marjoribanks - 4/29/2002 9:53:31 AM
But the lid has been lifted and people are beginning to look inside for the first time. I don't expectan immediate world-wide sort of fall-out, but the Church's weak points have been made plain. It CAN be attacked.
You must not overstate the impact of the current shitstorm, Cellar. My own analysis is that the core faithful of the Church - which in the end is the only constituency in this country that the hierarchy truly cares about - is unmoved, and in fact gains strength from what it sees as a confirmation of long-held suspicions that a number of usual suspects are after the Church - ie the Gays, the Jews, the godless Media, the Atheists etc. There has been a trend of vociferous denouncement of "Catholic-bashing" for a decade now (remember trivialities like Giulianis pronouncements on Chris Ofili's art) and a good part of this firestorm is being seen in that light.
When the mess settles a bit, you'll find that the entrenched faithful will still be in their pews and the lawmakers will still defer greatly to the opinions of the largest Christian denomination in this country, and the Church will not have moved much if at all to decrease its arrogance level or its closed-door internal workings.
I say this with regret, mind you. But then, from the Catholic hierarchy point of view I'm also one of the usual suspects - a "cradle-Catholic" who has been "turned".
189. marjoribanks - 4/29/2002 9:56:31 AM
A lot depends on succession. JPII has stacked the deck with extreme conservatives like himself, but there is always the chance of a wild card.
One thing is almost certain, there will not be a Yank Pope in the near future. They are unpresentable to the worldwide congregation, and from the inner circles of the vatican they must now be seen as unreliable - they couldn't even keep the lid on this scandal. After all, that's all the Church wants in the end - to keep these church matters private, to not tarnish the public image of the institution.
190. marjoribanks - 4/29/2002 10:01:09 AM
Take a poll - as I have been doing informally for the past week. Ask all the observant Catholics you know whether they plan on stopping going to Church, or donating money on a weekly basis, or sending their kids to Sunday School or Catholic institutions.
I'll be surprised if you'll find even one person who will say that he intends on doing any of the above. I found one, but he is again one of the ususal suspects who the Church is decidedly not counting on to weather this storm - a homosexual and a converted Anglican.
191. thoughtful - 4/29/2002 10:05:09 AM
One of the cardinals on tv said, "there are 3 degrees of zero tolerance..."
Say what???
192. marjoribanks - 4/29/2002 10:12:20 AM
Finally, what the duplicitous priests are saying nothing about - zero tolerance or not - is the core value of celibacy. That aspect is one that they count on to give them immense moral authority - if I can keep my vows you can be faithful/monagamous/whatever or even celivate if you're homosexual.
But the bastards (forgive me father) are saying nothing because they obviously know that there is plenty of nookie going on within the priesthood. Hypocrites, they're hypocrites on a grand institutional scale.
193. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 10:20:12 AM
But the lid has been lifted and people are beginning to look inside for the first time. I don't expectan immediate world-wide sort of fall-out, but the Church's weak points have been made plain. It CAN be attacked.
And this is just the beginning.
CD makes an intersting point. The RCC is open to some scrutiny right now. What will the result of the "attacks" be?
Someone correct me if I screw part of this up, but as I recall, first there was a dispute within the church re: power of the pope/split of the Holy Roman Empire. End result, split in the church, so we get the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Second, we get Luther and his crowd griping about excesses within the church and all of a sudden we have the RCC and a bunch of Protestant churches.
Each time, however, over time, the RCC has maintained much of its power and bounced back from the "setbacks."
I just don't see any splintering or birth of new churches out of this controversy. I'm guessing some Catholics will leave the RCC and head to other denominations. The RCC will implement its new "zero tolerance" policy. Over time it will all go down in the history of the church and that the whole episode will disappear.
Hell, if Michael Jackson can publish an album after his fascination with little boys, who's gonna hold down the pope?
194. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 10:32:25 AM
Michael Jackson is a most important parallel to all of this. As some of you may know I was tracking that story quite closely when it broke, way back when, but the whole thing got scotched when Jacko paid the parents off.
As for the RCC today, when you can't pay 'em off you can always Blame the Victim!
Even when he's six years old
195. jexster - 4/29/2002 10:46:56 AM
I know this Parish quite well. In fact I was an Emotional Support Volunteer for a number of years and also a volunteer coordinator and trainer for the Most Holy Redeemer HIV/AIDS Support Group back in the "bad old AIDS days" of the mid-80's.
The parish is in this morning's NyT!
At a Largely Gay Church, a Test of Faith
196. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 10:51:09 AM
Interesting link Jex. Time and again stories have noted that the scandal is an issue in AMERICA.
So what's up with the rest of the world? Are there no European/African/Australian/African Catholic pedophile priests? If not why not? If so, who's hiding what?
197. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 10:51:50 AM
...European/African/Australian/Latin-American...
198. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 10:53:12 AM
Actually it's world-wide. A Bishop in Ireland was forced to step down just last month.
199. marjoribanks - 4/29/2002 10:59:28 AM
There are scores of similar "scandals" world-wide. Some are more shocking than others - a whole slew of catholic priests in Africa were found using nuns as sexual servants, impregnating them by the score, forcing abortions on them, etc. Then there are the high-profile cases in Poland and Ireland, and several others.
There is a difference, though. No one in Africa, Poland or Ireland (or anywhere else) is using these scandals to question the value of the Church in the first place. That has been an American phenomenon, and I predict (again) that it will not make much difference at all in the way the Church here goes about its business.
200. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 11:08:29 AM
No, but it will make a difference in the way the laity does business with the Church.
Why the quaotes around scandal, Marj?
Those nuns didn't rape themselves, did they?
201. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 11:09:09 AM
...that it will not make much difference at all in the way the Church here goes about its business.
Where is here banks?
202. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 11:10:31 AM
When I was in high school I used to wonder why my English teacher who I was quite fond of would drive past me in her car after school without offering me a ride. Now I know. She was a wise lady.
Naw. She just saw me a little further up the road. (wink)
203. marjoribanks - 4/29/2002 11:34:06 AM
The quotes around scandal were misplaced, quite right.
Here = USA
204. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 12:03:24 PM
"I just don't see any splintering or birth of new churches out of this controversy. I'm guessing some Catholics will leave the RCC and head to other denominations. The RCC will implement its new "zero tolerance" policy. Over time it will all go down in the history of the church and that the whole episode will disappear."
I agree. This latest scandal is really "no big deal" when compared to other problems the RCC has had to face in the past centuries. I would guess that for most people they will blame the paedophiles themselves and not the church. Just my guess.
And I really doubt it will have any impact at all in places like Africa, for example, where the story at least here in Namibia is getting little to no press at all.
205. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 12:22:21 PM
If here is the US, then I guess the question is what does "much difference" mean?
I think the RCC will have no choice but to put in place policies to screen and report possible abuse and to cooperate with authorities in ivestigating abuse.
I don't think we'll see married/female priests and I don't think we'll see changes in "doctrine."
Having said that, if changes in policy prevent even one case, then it's "much difference." :)
206. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 12:26:43 PM
"I would guess that for most people they will blame the paedophiles themselves and not the church. Just my guess."
You guess wrong. The responsibility is with the Bishops who reassigned those priests and allowed them to molenst again and again and again.
207. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 12:33:38 PM
Banks,
In answer to your poll - I attend mass every week. My wife and I serve in various ministries in our parish. Our children attend the parish school. We contribute regularly to the parish, diocese and so on.
My problem is with the heirarchy. This scandal did not substantively change my opinion of them. It has however hardened the negative end of my spectrum of opinion. Therefore, changing my church going habits does not address my perception of the problem.
OTOH, you damn betcha it will change my donation habits. I'd rather go out and buy needed foodstuffs and give it directly to a food pantry, and donate directly to parish school than contribute money to the diocese to be used however the archbishop pleases.
208. LohrM - 4/29/2002 1:50:50 PM
When so many pedophile-priest scandals began emerging in southwest Louisiana back in the late 80s, I used to have this great vision of two guys in the Curia personnel office back in Rome who were playing a little game: every time they had a pedophile curate to deal with, they just posted him to the Lafayette diocese. Why? Well, just for fun... I thought it would make a great Monthy Pythonesque bit.
209. jexster - 4/29/2002 2:03:57 PM
but it will make a difference in the way the laity does business with the Church.
One can only hope so.
210. jexster - 4/29/2002 2:06:34 PM
I always knew that Wonk had redeeming values...
from an Episcopal priest and former college roommate
Roomie?
Yummie!
I love a boy in a collar.
211. Rama - 4/29/2002 2:10:52 PM
You guess wrong. The responsibility is with the Bishops who reassigned those priests and allowed them to molenst again and again and again.
I suspect he guesses right. Is it possible to place a wager on the matter?
212. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 2:15:50 PM
"I'd rather go out and buy needed foodstuffs and give it directly to a food pantry, and donate directly to parish school than contribute money to the diocese to be used however the archbishop pleases."
You and a whole lot of other catholics. I think you'll see a tremndous amount of thinking on this level from now on in.
Of course the real money still lies in large donations -- both individual and corporate.
And that's where push will come to shove on this story.
213. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 2:30:44 PM
Cellar,
My perception is the large individual and corporate donors are generally the type of people who'd rather blame the pedophiles and let it go at that.
214. Rama - 4/29/2002 2:36:58 PM
My perception is the large individual and corporate donors are generally the type of people who'd rather blame the pedophiles and let it go at
that.
I agree.
215. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 2:58:56 PM
Not just them.
Here's how a Catholic priest spin's the story and shifts the blame. Who's at fault? Why people like ME of course!
216. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:22:37 PM
Naw, Cellar Door, what you so much hope for, i.e., the demise and fall of the RCC, simply won't happen over this matter. The Church will continue on as strong as ever. Certainly, there will be individuals here and there that will use this to denegrate the entire church and he teachings. But the vast majority of people won't be so stupid. The Virgin Mary remains herself; Jesus Christ is still Redeemer and Lord and Saviour. The RCC has weathered much worse things in her past and come out strong.
How many people changed their traveling habits after 911? Probably quite a few. How many STILL have curtailed them based on 911? My hunch is not many these days. The same will be the case in the RCC. The RCC will put into place better safeguards, which will ultimately only make it stronger.
No, Cellar, you can hope all you like, but this time next year there will probably be more Catholics in the world than there are today.
217. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:25:32 PM
Someone noted Martin Luther and the Protestants. When that schism occurred, the RCC was immediately hurt. But after Trent, it became "leaner and meaner, and after a century, stronger than before. Luther and the Protestants caused the RCC to question certain practices and put into place certain things that made the church ultimately better. I for one am glad that this paedophile scandal has been splashed all over the place. The RCC will make a concerted effort to rid itself of pervo priests and will only get better.
218. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:32:02 PM
People who have always hated Christians and the Church will just use this as another excuse to do so. They will continue to scour the Internet looking for as many articles as they can find to vilify the Church.
And those people who are intelligent enough to realize that the Church will always have failings, and are able to see that the immovable proclamations concerning Jesus and salvation are still the same regardless of the failings of people in the Church, will continue to come to her for grace.
Personally, I think anyone that would molest a child should be hung by his genitalia and left to die (the same applies to rapists as well), but I also realize that the truth claims of the RCC have not been affected by this matter.
And again, those of you who sit in America are seeing much more about this than we who are elsewhere, at least where I am. And we are not without media and the press here.
219. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:36:02 PM
25% of Namibians are Catholics and roughly the same percentage applies to South Africa. Both countries are incredibly influenced by the West. Yet this whole matter has gotten little to no press, at least what I have seen. My hunch is the same could be said for all of Africa, which is the continent with more Christians than any in the world (or is second to South America, I can't recall which is first, but they were close to each other).
220. glendajean - 4/29/2002 3:37:51 PM
And it wasn't during the Holy Roman Empire that the split between eastern and western churches occurred, but during a split of the old Roman Empire, or what was left of it after the emperors moved to Constantinople.
221. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:38:21 PM
Joe: "Really horrible what has happened in the RCC with those paedophile priests and all."
Jane: "Yeah, absolutely horrible. Can you believe those scumbag bishops who tried to cover things up?"
Joe: "Those guys should be hung by their testicles."
Jane: "I agree."
After a brief pause.
Jane: "Are you going to Mass tomorrow to celebrate the Eucharist and the sacrifice of Christ?"
Joe: "Definitely."
222. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:39:51 PM
"And it wasn't during the Holy Roman Empire that the split between eastern and western churches occurred, but during a split of the old Roman Empire, or what was left of it after the emperors moved to Constantinople."
I disagree. The "Holy Roman Empire" began with Charlemagne in 800 and lasted until Napolean. The "great schism" between East and West in the Church occurred in 1054.
223. glendajean - 4/29/2002 3:41:11 PM
Sorry -- I thought it was earlier. My apologies.
224. Property of Jesus - 4/29/2002 3:41:32 PM
The Catholic Church will survive. If only because they believe in having kids.
We went to a church dinner last weekend and you wouldn't believe how many children we saw.
225. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 3:44:19 PM
glendajean
The split itself of course didn't occur over night. It took centuries to fester and grow.
226. felch dupree - 4/29/2002 3:48:19 PM
The "great schism" between East and West in the Church occurred in 1054.
Sorry -- I thought it was earlier. My apologies.
Off the top of my head, I'd say you're both right. The split between the Western and Eastern Roman empires undoubtedly led to the two branches of the church developing separately. The Great Schism was just the end result.
227. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 3:48:24 PM
Episcopal Priest apologises and allowed to return to his church
228. felch dupree - 4/29/2002 3:48:37 PM
cross-post
229. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 3:49:47 PM
What this scandal has exposed is a long simmering discontent between educated lay catholics and the church powers from the bishops on up. The heirarchy would like to dismiss this discontent as merely the product of the permissive USA, but they know it goes much deeper than that and it worries them enough they'd rather pretend it doesn't even exist.
But the facts are there no matter how you spin them.
Vocations are not just down, they are dangerously low in almost all first world nations. The Curia would have us believe this is primarily in the USA.
Educated catholics worldwide practice birth control at about the same rate as non-catholics in most first world nations.
A number of moderate catholic voices call the official stance on birth control, and sex in general, rigid and strangely lacking in nuance in a church with well thought out positions on nonsexual issues. Some also argue persuasively that the unreasonable birth control position hurts the church's ability to take a more effective position on abortion.
Vatican II left the feeling that secrecy, heavy-handedness and the "pray, pay and obey" culture would be phased out. Many who have grown up in the post Vatican II church long for the openness promised by John23. But this group is also, painfully, aware of the substantial institutional resistance to what Vatican II promised.
Eugene Kennedy's book, Tomorrow's Catholics, Yesterday's Church illustrates this well. Even it has been around long enough (it was written in the 80s) to become somewhat dated in its explanation of the unrest.
I think the church will survive this crisis too. But I pray the manner in which it gets better will be to live up to the promise of Vatican II.
230. glendajean - 4/29/2002 3:50:34 PM
I was thinking that there were minor doctrinal differences, and questions about the pope's authority that was taking place after the end of the Empire that resulted in the two church branches splitting.
I think of the HRE as a western European entity, anyway, that had no control of the east. But I could be wrong about that, too.
232. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 4:03:38 PM
Wonkers,
Your post won't show up for me.
233. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 4:08:37 PM
"I was thinking that there were minor doctrinal differences, and questions about the pope's authority that was taking place after the end of the Empire that resulted in the two church branches splitting."
glendajean
I generally categorize the reasons for the split into "cultural" and "doctrinal." For the former, the West began to speak Latin and the East continued with Greek, such that over time the two became less and less fluent in the writings of the respective important church fathers. For example, Augustine wasn't translated into Greek for some 3 centuries after his death. There were obviously other cultural differences that over time caused the East and West to drift apart.
The doctrinal differences made this drifting a more purposefully splitting apart. Doctrinal differences included the debate over the authority of the bishop of Rome (pope) and the person of Christ in the "filioque" debate.
At the actual schism in 1054, basically it became a matter of wills between two arrogant men, the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople.
234. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 4:10:10 PM
Rivendell, interesting comments about V2. In some respects, though, I think the RCC became weaker after V2, as it has become too "ecumenical" and in some ways watered down, imho.
235. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 4:17:08 PM
Uzzmak: "Given a universe of possible vocations why would a homosexual choose to be a Catholic priest?"
Why wouldn't they choose to become a priest and join a society of men and avoid having to explain to others why they didn't marry?
Actually, I suspect most homosexuals join the priesthood for the same reasons heterosexuals choose to become priests--out of religious commitment, a call to the ministry and through the influence of people they respect. Basically for the same reasons gays or straights choose any profession whether it be pro football player, actor, artist, corporate executive, physician, lawyer, soldier, politician. Gays aren't a separate species dominated in all aspects of their life by their sexual orientation any more than are heterosexuals or asexuals, especially since homosexuality has come to be viewed as a normal and healthy variety of sexual behavior by educated people in civilized countries.
236. thoughtful - 4/29/2002 4:17:48 PM
Did anyone link in Maureen Dowd's piece in today's ny times? Makes the point about how black and white the church has been about divorce, remarriage, abortion, birth control, etc....yet on a simple issue like child molestation which every sane person views as unambiguously wrong, the church finds shades of gray. Go figure.
237. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 4:19:21 PM
Kulio,
Yea, I thought the nose bleeds we altar boys used to get from the face on the floor kneeling position we had to assume at the start of the Tridentine (Latin) mass made for a more spine strengthening spiritual experience as well.
In other ways though "watered down" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
What makes the disconnect between the heirarchy and educated lay catholics more disconcerting for the good bishops is most of the unrest comes from people like me. People who love and respect the foundations of the church, but who ignore specific unreasonable positions of the church bureaucracy.
238. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 4:21:16 PM
Rivendell, sorry. It works on my computer. Try again. It was a front page article in today's Detroit Free Press--www.freep.com.
239. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 4:23:40 PM
thoughtful,
The church has to find shades of gray. To find it unambiguously wrong could require taking more pastors out of parishes. They've run out of replacements and facing the problem is too difficult at the moment.
240. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 4:27:05 PM
Wonkers,
No, I mean #231 won't even show up on the Mote for me. Not sure why.
241. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 4:27:32 PM
"The Catholic Church will survive. If only because they believe in having kids."
You cannot imagine how difficult it is to resist making a crack over such a remark.
242. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 4:30:26 PM
Riv, It doesn't show up for me either, and I don't remember what it was about! Senior moment! It must not be important.
243. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 4:32:44 PM
The Church has to "find shades of grey" for ITSELF.
The laity is stuck with black and white. Why? Because the Pope says so,that's why. And you're supposed to listen to him and not ask any questions because he's Infallible.
It's just like modern corporate capitalism: Socialism for the rich --Free Enterprse for the poor.
244. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 4:38:49 PM
Cellar,
In many ways that is true, but what makes the Curia go face twitching spastic is the educated laity knows damn good and well the black and white is reactionary BS preached by a fearful leadership.
245. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 4:44:24 PM
Re: Sexual abuse by priests. If the problem is related, in part to celibacy, an obvious partial answer would be to make celibacy optional for priests, and allow any priest, homosexual or heterosexual, to marry if he so chooses. There would then be two choices: celibacy or monogamy. Then candidates for the priesthood could choose to serve solely based on their religious calling, completely unrelated to their sexuality. Maybe in a couple hundred years the Church will be ready for a more commonsense approach.
246. zojak quafeth - 4/29/2002 4:44:26 PM
And those people who are intelligent enough to realize that the Church will always have failings,
Yes.
and are able to see that the immovable proclamations concerning Jesus and salvation are still the same regardless of the failings of people in the Church,
OK
will continue to come to her for grace.
Here's where I part company with you (on this issue). The church, whether you look at it as the RCC or the body of believers as a whole, doe not bestow grace. That comes only from JC himself.
247. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 4:46:05 PM
Riv,
My "watered down" comment should have been explained then left hanging. I didn't intend it to be applied to the more "laity friendly" V2 RCC, but rather to the RCC's more open view now concerning other religions. Thus my "ecumencial" comment.
248. thoughtful - 4/29/2002 4:46:45 PM
So many were stunned by clinton's behavior in office over the lewinsky thing, but I responded it is truly a sign of desperation when you have to rely on a politician for moral leadership.
Then the enron thing...we relied on the govt regulators to keep the playing field fair only to have that bubble burst in a most spectacular way...to the lunacy of enron still making it on the fortune 500 list even after they were delisted!
Now the guys who are supposed to be the keepers of the moral compass...certainly they don't keep it to themselves, eg, ex communicating cuomo for his stand on abortion...banning movies in Boston! ... are refusing to own up to their own complicity in the perpetuation of evil.
249. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 4:47:39 PM
"The church, whether you look at it as the RCC or the body of believers as a whole, doe not bestow grace. That comes only from JC himself."
I was speaking as if I was a Catholic. And the Catholic view is that, indeed, the church does bestow grace. Obviously it ultimately comes from the work of Christ, but now the Church does that work.
250. Rivendell - 4/29/2002 4:53:07 PM
Kulio,
Interesting. The ecumenism you mention has been pushed forward significantly by JPII.
You see that as watering down the church and yet JPII's most reactionary minions see the greater lay involvement promised by Vatican II as the biggie when it comes to watering anything down.
251. KuligintheHooligan - 4/29/2002 5:05:25 PM
Riv,
I'm not Catholic nor will I ever be, but one thing I always admired about the RCC was its "we are the true church and there is no salvation outside of us." Since V2 that position has changed.
From my Protestant perspective, the movement toward greater lay involvement was only positive.
252. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 5:25:23 PM
Celibacy is part of the problem only in a Large Conceptual Issue sort of way. Would a non-celibate priesthood be better? Would women priests be better. Maybe. But that still doesn't address the issue, which is taking responsibility for error.
Ever heard of it? It's what the Morality Pimps whine about all the time. (Though William Bennett has yet to be heard from re this mess.)
It's very simple, really. When adults are placed in charge of children precautions must be taken. Simple basic precautions.
There's no Magic Formula that will guarantee that pedophiles won'ttry to find a foothold. The problem stems from pretending that there isn't a problem, and covering up once the problem arises. That's the real story with the Catholic Church. Had they owned up to the pedophiles from the beginning they wouldn't be in the mess they are in today.
253. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 5:27:03 PM
Was Cuomo excommunicated recently? Cuomo senior?
254. thoughtful - 4/29/2002 5:41:25 PM
no... the late cardinal o'connor threatened ... i remembered the brouhaha and thought he had but didn't .... ex communicating cuomo while he was in office. I thought the separation of church and state should go both ways...they don't have to pay taxes, so they should stay out of elections...but apparently o'connor was never shy that way.
255. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 7:45:09 PM
Several callers today on the radio mentioned straight priests who left the seminary because of persistent attempts at seduction by gay seminarians.
256. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 7:51:26 PM
I'm so shocked!
257. ronski - 4/29/2002 7:54:07 PM
Cardinal Law Breaks New Legal Ground: Claims 6-Year-Old Boy Responsible for His Own Sexual Abuse
258. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 7:56:13 PM
I wonder why they didn't just say, "no thanks." That's worked in the past for me. In fact I only really had to actually say it once. You and Property of Jesus and Kuligin seem to be preoccupied with homos.
259. ronski - 4/29/2002 7:57:37 PM
wonkers,
I've noticed that myself.
260. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 8:01:25 PM
The Catholic Church thing is a feast for homophobes, inside and outside the Church.
261. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 8:01:36 PM
Protests in New York. (Plus a new video from Spain.)
262. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 8:05:39 PM
The link worked, but no video!
263. ronski - 4/29/2002 8:16:51 PM
And in fairness, this is a feast for those who oppose certain of the church's teachings as well. I don't see the slightest problem with pointing out that if the hierarchy can be wrong on the issue of keeping molester priests from justice, it can be wrong on other issues as well.
The funny thing is, when you look at the polls, American Catholics come out more socially liberal than American Protestants do. This is in part because a very large percentage of U.S. Protestants are Southern Baptists and other conservative Evangelicals, and fewer of them are from the liberal Mainline protestant groups.
But it also is a testament to how genuinely thoughtful and decent American Catholics are.
264. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 8:20:56 PM
True.
265. Cellar Door - 4/29/2002 8:32:32 PM
The laity is thoughtful and decent. The hierarchy is unspeakable.
(The video, BTW, is mentioned in the link in passing.)
It's the hierarchy that drove me away from the Church.
Not to mention the hypocrisy.
Not to mention the gay priests I've run into over the years in circumstances few of you would believe.
266. ronski - 4/29/2002 8:35:56 PM
Probably circumstances similar to those I have encountered some closeted, gay conservatives in.
267. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 8:36:37 PM
Don't be shocked, cellar, I wasn't.
268. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 8:40:56 PM
Don't be shocked, cellar, I wasn't. We aren't even allowed to consider you strange people honestly. Apparently one of these folks got tired of saying no thanks so often.
269. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 8:43:03 PM
I want you to shock me, cellar.
270. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 8:47:39 PM
Wonkers:
I think I can take all the little catty snipes you can throw at me.
271. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 9:00:52 PM
Good! I'll keep them coming as long as you keep up your ignorant little comments.
272. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 9:05:36 PM
Goodness! What are we feeling so bitchy about this evening?
273. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 9:08:39 PM
Why don't you take a hike, a short one on a long pier?
274. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 9:09:14 PM
I.e., a long one on a short pier!
275. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 9:10:31 PM
We're just trying to fill in a few gaps in your education! Otherwise known as house breaking.
276. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 9:13:02 PM
I am going to be posting some great stuff about asses, braying etc., over in the Literature thread, Wonkers. I don't want you to miss it.
277. uzmakk - 4/29/2002 9:17:22 PM
I am already familiar with catty bitches. Could we move on? I'm ready for the next lesson.
278. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 10:07:06 PM
Sure, where would you like to go from here?
279. uzmakk - 4/30/2002 7:59:55 AM
I'll take the full program, please. You are the pedagogue; whatever the next lesson is in the housebreaking plan book.
280. thoughtful - 4/30/2002 8:42:30 AM
Where are the prosecutors in all this stuff? There is clear evidence of crimes being committed...why are they not being arrested and prosecuted?
Is it only stopping at priests? Are there reports of monsignors committing child abuse? Bishops? etc.?
What other crimes are being covered up by the church? Does the relationship between church and state need to be rebalanced to see that crimes are punished even when done by religious leaders. Are there different laws for catholics than for Jim & Tammy Faye?
281. thoughtful - 4/30/2002 9:01:52 AM
cellar & ronski, careful ...there's only one thoughtful™ in these thar threads.
282. marjoribanks - 4/30/2002 9:38:47 AM
In order for there to be prosecution, the victims have to take the matter to the state legal authorities. The position of the Church is such within the communities that it operates in that the great majority of victims have instead turned to the institution itself for redress, and then the Church has sat on the matter or hushed it up. This is the core of the problem.
I have been following the (non-sexual) scandal at one Queens church closely for the past two years (I have multiple connections to it). There, the parish priest is shown to have skimmed of millions from the weekly collections over 15 or so years and disbursed the funds on his own, much of it to some person who has disappeared. The Church appointed a council to look into the matter, then the issue simply went away and the offending priest has been sent to canada.
The Church is the body that had the ability to pursue prosecution or not and it chose not to. It;s a fundamental part of the current problems.
283. thoughtful - 4/30/2002 10:03:24 AM
Major, I disagree. If someone is murdered, it is not the victims who seek redress, but the people...it is a crime against the state and is prosecuted by the state on behalf of the state. The victims if they so choose can see redress in civil court for damages.
In fact, if the estimates are correct, the church has paid out some $1 billion in damages to victims via civil suits or the threat thereof.
Now I understand that a lot of these child abuse cases are very old and that the statute of limitations has run out on them, but surely the child abuse didn't magically cease 20 years ago and there are no current cases to prosecute.
And certainly the hiding and shuttling of criminal priests would easily amount to obstructing justice.
But it would seem there's a "gentleman's agreement" between the state and the church that somehow allows the church freedom to pursue self correcting action...which clearly hasn't worked.
284. Rama - 4/30/2002 10:05:26 AM
Stuff and nonsense. With a few exceptions, the reason these cases are not being prosecuted is because this sort of case is difficult to prove, for a number of reasons. First, there is a very high rate of false accusations, just as there are with any organization that deals with large numbers of very emotional people, particularly children, so reasonable doubt is fairly easy to maintain. Second, molestation is a very vague sort of crime, where the line between acceptable and unacceptable can be very difficult demonstrate. Third, it is a crime that frequently leaves very little evidence. Fourth, in many cases the victims make very bad witnesses. Fifth, in many cases the accusations don't come until many years after the crimes are claimed to have occurred. Sixth, because the Church hierarchy was frequently involved in a preliminary investigation , similarly impaired, the waters are even more muddied.
285. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 10:08:18 AM
Now I suppose you're going to say that rape is "difficult to prove," right?
"Stuff and nonsense" indeed.
286. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 10:08:34 AM
MADRID --A Roman Catholic priest in the southern Spanish town of Nerja has resigned his post after his embittered former lover distributed a home-recorded video tape of the two men having sex to local parishioners. The Reuters news agency reports a statement from the office of the bishop in Malaga said the priest had "recognized his morally irregular behavior before the bishop...and gratefully accepted the help of the Church to transform himself as a person and as a priest."
Father Francisco Garcia told the news agency that the priest had resigned from the priesthood, but stressed that the resignation was only temporary. "He will continue to be a priest because he has recognized his mistake," Garcia said.
"I understand that this video spread around town was an attempt to shame the priest by a former 'friend' after the priest refused to carry on his relationship with him," Garcia said.
One Nerja parishioner told Spanish television: "He was a man worth keeping as a parish priest. His personal life doesn't interest me in the slightest."
Spain's Catholic Church regards gay sexual activity a sin but condemns discrimination against gay people. It does insist, however, that priests strictly uphold their celibacy vow. It is unclear what, if any, impact the scandal in America will have on how sexual misconduct is handled in Spain.
Garcia said that even under these extraordinary circumstances, there was a well of deep support for the unidentified clergyman, and the reasons for that were simple. "The town supports him because he is a great priest."
288. marjoribanks - 4/30/2002 10:14:44 AM
Hey, I spent three weeks in Nerja a few months ago.
289. marjoribanks - 4/30/2002 10:15:38 AM
cellar, where's the link to that story? I want to send it my in-laws, they must have been to one of the bloke's masses.
290. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 10:18:54 AM
I found it on another forum. I believe its from Reuters. I've seen several references to it in other news stories covering the Catholic meltdown.
291. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 10:20:53 AM
"First, there is a very high rate of false accusations"
First (and last), how in hell do you know?
These cases were NEVER investigated by a proper criminal authority!
292. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 10:22:51 AM
And you know why they were never investigated? Because the Church paid the victims off to keep them from going to the police.
Now somemuch-needed light is being put on all of this. And there's no way of knowing when it's going toend. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
293. Rama - 4/30/2002 10:27:03 AM
i>First (and last), how in hell do you know?
It is a widely reported upon phenomenon, and I personally have seen it occur in school, sports and church situations.
These cases were NEVER investigated by a proper criminal authority!
That is simply not true. Many of these cases were not investigated by criminal authorities. Others have been.
294. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 10:27:56 AM
And this iceberg is damned expensive!
295. Rama - 4/30/2002 10:29:00 AM
Now I suppose you're going to say that rape is "difficult to prove," right?
It depends on the rape. I know police and prosecutors who have been very frustrated because they couldn't prove a rape that they were sure had occured.
"Stuff and nonsense" indeed.
I'm glad you agree.
296. Rama - 4/30/2002 10:29:47 AM
And this iceberg is damned expensive!
One man's expense is another man's gravy train.
297. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 11:40:47 AM
And who would that "other man" be? Surely not any of the victims.
But then we're in Full Denial Mode, aren't we -- the crime being "so hard to prove" and all.
If it's so hard to prove why shell out millions?
298. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 11:52:43 AM
Confession is good for the soul, Father.
299. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 11:57:28 AM
300. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 12:13:58 PM
301. Rivendell - 4/30/2002 1:25:02 PM
I mentioned this author yesterday. Eugene Kennedy is a former Jesuit who teaches at Loyola University in Chicago. When you read the column you may note it is easy to see his bias. Look beyond that. His description of the problem in the church heirarchy is accurate even if his choice of adjectives sometimes exposes his personal feelings.
The link requires registering at the Chicago Tribune website. Registration is free and it is a good paper.
Catholicism's Chernobyl
302. rubberducky - 4/30/2002 1:29:37 PM
as always with me, double posts will be deleted (as was Rama's 287) without more notification from me.
303. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 2:07:43 PM
We have met the enemy and He is Us.
304. Rivendell - 4/30/2002 2:15:46 PM
From Cellar's link above:
Months after meeting with Bush, Ritter stood accused of having had sex with a young male in a New Orleans hotel during a break in the pornography commission hearings.
That scene would be worthy of a Monty Python sketch if it weren't so sad.
No wonder John Ashcroft and Tipper Gore are so scary.
305. judithathome - 4/30/2002 2:53:51 PM
Well, the kid was just sooo sexy...
In his first legal response to charges that the Rev. Paul R. Shanley began molesting a Newton boy when he was 6 years old, Cardinal Bernard F. Law has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents contributed to the alleged abuse.
306. Property of Jesus - 4/30/2002 3:21:39 PM
Shame on Law's attorney for drafting that.
Another reason why the Boy Scouts made the right decision about allowing homosexuals be scout masters.
307. glendajean - 4/30/2002 3:29:56 PM
Gosh. I thought it was an example of a Catholic cardinal making an unethical response concerning a child molester that he and his underlings continued to place in parishes where he had access to children.
308. Property of Jesus - 4/30/2002 3:43:30 PM
That too.
309. Rama - 4/30/2002 3:50:01 PM
And who would that "other man" be? Surely not any of the victims.
Surely not victims. Surely some people claiming to be victims, and their attorneys.
But then we're in Full Denial Mode, aren't we -- the crime being "so hard to prove" and all.
You have gone well beyond the denial mode.
If it's so hard to prove why shell out millions?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were completely unaware of how the American judicial system works.
There are criminal courts, and civil courts. In the criminal courts the state, at it's own expense, has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occured and that the accused person is guilty of that crime. The state has to pay for a defense of the accused as well, if the accused has no money. The civil courts only require a plaintiff to prove, by the mere preponderance of evidence, that he or she was harmed, and the plaintiff can pay for the case out of the proceeds of the award. The potential penalties for frivolous lawsuits are negligible
I am amazed you are unaware of this.
310. thoughtful - 4/30/2002 3:52:11 PM
Wasn't I just reading about the reaction to the strong religious movement with Cotton Mather and the salem witch trials and all in the US led to a reactionary backlash toward separation of church and state? Perhaps this revelation about the church will lead to a backlash toward secular humanism...
311. Rama - 4/30/2002 3:52:29 PM
Shame on Law's attorney for drafting that.
The attorney would have been ethically negligent not to include that defense. That is one of the many reasons the church settles such claims: they get beat up for using the legal system the way it is designed.
312. wonkers2 - 4/30/2002 4:24:14 PM
Uzmakk, Well, I hardly know where to start, and I'm not sure I'm the best equipped to do the job. However, here are some quick thoughts on the subject.
In polite educated circles these days it's frowned on to call homosexuality sinful, abnormal or a disease. Psychiatry removed homosexuality from its list of mental health pathologies 15 or 20 years ago. Psychiatrists no longer try to change people's homosexual orientation. Homosexuality has no connection with pedophilia.
It's widely accepted that basic sexual orientation, in nearly all cases is innate, not acquired; and therefore, criticizing or blaming or praising people for their sexual orientation, hetero or homo, makes no sense. Advocating responsible, monogamous behavior for gays is okay as it for individuals of all orientations.
Discriminating against gays in employment and in the provision of health care coverage or other benefit plans, or in housing is frowned on and illegal in an increasing number of jurisdictions. It's certainly not de rigeur in informed circles to endorse the exclusion of gays from any occupation, whether it be the military, the priesthood, teaching, politics or any other occupation which gays have been serving in since time immemorial.
Using the current sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church as an excuse for cheap shots at gays, as a few in this forum, in the Catholic Church and elsewhere have done, is disappointing indeed and comparable to similar prejudice displayed in the past against blacks by ignorant people. Today, some of the same people who have learned not to display their prejudice against blacks have yet to learn the same lesson with regard to gays. Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant church doctrine contribute to this lag in civility and justice for gays.
[Criticisms, comments on contemporary informed and civilized views of homosexuality are welcome.]
313. thoughtful - 4/30/2002 4:27:42 PM
Prop of J, the boy scouts don't allow homosexuals in their organization at all...or at least those who are admittedly gay, not just scout masters. They also don't allow women to be scout masters and they don't allow men/boys who don't believe in god. Of course, their decision to do so does not protect them against having child-molesters in their ranks. But their decision has resulted in lost funding, and they have lost a lot of very good, very caring people who don't believe that discrimination should be part of a "character-building" organization.
314. Rama - 4/30/2002 4:31:13 PM
But their decision has resulted in lost funding,
Actually, their funding has never been higher.
and they have lost a lot of very good, very caring people who don't believe that discrimination should be part of a "character-building" organization.
I suspect they can deal with the "loss".
315. Cellar Door - 4/30/2002 11:14:27 PM
Well they're going to have a hard time dealing with THIS!
The cat is out of the bag, and it ain't goin' back in!
316. wonkers2 - 5/1/2002 12:59:04 AM
Wonkers says "Who would believe that, indeed?! I can see a book in the works on gay bishops and cardinals."
Cap'n Dirty sez, "Cardinal Spellman? I'll be dadgummed!"
318. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 1:11:30 AM
Did I ever tell you my Eli Wallach story?
I was doing the press junket for Tough Guys -- a completely forgettable Disney comedy starring Burt lancaster and Kirk Douglas and featuring Eli Wallach and a new kid named Dana Carvey. Lancaster had never done anything like this before, so he asked for a formal Q&A with everyone, rather than a round robin -- and of course got it. Wallach sat in on it with the rest of the press. Hewas just as wowed by Lancaster as any civilian (and if you ever met Lancaster you'd know why. He was REALLY Larger Than Life.) Anyway we're waiting for things to get set-up and Wallach sits nextto me. I tell him that I'd just seen "Baby Doll" again as it had been re-released, and told him ow swell it was -- and how amazed people were that Franny got so upset. He then launched into his Cardinal Spellman impersonation "I Come back from Korea and what do I find? BABY DOLL!!!!"
So I told him "And you know Mr. Wallach, it wasn't Carroll Baker that upset him in that film -- it was you." And Eli Wallach practically bust a gut lauging while nodding his head "I know!" he said.
319. thoughtful - 5/1/2002 8:54:38 AM
From the Washington Times
"At least 39 United Way affiliates around the country have stopped direct community funding of the Boy Scouts to protest the Scouts' ban on homosexual leaders.
"I'd estimate these decisions affected 10 [percent] to 15 percent of the average income of an affected [Boy Scouts] council, and they've totaled millions of dollars. And when it happens, we have to find other ways to raise those dollars," said Gregg Shields, spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America."
Now the article does go further to say that they have raised more money this year than last in the last campaign, but the monies talked about are about $500,000, so it is unclear how much of the loss of the united way funding has been made up in other donations. The BSA has not seen fit to publish a more recent annual report than 2000 on their web site...not that the annual report is especially forthcoming about its budget.
320. betty - 5/1/2002 9:04:15 AM
But they loose a whole lot more money if they allow Gay leaders because the Mormons (who I believe give around 50% of BSA's funding) will pull all support.
321. rubberducky - 5/1/2002 9:10:06 AM
let's not let the conversation get into the BSA or gay people in general as that is not the issue, please.
322. marjoribanks - 5/1/2002 9:11:35 AM
Yes, the Mormons are the mainstay of the Boy Scouts.
----
That bit about Cardinal Spellman is interesting. A considerable irony that he and his fellow closeted gay Roy Cohn are among the few most virulently public gay-bashers in American social history.
I do believe, like Wonkers, that there is a solid fact-finding book to be written about homosexuality in the American priesthood, kind of like Cellar's fine book on Hollywood. There must be a great deal of other half-hidden public records of this phenomenon, and it is important to get it out there precisely because of the Church's public stance on both homosexuality and heterosexual morality. In this country, it has been correctly pointed out that these public stances are built on a house of cards of hypocrisy and airing all the dirty laundry out may well make a difference.
However, it should be pointed out that there is already a quite public move within both the hard-corse faithful and the hierarchy to blame everything, this whole scandal and more, on homosexuals who have "infiltrated" the church post Vatican II. In which case, you may well see a retrenchment in the American Church, a closer alignment to the already-influential Opus Dei, and the cutting loose of more liberal congregations and clergy.
323. betty - 5/1/2002 9:11:46 AM
sorry duck, I didn't even realize which thread I was on...feel free to delete.
324. marjoribanks - 5/1/2002 9:14:11 AM
Ducky, I disagree. A big part of the issue is turning out to be homosexuality and the way the institution deals with it. Comparisons and analogies to the BSA are not out of place.
325. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 9:16:55 AM
Whenever rubberducky is losing an argument, he usually says something like that.
Of course there is a connection between the constructive decisions the BSA was forced to make regarding banning homosexuals as scout leaders-- and the weak, liberal Catholic Church problems in ignoring them.
326. marjoribanks - 5/1/2002 9:17:49 AM
This weekend, I thought of MSURichard for a second.
Many here will remember him. I rememeber when he decided that he had to be celibate, because that's what his Catholic-priest spiritual guides had told him. In other words, he had realized that he was gay, but he was being informed that expressing his sexuality would be sinful.
I wonder what he thinks today. If I were him, I'd be rather bitter. Not to mention envious, all he should have done is enter a seminary and he'd have been able to get all the sex he wanted!
327. marjoribanks - 5/1/2002 9:19:50 AM
Jesus, aren't you a mainstream Catolico? Or have you become Opus Dei like so many other Washingtonians?
328. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 9:19:56 AM
Who said Cardinal Spellman was homosexual?
I've never heard that before, and certainly don't believe CD.
He thinks Tom Cruise is gay.
329. marjoribanks - 5/1/2002 9:25:39 AM
One amusing thing to note is that the Catholic Church has already hedged its bets with regard to America ever since JP II came into office. Of course, he has paid attention to this country and almost singlehandedly raised its profile -particulatrly among young people. But at the same time he has railed at length, copiously, about its adherence to 'the culture of death', and about its wanton promiscuity, permissiveness and so on.
It's a good angle. Now priests abroad can go to the pulpits and defend the Church by saying that the scandals in the US are a product of the indigenous corrupt society. D'you feel offended, American Catholics? You should, but don't be surprised.
330. rubberducky - 5/1/2002 9:35:35 AM
i'm not interested in debating this.
if the BSA comes up as some sort of point to The Church, fine. but i do not want a general discussion of peripheral issues as MGleason and i have already mentioned. this is a focused thread, not general interest.
331. marjoribanks - 5/1/2002 9:41:08 AM
You're cute when you act tough and authoritarian, ducky, probably should have considered a career in the Catolico priesthood.
332. Rama - 5/1/2002 9:43:48 AM
Well, obviousely the BSA has handled this issue better than the The Church has. They have extensive safeguards against predators. And they don't have anybody calling themselves the "educated Scouts".
333. thoughtful - 5/1/2002 9:58:38 AM
Ducks, if you will allow me a little latitude here, I think there are important parallels to be drawn between the BSA and the church.
In April, a Canadian Scout leader was charged with sexual touching and sexual exploitation for molesting two boys under his care. This homosexual offered alcohol, X-rated videos, and condoms to the boys.
In February, John Levendosky, a former assistant Boy Scout leader in Pennsylvania was charged with endangering the welfare of children and charged with assault for tying two boys to a tree and cutting them. Police found pornographic bondage magazines and sadomasochistic paraphernalia in his home.
In January, William Elliott, a New York Scout leader was charged on 20 counts of molesting four boys.
In April, Keith Crumpton, a Mississippi Scout leader faced five counts of fondling a minor and traveling across state lines to have sex with a boy. He molested three young boys.
In April, an Annapolis Scout leader was arrested for sexually abusing a 13-year-old Scout under his supervision.
There are 2 points I want to make about the above quote:
1. There is no evidence that the BSA tried to protect, reassign, move, or pay off the people involved.
2. Despite claims here of difficulty in proving cases of molestation, note that all of these were charged/arrested. I find it difficult to believe that there is no evidence...forensic or otherwise...against any of the molesting priests that wouldn't warrant prosecution. I think the church is unfairly being given a pass by the state(s).
334. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 9:58:50 AM
"Who said Cardinal Spellman was homosexual?
I've never heard that before"
MY what a sheltered life you lead!
L. Brent Bozzell should unchain you from your computer more often and you out into the real world.
335. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 10:02:55 AM
336. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 10:30:10 AM
Yea baby, those educated scouts can be an annoyingly independent bunch.
The comparisons to the BSA's handling of the "homosexual question" are apt to a point, but there are significant differences in the situations that limit the usefulness of the analogy.
337. rubberducky - 5/1/2002 10:38:20 AM
as i said, it can be used an analogy, just keep the point of the thread in mind. that's all i ask.
338. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 10:52:19 AM
And the most significant difference is that the management of the BSA hasn't been turning a blind eye to pedophile scoutmasters, moving them from troop to troop when they get caught molesting children.
339. ronski - 5/1/2002 11:00:06 AM
POJ's statement on Spellman is telling.
Does anyone here doubt Roy Cohn's orientation, as well?
But getting back to the thread, is anyone denying that the late 9/11 hero priest Michael Judge was gay? That the NYC firefighters to whom he ministered knew about it and couldn't have cared less? And that for the most part, even the NYC Catholic hierarchy accepted it?
340. Indiana Jones - 5/1/2002 11:01:01 AM
The whole business of the Boy Scouts is young boys, right? I think that exclusivity of focus makes it easier to address the problem.
There have been a lot of comments about "the Catholic Church will go on." I'm not sure Scouting, OTOH, could survive a pedophilia scandal of this magnitude.
This is not to make excuses for the inexcusable but just to offer a reason for the difference in reaction: the church hierarchy had more conflicting interests than would scout leadership.
341. ronski - 5/1/2002 11:01:34 AM
marj,
I have thought of him also.
342. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 11:25:09 AM
Well let's see...
The Catholic church is a 2,000+ year old institution founded by the Son of God. I'm fairly certain even Baden-Powell stopped short of that claim. The church's stated mission is to be the vehicle for salvation for, ideally, all of humanity - or however much of humanity wants to believe.
Priests ostensibly make a life-time commitment to their calling. Last time I checked that was not covered in scout leader basic training.
Bottom line - the analogy assumes homosexuality in the priesthood is the root problem. Since it is not, and time is on my side in demonstrating it is not, I cede the point. It talks past anything I have to say.
343. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 11:41:28 AM
Here's how the Catholic Church handles bad press.
344. Indiana Jones - 5/1/2002 11:50:20 AM
the analogy assumes homosexuality in the priesthood is the root problem.
Why do you say that?
Of course things are different and things are the same. My post was pointing out one such difference: that the Church (which your post seems to agree) has a much wider scope of mission--and interests--than does Scouting. The more interests and organization has the more likely they will come in conflict when dealing with a crisis.
If the Boy Scouts don't do one job well--"prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law"--they're out of business. A scout leader with a penchant for boys is of absolutely no use whatsoever. How are you going to "isolate" him?
The Catholic Church for good or ill is a conglomerate.
345. thoughtful - 5/1/2002 11:59:12 AM
Riv, the analogy assumes homosexuality in the priesthood is the root problem
No, the analogy shows that homosexuality is not the root of the problem and that celibacy is not the root of the problem as allowing marriage and forbidding homosexuality, as the BSA does, has not eliminated child abusers from their ranks.
346. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 12:02:03 PM
banks: My boys go to an Opus Dei school, something I wasn't even aware of until the Hanssen spy scandal.
Okay, I was "aware" but didn't take part in their picnics or other events.
Recently the head master of the school (an Harvard post-graduate) was forced to resign his position because he tried to strangle a 9th-grader who was misbehaving.
347. judithathome - 5/1/2002 12:03:56 PM
And how is you kid today?
348. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 12:07:11 PM
Not him, Judy. Like his father, my oldest, an 11-grader, is passive aggressive.
Very effective, I might add.
349. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 12:08:40 PM
Does he work for L. Brent Bozell too?
350. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 12:09:21 PM
Like I said, the analogy is too limited and clearly, in the minds of some, sends the discussion in the wrong direction.
Thoughtful,
I agree with you. The analogy shows homosexuality is not the problem. But I suspect others don't see it that way and I am not interested in arguing the point.
351. Indiana Jones - 5/1/2002 12:15:18 PM
Rivendell (342): the analogy assumes homosexuality in the priesthood is the root problem
Rivendell (350): The analogy shows homosexuality is not the problem..
352. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 12:15:57 PM
Banks,
Sadly I also believe this could lead to a retrenchment of the traditionalists in the US church.
Hell. Let them cut us (those who disagree with them) adrift. My faith has never been dependent on where I worship or with whom. Besides, I know there are plenty of pain in the ass "liberals" just like me out there. It is only a matter of time before one finds them.
353. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 12:17:51 PM
Indy,
You forgot to mention the point I also made with thoughtful about the perspective of the person using the analogy.
In any case, this is my last post on the subject.
354. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 12:53:30 PM
I would like to see some "outrage" by the homosexual community, disawoving the behavior of the criminal subset within itself, to wit, molesters.
Why hasn't the press ranted and railed that there have been ALL empty chairs at the press conference--nay, no press conferences at all--of the leaders of the key gay groups in the country, denouncing this kind of behavior by a minority of the homosexual priests in the church.
American Catholic laypeople groups like Opus Dei will exploit this scandal. And they have a direct connection to Rome.
355. rubberducky - 5/1/2002 1:09:29 PM
that there's no 'outrage' would be due to this whole thing not being a gay 'issue', PoJ, as should be blatantly obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention.
356. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 1:18:09 PM
But it is to conservative Catholics, who only recently have learned that so many homosexuals are priests.
It's hard to believe that 30 to 50 percent numbers.
357. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 1:19:14 PM
Why?
Too low or too high?
358. thoughtful - 5/1/2002 1:26:11 PM
No one knows the percentage as there has been no study done to date...at least not any revealed. Would be a good academic exercise though. Would bring some facts to all this speculation.
359. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 1:26:24 PM
I don't talking to you, CD, until you apologize for that slur on the good name of Cardinal Spellman.
I met him as a kid, and he never hit up on me.
Like the crossdressing charges against the fascist FBI director Hoover, I don't believe it.
360. rubberducky - 5/1/2002 1:33:46 PM
you're as likely to determine the true percentage of gays in the Catholic Church as you are in the general population of the USA.
-Captain Obvious
361. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 1:34:31 PM
Many articles have been linked here showing how poorly the church - from the bishops on up - has responded to this crisis. These articles paint a depressing picture of a leadership more concerned with its own survival as a leadership than with the damage done to those supposedly in their care or with the blantant hypocrisy of many prominent individuals.
I don't dispute the truth in this picture. But it isn't, thankfully, the complete picture.
I've mentioned Eugene Kennedy before and this will, I think, be the last article of his I will link - for a while at least. Until I started doing some digging recently I did not know he was a close friend of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. Kennedy even wrote a biography of the cardinal.
The link below was written earlier in this crisis. Well before the recent meeting in Rome. Note in particular the anecdote about Bernardin at the end. It is possible some leaders out there still have this kind of courage and humility. I'm not ready to give up hope for that just yet.
The Eyes of the Catholic Church are on its Leaders
362. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 1:37:22 PM
I can't get the link to work.
Here's the address if it helps.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/apr02/33089.asp
363. rubberducky - 5/1/2002 1:38:31 PM
link works fine for me, Riv
364. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 1:49:48 PM
Cool, RD. Thanks.
365. robertjayb - 5/1/2002 1:58:25 PM
Seven Italian Priests Convicted of Pedophilia...
R O M E, May 1 —(AP) At least seven priests in Italy have been sent to prison for pedophilia, a Catholic magazine reported Wednesday.
366. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 2:10:15 PM
Yahoo link of rjayb's story
Basically the same, except it names the magazine.
I had no idea Italian culture had bought so completely into American permissiveness. Opus Dei better get the Curia to snap to on this one.
367. Rama - 5/1/2002 2:15:37 PM
I would like to see some "outrage" by the homosexual community, disawoving the behavior of the criminal subset within itself, to wit, molesters.
This, you are not likely to see. You will see homosexuals pointing out, rightly, that pedaphilia is a different orientation than either homophilia or heterophilia. And you will see homosexuals pointing out, rightly, that non-pedophiliac heterosexuals hit on adolescents. But you won't be seeing a lot of objection to homosexual men having sex with teenagers. You won't see much defense of it either, of course.
I think it is a very bad thing when people over 23 years of age have sex with people under 20 years of age, regardless of gender or orientation.
368. glendajean - 5/1/2002 3:10:15 PM
Adults should not have sex with underage youth.
-- homosexually yours.
369. ronski - 5/1/2002 3:17:24 PM
Rama,
You are full of it. There has been plenty of outrage expressed by gay men over gay adults who hit upon gay teenagers. Those relationships are recognized by many gay men as being inappropriate because of power differentials, and because of the possible harm that emotionally immature teens may suffer.
You really should widen your circle of correspondents, as should POJ.
370. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 3:23:28 PM
Actually I have at least two friends who are gay, Ronski.
Good folk, no different from you or me.
371. Rama - 5/1/2002 4:15:43 PM
Adults should not have sex with underage youth.
-- homosexually yours.
Hear the roar!
372. Rama - 5/1/2002 4:24:20 PM
You are full of it.
Nonsense.
There has been plenty of outrage expressed by gay men over gay adults who hit upon gay teenagers.
Links? Links? Links?
Those relationships are recognized by many gay men as being inappropriate because of power differentials, and because of the possible harm that emotionally immature teens may suffer.
Of course they are recognized by many gay men as such. Nobody here is claiming that all gay men are completely depraved or morally inept. You should stop fondling that straw man.
You really should widen your circle of correspondents, as should POJ.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
373. robertjayb - 5/1/2002 4:36:36 PM
That's not a straw he's fondling.
374. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 4:47:08 PM
"Links? Links? Links? "
I've provided scores of them. But as your mind is made up (with hospital corners) you haven't bothered to check any of them.
375. ronski - 5/1/2002 5:01:12 PM
Rama,
Your ignorance of the gay community is as appalling as POJ's. It is clear it is you who has no idea what he is talking about on this subject. You have seen in this very thread condemnations of sex with teenagers by the gay adults who post here. It is a given in the community that sex of this kind is wrong. Just as it is among heterosexuals.
376. Rama - 5/1/2002 7:09:26 PM
Your ignorance of the gay community is as appalling as POJ's.
Repeating that won't make it any more true than it was the first time.
It is clear it is you who has no idea what he is talking about on this subject.
It is clear that something is more important to you than the reality of the situation.
You have seen in this very thread condemnations of sex with teenagers by the gay adults who post here.
I have read some gay adults who condemn adults having sex with teenagers. But not with much feeling.
It is a given in the community that sex of this kind is wrong.
That is simply not true. Chicken hawks may be ridiculed, but they are an accepted part of the community.
Just as it is among heterosexuals.
Again not true. However, there is a larger, louder percentage of the heterosexual population that disapproves of such activity.
377. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 7:43:55 PM
"I have read some gay adults who condemn adults having sex with teenagers. But not with much feeling."
Now THIS is truly repulsive. You claim to have the power to reach through our computers and divine how much "feeling" we have about the issue? Our words aren't enough?
"Chicken hawks may be ridiculed, but they are an accepted part of the community."
Prove.
"However, there is a larger, louder percentage of the heterosexual population that disapproves of such activity."
Prove.
378. Rama - 5/1/2002 8:03:27 PM
You claim to have the power to reach through our computers and divine how much "feeling" we have about the issue?
Nope, never made any such claim. It is an interesting point that you have make such an incorrect statement in order to respond.
Our words aren't enough?
The words express outrage at the Church officials. The actual pedophiles are condemned. And you object to authority figures having sex with teens. But you aren't very exercised about the common practice of 17-year olds having sex with 30-somethings.
Prove.
It is to laugh. You know it's true.
379. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 8:05:53 PM
It is to barf. "You know it's true" is merely a cheap insult.
"But you aren't very exercised about the common practice of 17-year olds having sex with 30-somethings."
What constitutes an "exercise" level that you would deem acceptable?
380. Property of Jesus - 5/1/2002 8:06:14 PM
The fact that you take such delight in this scandal says a lot about you CD.
381. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 8:08:21 PM
And what would that be?
382. Rama - 5/1/2002 8:15:15 PM
"You know it's true" is merely a cheap insult.
Then it was definitely an appropriate response.
What constitutes an "exercise" level that you would deem acceptable?
Come on! You can say it, I know you can.
383. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 8:23:47 PM
"Come on! You can say it, I know you can."
Are we in the right thread? Doesn't this sort of thing belong in "The Inferno"?
385. Rama - 5/1/2002 8:41:58 PM
Are we in the right thread? Doesn't this sort of thing belong in "The Inferno"?
Why? I'm just trying to get him to say that sex between 17-year olds and thirty-somethings is a bad thing. I feel sure he can say it. And it seems to me to be reasonably related to the topic of what has been going on in the Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure that educated Catholics think that it is a no-no, even if you aren't a priest.
386. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 8:47:18 PM
What makes you think you have to "get" me to say something so obvious?
"And it seems to me to be reasonably related to the topic of what has been going on in the Catholic Church."
How so? The cases I've been linking about covered a much wider underage range. Even infants were involved.
For some reason you seem to find the 35-year-old-with-the-17-year-old of particular significance.
Why is that?
387. Rama - 5/1/2002 8:54:57 PM
What makes you think you have to "get" me to say something so obvious?
Darn, it was that close!
For some reason you seem to find the 35-year-old-with-the-17-year-old of particular significance. Why is that?
It is by far the majority of the cases. And it is likely the reason the other cases were also handled so poorly.
388. Cellar Door - 5/1/2002 9:01:33 PM
No it is NOT "by far the majority of the cases" Anyone who has actually been following this story would know that the molestations were of children.
Like so many Conservabots you've been trying to sell the line that they were all adolescents. "Ephebes" is the buzzword du jour. And since "Ephebes" are late adolescents this makes the offense, according to the party line, "typical" of gay relationships. In that guise the whole thing can be transfromed into a "gay problem," in which an innocent church is best by Evil Homos who overtook it as a consequence of -- what was it again? Vatican II?
Something like that.
The truth (which I have been linking in for the better part of the last month) speaks otherwise.
But then the truth is so inconvienent to the likes of you.
389. Absensia - 5/1/2002 9:18:31 PM
Hmmmmm, must be clerical error... : P
390. Snowowl - 5/1/2002 9:36:55 PM
I don't find anything particularly obscene in the general concept of 17 year olds having sex with 30 something's. In my country the age of consent is 16.
I do believe that it is obscene when people people in positions of power and authority who use that power and authority to coerce anybody, of any age, into having sex with them.
391. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 9:53:37 PM
The coersion - that is the euphemism, rape is the blunt term - and subsequent pressure to "keep it all a secret" by laying on guilt is the obscenity. I haven't seen any reasonable posters dispute that assertion in here.
It applies to teachers.
It applies to coaches.
It applies to scout leaders.
It applies to ministers.
It applies to anyone in a position of trust and authority over another who is vulnerable due to age and/or sophistication.
392. Rivendell - 5/1/2002 9:56:03 PM
Interesting, and somewhat different, perspective from an Irish journalist.
393. betty - 5/1/2002 9:59:06 PM
here here Snowowl!
I don't know Rama and PoJ's personal positions on this (and I'm not trying to imply either way) but in the US we send kids 17 and much younger to death row, and we even, occasionally execute them. Depending on how it fits political agendas, sometimes adolescents are adults and sometimes they are children. Sometimes they are capable of being responsible for their actions and sometimes they are not. This country is composed of morons with schizophrenia and in no area is it more obvious than in our dealings with teenagers.
394. wonkers2 - 5/2/2002 7:43:19 AM
Church covers for priests who abuse women, too.
395. judithathome - 5/2/2002 9:09:57 AM
So this guy was passed on to three more unsuspecting congregations? What arrogance in the church, to think these sleazeballs don't deserve the same punishment a regular attacker on the street deserves, a run-of-the-mill assaulter without the benefit of a collar and an organization which evidently can see nothing wrong with their own.
396. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 9:24:11 AM
Father laments deference to Priest.
397. rubberducky - 5/2/2002 9:27:49 AM
Re: Message # 388, Cellar Door.
very well said. great post.
398. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 9:38:26 AM
From: Ken McPherson [mailto:hbeach@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:38 PM To: 'Public.information@cnn.com' Cc: 'Renna@glaad.org'; 'wayne.besen@hrc.org'; 'bgressler@ngltf.org'; 'bc2000ad@pacbell.net'; 'jasonr@sfcenter.org' Subject: Att: Production Management / Att: Talkback LIVE
To CNN production management:
This e-mail is a follow-up to a telephone call I made to CNN Public Relations in Atlanta on April 23rd following a broadcast of Talkback LIVE.
I'm writing to object to the lack of openly gay representation on CNN programming, the most recent and glaring example of which is your exclusion of openly gay commentators from your coverage of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.
Immediately after the story hit, cultural conservatives from both within and outside the Catholic Church began floating the notion that the "acceptance of gay priests" and "homosexuality" in general was deluged its audience with this particular spin on a daily, if not fever pitch, eclipsing even stories from the Middle East and Afghanistan. Every CNN news broadcast, every CNN feature show, every CNN pundit has been exploiting the "connection" between the sexual abuse of minors and homosexuality.
Yet no where in the mix has CNN included representation from the designated scapegoats of the scandal: gay Americans.
May I ask why?
399. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 9:39:10 AM
Consider the following analogy. If this were a story in which equally defamatory allegations were made that African-Americans were somehow specifically responsible for one of society's generic failures, say drug abuse, CNN management would see to it that African-Americans were directly represented on every single show in which CNN was aware the allegation was to be discussed. And yet in this case, day after day, show after show, competent openly gay representatives are nowhere to be seen.
I want to make clear that my objections are not limited to the manner in which CNN has handled the scandal in the Catholic Church. There are no openly gay voices represented on CNN, period. No contributors, no regulars, not even semi-regulars.
May I ask why?
Is there any doubt that issues surrounding sexual orientation are among the most hotly debated in America today? Is it not a matter of record that organizations regularly featured on CNN like the Family Research Council have blatantly anti-gay perspectives that they push on every appearance?
Yet CNN seems to feel no obligation to present the perspectives of those being slandered.
May I ask why?
400. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 9:39:27 AM
I look forward to discussing this situation with CNN management at your earliest possible convenience.
Respectfully, Ken McPherson 415 551-2225 hbeach@pacbell.net
cc: Cathy Renna, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation - Renna@glaad.org Wayne Besen, Human Rights Campaign -wayne.besen@hrc.org Betsy Gressler, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force -bgressler@ngltf.org Ben Carlson, Community United Against Violence -bc2000ad@pacbell.net Jason Riggs, San Francisco GLTB Community Center -jasonr@sfcenter.org
-----End Original Message-----
In both my telephone conversation and email of the 23rd I requested a response from CNN management as to the issues raised. I have yet to receive a response.
Today, May 1, I placed a telephone call to "Dave" at CNN Public Information and Valerie Davidson at CNN Public Relations, once again requesting a formal response from CNN management.
I wish to emphasize that the questions I posed were not meant to be rhetorical. If CNN wishes specific clarifications of my questions, I will provide them.
Respectfully, Ken McPherson 415 551-2225 hbeach@pacbell.net
cc: - Cathy Renna, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation - Renna@glaad.org - Wayne Besen, Human Rights Campaign - wayne.besen@hrc.org - Betsy Gressler, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - bgressler@ngltf.org - Ben Carlson, Community United Against Violence - bc2000ad@pacbell.net - Jason Riggs, San Francisco GLTB Community Center - jasonr@sfcenter.org - Pamela Strother, National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association - pstrother@nlgja.org - Steve Schalchlin, Youth Guardian Services - schalchlin@youth-guard.org - Gabi Clayton, Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays -gclayton@earthlink.net - Dave Gantt, Washington DC - david.gantt@dc.gov
401. Rama - 5/2/2002 9:58:54 AM
My point is proven by the posters above: There are a large number of people who believe it is ok for teenagers to have sex with adults. This idea is particularly widespread among gay men.
It appears that this idea is also supported by gay men who enter the Catholic priesthood. Since they happen to be "authority figures", it isn't surprising they don't see any distinction between themselves and the chicken hawk on the corner.
And having already made these two errors in judgement, it is not surprising they then deal so poorly with actual pedophiles.
Meanwhile, everybody who has a problem with the authority figures of the Catholic Church sees this as an excellent chance to advance their various political agendas. And CD sees this as an opportunity to upgrade his media exposure level.
There are three levels of problems here: The actual abusers, the church authorities, the opportunistic attackers of the church authorities. The abusers are by far the most repugnent, and the church autorities and those who attack them tie for a far distant second.
402. uzmakk - 5/2/2002 10:08:04 AM
Thanks for 312 , wonkers. I shall return.
403. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 10:23:47 AM
You have "proven," zilch, Rama.
Meanwhile, here are some tips for you on how to spin this story further.
404. betty - 5/2/2002 10:38:12 AM
Rama,
the point of my post was, in case you couldn't tell, that those with authority are not dealing with teenagers in a consistent manner and hence adults and teenagers get confused about their proper roles because it's all garbled in this culture. If 17 year olds are responsible enough for their actions to go to prison for the rest of their lives (and be put on death row), then they are responsible enough to make informed sexual decisions.
405. Property of Jesus - 5/2/2002 11:28:44 AM
Paul Shanley (NAMBLA-associated priest) Arrested for Child Rape in San Diego
Breaking now. Three counts of child rape.
406. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 11:42:01 AM
CNN has it.
No info yet on what specific cases the arrest is related to.
407. Rama - 5/2/2002 11:54:54 AM
You have "proven," zilch, Rama.
As I pointed out, others proved the point.
the point of my post was, in case you couldn't tell, that those with authority are not dealing with teenagers in a consistent manner and hence adults and teenagers get confused about their proper roles because it's all garbled in this culture. If 17 year olds are responsible enough for their actions to go to prison for the rest of their lives (and be put on death row), then they are responsible enough to make informed sexual decisions.
I understood that you share this confusion, and blame your confusion on "authority" figures.
408. betty - 5/2/2002 12:08:08 PM
No Rama, I don't share this confusion. I can state very clearly that no child should be sentenced to life in prison or put on death row no matter how heinous their crime, because they are children, and are not fully responsible for their actions. children are not sometimes adults and sometimes children, they are always children and should be treated as such. Sending children to prison and to die is not appropriate. Just as it is not appropriate for children to be having sex with adults.
409. betty - 5/2/2002 12:08:29 PM
toys
410. betty - 5/2/2002 12:08:58 PM
toys? toys?
411. Rivendell - 5/2/2002 12:34:29 PM
For a person in a position of authority and trust to use the power of that position as a weapon to rape another who is, because of lack of sophistication due to age or whatever, in a clearly subordination class is rightly considered heinous.
People who cover up for, and in many cases enable the heinous ones to continue their crimes, are a far distant distant second on the repugnant scale.
To criticize those who rigorously covered up the crimes of the heinous ones is just as repugnant as the actual cover up.
Makes perfect sense to me.
412. Rivendell - 5/2/2002 12:35:26 PM
toys?
And it should be "subordinate class"
413. robertjayb - 5/2/2002 12:51:54 PM
And way down in old Hong Kong...
HONG KONG (Reuters) -Three Catholic priests in Hong Kong were found guilty in internal Church hearings of sexually abusing children in their care, but none of the cases was handed to the police, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.
The paper quoted Cardinal John Baptist Wu Cheng-chung, the head of the church in the territory, as saying the three cases had taken place over the past 27 years.
But he was not more specific about the actual incidents, the latest in a growing list of sexual abuse reports around the world which have shaken the Roman Catholic Church to its foundations.
414. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 3:11:29 PM
Cardinal Law called a "flight risk." Victims want his passport impounded.
415. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 6:55:30 PM
416. wonkers2 - 5/2/2002 7:26:17 PM
Wow! A 7-priest motel gang bang with one gullible young woman. That's an incredible article. Mahony has been getting relatively good PR in mainstream publications as the most liberal/progressive Cardinal of the bunch. He's equally culpable as Law but much better at public relations.
417. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 7:45:34 PM
And much more slippery too. Currently he's hospitalized with a "lung problem" of some sort and "unavailable" for questioning.
418. Rama - 5/2/2002 7:50:12 PM
Just as I suspected, Catholics may think those "other" priests and bishops are doing a bad job, but "their" priests and bishop are just fine, thank-you, just like their mayor and their congressperson. Amazingly, 40% of American Catholics think the Pope and Vatican has actually done a good job of handling this issue!
419. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 8:39:15 PM
420. wonkers2 - 5/2/2002 8:39:42 PM
I didn't like Pope John Paul II BEFORE the scandal broke. Now his approval rating is only 54% among American Catholics.
421. Rivendell - 5/2/2002 8:58:00 PM
Local parish priests have never had any power over how a bishop handles a diocese. So the 71% favorable rating for the priests is hardly surprising. Any semi-conscious or better catholic knows parish priests have no control over how the issue has been handled.
To say "their bishops are just fine, thank you", is not true. 61% say the all the US bishops have handled the matter poorly. The report does not say the survey breaks the responses out according to "my" bishop vs. "other" bishops.
And many other surveys show 70% or more of catholics in Boston want Law to resign.
422. Rivendell - 5/2/2002 9:00:29 PM
I suppose 40% of American catholics thinking the Pope has done a good job in the matter might be considered good enough.
It has, after all, been about the percentage of the vote the last three US presidents have had to muster.
423. Rivendell - 5/2/2002 9:30:21 PM
According to this survey US catholics are pretty unambiguous about how they think the matter should be handled.
If the leaders, US bishops and the Vatican, do not unequivocally handle it this way - any guesses on what the favorable rating for the Pope and the Vatican will be then?
424. robertjayb - 5/2/2002 9:45:53 PM
Oh, No! Not the Rabbi! Please, not the Rabbi!
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The small, close-knit Jewish community in this Bible Belt city was used to seeing Rabbi Richard Marcovitz presiding over weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs.
So they were shocked to see TV images of him with his hands behind his back in handcuffs, arrested for allegedly groping two girls and two young women at a Jewish day school.
425. wonkers2 - 5/2/2002 9:53:10 PM
Well, at least he's a normal heterosexual male!
426. Rama - 5/2/2002 11:57:44 PM
The report does not say the survey breaks the responses out according to "my" bishop vs. "other" bishops.
It appears educated Catholics can't read charts.
I suppose 40% of American catholics thinking the Pope has done a good job in the matter might be considered good enough.
Particularly since they don't get to vote.
427. Rama - 5/3/2002 12:00:19 AM
Well, at least he's a normal heterosexual male!
This is a real shame. Such behavior is disgraceful.
We definitely can't allow this guy into the straight pride parade.
428. Rivendell - 5/3/2002 1:17:03 AM
Hey, I'm busted. I didn't look at the chart and missed the sentence in the text. But it is so amusing to watch you ridicule the "educated catholic" phrase it was worth it. It's too bad the phrase is not my own invention.
In my own case I have no reason to view my archbishop's handling of abusive priests unfavorably because there is no evidence to date he has shuffled them around or tried to hinder investigations into abusive conduct. Bishops, like Law, who have been guilty of both see majorities of their flock who disaprove.
This ABC poll shows rather clearly what causes American catholics' disapproval. The major reasons are not notifying the police (79%) and trasferring accused priests to another parish (77%). If a bishop has done neither then why should his people view him unfavorably?
There are 178 RC dioceses in the US. Each is headed by at least a bishop. Even educated catholics know roughly 10% of those dioceses are currently dealing with the worst charges of coverup. That leaves 90% without the kind of problems that have caused 70% of locals to lose faith in Law.
So why are only 49% satisfied with they way their local bishop has handled the situation?
429. Cellar Door - 5/3/2002 10:38:40 AM
"In my own case I have no reason to view my archbishop's handling of abusive priests unfavorably because there is no evidence to date he has shuffled them around or tried to hinder investigations into abusive conduct."
As you say you have no evidence. Neither do most people re their parishes -- which why you get the 49% figure. But as I Phoenix story I linked earlier show this phenomenon is far more systemic than any of us (myself included) have imagined.
430. ronski - 5/3/2002 11:22:11 AM
Rama's charge that "chicken hawks" are an accepted part of the gay community is one of the vilest lies I've seen posted here, ever. It is hardly worth the effort to attempt a discussion with someone like Rama, who appears intent only on hurling insults.
As for Rama's ability to determine the level of conviction of gays who do condemn abuse of teenagers, that is truly to laugh.
431. glendajean - 5/3/2002 11:37:44 AM
Ronski -- it's amazing how the big lie is working here. The church has tolerated and in some cases promoted child molesters. Instead of dealing with the problem, they just start crying, too many gay men in the priesthood. It's not a management problem. Don't hold us accountable. It's a gays in the priesthood problem.
It's sort of like the people in San Francisco with the killer dogs.
Don't blame us or our dogs that we have raised to kill and whose vicious previous behavior we tolerated. Blame the victims who didn't complain before it led to a death. Blame the gay community for rallying around the victim's partner. Blame the gay prosecuter for arguing the case.
Not so extreme an example when you hear the victims of these priests and their families talk about what they experienced. The good news over the last fews years is that such desparation doesn't work. Yesterday Andrew Sullivan cited a poll of American Catholics where they didn't buy this scapegoating.
432. Cellar Door - 5/3/2002 12:01:38 PM
433. Rivendell - 5/3/2002 12:15:25 PM
Actually, the nationwide 49% approval for "my own" bishop is, to me, surprisingly low considering the small number of bishops who've been substantively implicated in the worst of the cover up. I'd have to look it up, but I'm fairly certain my archbishop's figure would be higher than 49%. They aren't, as Rama correctly notes, voted into office. But by the same token, if a bishop is at the least an able administrator there's no real reason he shouldn't have approval ratings in the 70s or better. The permanently disgruntled of catholics hovers around 20 to 30% depending on where you are, but the rest generally would prefer to respect their own bishop.
I did not read the Phoenix link, but I doubt I'd be surprised at the systemic level it illustrates. Up till now I've had no proof, but it hasn't taken a great deal of instinct to suspect the problem existed.
As this link shows, the problem has been reported, by some journalists, from as far back as 1983. And contrary to what some of the more rabid orthodox would have us believe, pain in the ass liberal catholics like me are well aware the abusive priests are 1% or less of the total number. What they seem to refuse to believe, however, is how the basis for the great anger is more directed at the betrayal of trust demonstrated in how some bishops have handled the problem rather than at the fact that the abusers exist.
Abusers exist at about the same level in any profession or volunteer vocation in direct contact with minors. If a school district administrator dealt with an abusing teacher the way these bishops have dealt with some priests you damn betcha there'd be a howl for that administrators head. I can't see why it should be any different for the bishops.
434. ronski - 5/3/2002 12:52:51 PM
I've been very busy lately, which is why I've been dropping in and out like this, so my apologies, but:
To POJ,
I am delighted that you have two gay friends. It's a great start.
My only question is whether you call them deviants to their face, as you have referrred to gays in these precincts.
435. ronski - 5/3/2002 1:01:49 PM
glenda,
And it's not just the big lie in the traditional sense, though that is part of it. It is also the constant, repetitive linking of homosexuality to genuine evils, so that the weak of mind will associate them long after the current debate has died down.
I won't go along with that game. I didn't when Kuligan was playing it in Religion, and I won't here.
436. glendajean - 5/3/2002 1:11:50 PM
Ronski -- to me it is a big lie to insist that those evils are inherent in gay people for the purposes that you described. A straight person is as likely to be a molester as a gay person. Since there are more straight people in the world, a straight person is more likely to be a molester.
We never talk about rapists as being straight or heterosexual, nor do we think about rapists as a reflection upon the character and lives of heterosexuals as a group.
Molesters are the problem here. To make this Catholic church scandal as a "homosexual" problem is to lie and deflect from the truth.
437. Rivendell - 5/3/2002 2:03:25 PM
...court documents that were unsealed in Boston. For the first time there is unequivocal evidence of cover-up and a failure within the Roman Catholic Church.
"It's like the Nixon tapes," [Tom Fox, publisher of the National Catholic Reporter] says. "Anyone can see from the documents the course (of the Church) was not pastoral, it was defensive and legalistic."
The above is from this article on the Poynter Institute website. The institute describes itself as an independent school of journalism. I know nothing else about it other than this and other articles on the site seem well balanced.
This article shows what I have been trying to relate from my own personal experience as a practicing catholic. Until the Boston story broke the way it did there was no proof of what I find so reprehensible. As Eugene Kennedy wrote:
...they chose to let the lawyers play hardball with the victim plaintiffs, let the insurers' prevail in protecting assets rather than people, and let the public relations people make it sound like a rescue mission when the lawyers shot the wounded.
To which I'd add - we now know for certain they continued to move abusive priests around long after a reasonable person should have known it was too dangerous.
And there's every reason for me to believe they'd still be doing it today if the Boston story had not exploded.
438. Cellar Door - 5/3/2002 8:07:33 PM
The Archdiocese of Boston renegs on settlement with the victims. In other words, It's War.
Note: They waited until late Friday to announce this. That's how BIG it is. They can't face the shit-storm that would come were it announced earlier today. Or Monday morning.
Viscious bastards! I hope the families hang them by their ankles and shake until, every last penny falls out!
439. Property of Jesus - 5/3/2002 9:41:06 PM
Smart move on the Catholic laymen responsible. An Opus Dei moment.
No way does one victim get $30 million from the parishioners.
Let the cardinals and their accountants sell their mansions and other real estate.
Law the enabler, for example, lives on a 62 acres estate right outside Boston.
440. Property of Jesus - 5/3/2002 9:42:35 PM
on=from
441. robertjayb - 5/3/2002 11:00:33 PM
Is the Pope Catholic?...Bill Keller in the NYTimes...
Pope John Paul II turns 82 this month, and he looks more mortal by the day. In his photo op with the American cardinals last week, he was so infirm and unintelligible that you wanted to avert your eyes out of pity. But let's not. The uncomfortable and largely unspoken truth is that the current turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is not just a sad footnote to the life of a beloved figure. This is a crisis of the pope's making.
442. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 12:26:34 AM
"An Opus Dei moment."
Indeed. They don't give a damn about child rape.
443. Property of Jesus - 5/4/2002 7:11:22 AM
And neither do you, if you weren't trying to sell some leftist publisher a software treatment.
444. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:18:58 AM
That last post of yours belongs in "The Inferno."
445. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:19:35 AM
446. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/4/2002 10:48:30 AM
447. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 11:06:14 AM
448. robertjayb - 5/4/2002 11:48:41 AM
Thanks for the link, Cellar Door.
449. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 11:59:26 AM
You're welcome. Wills gets right to the heart of the matter -- particularly in regard to the fact that Shanley is verylikely blackmailing Law.
His take on Catholic mothers offering their sons up to the Church as Priests (a la Human Sacrifice)is quite interesting. He's a serious Catholic who has been long critical of Church policy and opposed to the celibacy charade.
450. LohrM - 5/4/2002 1:17:05 PM
I'm baffled that people seem not to understand that priestly celibacy does have a serious purpose. A priest is not supposed to have an "ordinary" life or be like "ordinary" people. He is supposed to be married to the Church itself, to an institutional designed to be both universal and eternal. One gives up ordinary life for such a calling. Why do people want priests to be family guys at all?
And, frankly, in the long view, the altar boys aren't all that relevant. Individuals come and go; the Church itself is forever. In the long view, the authority and majesty of a two-thousand-year-old structure with a mission to last literally forever is more important than the fate of a few temporary members of the laity. Yielding to demands that the Church cede authority to the laity is far worse over time than altar boys.
451. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 1:28:11 PM
"Why do people want priests to be family guys at all?"
Then you mean parishoners with families should look elsewhere for serious advice and counsel about the most important aspects of their lives? I agree.
"And, frankly, in the long view, the altar boys aren't all that relevant. Individuals come and go; the Church itself is forever."
Sure. What's a raped altar boy or two in the "long view," eh?
"Yielding to demands that the Church cede authority to the laity is far worse over time than altar boys."
Are you a Cardinal in your spare time? You sure sound like one.
452. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 1:58:51 PM
453. wonkers2 - 5/4/2002 5:25:37 PM
Insightful article by Gary Wills. What a soggy, superstitious mess.
454. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 6:31:57 PM
"Charities shouldn't be a place for criminals to hide."
455. robertjayb - 5/4/2002 6:34:57 PM
Brazilian priest busted for pedophilia...
456. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 6:40:15 PM
"Brazil,
Where hearts were entertaining June,
We stood beneath an amber moon. . . "
Indeed.
457. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 8:42:50 PM
The news that the Boston archdiocesan "finance committee" had reneged on the settlement hit like another of those acid baths. This is Law talking. I doubt the financial committee has ever done anything counter to an order from Law.
Looks like the cardinal's big mansion is gonna be a Nieman Marcus - or a Wal Mart.
The Wills link looks interesting. I'm just through the first couple of paragraphs so far and have to head out to the lobby in a minute.
The Alistair Cooke column isn't worth much. He demonstrates little understanding of the church. Most of it sounds like the RC dismissals I heard from any number of Church of England stalwarts when I've been in England.
458. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 9:30:00 PM
Maybe so, but I find it fascinating to watch the way thoughtful people are turning all this information over in their minds.
I hjave my own take on it, of course. And it's still in the process of developing.
459. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 9:49:56 PM
The link to the column written by the Irish journalist (O'Toole) I posted several days ago has more to recommend it than the Cooke. To me it looks like Cooke has not separated himself much from the pervasive prejudice against the RC church in his own culture. O'Toole OTOH has a healthy skepticism coupled with a cradle catholic's understanding of how the church really works. He offers a possible analysis. Cooke offers random, shallow observations and sounds like he is sniffing, while saying, "Well... what do you expect? We are, after all, talking about the catholics."
460. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 9:56:45 PM
The Wills book review is interesting. One of the books he includes is the Kennedy book I'd like to read next. And Wills at least starts out by acknowledging - barring credible studies, yet to be done, to the contrary - we should not assume the occurance of pedophilia among priests is significantly higher than among any other group of men.
He then offers several reasons why priestly pedophilia is different that are worth thinking about.
461. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:08:24 PM
The Church's Pedophilia Rate may be higher than that of other professions. Or maybe not. The difference is the opportunities the hierarchy gives pedophilia to thrive. The Church has done NOTHING to stop it. And in fact it can be argued that hierarchical practices actually encourage pedophilia.
But no more, I trust, as the jig is up.
462. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:13:33 PM
In fairness, or maybe for myself as much as anything, I feel compelled to post the obvious here. After 14 years of catholic education of various kinds and a lifetime of membership in one parish or another I've met many wonderful priests.
It is easy to read all these columns, news reports and books and come to the conclusion a catholic would have to have been living under a rock not to have met a priestly pervert. Maybe I've led a charmed life, but I have not met any. I've known any number who were rigid, unimaginative automatons. But they are far outnumbered by hard working, conscientious, caring people across many different religious orders.
There. That feels a little better.
I think.
463. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:15:04 PM
Cellar,
I don't dispute that analysis in any substantive way. It is similar to what I've been saying the last several days in here.
464. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:18:44 PM
"I've known any number who were rigid, unimaginative automatons."
They're the ones to keep an eye on.
465. wonkers2 - 5/4/2002 10:26:35 PM
Riv, But you don't really know whether some of the "wonderful priests" may have been sex abusers. Many of those who have come to light recently were well liked, charismatic individuals. I was shocked when I heard that our beloved married priest (Episcopal) was sacked for committing adultery with a parishioner (an adult). And, as I recall, the Dean of Harvard Divinity School was sacked for spending too much time on porn sites on his university-owned computer. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (and women)?
466. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:26:53 PM
No doubt. If someone told me he had pictures of one of them flailing at his back with a bullwhip while crying, "Mommy!," I don't think it would take me by surprise.
There a song dropped from the Broadway production of Sweeney Todd that has Judge Turpin doing just that and I always think he should be wearing a cassock when I hear the song on an album that includes it.
467. wonkers2 - 5/4/2002 10:30:34 PM
Great show, Sweeney Todd!
468. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:30:55 PM
wonkers,
If we are going to delve into all the quirks of every adult then we're headed into Fellini territory.
There's a lay theology professor I know who is famously perverted. He's also a nice person in public. That doesn't mean I'd advise anyone to go home with him to look at his etching if they didn't know what they were getting into.
469. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:32:16 PM
Now would be a good time to re-read Christopher Durang.
Not just Sister Mary Ignatius (a masterpiece) but the less flashy and deepy sad The Marriage of Bette and Boo. It's an elegy to to his parents whose lives were ruined by their insistence on following Catholic dogma to the letter.
470. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:32:25 PM
etchings
471. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:36:05 PM
Durang is just twisted.
And funny as hell.
There's another play, called Sacrilege about a street ministering sister who gets into trouble for administering last rites to a junkie dying of an overdose. She gets into trouble because only priests or male deacons can administer sacraments. To complicate matters further she also believes she would serve the church better as a priest.
It is a good play if you get a chance to see it or read it.
472. wonkers2 - 5/4/2002 10:37:02 PM
True. I suppose most people have done a few things (sexual) in their life of which they aren't totally proud and, even if they don't feel particularly guilty over them, would prefer not to see on the front page of the village newspaper.
473. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:47:28 PM
That one I don't know.
I adore Sister Mary Ignatius.
Laughing Wild is good too, especially in regard to Guilt.
Since he's come out, of course, Durang is a lot less guilty. Wish I'd seen his nightclub act Christopher Durang and Dawn.
He sings Sondheim quite well.
474. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 10:51:45 PM
Just to clarify, Durang did not write Sacrilege. I can't remember who wrote it. I saw it a couple of months ago in a storefront theatre downtown. I mentioned it because it relates to public perceptions of the church - as does Sister Mary.
475. Cellar Door - 5/4/2002 10:57:00 PM
There's a good amount about the Church in Elaine Stritch's show. On the one hand it left her so unprepared sexually that she didn't lose her virginity until she was 30. (The good news is that she lost it to Ben Gazzara.) On the other hand several of the nuns were particularly kind and helpful to her and encouraged her acting aspirations.
476. Rivendell - 5/4/2002 11:24:55 PM
I suppose it is a generational thing, but my classmates at catholic high school were, even looking back on it now, hardly sexually repressed. That was in the 1970s.
The same couldn't be said for many of our parents, however.
And with that, strike awaits. Later.
477. ronski - 5/4/2002 11:58:29 PM
I'm seeing Stritch on Thursday. We had tickets to go together, and then I got an assignment in Aspen. Hard choice, but the skiing won out. But I kept thinking I was missing something really special, so the boyfriend kindly got me a ticket for this week.
478. Cellar Door - 5/5/2002 9:36:05 AM
You've got yourself a great boyfriend there!
479. Cellar Door - 5/5/2002 2:35:44 PM
480. Cellar Door - 5/5/2002 2:54:36 PM
481. Cellar Door - 5/6/2002 11:16:12 AM
Scroll down for my latest angry letter.
482. vw - 5/6/2002 2:08:16 PM
There are a large number of people who believe it is ok for teenagers to have sex with adults.
So do 29 of our US States ... they legally define the age of sexual consent as 16 years of age.
Oh and then there's South Carolina where 14 year olds can consent.
483. Rama - 5/6/2002 2:27:05 PM
So do 29 of our US States ... they legally define the age of sexual consent as 16 years of age.
Thanks for the support, but I have to point out that there is a difference between allowing teenagers to consent and believing it is ok for teenagers to have sex with adults.
484. rubberducky - 5/6/2002 2:42:53 PM
yes, there is a difference
legality
so, what, exactly is your point about it?
485. glendajean - 5/6/2002 3:03:35 PM
I saw Stritch's peformance at the Public back in December. Then I watched the DVD of the documentary about theCompany cast album recording session. Very interesting to compare since in the show Stritch talks about her drinking life back then. What a performer.
Riv -- I read part one of Wills' essay in NYRB this weekend. The most amazing sections to me were when he quoted actual stories from the legal files of how priests hit on the altar boys using religion as their tool.
This awful guy Shanley (sp?) has a letter to Cardinal Law complaining about one of his accusers stalking him. And Cardinal Law writes back that it must be awful to be stalked. I guess it must be awful to be raped as a child. Wills quotes another priest therapist who worked with abusers who noted that many of these guys hardly ever felt remorse for what they did or felt any sympathy for the kids.
Shanley also writes at one point, stating that two cardinals had his fate in their hands, and that he had been faithfully silent to the priests who had abused him as a young man, including one of the predecessors of one of the cardinals. Wills suggests that perhaps this might be why there was toleration and silence by the bishops.
Wills also writes a lot about mothers and sons who become priests, and how mothers were considered to have priestly coverage and honor by having sons who were priests, and frankly, to a non-Catholic, this whole thing seemed very odd. I am sure it has more resonance for born and raised Catholics. Wills suggests that some priests who were forced to be priests never developed maturity in dealing with their sexuality.
486. glendajean - 5/6/2002 3:03:49 PM
When I was in grad school back in the 70s, I attended a couple of retreats at a Trappist monastery in Eastern Iowa. One of the brothers that I befriended was an older man, in his 80s. He had been brought to the monastery by his parents when he was still in his early teens (maybe age 12 or so). He described how scary this new world appeared to him with its forced silences, little sleep, ritual and clothes. I think he was glad to be a Trappist, but he also was, I think, a bit angry about he got to be one.
487. vw - 5/6/2002 3:56:11 PM
I have to point out that there is a difference between allowing teenagers to consent and believing it is ok for teenagers to have sex with adults.
That difference being what?
488. Rama - 5/6/2002 4:11:49 PM
That difference being what?
The difference between allowed and recommended.
In a free society, lots of things that are allowed that are not generally recommended. In fact, many things that are generally disapproved of are allowed.
489. Rivendell - 5/6/2002 4:44:41 PM
glenda,
I suppose the description of, "...how mothers were considered to have priestly coverage and honor by having sons who were priests..." could seem odd to a non-catholic. However, it is not all that much different than the way some parents, particularly fathers, react to sons who show the athletic potential be MLB or NFL players. It is a vicarious living out of an experience denied the parent for whatever reason.
There is also a medieval cultural tradition that has not died out completely in some societies. Any cultural historians out there can correct me, but I believe the medieval tradition in wealthy families was for the second born son to be "given" to the priesthood. The first born inherits the family fortune. This also served the function of lessening the possibilites of a fight over the inheritance between first and second born sons who were only a year or two apart in age.
The remnants of that tradition can still be found in some families with more than one son.
490. Rivendell - 5/6/2002 4:55:17 PM
As I tried to point out in my reaction to the Alistair Cooke column, in addition to the responsible reporting of this scandal there is also a fair amount of misinformation and/or residual prejudice about catholicism.
I am not talking about the pathetic apologists who try to defend the church by calling the all negative reporting "catholic-bashing". But I am saying you have to be careful about opinion pieces. Not all of them are rational or completely fair.
For anyone interested, there is a very good book about catholicism in the US written especially for non-catholics. It is, Roman Catholicism in America by Chester Gillis.
The book is easy to read. It starts with an overview of the demographics of US catholics. In subsequent chapters it covers the history of the church in the US, catholic teachings, the institutional structure and it finishes with challenges for the future.
Gillis is not afraid to criticize the ways in which the church has failed in the US, but he also writes with respect for the things the church has done well.
491. Cellar Door - 5/6/2002 8:12:28 PM
492. wonkers2 - 5/6/2002 8:12:41 PM
The teenagers seem to be having quite a lot of sex with each other, before the age of consent. Problems arise when the boy is just over the age of consent and the girl just under. That's where things can get pretty arbitrary.
493. Cellar Door - 5/6/2002 8:13:07 PM
494. Rama - 5/7/2002 9:59:35 AM
There is something wrong with a priest who loves the media so much.
495. Cellar Door - 5/7/2002 10:26:15 AM
ALL religion loves the media.
When it does its bidding.
496. Rivendell - 5/7/2002 11:06:59 AM
Yea buddy, there's more wrong with that priest than just about any other priest one could name.
497. Rivendell - 5/7/2002 11:09:30 AM
I love this:
You can't even attend Mass on a Sunday afternoon in the summertime without seeing girls in scanty, sexually provocative clothing.
Hmmm... that may be. But you know what? There are scantily clad girls everywhere and no matter where one sees them it should also be no trouble remembering they are about the same age as my daughter.
498. judithathome - 5/7/2002 11:17:53 AM
Like so many American Catholics, I am sick to death of the vitriolic attacks on our church.
Like so many Americans, I am sick to death of the priests attacks on young boys.
499. glendajean - 5/7/2002 11:40:24 AM
Judith -- hopefully the worst offensives are in the past. I was reading an article in the NY Times yesterday about an apostolic visit organized by the Vatican to check out American seminaries. In the context of the story, people were quoted as saying that there is much more psychological profiling and screening prior to acceptance of candidates. The worst offenders appear to be from an earlier time.
Has anybody been reading the items about the Boston diocese and their financial council balking at settlements? This is a serious financial problem. It seems to me that Law will have an increading difficult time staying there, given that his fingerprints keep popping up in letters and memos where he tolerated the worst perpetrators.
500. judithathome - 5/7/2002 11:47:53 AM
Maybe the church should've taken a vow of poverty rather than of chasity...or maybe after they pay off everyone, they will have to start over with much less money than they now have.
On Bill Maher last night, he was bemoaning what a big hit the church charities will take if everyone sues for damages. Seems to me they could sell off property and treasury items before tapping the charities....
501. judithathome - 5/7/2002 11:50:58 AM
GJ, do you really think the worst offenses are in the past? I read that it could still be going on but the youngest are too mortified to come forward until they are older and have more distance from the abusive actions...could be. It might have been an ongoing thing and we won't hear of the latest ones til years from now.
502. Rivendell - 5/7/2002 1:01:07 PM
glenda,
The Boston balk is commented on several places upthread.
503. Rivendell - 5/7/2002 1:07:50 PM
It could very well happen that the future damage awards might seriously compromise the church charities. There are several events that could modify the possibility.
Lay catholics could give money normally given to the diocese directly to the charities.
Large diocese, particularly the older ones in the eastern half of the country, do indeed have valuable properties. If they lost them in order to pay damage awards that might not be the worst thing to ever happen.
Finally, perhaps the spirit will move the bishops as a group to address how the arrogant attitudes of some of their members makes the whole situation worse than it ever need be. I have yet to see one bishop admit, without any qualifications, that the way they (the bishops) have responded to this problem has been wrong. And that in addition to putting in place procedures to prevent child abuse they also will address the problems in the heirarchy that led to the cover up in the first place. If they ever did that I suspect a number of the victims would drop their suits.
504. Rivendell - 5/7/2002 1:15:59 PM
judith,
Any reporter who writes:
it could still be going on but the youngest are too mortified to come forward until they are older and have more distance from the abusive actions. It might have been an ongoing thing and we won't hear of the latest ones til years from now.
That reporter is engaging in speculation.
I won't try to argue it isn't true. But the fact is, we don't know.
And probably won't know until we see the first bishop who also becomes a convicted felon. Once that happens then perhaps the church heirarchy will stop interfering with a broader investigation.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does it does.
505. judithathome - 5/7/2002 1:30:29 PM
Riv, I understand it is speculative but 40 years ago, suggestions that priests would molest their young charges would have probably been labelled speculation, also.
I'm not saying that it is fact and I'm very much hoping it proves to be nothing BUT speculation.
506. judithathome - 5/7/2002 2:09:32 PM
I can't believe Shanley's attorny...he's arguing Shanley should have lower bail because "he has NO criminal record AT ALL..."
Well, yeah...because his bishops covered his ass for the last 30 years!
507. Absensia - 5/7/2002 6:21:06 PM
BOSTON (AP) - Fearing Boston's top Roman Catholic leader might soon leave for Rome, a judge ordered Cardinal Bernard F. Law to answer questions about the diocese's handling of a pedophile priest whose case helped trigger the recent crisis facing the church.
Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney ordered Law to be deposed Wednesday in the civil litigation against John Geoghan, the now-defrocked priest accused of molesting scores of youngsters
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/1110/5-7-2002/200205071020785404.html
I wonder if the deposition will be made public? They usually aren't and are "opened" or "published" at the time of trial, if any of the contents of the deposition are used.
508. wabbit - 5/7/2002 7:54:21 PM
Abs, this is what the local TV news stations are saying:
Sweeney ordered the deposition videotaped in a closed courtroom, so it could stand as testimony if Law is not available for a trial.
At that time, the tape could be made public, and Sweeney left open the possibility that a transcript could be released. Otherwise, she ordered the deposition to remain confidential.
Ronald H. Paquin was arrested at his home Tuesday on one count of rape of a child under 16...the charge involved more than 50 incidents with a 12-year-old boy between 1990 and 1992 in an automobile in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.
509. Absensia - 5/7/2002 9:15:41 PM
Wabbit, yes, if Law leaves the country or goes into hiding to avoid testimony then his dep. testimony can be used at the discretion of the trial judge and it seems this judge's mind is made up.
Judith, the Jesuits take a vow of chasity, poverty and obedience. They are the only order or group of priests who do.
510. judithathome - 5/7/2002 9:35:19 PM
Don't priests take a vow of celibacy? What is that if not chaste?
511. ronski - 5/7/2002 10:14:50 PM
Absensia,
Not that this is appropriate to this thread, but our new kitty delivered us his first mouse tonight.
512. ronski - 5/7/2002 10:16:38 PM
Back on topic, I heard on the radio tonight for the first time that the monster Shanley had been spending time in Thailand, which everyone should know has become the worldwide center for pedophilia. Truly disgusting this character. Unspeakably so.
513. wabbit - 5/7/2002 11:32:57 PM
A while back in this thread (I think it was in this thread), someone brought up the difference between a priest's vow of celibacy and a nun's vow of chastity. I heard Geoff Nunberg on NPR last week discussing the two words and just found a written transcript of the essay.
514. Rama - 5/8/2002 10:01:35 AM
Truly disgusting this character. Unspeakably so.
I quite agree.
515. Rivendell - 5/8/2002 11:47:27 AM
By church definition, celebate refers only to remaining single in order to more fully serve the church.
JPII, in his opening remarks to the US cardinals emphasized that the church's assumption is celebate also means chaste, as chaste is defined in wabbit's link above. It is common to assume the two words go hand in hand, but as JPII's comments demonstrate, the words still have two different meanings.
Absensia,
I know the Vincentians also take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure most orders that live in a community take such vows.
516. Rivendell - 5/8/2002 12:20:06 PM
Just something else to think about in this context.
The above is a link to a NYT editorial. The site requires registration. But it is free. And it is worth the trouble to register.
517. wonkers2 - 5/8/2002 12:43:29 PM
Good editorial. The "blue wall" is not confined to the police. It's more the rule than the exception in traditional hierarchical organizations.
518. Cellar Door - 5/8/2002 1:04:27 PM
Well Cardinal Law will be deposed today.
We probably won't hear what he said right away, but it will make for interesting reading when it emerges into the full light of day.
519. wabbit - 5/8/2002 4:56:08 PM
A transcript of Cardinal Law’s deposition earlier today is already available.
520. mgleason - 5/8/2002 5:05:00 PM
While members of religious orders take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, diocesan priests do not. They are bound by Church law prohibiting marriage, but that's not the same thing at all.
521. Cellar Door - 5/8/2002 5:29:33 PM
Slippery!
(thanks wabbit.)
I would very much appreciate to hear from the Artist Formerly Known As Julius Ceaser on the particulars of this deposition -- and what it really means in the long run.
522. Ms. No - 5/8/2002 5:33:37 PM
Wabbit,
Thanks for the chastity link. I think I'm going to be ill, however after reading that more than a billion dollars in government money has been spent on abstinence-only programs.
523. Property of Jesus - 5/8/2002 5:42:13 PM
...especially when abortions are so cheap and solve the "problem," eh?
524. Ms. No - 5/8/2002 6:13:50 PM
I've never heard that abortion cured AIDS, Hepatitis, Syphillis, Gonorrhea, Herpes or HPV, but if you're willing to gamble with your kids' lives I suppose that's your prerogative.
525. Rama - 5/8/2002 6:24:31 PM
It is not possible to not gamble with your kids' lives.
Kids who abstain are less likely to get "AIDS, Hepatitis, Syphillis, Gonorrhea, Herpes or HPV" than kids who don't abstain, regardless of the education you give sexually active kids. And a large percentage of kids abstain, with or without government programs.
526. Cellar Door - 5/8/2002 6:27:34 PM
Look at the wonderful record abstinence has had with the Catholic Church.
527. Ms. No - 5/8/2002 6:34:25 PM
Rama,
The problem is that kids---especially ragingly hormonal teenagers---- don't do exactly as they're told all the time and while it's important to teach your kids not to go in the pool without a lifeguard on duty, it's equally important to teach them to swim so on the off chance they do something wild like behave as children and disobey parental edict they won't end up face down at the bottom of the pool.
528. Cellar Door - 5/8/2002 6:35:03 PM
Don't confuse him with the facts.
529. Rama - 5/8/2002 6:41:33 PM
The problem is that kids---especially ragingly hormonal teenagers---- don't do exactly as they're told all the time and while it's important to
teach your kids to swim so on the off chance they do something wild like behave as children and disobey parental edict they won't end up face down at the bottom of the pool, it is also important not to encourage them to swim without a lifeguard, or to over-estimate their ability to swim in rough waters.
It is a gamble any way you do it.
530. Ms. No - 5/8/2002 6:53:20 PM
Raising kids is always a gamble, but abstinance-only needlessly stacks the odds against them.
531. Rama - 5/8/2002 7:36:28 PM
Raising kids is always a gamble, but abstinance-only needlessly stacks the odds against them.
That depends on the kids. Abstinance-only works quite well for some populations. For some populations it is quite ineffective. For some populations, nothing is effective.
I will agree that for most current US populations, abstinance-only programs are insufficient. However, being exposed to both abstinance-only programs and safe-sex programs is likely to be more effective than safe-sex programs that note that abstinance is an alternative with very low risk.
532. CalGal - 5/8/2002 7:46:46 PM
Actually, there's some question as to whether abstinence programs work at all. In the short term, they seem to work by allowing populations that enjoy feeling superior to those mere mortals who don't commit to abstinence. It's a clique thing. But the effect wears off, and longer term the kids who bought off on abstinence are less likely to use protection when they do have sex, which isn't delayed significantly, as I recall.
I can't remember where I read that, and I'm not sure all the details are right. I'll see if I can dig it up.
533. CalGal - 5/8/2002 8:02:13 PM
Here it is
What’s a virginity pledge really worth? About 18 months of abstinence, apparently.
A new study financed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and conducted by researchers at Columbia and Yale found that teenagers who publicly promise to postpone sex until marriage refrain from intercourse substantially (roughly a year and a half) longer than teens who didn’t make such a pledge.
There were caveats to the results, however: Pledges were far more successful among 15 and 16-year-olds than among 18-year-olds. And perhaps unsurprisingly, the study’s authors also found that while teens responded well to being part of a group that took the pledges together, if the group grew or shrunk beyond certain points — and thus lost either its sense of exclusivity or a critical mass of peer pressure — the pledges were less likely to stick. The study did not address the effect of such pledges on sexual behaviors other than intercourse, including anal and oral sex, which are increasingly popular among teens who identify as "virgins."
534. Cellar Door - 5/8/2002 9:26:39 PM
Or as Mae West so memorably put it, "I used to be Snow White, but I drifted."
535. anomieme - 5/8/2002 11:11:07 PM
Cal,
This link didn't say how they got their info. I suspect surveys. Don't you think 18 year-olds would answer a survey a bit more hoenestly than 15 and 16 year-olds who might fear repurcusions? I think it's probably not even productive to ask underage kids about their sexuality. I don't know how the surveyers would control for the fear factor.
536. CalGal - 5/8/2002 11:15:40 PM
But Rama was claiming that abstinence education works. How else did he get that information, except from surveys?
537. betty - 5/8/2002 11:22:17 PM
I always lied on those surveys, not so much because I feared repercussions but because I thought it was fun. It amused me.
538. Jonesatlaw - 5/8/2002 11:26:20 PM
I haven't heard that teens are engaging in anal sex and still regarding themselves as 'virgins' but have heard from teen therapists that the attitude that oral sex is not 'really sex' in the way we old foggies viewed 'heavy petting.'
539. betty - 5/8/2002 11:32:53 PM
Jones,
the anal sex stuff is pretty common amongst Heavily Catholic populations where an intact hymen is such a huge deal. I remember it as being a real problem with Puerto Rican girls when I was doing AIDS peer education.
540. CalGal - 5/8/2002 11:33:52 PM
Hell, Ally Sheedy was offering the guy on Hill Street Blues a blowjob to maintain her virginity back in the early 80s. I'm reasonably sure they've moved onto anal sex by now.
541. Jonesatlaw - 5/8/2002 11:33:59 PM
Regarding vows of poverty-
The Franciscans take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, as do several other orders. Franciscans are famously fanatical about the poverty part, some subgroups do not even own shoes. Jesuits OTOH do not own in their own names, but many have healthy salaries and own their goodies collectively. The wags will tell you that a Jesuit may be poor but the Jeusuits aren't.
Diocesan priests do not take vows of poverty, in fact, some are wealthy. [Their wealth most certainly does not come from their wages, which are almost uniformly abysmal]
542. wonkers2 - 5/9/2002 7:40:33 AM
Cardinal Law exonerated himself in his deposition, testifying that in Geoghan's repeated reassignments he relied on competent advice of others--from doctors and from his subordinates who had been delegated responsibility for handling such cases. He didn't recall reading letters to him from victims and from another Bishop warning him about Geoghan.
543. anomieme - 5/9/2002 7:53:53 AM
Cal: I'm sure the people doing the study aren't stupid, so they must factor in the survey-lying somehow. Results would still be dubious in my opinion.
I think abstinance education probably works for some, but I don't think that fact justifies withholding other information about disease and birth control. Why do I think that's obvious except for a few religious fanatics?
544. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 9:57:19 AM
545. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 10:06:47 AM
546. Ms. No - 5/9/2002 12:51:03 PM
Rama,
However, being exposed to both abstinance-only programs and safe-sex programs is likely to be more effective than safe-sex programs that note that abstinance is an alternative with very low risk.
If you attend an abstinence class and a sex ed class you're not getting abstinence only education. I have no real beef with promoting abstinence. I have a problem with government money going to support programs by people willing to risk others' lives to promote their personal moral agenda especially since it is usually a religiously inspired agenda.
anomieme,
I think abstinance education probably works for some, but I don't think that fact justifies withholding other information about disease and birth control.
Exactly.
547. Rama - 5/9/2002 2:18:10 PM
If you attend an abstinence class and a sex ed class you're not getting abstinence only education.
This is true. But you seem to be confusing the presentation of sexual eduction with the reception of sexual education. People who present sexual education programs that advocate abstinance can not prevent the students from attending sexual education classes that advocate safe sexual activity. Nor can people who present sexual education programs that advocate safe sexual activity prevent the students from attending programs that advocate abstinance. The presentation of abstinence only programs does not, therefore, have the effect you claim to object to.
I have no real beef with promoting abstinence.
I don't believe you.
I have a problem with government money going to support programs by people willing to risk others' lives to promote their personal moral agenda especially since it is usually a religiously inspired agenda.
I believe this. I also believe that your objection is based upon the fact that they are promoting their personal moral agenda which is religiously inspired, with which you disagree, much more than your objection is to the fact that others lives are at risk. You have agreed that there is always risk. And that risk does not arise from the moral agenda of the people you object to.
548. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 2:30:18 PM
Rama, is your wife the only person with whom you've ever had sexual relations?
549. Property of Jesus - 5/9/2002 2:30:27 PM
I really don't know why Cardinal Law hasn't been removed. He is lower than low.
The idea that he's doing a Clinton and not remembering key facts is outragious.
550. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 2:36:00 PM
He's not being removed because to do so would constitute the Church responding to society (rather than vice versa.) And that is anathema to the Church.
Monica Lewinsky wasn't 6 years old, nor was she an unwilling participant in a blow-job.
551. Rama - 5/9/2002 3:55:53 PM
Rama, is your wife the only person with whom you've ever had sexual relations?
Sure. What's your point?
552. Rama - 5/9/2002 3:56:35 PM
Rama, is your wife the only person with whom you've ever had sexual relations?
No. What's your point?
553. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 4:22:25 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
554. rubberducky - 5/9/2002 4:25:51 PM
well, that's a confusing answer, Rama
555. concerned - 5/9/2002 4:33:30 PM
Re. 550 -
cllrdr -
You may be right. Doing a 6 year old might not have helped out x42's popularity ratings any. But, unfortunately, I'm not certain of that, since he would have doubtless found millions of willing believers for a claim that he was reinventing consensual not-sex.
556. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 4:43:13 PM
You mean like Moulin Rouge "re-invented the musical"? LOL!
Rama is all about creaitn confusions, ducks.
Now Let's play the Catholic Church's Favorite Game: Pick An Excuse. Any Excuse.
557. Ms. No - 5/9/2002 7:51:37 PM
Rama,
But you seem to be confusing the presentation of sexual eduction with the reception of sexual education.
I assure you that I am not. I'm well aware that all kinds of educational choices are privately available to whoever has the means and ways of seeking them out. This isn't about a private educational choice, however, it's about a government supported program for which my tax dollars pay.
I don't believe you.
Well, that's your prerogative, certainly, but you're mistaken. Promoting abstinence is fine. I don't think it's a great idea for 15 yo kids to be having sex. I'm a realist, however, and I know that lots of 15yo kids DO have sex. It's a biological urge as strong as any we've got and if a kid is going to succumb to it I would prefer that he take as many precautions to prevent disease and pregnancy as possible.
I also believe that your objection is based upon the fact that they are promoting their personal moral agenda which is religiously inspired, with which you disagree
The Constitution happens to favor my belief in the separation of Church and State. I no more want some stranger from a snake-handling church trying to indoctrinate my children than that same person wants me teaching his kids the Rosary. My relationship with my God is not the business of the Government.
much more than your objection is to the fact that others lives are at risk
In this you are mistaken, but I have a legal right to dispute the spending of my tax dollars and very little say about how other people may raise their children.
cont.
558. Ms. No - 5/9/2002 7:52:17 PM
cont. to Rama
You have agreed that there is always risk.
Which establishes nothing in your favor. All risks are not equal or do you see no difference between driving with full visibility and driving blindfolded?
And that risk does not arise from the moral agenda of the people you object to.
You appear confused. My objection is to the spending of Government funds on such a program. I stated before that I don't have a particular beef with abstinence. My beef is with the idea that it should be promoted to the exclusion of all other information.
559. Rama - 5/9/2002 8:32:29 PM
Which establishes nothing in your favor.
It does. You have only objected on absolute terms. You haven't said, "I believe there is greater advantage to spending all of our scarce resources on safe sex programs instead of abstinance based programs." Post rational stuff like that, and you will hear nothing from me.
You appear confused.
No, you are.
My objection is to the spending of Government funds on such a program.
Because . . .
I stated before that I don't have a particular beef with abstinence.
Not a persuasive statement.
My beef is with the idea that it should be promoted to the exclusion of all other information.
Since that isn't happening, you have nothing to complain about.
560. Rama - 5/9/2002 8:33:38 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
Which is?
561. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 8:35:20 PM
Oh, come on. You know what I'm talking about.
Say it! Say it!
562. Rama - 5/9/2002 8:36:04 PM
well, that's a confusing answer, Rama
Why? My answer is either yes or it is no. Either CD has a point to make if it is yes, or or a point to make if it is no (otherwise he wouldn't need to ask). This way, I get to hear what his point is either way.
563. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 8:38:43 PM
You get to hear nothing. You have to listen in order to hear.
564. Rama - 5/9/2002 8:42:12 PM
This isn't about a private educational choice,
however, it's about a government supported program for which my tax dollars pay.
We spent your tax dollars on multi-cultural art, just like you wanted. However, my tax dollars support both abstinance and safe sex programs.
The Constitution happens to favor my belief in the separation of Church and State.
Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with people basing their public choices on their private convictions.
565. Rama - 5/9/2002 8:49:00 PM
Oh, come on. You know what I'm talking about.
Say it! Say it!
I thought you had two different points, both stupid:
If I said I had sex with somebody other than my wife, then it would be clear that safe sex classes are needed (cause if even Rama can't behave . . .)
If I said I had sex only with my wife, then it would be clear I have no idea what normal people are like (after all, which kind of guy gets married as a virgin!)
But if you have some other point, feel free to post it.
566. Rama - 5/9/2002 8:50:15 PM
You get to hear nothing. You have to listen in order to hear.
It appears I was correct.
567. Cellar Door - 5/9/2002 9:00:44 PM
No, it appears that I was correct.
568. Rama - 5/9/2002 9:12:05 PM
Oh, then what was your point?
569. betty - 5/9/2002 9:15:11 PM
to approach the topic...I read in The Economist that some professor at Hofstra had conducted a study that concluded, in the US, about 15% of students between K-12 will be sexually abused by a teacher and that 5% of teachers are abusers. These would be about on rate with priests, no?
570. Absensia - 5/9/2002 9:50:33 PM
I'm not sure if anyone posted this...and it has the unoffical dep. of Cardinal Law in the link.
Sorry for my lack of html, but lately I've had to stay in bed and am not up to the html challenge.
BOSTON CARDINAL LAW TESTIFIES IN CHILD SEX CASE
Reuters
Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law, the senior U.S. prelate, on Wednesday
defended his decision to move a priest accused of serial child sexual
abuse from one parish to another saying he had received "medical
assurance" that it was safe to do so. Law was giving sworn testimony in
connection with a civil suit brought by 86 people who accuse Law and the
Boston Archdiocese of negligence in handling Father John Geoghan, a
defrocked Roman Catholic priest who has been convicted of child
molestation. . . "I viewed this as a pathology, as a psychological
pathology, as an illness," he [Law] said.
http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20020508/crimechurchlawdc.html
See Unofficial Transcripts Of Cardinal Law's Deposition [PDF]
May 8, 2002 A.M. Deposition Transcript (Leary v. Geoghan)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/law50802amdepo.pdf
May 8, 2002 P.M. Deposition Transcript (Leary v. Geoghan)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/law050802pmdep.pdf
571. robertjayb - 5/10/2002 12:27:29 AM
An AP wrapup on naughty priests...
572. Cellar Door - 5/10/2002 9:24:56 AM
"The cases go as far back as 1943"
Less "naughty priests" than an Evil Church.
573. Ms. No - 5/10/2002 12:09:08 PM
Rama,
You haven't said, "I believe there is greater advantage to spending all of our scarce resources on safe sex programs instead of abstinance based programs." Post rational stuff like that, and you will hear nothing from me.
That is exactly what I've been saying and yet you keep arguing. Perhaps you've confused yourself by working up steam over positions that you only imagine that I hold.
For instance:
We spent your tax dollars on multi-cultural art, just like you wanted.
You know nothing about my views on government supported art. The fact that you'd even bring this up leads me to believe that the whole of your rebuttal consists of "You're wrong because you're a Liberal!"
In which case there's no point in engaging with you.
574. Cellar Door - 5/10/2002 1:54:05 PM
Hear ! Hear!
575. Ms. No - 5/10/2002 2:22:46 PM
This past weekend was my cousin's First Communion. All the kids looked so cute in their Communion clothes. Father Jude's sermon was all for them. The rest of the congregation could hear, of course, but he spent his time down with the kids and chatting personally with them.
When he presented the children to the congregation after the Eucharist he was beaming. "Don't we have the most beautiful children? So smart and kind. I would've said if you ever get tired of them send them to me...but not anymore! No, not these days!" This sparked laughter all around.
Maybe not an appropriate joke, but it brought home to me that individual parishes are still where most Catholics identify. While there is outrage and devastating disappointment about the behavior of some clergy, it hasn't shaken the sense of community and the faith most Catholics.
576. Cellar Door - 5/10/2002 3:42:37 PM
577. ronski - 5/10/2002 4:00:00 PM
Cellar,
Saw Stritch last night. She was inspiring.
Everybody rise...
578. Cellar Door - 5/10/2002 4:22:34 PM
She's a Good Catholic Girl, ronski.
579. Rama - 5/10/2002 5:20:41 PM
That is exactly what I've been saying and yet you keep arguing.
No, it is not exactly what you've been saying, as anyone who can read knows.
Perhaps you've confused yourself by working up steam over positions that you only imagine that I hold.
I haven't been working up steam (in fact, I have been making with the jokes) and I can only respond to what you post.
You know nothing about my views on government supported art.
Of course I don't. And it is also true that "your" tax dollars, just like "my" tax dollars, don't go for anything in particular. Thus, this is clearly a joke, to anybody who hasn't been working up steam.
The fact that you'd even bring this up leads me to believe that the whole of your rebuttal consists of "You're wrong because you're a Liberal!"
Persecution complexes are so typical of you Liberals.
580. Cellar Door - 5/10/2002 7:08:41 PM
581. Cellar Door - 5/10/2002 8:17:02 PM
582. Rama - 5/10/2002 8:29:02 PM
Superior Court of Justice Robert MacKinnon granted 17-year-old Marc Hall an injunction Friday afternoon preventing the Durham Catholic School Board from refusing him entry to the end-of-school dance if he escorted his boyfriend of one year Jean-Paul Dumond, 21.
It is nice to see this teenage boy dating such a young man. Thank goodness he isn't a priest.
583. Cellar Door - 5/11/2002 10:26:15 AM
Until he posts something sincere and rational (which is to say when Brian Boitano does a Triple-Lutz in the Ninth Circle) there is no reasosn whatsoever for any serious poster to pay any attention to Rama.
Meanwhile, here's an interesting Q & A about the Church's ongoing problem.
584. Rama - 5/11/2002 10:49:26 AM
Oh, no, I'm being snubbed by Cellar Door! And for not being sincere!
And here I never would have even started posting on the Mote if Cellar Door hadn't invited me.
585. Cellar Door - 5/11/2002 2:25:00 PM
Cardinal Egan Encouraged Admitted Pedo-Priest to Continue with Ministry.
586. Cellar Door - 5/11/2002 8:09:04 PM
Pedo-Priests-R-US
Here's how the revolving door works.
587. Cellar Door - 5/12/2002 10:49:47 AM
588. Rama - 5/12/2002 12:13:00 PM
Tradional Deference Eroded.
That article demonstrates an astounding ignorance of American history.
589. Cellar Door - 5/12/2002 12:23:47 PM
Ah yes. The Victim Card !
590. Rama - 5/12/2002 12:32:41 PM
Ah yes. The Victim Card !
No, that's your card. I was merely, as usual, pointing out the ignorance in your posts.
Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me, oh rational and sincere one?
591. Cellar Door - 5/12/2002 1:18:06 PM
As you posted about an article I linked I was only being polite.
My mistake.
592. ronski - 5/12/2002 1:27:00 PM
There was nothing in Cellar's link that showed ignorance of American history and the immense prejudice suffered by Catholics at an earlier time in this country. The article was addressing the deference shown by American Catholics and others to the Church hierarchy in more recent American history, in places where Catholics were particularly strong in numbers such as Boston (and New York).
593. Rama - 5/12/2002 7:33:46 PM
There was nothing in Cellar's link that showed ignorance of American history and the immense prejudice suffered by Catholics at an earlier time in this country. The article was addressing the deference shown by American Catholics and others to the Church hierarchy in more recent American history, in places where Catholics were particularly strong in numbers such as Boston (and New York).
And is thus is misleading in a manner that is either dishonest or ignorant. The reality is that the status of organized religion ebbs and flows in history in general, and specifically in America. Thus, this is just another example of that cycle, not some uniquely noteworthy event.
I assumed ignorance. If you believe dishonesty is the better explanation, I defer to your judgement.
594. Rama - 5/12/2002 7:35:27 PM
As you posted about an article I linked I was only being polite.
I find that response to be neither rational nor sincere.
595. Cellar Door - 5/12/2002 8:17:53 PM
Here's some "ebb and flow" a child-rapist-enabler like you should appreciate.
596. wonkers2 - 5/12/2002 9:26:22 PM
Sad story.
597. Cellar Door - 5/12/2002 9:39:38 PM
Rama-lama-ding-dong's not interested.
598. Rama - 5/13/2002 12:08:25 AM
Rama-lama-ding-dong's not interested.
I don't find that rational or sincere, Cellar deary.
599. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 12:25:51 AM
As if rationality or sincerity were something with which you were familiar.
Read the link.
600. ronski - 5/13/2002 7:36:30 AM
Neither dishonest, ignorant, nor misleading, Rama. Your wriggling here is silly. If you want to write something far more ambitious and historically inclusive than the writer of Cellar's link did, be my guest. But Cellar's writer is under no obligation to.
I would point here, the erosion of deference is something that has been going on for quite a while. In the 50s, for example, NYC public hospitals were forbidden to dispense birth control information and materials, in deference to the Catholic hierarchy, until the OB chief at one of the hospitals decided he could no longer in good conscience refuse to give poor women information that would save them from having more babies to raise in poverty. The City and the Catholic Church fought him, but he won. The erosion has been going on much longer than the recent sexual abuse scandal.
But I don't go around demanding that every writer who addresses this subject include the point I just made.
601. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 9:32:06 AM
You're quite right, ronski. That's why this story has to do with a lot more than just the immdiate (and in many cases not-so-immediate) sexual abuse charges. The Catholic Church's entire attitude towards human sexuality must be taken into account. And the main reason for doing so is the Church'sbulliny insistence on having everyone -- Catholic of not -- kowtow to its Double Standards.
602. Rama - 5/13/2002 9:53:40 AM
Neither dishonest, ignorant, nor misleading, Rama. Your wriggling here is silly. If you want to write something far more ambitious and historically inclusive than the writer of Cellar's link did, be my guest. But Cellar's writer is under no obligation to.
It is misleading on its face, and the basis is either dishonesty or ignorance. You defense of it is absurd.
But I don't go around demanding that every writer who addresses this subject include the point I just made.
Your minor point is almost as misleading as the authors. The civil influence of the Catholic Church in America was an short term transient anomaly. To treat is otherwise is delusional.
603. Rama - 5/13/2002 9:56:32 AM
The Catholic Church's entire attitude towards human sexuality must be taken into account.
Now you are creeping up on your real issue. The Catholic Church disapproves of who you fuck. So you hate it.
604. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 10:16:35 AM
The Catholic Church disapproves of all fucking -- save for procreation.
Or so it claims.
There's a rather large distance between what the Church says it believes and what it does in actual practice.
605. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 10:34:11 AM
Church to Abuse Victims:"It's your own fault."
606. ronski - 5/13/2002 12:07:21 PM
Rama,
Again you ignore the time frame of the article. The Catholic hierarchy's influence in American cities in the last century was enormous, but has been in steady decline. Pelle's description of your style of argument is correct. You are being tiresome and boring. It is about as pointless talking with you as when you were relentlessly gay bashing a while back.
607. judithathome - 5/13/2002 12:11:59 PM
The Catholic Church disapproves of who you fuck. So you hate it.
Not me...I just disapprove of who they do it to.
608. judithathome - 5/13/2002 12:18:28 PM
"If they lose," he added, "it's a public relations disaster."
That is a risk the church already runs if its tough tactics end up compounding the damage to its image and moral standing caused by the sex crimes. "The pope talks of charity towards victims," said Mark Davis, the lawyer for the mother in the Hawaii case. "Tell that to the mom who's blamed because she entrusted her children to a church official."
This is just ridiculous...these priests have committed crimes. They shouldn't be worrying about public relations but about their immortal souls.
How can the church have any moral authority after acting this way?
609. Rama - 5/13/2002 12:39:20 PM
Not me...I just disapprove of who they do it to.
That strikes me as a rational and sincere position with which I quite agree.
610. judithathome - 5/13/2002 12:42:38 PM
Well, I realized I had worded that sentence awkwardly once it posted...I meant, I disapprove that they do it to children.
611. Rama - 5/13/2002 12:44:32 PM
Again you ignore the time frame of the article.
No, I am pointing out that the article is misleading because it adopts an arbitrary time frame.
The Catholic hierarchy's influence in American cities in the last century was enormous, but has been in steady decline.
And you are doing the same thing: Befroe the last century, the Catholics were a suspect minority, and through all of that time they have been a suspect minority in much of the country.
Pelle's description of your style of argument is correct. You are being tiresome and boring. It is about as pointless talking with you as when you were relentlessly gay bashing a while back.
Pelle is unhappy because I point out where he is wrong. You seem to have the same problem. Of course you find having your errors pointed out unpleasant. I never bash gays.
612. Rama - 5/13/2002 12:45:18 PM
Well, I realized I had worded that sentence awkwardly once it posted...I meant, I disapprove that they do it to children.
It was quite clear.
613. Daniel Sickles - 5/13/2002 12:49:35 PM
It was, and pithy at that.
614. thoughtful - 5/13/2002 2:35:00 PM
Pop quiz time!
Who said,
"So the only thing I can say that is my signature, I wrote that. I would be lying to you if I say I recall having seen that letter before, but I can't sit here before you and say that I saw it when I don't think I did, when I don't remember seeing it."
"I don't remember the words I used, so I can't attest to the fact that these were my words, but I'm not, by saying that, questioning the accuracy of the quote."
Nixon on Watergate? Reagan on Iran-Contra? Clinton on Lewinsky? Skilling on Enron?
Nope! The prize goes to Cardinal Law!
615. judithathome - 5/13/2002 2:49:36 PM
I'm sure this will, in some way, all boil down to Law being influenced by Clinton's nefarious mangling of the truth under oath. Because as everyone knows, no one ever lied under oath or parsed the meaning of verbs before Clinton.
616. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 4:01:59 PM
Cardinal Law is a Harvard man. He was taught to wash his hands before as well as after taking a leak. Apropos of nothing in particular.
617. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 6:20:40 PM
"I never bash gays."
LIAR!
618. Rama - 5/13/2002 6:26:38 PM
LIAR!
That's, like, way harsh, man!
619. Cellar Door - 5/13/2002 6:31:26 PM
Now it's "man"? Whatever happened to "deary"?
620. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 10:34:47 AM
621. Rivendell - 5/14/2002 1:23:18 PM
This article from the National Catholic Reporter details the events surrounding a 1985 report that warned US bishops of a coming crisis resulting from the way sex abuse cases were/are being handled.
NCR was, of course, one of the sponsors of the 85 report and naturally presents the story from their perspective. But whether one looks at the telling of this story from the viewpoint of the report authors or the bishops, the 1985 report was depressingly prophetic.
The entire 1985 report is available from this link in .pdf format.
622. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 1:53:12 PM
623. jexster - 5/14/2002 3:07:33 PM
Bay Area Priests Fear Crackdown on Gay Seminarians
624. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 3:10:15 PM
One can only hope.
And pray.
625. Rivendell - 5/14/2002 3:28:54 PM
I, too, hope the crackdown is effective. Our pastor is 72 years old and his associate is 76. Our parish doesn't need a resident pastor to replace them.
Heck, maybe if we are really lucky the archdiocese will just merge us with the parish next door.
626. judithathome - 5/14/2002 5:12:09 PM
What's the story on the priest being shot? I came in from an errand to see Law being interviewed on CNN about some priest being shot and saw the crawl under his mug and then the cable went out. What happened?
627. judithathome - 5/14/2002 5:16:07 PM
Ah well...guess I should've gone here first:
CNN Story on Preist Shooting
628. judithathome - 5/14/2002 5:16:51 PM
...or priest, if you prefer.
629. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 5:24:44 PM
A black sexual victim shots a black priest?
Another reason to ban guns.
630. thoughtful - 5/14/2002 5:26:56 PM
pre-ist...like a reactionary?
631. wonkers2 - 5/14/2002 6:00:53 PM
Or to ban priests.
632. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 6:16:25 PM
You mean you're taking issue with our Attorney General who, as you well know was APPOINTED BY GOD?!
633. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 6:45:32 PM
Shanley's Medical Records to be made Public
634. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 7:08:47 PM
How come all the priests being charged with being pedophiles are homosexuals?
635. ronski - 5/14/2002 7:59:56 PM
POJ,
We would give you an answer if that were true, but since it's not, we'll ignore you.
636. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 10:26:26 PM
Which ones aren't?
637. Cellar Door - 5/14/2002 10:32:09 PM
Call the Vatican.
638. ronski - 5/14/2002 10:48:06 PM
Cellar,
I doubt that would work. They would probably insist that Spellman never so much as absolved a single chorus boy.
Despite the well-worn phrase that he never failed to serve, on his knees, both God, and man.
639. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 10:52:08 PM
Everyone so far that has been charged (or convicted) with sexually manholing kids is homosexual.
100%.
640. ronski - 5/14/2002 11:11:20 PM
POJ,
You are an idiot, and a bigot to boot. There is not the slightest evidence that "every" priest so charged is a practicing homosexual.
There is evidence that priests so charged are abusers of children and teenagers, with the victims and perps so charged as overwhelmingly of the same sex, entirely understandable due to the access to male children the hierarchy provides to priests.
You rejoice in this disgusting matter, don't you?
You make Cellar look thoroughly without prejudice in this debate.
641. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 11:16:19 PM
I don't "rejoice" in it Ronski. It just happens to be true.
And I'm not willing to coverup the obvious.
642. ronski - 5/14/2002 11:26:29 PM
Utter garbage on your part. Provide me evidence that 100% of abusers are practicing homosexuals. You cannot, not in your wildest dreams.
If you would like to discuss homosexual orientation, pedophilia, and such in the Catholic priesthood, I'd be delighted to talk with you.
If you want to bash gays, go back to the Freeper pages.
643. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 11:40:59 PM
I don't post at freerepublic, Ronski. I just link to their articles.
The reality is that, so far, all the recent priests charged with molesting boys have been homosexual.
We'll both be watching who else follows.
Clearly some priests have had affairs with teenage girls, but any younger...?
644. Property of Jesus - 5/14/2002 11:46:33 PM
BTW, I still don't believe that Cardinal Spellman was homosexual.
...nor the fascist E.G. Hoover.
The story of the FBI director, Hoover, in drag in New York magazine was a parody ment to disgrace him after his death. A hahaha moment
The idea that he would get dressed up "real pretty" for some mob/mole types at a party is too existential to be real.
645. Cellar Door - 5/15/2002 10:20:31 AM
I'll bet you still believe in the Easter Bunny, Rosie.
646. glendajean - 5/15/2002 5:22:24 PM
Do Maryland schools have a heterosexual problem?
647. judithathome - 5/15/2002 5:28:37 PM
Sounds like it to me, GJ!
648. betty - 5/15/2002 7:22:07 PM
New Jersay Passes Egans Law
local police departments will now be required to inform residents any time a known Roman Catholic church moves into their neighborhood.
649. betty - 5/15/2002 7:35:55 PM
Passing the Trash
An article from the economist which talks about how this problem is not unique to the Catholic Church...because it's only available to subscribers I'm spamming the thread.
***************
The Catholic church is not the only institution that needs to confront, and deal with, sexual crimes against children
SOME time around midnight on August 19th 1991, Mark Fry, a high-school history teacher in a wealthy Chicago suburb, was arrested on a student's roof. He was dressed in black, wearing a ski mask and carrying a can of Mace. School officials, fearful of bad publicity, did what many otherwise decent people do in such cases: they wrote glowing letters of recommendation for Mr Fry and sent him somewhere else. He became a high-school principal in Wisconsin, where he was arrested and convicted seven years later for molesting a student.
As the Roman Catholic church squirms in the spotlight over charges of sexual abuse of young people, that spotlight needs to be shone in some other corners. Sex offenders who prey on children go where children are, says Ernie Allen, president of the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. They teach in schools, coach sports teams, run scout troops and day-care centres. Charol Shakeshaft, a professor at Hofstra University and the author of a forthcoming book on sexual violence in schools, has found that 15% of pupils are sexually abused by a teacher or staff member between kindergarten and high-school graduation, and that up to 5% of teachers sexually abuse or harass students. A recent FBI child-pornography sting, Operation Candyman, nabbed a teacher, a teacher's assistant, a school bus driver and an athletics coach.
650. betty - 5/15/2002 7:37:03 PM
On April 15th, Baruch Lanner, an Orthodox rabbi, will go on trial in New Jersey for sexually abusing two teenage girls while he was the principal of a Jewish day school. Orthodox authorities stand accused of ignoring evidence that Rabbi Lanner sexually abused more than 20 teenage girls while he was in a position of authority in the Orthodox Union's National Conference of Synagogue Youth. In 1999, Sports Illustrated described American youth sports, in which millions of children are coached or supervised by unscreened male volunteers, as “a ready-made resource-pool for paedophiles”.
Why is it so hard to protect children? To begin with, adults are often looking for predators in the wrong places. Parents teach their children to fear strangers, yet abductions off the street are a small fraction of child sex-abuse cases. Counsellors and teachers are trained to recognise sexual abuse by family members. Yet a third group, so-called “acquaintance molesters”, is responsible for about 40% of sexual abuse cases—and a higher percentage of crimes against boys.
The victims are often reluctant to come forward. Acquaintance molesters identify vulnerable children and shower them with attention, affection and gifts. The victim is left feeling complicit, and his guilt and shame make it unlikely that the crime will be reported. Studies of sex offenders in jail have found that the average child molester has gained legitimate access to children, begun molesting by the age of 15, and abused nearly 120 victims, most of whom never report the crime.
651. betty - 5/15/2002 7:38:06 PM
When an allegation is made, the victim is often a troubled or delinquent young person. The accused adult, however, may be a pillar of the community—in many cases, because of his eagerness to do extra work with children. Communities desperately seek to convince themselves that a particular sex offender is different because of his other good deeds. “Adult human beings tend to believe what they need to believe, and the stronger the need, the stronger the tendency,” says Kenneth Lanning, a retired FBI behavioural analyst and an expert on the sexual victimisation of children. He points to a recent case in which 20 teachers testified in a trial on behalf of a convicted colleague, describing him—without irony—as a “child magnet”.
By and large, as Ms Shakeshaft points out, institutions protect the adults and not the children. At worst, fearing legal liability and damage to their reputations (and often prodded by lawyers and insurance companies), they come to a private settlement with the offender. “The first instinct is to get them out of your organisation,” says Mr Allen. As in the case of Mr Fry, the perpetrator is sent away with nothing but praise in the personnel file. Such cases are so common that educators have coined the term “passing the trash”. A 1995 study of 225 cases in which pupils were sexually abused by teachers or other staff members found that in only 1% of the cases did the school-district superintendent attempt to revoke the culprit's teaching licence.
That may be changing, in large part because the cost of covering up is rising. As cases of abuse receive more publicity, parents and victims have begun to win lawsuits against schools that either fail to sack teachers with a history of sexual abuse or ship known offenders elsewhere. Still, an awful lot of trash is being passed around.
652. betty - 5/15/2002 7:38:26 PM
What can be done? Any responsible institution ought to begin with a thorough background check of all potential volunteers or employees, checking their fingerprints against a national criminal database. Authorities should take note of seemingly innocuous past offences, Mr Lanning says, such as trespassing or disorderly conduct.
Second, every institution should have a system of management and supervision that limits the time any adult spends alone with a child. Listen to rumours, says Ms Shakeshaft. Although only 6-7% of victims report the abuse to someone in authority, most will tell their friends. “The kids tend to know,” she says.
Lastly, a mechanism is needed to deal with allegations of abuse, some of which will turn out to be false. Any proven case must be prosecuted to the fullest, says Mr Allen. School administrators often believe that a tenured teacher cannot be removed if there is not sufficient evidence to build a criminal case. In fact, the standard of evidence is lower, and staff can be sacked even if the case cannot be prosecuted.
Above all, parents have to teach their children to be alert, and must take note of adults who cross the moral boundary. Let them remember that the problem of adults abusing positions of trust and authority by preying on young people is not confined to the Catholic church.
653. Cellar Door - 5/15/2002 8:00:15 PM
Priest Indicted for Child Rape.
654. Property of Jesus - 5/15/2002 8:25:45 PM
Another homosexual priest.
What is one to think?
655. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 9:36:35 AM
One is to think that the Catholic Church doesn't care about children getting raped and is more interested in protecting pedophiles than anything else.
656. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 10:24:15 AM
An now there's drug-dealing!
Just when you think it can't get any worse for the Church -- it does.
657. uzmakk - 5/16/2002 10:30:36 AM
You will love my new pamphlet, Homosexuals and Hierarchy, Cellar.
658. Rivendell - 5/16/2002 12:14:28 PM
Yes, yes, yes... Let's run all those homosexuals out of the church and we will have addressed the root of the problem.
Just keep thinking that. All it will do is speed up the changes I'm hoping for anyway.
659. uzmakk - 5/16/2002 12:42:38 PM
Don't sweat it, Rivendell.
660. Rivendell - 5/16/2002 1:20:07 PM
Nothin' a cold beer and a hot adolescent won't fix.
661. uzmakk - 5/16/2002 5:14:17 PM
nothin' like a cold beer and a whot adeolesent.
662. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 8:30:41 PM
Phoney Mahoney Runs Out of Baloney.
663. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 8:46:45 PM
664. Property of Jesus - 5/16/2002 9:56:25 PM
Again, he was homosexual.
665. ronski - 5/16/2002 10:16:31 PM
The murderer Stalin was a heterosexual, exactly like POJ is. See a pattern here?
666. ronski - 5/16/2002 11:03:32 PM
In any case, it defeats the purpose of POJ, who is doing no more than acting like a degenerate bigot in this thread, to raise the issue of homosexuality with regard to this suicide. POJ has consistenly lied that the molester priests are gay. The only other suicide of a priest so far, in Ohio, was that of one accused of molesting a girl.
But there is no evidence whatsoever that all the priests charged in this sordid business are gay. We know very little of their private lives, but few if any appear to have homosexual relationships. They all appear to have abused children or teenagers, male or female. None seems to have been involved in an adult relationship with a member of the same sex.
667. judithathome - 5/16/2002 11:10:00 PM
I'm surprised we even read the tripe POJ posts...we should see his name as an alarm and move on.
668. ronski - 5/16/2002 11:17:12 PM
Well, I find that some of the stuff he posts elsewhere is worth reading. Here, he seems intent on goading Cellar more than anything else. But for a fellow to claim he has two gay friends and then to call gay people deviates and to willfully distort the current tragedy the Catholic Church is dealing with is so foul that it should not be allowed to pass without the condemnation it deserves.
669. joezan - 5/16/2002 11:33:37 PM
Well, goading Cellar is after all a worthy calling in itself, no?
That said, I wish someone would go after the NEA with one-tenth the intensity now being spent on the Catholic Church.
670. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 11:49:16 PM
Does the NEA molest children?
Has it digitally raped an 8 month old girl?
671. ronski - 5/17/2002 12:06:49 AM
Would that be the National Endowment for the Arts? Or the National Education Association?
Not that there is too much difference between them, ideologically speaking.
But Cellar is correct in that neither is actually guilty of performing child rape.
672. Erinys - 5/17/2002 1:39:07 AM
Several priests have killed themselves after being accused of molesting kids. I'm a bit confused about that, Rivendell. What do you think about it?
673. Erinys - 5/17/2002 1:46:27 AM
Only they know why, of course, but I'm just interested in your opinion.
I'm judging them automatically guilty but I suppose there are other reasons I'm not noticing.
Liked your link from the Irish guy about how it's all Protestant-looking from the USA.
674. joezan - 5/17/2002 7:54:44 AM
But Cellar is correct in that neither is actually guilty of performing child rape.
Neither is The Catholic Church.
But what both institutions are guilty of is promoting a system of enablement and protection for those within their ranks who are disposed to child molesting.
675. judithathome - 5/17/2002 8:33:52 AM
But for a fellow to claim he has two gay friends and then to call gay people deviates and to willfully distort the current tragedy the Catholic Church is dealing with is so foul that it should not be allowed to pass without the condemnation it deserves.
I agree...but remember, he also claims to tell the truth. And he also claims the things he plagerizes are his own. So I would be rather leery of his claim that he has one, much less two, gay friends.
676. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 8:54:14 AM
I've actually had more than two male homosexual friends, but they died. I used to date a woman, the daughter of CBS's Harry Reasoner of Darien, CT, who now claims to be a lesbian.
Hopefully, I didn't cause the condition on Beth.
But, seriously, I look at this scandal because of my work with the Boy Scouts and as a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Fortunately, the Boy Scouts have taken steps to limit the problem.
This scandal would have bankrupted them. They don't have the financial resources to continue the coverup.
677. wonkers2 - 5/17/2002 9:48:03 AM
Cellar has been correct all along--a reporter finally caught up with Cardinal Mahony's lies about covering up for a pedophile priest. He's as bad as Cardinal Law but slicker at PR.
678. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 10:12:33 AM
Not as slick as all that. Here in Los Angeles the L.A. Times -- the very pillar of establishment politics -- has finally turned on him.
You won't be seeing any photo ops of the Cardinal with the Mayor or with the Governor in the future.
679. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 10:41:03 AM
Bill O'Reilly on Fox News last night said that there's an American cardinal about to be accused of homosexual abuse of children
Wouldn't name him.
680. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/17/2002 10:48:47 AM
PRIEST FOUND HANGED . . . 
681. wonkers2 - 5/17/2002 10:57:53 AM
POJ, I bet there's more than one.
682. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 11:02:02 AM
O'Reilley's an idiot. Last night he demanded that Barney Frank make Cardinal Law step down.
Frank reminded O'Reilley that, being Jewish, he had no say in the matter.
683. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 11:12:32 AM
O'Reilly has been tough on Mass politicians telling them to protect the kids of the state over the powerful Church leaders.
This is the rumor that he was sharing last night:
PAGE SIX: Just Asking
684. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/17/2002 11:27:11 AM
685. wonkers2 - 5/17/2002 11:31:15 AM
Somebody should organize a pool on which Cardinal(s) it is.
686. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 11:31:58 AM
Pick a Cardinal. Any Cardinal.
687. TabouliJones - 5/17/2002 11:39:48 AM
688. Property of Jesus - 5/17/2002 12:28:02 PM
So you think most of the cardinals are homosexual, CD? That would explain the coverup
689. TabouliJones - 5/17/2002 12:57:07 PM
I checked in on this thread for the first time today. I won't comment on any specific posts or posters, but I thought I would link to a page about how the United Church of Canada has attempted to deal with the issue of Church abuse in the context of the residential schooling of Native Canadians. The United Church of Canada has been surprisingly forthright and constructive in its response to the tragedy of residential schooling. The Vatican could learn from them.
Here is the link to the residential schools f.a.q.
I am not religious in any way. But, I am supremely impressed by the United Church of Canada. Those interested in the possibility of a functioning Christian church that recognizes the good news of Jesus Christ -- as they say -- within a context of inclusion for women, gays and other religions may want to check out the main UCC site
690. TabouliJones - 5/17/2002 12:59:22 PM
Incidentally, the United Church of Canada has been ordaining women ministers since the 1930s I believe and ordaining openly gay ministers since the early 1990s. They also affirm gay weddings.
691. christipeters - 5/17/2002 2:18:27 PM
POJ does not seem to understand two basic facts.
1. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two different things. If we are talking about the rape or molestation of children rather than teens, it is more likely that the offender is a pedophile
2. Heterosexuals have been known to rape boys. The fact that a rape victim is a young male does not necessarily mean the rapist prefers males to females. It could simply be a matter of opportunity.
692. Rama - 5/17/2002 3:35:57 PM
1. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two different things.
Everybody here realizes these are two different things.
If we are talking about the rape or molestation of children
And there are some cases of that, but many more cases of
teens
so it is more likely the offender is a homosexual with poor self-control.
Heterosexuals have been known to rape boys.
And the circumstances where this occurs are well understood, and do not appear to be the source of any of these reported cases.
693. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 3:37:34 PM
Don't confuse him with the facts.
694. robertjayb - 5/17/2002 3:55:31 PM
Man who wounded priest given bail and a more powerful handgun...
BALTIMORE, Md. (Reuters) - A Maryland judge on Friday set bail at $150,000 for a 26-year-old man who shot and wounded a priest who he claimed sexually abused him in 1993.
695. ronski - 5/17/2002 4:35:18 PM
"Homosexuality" is a term used to describe relations between mature and consenting partners.
Terms
696. Rama - 5/17/2002 4:50:18 PM
"Homosexuality" is a term used to describe relations between mature and consenting partners.
Nonsense. The term heterosexuality is not a term used to describe relations between mature and consenting partners. It is a term used to describe sexual matter including members of different genders, while homosexuality describes sexual matters including members of the same gender.
697. TabouliJones - 5/17/2002 4:56:35 PM
"The United Church of Canada will not tolerate, and will seek to eradicate, any behaviour by its members, lay and Order of Ministry . . . that constitutes sexual abuse . . . or child abuse."
From the United Church of Canada's Policy Manual on Dealing with Sexual Abuse in the Church
Most likely drafted with the input of openly gay members of the Church.
I think the Pope should talk to these United Church folks.
698. TabouliJones - 5/17/2002 5:26:57 PM
Three things stand out for me when considering the UC-Can material I have linked to today:
1) It suggests that ferreting out gays from the ranks of priests is a rash response to sexual abuse in the RCC. A well respected religious organization with sophisticated Christian teachings has not only responded to the issue of sexual abuse without succumbing to rampant homophobia and prejudice against gays, it has openly accepted gays into both its laity and its ministry.
2)Those who suggest that organized religion is in and of itself antithetical to a socially liberal viewpoint are clearly overstating their position. An organized, Christian institution is clearly able to accept Christ, the teachings of the bible and funky flamers and lesbians all within one institution.
3) The Vatican's absurd equivocation and failure to respond to the crisis of paedophelia with anything remotely close to a meaningful policy statement or position is mind boggling.
699. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 5:31:55 PM
The can't respond, TJ, because to do so would be to admit error and call their authority into question. That's untenable to the Church.
Therefore the only remedy is to throw the fucking bastards in jail.
700. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 6:32:59 PM
701. christipeters - 5/18/2002 12:26:23 AM
Rama - re #692. My post was addressed and directed specifically at POJ who doesn't sound like he understands this at all.
It also made no reference to the specific circumstances of all the individual cases of molestation by Catholic priests which are the current cause of so much publicity and concern. It was simply an attempt to shake a stereotype or two even though I know that in POJ's case it is no doubt a futile attempt.
Thanks for playing.
702. judithathome - 5/18/2002 8:48:01 AM
The Vatican appeals court judge insisted church leaders must protect the "good name" of their priests and only a guilty cleric truly is responsible for his actions.
How can a man who admits to raping children have anything remotely approaching a "good" name? This is as bad as saying "Oh well, he only killed ONE person and he promised not to do it again; let's give him a pass!"
703. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 10:00:59 AM
It is now clear that the Catholic Church is a criminal enterprise.
704. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 10:58:15 AM
705. judithathome - 5/18/2002 11:02:48 AM
There was an ad next to that article that said "defeat the disease that will afflict (however many thousand) New Englanders in the next year"...editorial comment, perhaps? (It didn't show up again when I went back to get the correct number.)
706. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 11:06:17 AM
707. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 1:38:57 PM
708. TabouliJones - 5/18/2002 2:36:53 PM
Cellar,
Yes, the back pedalling and equivocation of the RCC likely has much to do with an unwillingness to admit fallibity. However, I think it fair to say that this tactic has blown up in the Church's face and that, at some point, the Vatican and the RCC hierarchy will have to come out with a more practical and just response to the problem of sexual abuse by priests. Eventually, I think (or, at least, hope) the RCC will be forced -- by politics, outrage among its members and a sense of moral purpose -- to implement an official policy similar to that of the UC-Can; one designed to proactively end sexual abuse by priests and to ensure adequate response measures when such abuse occurs in the future.
I am, obviously, more sanguine about the potential for a meaningful RCC response. And you have much reason to be cynical, of course; given the absurd inadequacy of the Vatican's response thus far. In many respects, the matter will turn on the notion of Church fallibility -- or more, precisely, the Church's ability to admit its fallibity and that of its priests. I think the Church has room to recognize such fallibility. You, it seems to me, take it as an absolute that an admission of fallibility on the part of the Church is impossible. Who knows.
I honestly, don't know what the current doctrinal position is on the fallibility of the Church. I think that the notion of Papal and Church infallibity is no longer RCC doctrine, or that it is a more subtle and flexible doctrine than is usually believed. Perhaps, someone with a better understanding of RCC history and doctrine can shed some light on the matter.
709. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 2:59:35 PM
TJ, I never imagined that it would be this bad. I always thought instances of abuse were more isolated and sporadic. It now appears to be systemic.
My link in #703 shows that the Vatican has no intention making changes. Push will come to shove with the American Church because it's now in the legal hotseat. Did you read Cardinal Law's deposition? Amazing stuff. And that was just the first day. We'll doubtless have access to the rest in due course.
710. TabouliJones - 5/18/2002 3:22:36 PM
The extent of the abuse is certainly shocking, as is the extensive institutional coverup. I don't know, however, if I'd go as far as saying the abuse is systemic. We'll see.
I have read excerpts of Law's deposition and he is obviously trying to protect himself from legal responsibility. It is shocking, but, unfortunately, to be expected when the threat of civil and criminal action is there.
I didn't read the link that closely in #703. It does represent a rather cynical response that counsels the Church to avoid its moral responsibilities. Still, I wouldn't read it as a policy statement from the Vatican. Although it appears in a Vatican approved rag, it is only one opinion.
Don't get me wrong. I am not attempting to be an apologist for the RCC. I think the Church has acted reprehensibely thus far. And I do think that any institution claiming moral ascendancy and laying a claim to peoples' souls ought to respond in a just manner when confronted with such hideous behaviour by its representatives.
I am just struggling to open up the discussion a bit in here, I suppose.
At any rate, have a good weekend. I am out of here until Tuesday.
711. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 4:26:39 PM
712. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 5:15:47 PM
Egan's Payoffs 713. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 10:27:25 AM Report a pedo-priest -- lose your job. 714. ronski - 5/19/2002 11:40:19 AM Rama is wrong. Homosexuality is not a term used to describe sexual attraction or contact between persons of the same sex when one is an adult and one is a child. 715. Rama - 5/19/2002 12:25:48 PM Rama is wrong. Homosexuality is not a term used to describe sexual attraction or contact between persons of the same sex when one is an adult and one is a child. 716. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 12:31:25 PM This "ephebophile" nonsense has got to stop. We're talking about CHILD RAPE!!!!! 718. PelleNilsson - 5/19/2002 12:45:07 PM Sorry. Clicked "post" by mistake. 719. Rama - 5/19/2002 6:31:18 PM Do you approve, rama? 720. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 7:48:33 PM LIAR! 721. Rama - 5/19/2002 9:09:37 PM You posted it right here on this thread. 722. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 9:24:27 PM WHERE? FIND IT! 723. betty - 5/19/2002 9:33:39 PM Cellar, 724. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 9:34:59 PM What are you talking about? 725. ronski - 5/19/2002 9:36:25 PM Rama remains the one who is confused, or worse. 726. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 9:38:05 PM His efforts here are clearly to promote bigotry. He's not interested in a worhtwhile discussion at all. He just wants to point, sneer, and chuckle under his breath. 727. betty - 5/19/2002 9:42:08 PM under his bad breath. 728. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 9:46:59 PM Never wanted to get that close to find out. 729. ronski - 5/19/2002 10:21:22 PM Well, I remain ready to discuss any issue surrounding homosexuality with anyone who keeps some objectivity. I haven't seen too much evidence of objectivity from Rama, but I hope Rama will surprise me. 730. wonkers2 - 5/19/2002 10:28:53 PM You're right. Rama hasn't been house broken yet. I seem to recall that someone said that he has a son who is gay. Of course that doesn't necessarily assure enlightenment on the subject. 731. ronski - 5/19/2002 10:37:57 PM Of course it doesn't. 732. ronski - 5/19/2002 11:42:29 PM Just to get back to this before retiring, I would like to dicuss some day the Catholic Church's problem with the way its all-male clergy attracts sexually immature males, but I won't for a second play the game of falling into a discussion that seeks to demonize gay men. 733. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 12:00:04 AM There's no magic formula,IMO. If the necessary checks and balances are in place, and the problems inherent in the adult supervision of children are taken into account,sexualpredators can't operate. 734. ronski - 5/20/2002 12:09:40 AM Cellar, 735. Rama - 5/20/2002 9:53:26 AM People have been speculating as to why the bishops handled reports of this type so very badly. Those who already hate the Catholic Church believe it is because they are wicked. Those who are already unhappy with the way the bishops use their power believe it is because they were trying to protect their power. While either of these is possible, I haven?t seen much other than declarations to support the assessment. 736. Rama - 5/20/2002 10:01:17 AM Just as we correctly differentiate between pedophilia and those whose drive is to have sex with teenagers who are beyond the development of secondary sex characteristics, we are sophiscated enough to distinguish between an adult who regularly has sex with other adults and who may wrongly have had sex with a minor, and those adults who are attracted only to minors. 737. rubberducky - 5/20/2002 10:06:30 AM that is one of the stupidest things i've ever read 738. rubberducky - 5/20/2002 10:07:28 AM Message # 735, that is 739. Rama - 5/20/2002 10:10:58 AM My guess is that Rama thinks either all gay people are bad, or a disproportionate percentage are, and deserve second-class citizenship, but I would be delighted to be shown Rama feels otherwise. 740. Rama - 5/20/2002 10:14:06 AM that is one of the stupidest things i've ever read 741. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:16:22 AM And why is that? 742. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:17:33 AM "Irony much?" 743. uzmakk - 5/20/2002 10:20:14 AM Rama, I enjoy your posts very much. You have the whole hierarchy stirred up. 744. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:22:05 AM "People have been speculating as to why the bishops handled reports of this type so very badly. Those who already hate the Catholic Church believe it is because they are wicked. Those who are already unhappy with the way the bishops use their power believe it is because they were trying to protect their power." 745. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 10:25:29 AM Rama's point on the confession is interesting, but another aspect of the problem that is rarely disussed is Catholic emphasis on redemption coupled with an unsophisticated view of sex. As such, it is possible that - at least early on -the Catholic hierarchy heard of abuses, did not really register as to the damage sexual molestation can cause, and trusted too much in the power of redemption and rehabilitation. A similar response as that of Norman Mailer types, who clamor for release of a killer (becuase, ostensibly, he can write) with an overestimation as to the dependability of rehab and a naivete as to the nature of the criminally violent. 746. Rama - 5/20/2002 10:26:26 AM Being an ex-Catholic who has many issues with the Church you might expect that I'd be happy to see the chickns come home to roost. 747. Rama - 5/20/2002 10:29:19 AM But when the civil damages reached $100 million, you think they would have wised up. 748. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:30:07 AM So you think I'm lying about being an ex-Catholic? 749. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:31:17 AM "And I have no reason to believe you aren't happy to see this happen." 750. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 10:33:16 AM Rama 751. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:37:08 AM "another aspect of the problem that is rarely disussed is Catholic emphasis on redemption coupled with an unsophisticated view of sex. As such, it is possible that - at least early on -the Catholic hierarchy heard of abuses, did not really register as to the damage sexual molestation can cause, and trusted too much in the power of redemption and rehabilitation." 752. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 10:38:55 AM Cellar 753. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 10:40:04 AM Cellar 754. CalGal - 5/20/2002 10:43:44 AM I thought everyone made up confessions. And I never thought about my real sins because I never had any. I didn't even swear when I was younger. 755. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 10:54:50 AM So if you're making up things to confess, the Church is encouraging you to lie! 756. CalGal - 5/20/2002 10:58:23 AM Well, I didn't believe even back then, so it's not the Church's fault. 757. Rama - 5/20/2002 12:01:30 PM So you think I'm lying about being an ex-Catholic? 758. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 12:14:36 PM The feeling is mutual. 759. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 1:20:55 PM Law Tries to Distance Himself From Shanley -- But It's Not Going to Work. 760. robertjayb - 5/20/2002 2:20:37 PM The Hierarchy of Decency, by Jimmy Breslin, outraged Catholic... 761. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 8:34:04 PM Great link. 762. Cellar Door - 5/20/2002 8:46:46 PM 763. Cellar Door - 5/22/2002 1:05:51 PM Geoghan wants his sentence reduced. 764. robertjayb - 5/22/2002 5:46:09 PM Collections were a bit off... 765. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 6:00:08 PM Give him a break. He was probably under orders from the Bishop to help raise money to pay off child abuse settlements. 766. Property of Jesus - 5/22/2002 6:21:30 PM The church has plenty of money, mostly in real estate. 767. robertjayb - 5/22/2002 7:01:11 PM What penance must I do if I agree with POJ on just this one issue? 768. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 7:38:38 PM Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. 769. Cellar Door - 5/22/2002 8:03:24 PM It would be even better if the Church paid taxes. 770. Cellar Door - 5/23/2002 10:01:24 AM Yet ANOTHER pedo-priest Law knew about. This one molested his own nephews. 771. glendajean - 5/23/2002 11:56:46 AM Andrew Sullivan's site linked this April 22 Houston Chronicle story on the rash of football coaches having sex with underaged minor girls. I guess the word "icky" comes to mind. 772. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 6:47:08 PM True, but it's the same sex scandals that are really "icky." 773. Property of Jesus - 5/23/2002 6:49:18 PM HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS: A TIME FOR TRUTH 774. Rivendell - 5/24/2002 11:15:17 AM Erinys, 775. Rivendell - 5/24/2002 11:21:03 AM rjayb, 776. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 12:27:01 PM CNN aired video last night of parishioners confronting liberal Catholic ArchBishop Weakland of Milwaukee, encouraging him to commit suicide over his 20-year-old homosexual relationship (called a "date rape") with a young man thinking about entering the pristhood. 777. judithathome - 5/24/2002 12:34:26 PM Th church agreed to that because they said he had brought in so much more throughout the years in his money-raising capacity. Tit for Tat. 778. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 12:50:22 PM The church didn't say that. He said that, in explaining why he took the money. 779. judithathome - 5/24/2002 12:57:22 PM In a report last night, they quoted an official of the church saying that. I know his lawyer said that but so did an official of the church. 780. judithathome - 5/24/2002 12:57:57 PM And I wasn't making an excuse for the fiend, just quoting what was said. 781. Property of Jesus - 5/24/2002 1:09:29 PM From NYTimes--- 782. robertjayb - 5/24/2002 11:54:53 PM Seattle priest resigns over abuse... 783. Cellar Door - 5/26/2002 8:21:07 PM 784. Property of Jesus - 5/26/2002 8:26:55 PM The REAL Reason Catholics are Upset 785. betty - 5/26/2002 8:33:16 PM Props, 786. Property of Jesus - 5/26/2002 8:53:48 PM Beg God's forgiveness for your love of pornography, Betty. 787. Cellar Door - 5/26/2002 9:45:57 PM What about YOUR love of pornography, Props? 788. betty - 5/26/2002 10:25:28 PM Props, 789. jexster - 5/27/2002 4:46:58 AM Well the curia's closet queens nailed their first big fag, +Rembert Weakland. Perhaps the greatest bishop in the US Church, Weakland was done in by a 54 year old publicity hungry queen's claims he was "date raped" at 33. Yeah right. 790. jexster - 5/27/2002 5:16:06 AM 791. jexster - 5/27/2002 5:37:22 AM We also know that God has consistently lavished his gay children with the priestly charism. 792. Property of Jesus - 5/27/2002 8:25:43 AM If so many of them are homosexuals, it's no wonder that there is such a disconnection between Catholic parents and the priests who counsel them. 793. Cellar Door - 5/27/2002 11:24:51 AM "We know that some priests fall victim to the Daddy fantasies of horny teenage twinks" 794. Property of Jesus - 5/27/2002 12:13:06 PM Clearly Weakland was embarrassed about his homosexual urges, CD. Or, at least, being exposed. 795. Cellar Door - 5/27/2002 1:01:41 PM Being a Catholic priest he wasn't supposed to be having sex AT ALL ! 796. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:19:50 PM That's true Cllr...fancy that, priests fuck up just like you and Rosie... 797. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:21:14 PM Someone's gotta do the pretty robe schtick Rosie...exactly my point.... 798. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:31:17 PM Great Gay Saints... 799. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:35:08 PM 800. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:39:46 PM Really? What's the fantasy involved with the six year-olds? 801. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:49:39 PM The what was he doing working for the Catholic Church? 802. jexster - 5/27/2002 1:56:19 PM When he was appointed archbishop in 1977, Weakland began introducing a more open Catholicism to Milwaukee and soon became one of the American church's most influential liberals. 803. Cellar Door - 5/27/2002 2:30:40 PM "You know full well what I am talking about now don't you?" 804. Property of Jesus - 5/27/2002 5:00:40 PM Cardinal Newman, like Cardinal Spellman, was not a homosexual. 805. Property of Jesus - 5/27/2002 5:35:12 PM How did we let this happen, normal Catholics ask? 806. Cellar Door - 5/27/2002 5:39:49 PM "Cardinal Newman, like Cardinal Spellman, was not a homosexual." 807. Property of Jesus - 5/27/2002 6:21:28 PM As much as you would like to believe it, it's just not true, CD. I grew up in NY and never heard that accusation before. 808. jexster - 5/27/2002 6:22:49 PM National Catholic Reporter wrote its first story on clergy sex abuse in 1983. Nearly 17 years ago, in 1985, NCR wrote: 809. jexster - 5/27/2002 6:26:46 PM GREAT GAY SAINTS (continued) 810. jexster - 5/27/2002 6:27:15 PM National Catholic Reporter wrote its first story on clergy sex abuse in 1983. Nearly 17 years ago, in 1985, NCR wrote: 811. jexster - 5/27/2002 6:31:25 PM 812. Cellar Door - 5/27/2002 6:32:03 PM Light in Darkness. 813. jexster - 5/27/2002 6:36:32 PM Clerical misconduct with minors is not restricted to Catholic priests. It is a subset of a much larger and pervasive problem of child victimization found in every religious community, in every profession and mostly in the family. 814. jexster - 5/27/2002 6:39:49 PM Psychologists tell us that the profile of a pedophile is a white, middle-aged, married male. 815. Cellar Door - 5/27/2002 6:59:40 PM 816. Cellar Door - 5/28/2002 10:08:55 AM 817. Property of Jesus - 5/28/2002 5:36:26 PM Smart move on the part of President Bush to talk to the Pope regarding the homosexual attacks on children by some American Roman Catholic priests. 818. Cellar Door - 5/28/2002 6:49:11 PM "talk to the Pope"? 819. robertjayb - 5/28/2002 7:49:53 PM Does dubya have a nickname for the Pope? 820. Cellar Door - 5/28/2002 8:33:26 PM "Poopy" 821. Cellar Door - 5/28/2002 9:28:42 PM 822. Cellar Door - 5/30/2002 12:07:47 PM Law reasigned pedo-priest in 1998 after payoffs to victims. 823. glendajean - 5/30/2002 1:34:19 PM A devastatingly sad story. One of Law's aides wrote that a parent of a victim was contacting other victims, but they had no idea how many were involved. Wouldn't that have been the time to say "this guy is out" and call the cops? 824. Cellar Door - 5/30/2002 1:43:56 PM Ya think? 825. Property of Jesus - 5/30/2002 1:57:22 PM Big mistake letting homosexuals take over the American Catholic Church. 826. robertjayb - 5/30/2002 2:01:51 PM 827. Cellar Door - 5/30/2002 5:43:19 PM The Man who gives Props his Marching Orders. 828. Property of Jesus - 5/30/2002 7:34:23 PM The document that the American Catholic Church bureacracy tried to bury to protect its homosexual priests. 829. Cellar Door - 5/30/2002 8:13:24 PM "This thread has been moved to religion." 830. Property of Jesus - 5/30/2002 8:57:15 PM Double link, CD. 831. Cellar Door - 5/30/2002 10:07:44 PM "Bruce Publishing"? LOL! 832. Property of Jesus - 5/30/2002 10:54:01 PM Who knows, maybe they were a big deal in the early 1961s when it was published. 833. rubberducky - 5/31/2002 9:15:51 AM i'm going to start deleting posts that point to or discuss other forums. this is the last warning. 837. Cellar Door - 5/31/2002 9:55:22 AM And as I've been tirelessly demonstrating in this thread from Day One, that cover-up is engineered at the highest levels of the Catholic Church. 844. rubberducky - 5/31/2002 10:46:41 AM subsequent squawking has been moved to the Inferno. continue to whine there or Suggestions or Policies. do not do it here. 846. rubberducky - 5/31/2002 10:48:03 AM i'm serious folks. this thread isn't going to be hijacked. 851. arkymalarky - 5/31/2002 10:53:33 AM If that's the case, PJ, it's only because the heterosexual pedophiles can do the same thing and enjoy much more "normal" lifestyles with jobs and more personal freedom and plenty of opportunities to come into inappropriate contact with children in schools, neighborhoods, summer programs, youth organizations, etc etc. Why go through all the effort to become a priest when you can live life just like you want and be accepted with no marks against you in even the most conservative social circles because you have a wife and kids? 852. rubberducky - 5/31/2002 10:53:40 AM this thread is to discuss an issue, not the moderator(s). there are separate threads for that, it is suggested they be used. 853. jexster - 5/31/2002 11:20:35 AM Anger Over Scandal, Democracy Movement Begins With Catholic Laity 854. Cellar Door - 5/31/2002 11:35:08 AM Well I'm not so sure. You must remember that this was all coming out about Weakland just as the who scandal Tsunami was hitting. Weakland's a particular case -- not like Shanley or the pedo's that Mahoney has been covering for (and L.A. is a MUCH bigger scandal-center for pedo-priests than Bonston, BTW. They've had to hire the same PR firm that covers ENRON's ass -- but it's not going to work. I seriously believe Mahoney's headed for the slammer.) 855. judithathome - 5/31/2002 11:57:02 AM I agree, Cellar...were I in the church, I'd have severe reservations about them lecturing me on the immorality of birth control, sex with same sex partners, or sex before marriage. 856. Goody Hoo - 5/31/2002 1:02:27 PM Weakland is a Benedictine, abbot primate of the worldwide order for ten years before becoming archbishop of Milwaukee. 857. judithathome - 5/31/2002 1:14:37 PM Welcome aboard, Goody Hoo...great to see you here! 858. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2002 1:17:23 PM Is Goody Hoo a known quentity rather than another Rosie alias? 859. bubbaette - 5/31/2002 1:18:19 PM No, Goody Hoo is a regular at the Atlantic Monthly site where she would not be confused for Rosie. 860. Goody Hoo - 5/31/2002 1:23:48 PM Thanks, Judith. 861. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2002 1:26:14 PM Fine. Welcome Goody Hoo! We are having a spot of troble with Rosie right now. Hence my unfounded suspicion. 862. rubberducky - 5/31/2002 1:26:43 PM welcome, Goody Hoo! hope see more of you here in the future. 863. bubbaette - 5/31/2002 1:36:48 PM Hiya Goody. Take a wander around the joint -- make yourself at home. 864. Goody Hoo - 5/31/2002 1:39:21 PM Thanks for the kind welcome! 865. Cellar Door - 5/31/2002 1:41:01 PM Way to go Goody! 866. Cellar Door - 5/31/2002 4:06:50 PM Vatican Desperate for Spin Control. 867. Rivendell - 5/31/2002 5:39:42 PM Goody Hoo, 868. Cellar Door - 5/31/2002 6:15:09 PM 869. robertjayb - 6/2/2002 2:18:28 PM Peripatetic Pedophile Priest... 870. Cellar Door - 6/2/2002 2:33:56 PM 871. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 3:20:27 PM Court TV is covering the Houston cases. It is not just Priests. It was Yahoo porn ring. In March 2002, the FBI announced that it had broken a major child porn ring that flourished on the Internet at Yahoo.com. The case began in Houston in May 2000. More than 89 persons in 20 states were arrested in the initial phase of this investigation called Operation Candyman. The suspects have already admitted to molesting at least 36 children. Some of the people arrested represent a cross-section of American society that is truly frightening. The suspects arrested included Little League coaches, a teacher?s aide, a school bus driver, at least one former police officer, six members of clergy, a child photographer and two Catholic priests. They ranged in age from 17 to 70. Hundreds of searches were conducted and dozens of computers were seized.Mark Gado reporting FBI breaks up porn ring arrests six priests. It is a new way to play baseball, the little league coach want to put his bat in a new place. 872. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 4:26:49 PM CATHOLICS WANT ABUSIVE HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS REMOVED 873. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 4:36:58 PM Hopefully, America's limp-wrist liberal bishops and cardinals will read this to understand that the coverup isn't working and that they have no credibility with the public. 874. godlessclif - 6/3/2002 4:48:26 PM The boy scouts of America policy is ignorant and homophobic and not based on facts. Every psychological study from Kinsey to Master and Johnson study shows that less than one percent of homosexuals are child molestors and that for every homosexual child molestor there are ten heterosexual child molestors. In fact your kid is safer from molestation working as a cocktail waiter in a gay bar than he is as an altar boy in the catholic church according to statistics. 875. godlessclif - 6/3/2002 4:57:17 PM You do not have to be gay to molest alter boys. Ninety percent of priests who molest alter boys are heterosexual. Molestation and Rape are about power not sexual orientation. The solution is to have a system that gives priest less power over their congregations so they do not feel they can get away with it. Even so less than one in 50 priests is a molestor. We can reduce the number of victims dramatically by removing priest who are serial molestors. One child is bad enough, but the Houston molesting ring molested hundreds. I do commend the FBI for breaking the pedophile ring. There is still a lot of heterosexuals molesting boys in the boy scouts and plenty of innocent homosexuals who were fine scouts have suffered for nothing. thousands of eagle scouts have returned their badges to protest the bigotry including George H. "Poppy" Bush and Stephen Spielberg both of whom returned their boy scout eagles in protest. 876. betty - 6/3/2002 5:12:56 PM clif, 877. justears - 6/3/2002 5:20:12 PM GC. Altar/Alter. Is alter boys a pun? 878. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 5:20:44 PM No, you're wrong, godless. The Boy Scouts have the right idea. Don't ask, don't tell. That works with most normals. 879. Absensia - 6/3/2002 6:14:56 PM Betty and Godless...true, why try to confuse POJ with facts? He's already made up his mind. 880. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 6:16:59 PM personal attack. please take it to the inferno. 881. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 7:22:40 PM (note to duck: move personal attack post to inferno. warn absent of possible suspension.) 882. rubberducky - 6/3/2002 7:40:18 PM (note to PoJ: you, of all people, shouldn't be telling other people how to host.) 883. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 10:13:57 PM Makes you wanta scream... 884. bubbaette - 6/3/2002 10:27:00 PM I'm guessing, then, that it's not pedophilia if young girls are the victims. From my recollections in school, there are far more male pedophiles victimizing girls than boys. Girls don't count, huh Rosie? I take it that's normal in your little world? 885. Property of Jesus - 6/3/2002 10:40:36 PM I just don't know of any such incidents with priests, bubba. I'm sure it might have happened, but the girls are normally older teenagers. 16+ 886. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 12:05:32 AM Jesus , you don't get it. Heterosexual pedophiles molest Boys too. molestation is not about sex it is about power. You should study some abnormal psychology. 887. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 12:05:58 AM Yes, a pun, they alter boys. 888. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 12:12:20 AM These distinctions should help to clarify the definition of a pedophile and ephebophile and to show that a pedophile or ephebophile is normally not a homosexual, as he or she has no interest in adult sexual relations. Statistical data would be helpful in order to understand the prevalence of pedophilia and ephebophilia in American culture and to know the percentage of priests with these orientations as compared to the male population in general. But research limitations presently make this knowledge impossible. Some distinct points for further clarification are useful. The link is from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, so I would not try saying they are part of the Gay Agenda Conspiracy....read and learn, Rosie Jesus 889. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 12:49:10 AM By the way the Bishops think statistic are unavailable but they are from scientific researchers even though the catholic church always obstructed reserach, a "Kinsey Report" to be done on priests, I think for their own good they should be open to one now. 890. Goody Hoo - 6/4/2002 8:29:23 AM Clif, Rosie Joe, a vowed member of a cult founded by a whip freak, is not able to read and understand "abnormal psychology". 891. Property of Jesus - 6/4/2002 9:43:03 AM I link to goofy's site and there is Nicole Kidman. Yes, whip me. whip me! 892. judithathome - 6/4/2002 10:07:49 AM Proving the point of the link.... 893. Property of Jesus - 6/4/2002 10:20:02 AM Yes, interesting, but what happened to Nicole in the Yahoo/Geocities window ad. 894. godlessclif - 6/5/2002 12:28:21 AM Bill Maher from politically Incorrect, "The Catholic church says that pedophiles who molested only once should be able to continue to minister as priests. But liberals support a policy of three tykes and your out." 895. judithathome - 6/5/2002 11:58:54 AM Here's a story that shows how dumb these people can really be: 896. Property of Jesus - 6/5/2002 3:21:34 PM What is it about homosexuals and wrestling? 897. Goody Hoo - 6/5/2002 3:53:19 PM It's like Opus Dei and whips. 898. Property of Jesus - 6/5/2002 11:32:56 PM A good overview of the sex scandal from The Boston Globe---- 899. ronski - 6/5/2002 11:39:30 PM As usual, POJ is breaking one of the commandments he purports to revere, by lying about gays. 900. dbltyme - 6/5/2002 11:50:05 PM When this mess broke in January in Boston, before it went national, there was such outrage about Geoghan and what looked like a cover-up. Cut to the chase: Out of a tragedy, the Church had the chance to place an historic benchmark. Step up and admit, in effect, they had mishandled the whole issue in the past, mea culpa, and make the victims #1 priority. The faithful would have rallied around and the healing would have begun. Unfortunately, they've failed miserably. Even at this late date, they still don't GET IT! I started a file in Jan., but have had to go to a Xerox box. This mess is in the record books now; with a combination of angst and relief it's finally gone public. The other odd thing is the media has written extensively on the subject, but it never "caught on" like this. Hello to all from the new kid. 901. ronski - 6/5/2002 11:51:39 PM Welcome, your newness! 902. dbltyme - 6/5/2002 11:52:24 PM When this mess broke in January in Boston, before it went national, there was such outrage about Geoghan and what looked like a cover-up. Cut to the chase: Out of a tragedy, the Church had the chance to place an historic benchmark. Step up and admit, in effect, they had mishandled the whole issue in the past, mea culpa, and make the victims #1 priority. The faithful would have rallied around and the healing would have begun. Unfortunately, they've failed miserably. Even at this late date, they still don't GET IT! I started a file in Jan., but have had to go to a Xerox box. This mess is in the record books now; with a combination of angst and relief it's finally gone public. The other odd thing is the media has written extensively on the subject, but it never "caught on" like this. Hello to all from the new kid. 903. dbltyme - 6/5/2002 11:53:40 PM Not sure how I double-posted, sorry. 904. judithathome - 6/6/2002 12:13:01 AM If you refresh after posting, it posts again...little quirk here. And welcome...how'd you find us? 905. Property of Jesus - 6/6/2002 8:31:40 AM THE SEDUCTION OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN-RCF 906. Goody Hoo - 6/6/2002 8:56:14 AM LOL 907. Property of Jesus - 6/6/2002 9:30:27 AM Probably donated to the church from its members. 908. Jonesatlaw - 6/6/2002 9:38:00 AM The whole mess has shown a real lack of classic "Catholic" ethics amongst many in the hierarchy. The same folk who deplore the lack of participation in the Sacrement of Reconciliation by the laity, find themselves unable to follow the prescription that the catechists drilled into us years ago- that to be forgiven, one must confess your sins, have supernatural sorrow and not just natural sorrow, perform penance and firmly resolve not to sin again. 909. Goody Hoo - 6/6/2002 10:36:29 AM >Probably donated to the church from its members. 910. dbltyme - 6/6/2002 1:00:56 PM judithathome-through political site of the day. I was interested in the reference to The Fray, followed some righteous threads there! Too bad it's gone, but the RoE here should eliminate the rabble. Wait a minute! We ARE the rabble! Peace. 911. judithathome - 6/6/2002 1:02:40 PM Dbltyme: 912. ronski - 6/7/2002 12:01:14 AM Religions generally do not "con" people out of anything. Believers get plenty in return for their support of the faith in question. 913. judithathome - 6/7/2002 12:14:18 AM Unless they believe in that guy named Robert Tilton who spoke in tongues and got people to send him their money so their TVs could heal them.... 914. ronski - 6/7/2002 12:21:11 AM Right, but that is not exactly what we call established religions. 915. judithathome - 6/7/2002 12:23:00 AM It is in the south...he had followers out the wahzoo. 916. ronski - 6/7/2002 12:40:32 AM Yes, I remember Tilton, now. He showed up on NY area broadcasts, too. But proving fraud would still be difficult, imo. Did anyone ever file a complaint? 917. judithathome - 6/7/2002 12:42:01 AM They probably couldn't afford to...he took all their money. ;-) 918. judithathome - 6/7/2002 12:44:16 AM Actually, I remember that some people did file complaints on behalf of their elderly parents and a man named Ole Anthony kept on Tilton's ass in the newspapers, on radio and on TV until he finally left town. But he was brought low before he left. 919. robertjayb - 6/7/2002 6:46:12 AM Catholic paper slams U.S. lawyers on child sex... 920. Property of Jesus - 6/7/2002 7:41:36 AM Homosexual attorneys, too? 921. Goody Hoo - 6/7/2002 8:44:38 AM 922. Goody Hoo - 6/7/2002 8:49:31 AM 923. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 8:52:41 AM Nothing like a piece of rag for $100. They sure get their money's worth. And buying your uncle out of purgatory for a few thousand is priceless, this by the main steam Catholics. I don't care if it rains or freezes I can drive 100 miles an hour 924. judithathome - 6/7/2002 9:59:56 AM Goody Hoo, your double post comes from refreshing while on the last page you posted...it's a "feature" here. ;-) 925. judithathome - 6/7/2002 10:00:59 AM toys 926. Goody Hoo - 6/7/2002 10:32:23 AM Thanks, Judith. Sorry, everyone. 929. rubberducky - 6/7/2002 2:11:54 PM non thread related posts moved to Inferno 930. dbltyme - 6/7/2002 5:30:10 PM I find it interesting to learn today that Grand Foobah Bernie Law had serious and intensive advice sessions with not one, but two sets of phyche professionals in 1993 regarding the future direction of the Diocese in handling offending priests. Their recommendations? Exactly what the Bishops came out with this week. Cardinal Law, in 1993, dismissed both team's recommendations as in "conflict with Canon Law." 931. judithathome - 6/7/2002 5:33:16 PM In conflict with Bernard Law, more likely. 932. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 5:55:30 PM The Dangerous Life of Alter Boys But the movie is not about molesting, it is about Catholic schools with the tough lovable nun charector from the Haley Mills vehicles Disney did. Jodie Foster says in TV guide that she hopes the church scandal and the unfortunate tile won't hurt the movie. Bad timing Jodie. 933. dbltyme - 6/8/2002 6:16:04 AM There is no "crisis of faith" resulting from this but I feel deep sadness the hierarchy refuses to acknowledge the betrayal the victims also suffered. Their vulnerability, their conception of their God embodied in the human presence of their abuser, the guilt that wasn't their's to carry for so many years. All the psycho-babble labels involving power as the tool; so many destroyed lives. 934. dbltyme - 6/8/2002 6:22:49 AM The Voice of the Faithful (votf.org) is the best thing to happen, in terms of response from the laity. After birth in Boston, it's spread nation-wide already. Yet to be seen is the level of input allowed by the Church; some in the hierarchy have shut them out already, some just paying lip-service (?).. 935. dbltyme - 6/8/2002 8:04:31 AM 936. godlessclif - 6/8/2002 2:14:11 PM I did not hear the words zero tolerance of child molestors in the church. I think S.N.A.P. is the best thing to happen so far. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The bishops were going to let them speak (behind closed doors, of course) at their meeting in Dallas, but now they've rescinded the offer. They didn't inform the survivors that they were canceled. The leaders of the survivors' groups learned about it in the paper. 938. godlessclif - 6/8/2002 2:57:36 PM Jay Leno joked about the "two tykes and your out" policy but that is exactly what the chruch leaders are suggesting.Theologians meet in New Orleans Terrence W. Tilley, chairman of religious studies at the University of Dayton, said bishops who fail to remove abusive priests from ministry should be held to the same standard as priests who abused children. ''The bishops are accessories before and after the fact ... Any bishop who has allowed a man to stay in ministry after two strikes ... should be removed,'' he said. 939. dbltyme - 6/8/2002 4:08:00 PM gc-The Bishop's snub of SNAP speaks volumes; it's been in existence for some time and is well-respected. VOTF started just since January. I'd still like to hear the selfish logic behind continuing to defend first-strike clergy. 940. jexster - 6/8/2002 10:32:35 PM PlanetOut.com 941. godlessclif - 6/8/2002 10:41:58 PM I think the individual Bishops should appologise for making ignorant and bigoted statements about gays and lesbians. Of course these bigoted Bishops are unlikely to appologise. The US Catholic Bishops Conference made the correct decision on Gays. To keep the gay priests. They have nothing to appologise for. I think letting a priest have two molestation offenses, which could be more than two children is unacceptable. I know it is impossible to stop the first offense. The first offense is not neccessarily one child. How many times did the pedophile not get caught. There is no blood test for pedophiles, but I would say zero tollerance for known pedophiles. No second chances. What in hell are they thinking letting a known pedophile get a second chance at someone's kid. 942. dbltyme - 6/8/2002 11:40:56 PM Precisely. No free passes ... and besides, this particular "affliction" has a lousy success rate for "treatment." 943. Absensia - 6/9/2002 12:25:32 AM Very lousy success rate...a friend works at the sexual offenders section of a nearby prison...just because they will likely do it again, is not reason to hold them past their parole date or when they finish their sentence. Then what? Do we keep them drugged? Do a lobotomy? 944. dbltyme - 6/9/2002 2:31:14 AM Point--Counter-Point 945. dbltyme - 6/9/2002 3:19:40 AM As they say in Las Vegas, "What's the line on.." whether the hierarchy allows these reasoned voices to interject themselves? 946. Absensia - 6/9/2002 4:36:38 AM Both articles are interesting. The first sounds quite familiar. A friend who is a Jesuit and I talked about the issues years ago and he sid the same thing. 947. Absensia - 6/9/2002 4:40:33 AM I got to know several of the Misters (Jesuits in training, not yet a priest,) and they were bright and most had a great sense of humor. I loved playing bridge with a couple of them because they were so good at it. 948. Absensia - 6/9/2002 4:42:43 AM The Provincials take their orders from Rome...and I don't mean the pope, I mean the head of the Jesuits...sometimes called the Black Pope...always in the usual robe or a dark black suit. 949. godlessclif - 6/9/2002 9:41:32 AM Gary Wills in the New York review why Conservative catholics have made a hero out of a libertarian who wants to legalize child pornography. Phillip Jenkins thinks kiddie porn is healthy, but catholics quoting him do not mention that. They only mention his book Pedophiles and Priests that says the pedophile scare is a witch hunt. 950. Property of Jesus - 6/9/2002 10:13:50 AM 951. godlessclif - 6/9/2002 10:15:38 AM Which catholic cult does the "Black Pope" belong to? "Legion of God" or "Opus Dei"? 952. dbltyme - 6/9/2002 12:24:34 PM While "pedophile" and "predator" are wholly inaccurate in describing over 80% of offenders; once used, they've become the buzz descriptor words. While certainly not an apologist, these words titillate, inflame and distract from addressing the core problem of clergy sexuality. If any issue deserves the descriptor of "ostrich syndrome" this is it - as if, unacknowledged, the problem simply does not exist. 953. Property of Jesus - 6/9/2002 2:11:00 PM Finally, mother church goes on the offensive 954. wabbit - 6/9/2002 2:18:49 PM From PoJ's link: 955. Property of Jesus - 6/9/2002 2:48:38 PM The real problem is the coverup by the liberal bishops and cardinals, all protecting the homosexual priests and their allies in the psych world who claimed there was nothing wrong with man-boy relationships. 956. ronski - 6/9/2002 3:03:35 PM Rose's thesis falls apart because very many of the allegedly radical, liberal, etc. priests didn't start entering the church until the early 70s, late 60s at the earliest, and most of the cases that have come to light of pedophile and ephebophile priests involve men who were admitted a good deal before that. One could just as easily conclude that it was the stricter requirements of the church in the years before the late 60s that caused the problem. 957. Property of Jesus - 6/9/2002 3:21:35 PM Reality check. No matter how many times you deny it, this is a homosexual priest problem that the Catholic Church is facing. 958. wonkers2 - 6/9/2002 9:11:36 PM Weakland was taken advantage of by an extortionist. The concept of celibacy, for heterosexuals or homosexuals is ridiculous. 959. ronski - 6/9/2002 9:59:54 PM POJ, 960. Property of Jesus - 6/9/2002 10:13:04 PM Sure, Ronski. I like and respect you a lot. And I am being an asshole because the other side is being so one-sided and anti-Catholic. 961. ronski - 6/9/2002 10:15:20 PM My guess it that Weakland was indeed taken advantage of by some kind of extortionist, property piece of baggage. 962. ronski - 6/9/2002 10:21:42 PM And does it deserve repeating that the notion that this a "homosexual" problem in the Church is sheer lunacy, and that POJ is posting complete garbage on this subject? 963. Absensia - 6/9/2002 10:24:03 PM "Accoding to my source, Jesuits are the worst." 964. wonkers2 - 6/9/2002 10:26:43 PM That's right! Either 90 percent of Republicans are pedophiles or 90 percent of pedophiles are Republicans. I can't recall which. 965. ronski - 6/9/2002 10:27:50 PM ....that was proper piece of baggage. 966. wonkers2 - 6/9/2002 10:28:14 PM One of Detroit's most infamous pedophiles was a judge, a Republican and a member of Grosse Pointe Yacht Club. 967. arkymalarky - 6/9/2002 10:34:28 PM One Boy Scout leader with a wife and kids in Arkansas was, and one of his victims later killed his parents and sister and tried to partly blame his actions on being molested by this Scout leader. 968. wonkers2 - 6/9/2002 10:35:58 PM This guy lurked in the shower room according to news reports. 969. arkymalarky - 6/10/2002 12:26:46 AM The world does have more than its share of disgusting people in it parading as decent human beings. That's the only general truism I've drawn from the whole thing, and I knew it already. 970. dbltyme - 6/10/2002 9:10:45 AM Are you sitting down? $8.6 million dollar fraud fine; just shows no one is minding the store. Perhaps because this is a .pdf URL, I'm unable to get the link correct, so just posted the addy. 971. dbltyme - 6/10/2002 12:50:06 PM Two Benedictine Monks just murdered at a monastery/seminary in Missouri. 972. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 1:13:07 PM Fundamantalist Christians come up with some great studies. Like the "Twin Study" that proved all Lesbians are identical twins. 973. wonkers2 - 6/10/2002 2:33:28 PM 974. Goody Hoo - 6/10/2002 2:45:13 PM Funny how Dulles, once the founder, with Leonard J. Feeney, S.J., of a famous cult, now reminds Catholics that, whatever the bishops PRETEND to decide at their "meeting" in Dallas, the Vatican, controlled by a different cult, will have the final say. 975. rubberducky - 6/10/2002 3:06:31 PM don't foget to blame homos! 976. rubberducky - 6/10/2002 3:06:42 PM forget, that is 977. godlessclif - 6/11/2002 4:28:28 AM The ultimate screaming anti-gay bigotry from crazy Ann Coulter She is the girl Jonah Goldberg had to fire from National review online, the right wing website, for being too right wing. When Pat Buchanan and Dr. Goebels say "Wait a minute isn't that too right wing" you know you are talking about Ann Coulter. Should gay priest adopt? by crazy Ann 978. robertjayb - 6/11/2002 11:53:20 PM Two-thirds of bishops let accused priests work... 979. judithathome - 6/12/2002 12:40:17 AM I suggest you go to Robert's link and click on the Catholic Bishop's and Abuse Database in the first box appearing on the screen. I clicked on Texas in the "state" box and imagine my surprise that a bishop here in my hometown has helped cover for not one but two abusing priests...check out your town; you might get a little surprise, too. 980. pseudoerasmus - 6/12/2002 1:46:01 AM Why should a man sexually attracted to a post-pubescent boy who is still legally minor, be called anything but homosexual? The boy is physically adult even if the law does not recognise that as grounds for legal majority. 981. Erinys - 6/12/2002 2:30:32 AM dbltyme, why did you post about an insurance diddle? The whistle-blower is getting a cash reward for that, he was an accountant at the hospital. And the guy who killed the monks, he was a former postal worker. 982. Erinys - 6/12/2002 2:51:57 AM Your link in #883 made me roll my eyes, but I didn't scream, POJ. "The man" in the article gives bad drama, after all he was only a wee thing of 25?26? before he called it off. But he's right about one thing, 983. godlessclif - 6/12/2002 5:05:17 AM If you need a crutch, use one, I always say, But the fact that you need a crutch is not reason for a priest to make your kids blow him No they are not homosexuals P.E. and your teenage kid is much safer from molestation working as a cocktail waiter in a gay bar then working as an altarboy in a catholic church. Bishop James McCarthy of New York has been invited by the people of Boston to replace Bishop Bernard Law. The Boston catholics say they will even finance a weekly trip to Boston's "Combat Zone" red light district to allow McCarthy visit with female hookers if only they can be sure their Bishop is not interested in fucking altar boys like Bishop Law is. 984. godlessclif - 6/12/2002 5:11:14 AM Bishop James McCarthy of New York had the decency to resign after being caught screwing widows in his congregation, but that old Closet Queen Cardinal Bernard Law, who wants to fuck teenage boys, says he will never quit while more people in Boston are willing to turn their son's virgin ass over to him as an altar boy. 985. Erinys - 6/12/2002 11:01:00 AM Your summations of that article are silly and offensive. 986. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 1:08:07 PM To All Hosts: 987. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 10:08:45 AM Someone in authority should fix the column-margin problem here. Instead we have Dr. No trying to housetrain all the thread hosts rather than directly discipline her pets. 988. rubberducky - 6/13/2002 10:12:54 AM i'll say this once and only once: 989. Goody Hoo - 6/13/2002 10:35:47 AM Well, the charade has begun. The prissy little putz calling the conference on EWTN is annoyed with the bishops for allowing "progressives" like Margaret Steinfels to address them. He, of course, prefers Opus Dei puppets, or Stupidville Promise Keepers. People with FIDELITY to their MASTERS in Opus Dei. 990. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 10:56:45 AM Didn't have the time, goofy. Two baseball games, three historic churches (Riverside, Trinity and St. Patrick), Grant's Tomb, Broadway musical, WTC, Staten Island ferry, ChinaTown, Little Italy, teaching the boys how to work the subway system, etc. 991. Property of Jesus - 6/13/2002 3:36:29 PM Finally CNN is bringing up the obvious in its daily talk show. 992. jexster - 6/13/2002 8:28:39 PM "If priests wanna sex, kids, and otherwise have a gay old time, they should just become Episcoplians! They can have it all there and no Pope of Rome" Robert Novak on Crossfire 993. Goody Hoo - 6/13/2002 9:25:00 PM But some of the worst child abuse was done by Anglican priests. See the Canadian orphanages where Indian children were starved, beated, raped, etc., exactly as in the industrial schools of Ireland. The Anglican Church in Canada is going broke because of the lawsuits by victims. 994. marjoribanks - 6/14/2002 10:53:02 AM Goody Hoo, 995. Goody Hoo - 6/14/2002 12:02:59 PM 996. Property of Jesus - 6/14/2002 12:28:28 PM Nice going, Goofy. Marj is a well-known asshole, a provocator, just trying to trap you. 997. Goody Hoo - 6/14/2002 12:31:48 PM ACHTUNG: Wab-bit! 998. arkymalarky - 6/14/2002 1:01:17 PM The rule isn't monikers only, it's whatever the participant claims is personal information, which would include a real name or any part thereof--there is only one real name in the vast majority of cases, including PJ's. 999. Goody Hoo - 6/14/2002 1:24:57 PM Thanks for the explanation, ark! (As a newcomer to this board, I've been SHOCKED by several things, but most of all by Property's mentioning the name of the school his children attend: The Heights, alma mater of Hanssen of Opus Dei's kids, brother school to Oak Crest, where Mrs. Hanssen of Opus Dei teaches. How could anyone put his kids in a classroom with the enabler of the worst spy in American history, in a school conducted by the cult who directed the worst spy in American history?) 1000. ronski - 6/14/2002 5:29:45 PM McCarrick has said he opposes throwing out priests who have transgressions deep in their past because "the majority" of them are "in their 60s, 70s, and 80s," further discrediting the theory that it was liberalism that permitted the scandal to take place. 1001. Absensia - 6/14/2002 5:32:03 PM The bishops have voted...239 yes...13 no...so the resolution that provides 0 tolerance for those who ever were involved in the past, now or the future...and the bishops apologize for not acting sooner. 1002. Absensia - 6/14/2002 5:34:28 PM It remains to be seen what happens now. They say they can do this for a couple of years before they run it by the Vatican...and just why did the 13 naysayers vote no???? 1003. ronski - 6/14/2002 5:45:52 PM The 13 are the conservatives, perhaps. So few of them left, we keep hearing. 1004. Absensia - 6/14/2002 5:54:19 PM I agree...and wanted less harsh penalties...I saw one who said it wasn't fair to those priests who only did it once long ago. 1005. Goody Hoo - 6/14/2002 6:41:18 PM The bishops didn't vote for "zero tolerance." They decided to let Child Lovers remain in the priesthood, wear the collar, be called Faaaather, but be excused from ministry and live instead in monastery/resorts where Catholics will support them for the rest of their lives. 1006. robertjayb - 6/15/2002 12:37:09 AM Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People 1008. Erinys - 6/15/2002 1:57:28 AM Clapping again for Jonesatlaw's #908 1009. godlessclif - 6/15/2002 7:22:26 AM The Cardinals have passed rules that alow continued coverup of pedophiles. The catholic church must adopt a policy of aiding the police in the prosecution of child molestors, not just taking the motherfuckers out of ministry but taking legal action. I recommend hiring private detectives and being pro active in the prosecution of these individuals, refusing them the shelter of confession and taking civil action and aiding civil action by victims against the pedophiles with financial aid and putting them on Megan's law lists and publicising their names. If the catholic church does not do this then they deserve to be destroyed as an institution because they have no excuse to exist. 1010. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 9:00:39 AM I agree, Clif. Zero accountability by the bishops. 1011. Absensia - 6/15/2002 9:15:31 AM Goody...priests or other people in their 60's or 70's who have no social skills, etc, or social security can't just be thrown out of the streets. Some of the resolution requires bishops to refer the matter to prosecutors. I'd much rather have a pedophile priest under house arrest in a monastary than taking some job he has "experience" with...as in family counselling. Gawd, RME. You obviously haven't been in a monastary lately..as within the last 40 years..and btw, many monastaries are self supporting. 1012. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 9:30:30 AM >Goody...priests or other people in their 60's or 70's who have no social skills, etc, or social security can't just be thrown out of the streets. 1013. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 9:46:12 AM And another thing: the Child Lovers sent to the monasteries don't JOIN the monasteries. They don't become Benedictines or whatever. They remain as secular priests, supported by their dioceses. 1014. judithathome - 6/15/2002 9:52:32 AM You'd rather seem them at a resort prison where the taxpayors would support them the rest of their days. I think you want just a simple burning at the stake...okayfine, but start with the Jimmy Swaggerts of the world first. 1015. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:04:21 AM DOLT....there you are with another sweeping generality...I may be spelling impaired but am catholic, though not cradle catholic AND not sure what those two southern monasteries like...I'm talking Jesuits and Westcoast. 1016. judithathome - 6/15/2002 10:10:58 AM Abs, don't take your anger at Goody out on me; I nowhere said I thought all priests were pedophiles and you know I don't think that so don't imply that I did. 1017. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:13:10 AM Goody....many treatment centers catered to substance addicted priests...no, I'm not an addict but I know how to spell addicted. The pennies of the poor won't go far to support these people. But the bucks of the rich faithful will. I don't think money should be taken from poor parishes...in fact the whole annual drive is uncaring and not needed. Let the Pope sell off the papal gems. I think monastEries could agree not to give any pedophiles weekend passes or vacations. 1018. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:17:41 AM Judith, it wasn't meant for you..the "dolt" comment" wasn't for you...don't be so quick to react. 1019. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:20:02 AM My son said he never ran into pedophiles, but he wasn't a likely topic, having always been a mouthy candidate. He was in Jesuits schools from 4th-highschool..the 4th-8th was in a Benedictine run parish...the pastor just gave off bad vibes. People and priests alike knew my kid and I were close and I'd speak up if I thought something was wrong....and... 1020. judithathome - 6/15/2002 10:25:09 AM Abs, I knew you weren't addressing me as "dolt" and I'm not projecting about anything. I just didn't want to be seen as one making excuses for Jimmy Swaggert! 1021. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:25:44 AM about the time he was 2, before he went to day care, I taught him to say: NO! Don't touch me there! I don't like you doing it...it's my body, and you can't do that to me!!!! At the college where I taught, when my son was about 5, there was this COUNSELOR, married with children, who wanted to tickle him...my son hated it...he tried it once, and I told the kid to speak up....so, the next time this cretin tried to tickle his stomach, el kiddo telled out the line....lol...right in the large registration line....where the dean of students, registrar and dean of academics happened to be hanging out...the dolt slithered to his office and kept a low profile from then on...and my son, gained a sense of entitlement and power. 1022. judithathome - 6/15/2002 10:27:15 AM I wish more kids were taught to do that...save a lot of heartache. 1023. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 10:33:30 AM >DOLT....there you are with another sweeping generality...I may be spelling impaired but am catholic, though not cradle catholic AND not sure what those two southern monasteries like...I'm talking Jesuits and Westcoast. 1024. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 10:37:18 AM 1025. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:40:47 AM Hahahah...condescending little twit....goody..what is Mout St. Michaels??? The Jebbies call it a Monasery and since it's their house they ought to know. I thought you were hinting at two in Kentucky...my bad, my bad, my big bad. 1026. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:46:09 AM Damn Goodie...you are channelling POJ...with as much disinformation...yeah, I taught, yeah I have a j.d. and a master's degree...and practiced law as well as taught policy sci, business law, and helped work on the beginning of totally online classes. Now baby cakes, what have you done? and BTW, I've got the credentials to prove what I've done....do you? 1027. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 10:51:03 AM >Hahahah...condescending little twit....goody..what is Mout St. Michaels??? The Jebbies call it a Monasery and since it's their house they ought to know. 1028. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:56:05 AM Honey, when you get out of highschool, get rid of that terminal case of acne, and get your head out of your butt, you'll learn something. But till then, say what you will. Now, you go back to playing Sim City and creating your grandious personas. 1029. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 11:00:40 AM >Damn Goodie...you are channelling POJ... 1030. arkymalarky - 6/15/2002 11:05:22 AM Erinys, 1031. arkymalarky - 6/15/2002 11:06:50 AM And please try to remember, everyone, that the same ROE that protect the people we may dislike protect the rest of us here, as well. 1032. Absensia - 6/15/2002 11:10:48 AM If I was gonna pretend, it wouldn't be about all this...I'd make my life much more fun....but, hey, I didn't know they allowed computers in individual cells...(I haven't done any crim law work for at least an eon)...but you seem to know all about prision....hmmm 1033. arkymalarky - 6/15/2002 11:17:51 AM Abs, 1034. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 11:18:59 AM Still waiting for the link to a Jesuit monastery. 1035. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 11:25:52 AM The bishops didn't get around to discussing the cults: Escriva's Cult, Maciel the Molester's Cult (Motto: Our Name is Legion), SPXS, etc. Many children are probably being abused TODAY in the weird and remote schools the cults run in this country. 1036. judithathome - 6/15/2002 12:04:55 PM Goody, I can assure you, Absensia is not a prison inmate. You are very far off the mark about her. 1037. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 12:20:55 PM >You are very far off the mark about her. 1038. Property of Jesus - 6/15/2002 3:41:05 PM American bishops did a fairly good job last week in Dallas. Especially listening to the victims talking about pedophile homosexual priests. 1040. Absensia - 6/15/2002 7:53:25 PM Goody...Sigh...you are right and I was wrong...Jesuits were in Monasteries in the 16th and 17th Centuries when I was going to school, however. 1041. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 9:42:59 PM Your link doesn't work, and Jesuits were never in monasteries. Only monastics live in monasteries. Jesuits are not and never were monastics. They never have referred to their houses as monasteries. 1042. Absensia - 6/15/2002 9:48:59 PM Now now dear...I apologized for being wrong...I considered him to be jesuit educated since theprinciple was married to a former jesuit priest and sorry you don't like my diction, etc...be gracious...and as I said, send me an email and I'll give you info...not that you deserve it. BTW, as far as my life, you don't know shit...you want to be only a naysayer, then fine. 1043. Absensia - 6/15/2002 10:05:37 PM Wait, you've been playing the "it's impossible to prove a negative" trick. Tacky tacky and really bush league. From your grammar, writing style and pugalistic manner, it's clear you don't exist. Now go play your games with someone else. Bye bye. 1044. Goody Hoo - 6/15/2002 10:18:57 PM >Now now dear...I apologized for being wrong... 1045. Snowowl - 6/15/2002 10:23:01 PM If that's your interest why don't you begin a discussion about a facet of Catholicism that you think is worth discussing, instead of accusing other posters of lying about their professions? 1046. arkymalarky - 6/15/2002 10:23:21 PM If the personal stuff is going to continue it needs to go to the proper thread--the Inferno. I'm going to move personal posts there henceforward, where you are welcome to continue your argument. Keep posts here on topic, please. 1047. Snowowl - 6/15/2002 10:23:52 PM Sorry Arky, x-post. 1048. arkymalarky - 6/15/2002 10:25:40 PM Haha. Yes, you and I were on the same page! 1050. Goody Hoo - 6/16/2002 11:12:17 AM Snowforbrains hoots: "If that's your interest why don't you begin a discussion about a facet of Catholicism that you think is worth discussing, instead of accusing other posters of lying about their professions?" 1051. Goody Hoo - 6/16/2002 11:14:09 AM Another example: >>>>>"I went to a Jesuit University for college and l.s., and there was such a seminary neary boy...and yes...kids 14 or so were there...there lives decided forever. I often thought this was horrible and that all groups should be like the Jesuits who don't even consider admitting you until you have a college degree, and then, while still not ordained, you are expected to study, pick up a masters' and also a ph.d. By the time you had been with the Jesuits for 7-9 years, you might be ordained. They screened carefully, and are also a highly intelligent group..." 1053. Property of Jesus - 6/16/2002 11:59:02 AM go=goes 1054. arkymalarky - 6/16/2002 11:59:38 AM 1052 has been dumped in the proper receptacle due to lack of topical content. 1055. Property of Jesus - 6/17/2002 7:29:53 AM "When we slip up, we should be harassed." 1056. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 7:53:15 AM Form your link. Clark has also said the United States is a "sex-saturated society" and "probably the most immoral country" in the Western Hemisphere. Clark agrees with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell that if we close the gay bars in Greenwich Village somehow the Pedophile priests who they continue to shelter will miraculously stop thier activity. This is as stupid as when Falwell tried to blame Tinkie Winkie's magic bag for children misbehaving. The simple scientific fact is Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has more to do with power. Witchhunting homosexuals will not solve the Church's pedophile problem any more than burning Jews at the stake in the 14th century stopped the bubonic plague.[The plague was blamed on Jews by the Pope] 1057. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 8:03:07 AM In April, Clark came under fire for delivering a sermon stating that it was a "grave mistake" for the church to admit gay men to the priesthood, calling homosexuality a "disorder" and its practice "truly sinful." also from your link a demonstration of Clark's ignorance and bigotry linking Homosexuality to pedophilia. Medical facts Homosexuality is not pedophilia, keeping homosexuals out of the priest hood will not prevent pedophilia. I know you and the Bishops hate to be confused by scientific fact. It took 400 years for the Pope to appologise to Galileo and admit the Earth goes around the sun. You still ahve not admited Charles Darwin was right. 1058. Property of Jesus - 6/17/2002 8:04:34 AM America's pedophile priests were being protected by their homosexual protectors in the church bureaucracy. Those days are over. 1059. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 8:17:42 AM You trying to blame this whole thing on Cardinal Spellman? You think Cardinal Bernard Law, Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles, Cardinal Egan in New York are all protecting pedophiles because they are homosexual and part of some Vast Homosexual Conspiracy? Can you explain why a homosexual would want to protect a pedophile more than a heterosexual Bishop. Did you read the medical facts I linked to by the American Psychiatric association. There is no evidence that Law, Egan or Mahoney were ever homosexuals? They did all cover up pedophilia. 1060. Goody Hoo - 6/17/2002 8:30:19 AM It's funny that Property, a self-flagellating member of a cult founded by a whip freak, would be so worried about homosexuals. (Is forcing people to wear cilices on their thiiiiighs and to whip themselves sex abuse?) 1061. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 8:39:09 AM This is the secnad time I told POJ that. Some one needs to tell Falwell, Pat Robertson and Bishop Clark as well, they seem badly misinformed 1062. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 10:28:42 AM 1063. Goody Hoo - 6/17/2002 11:20:24 AM The bishops have no authority over Opus Dei. The cult is the pope's "personal prelature", which means it answers to him (and his Opus Dei handlers, Herrantz, Navarro-Valls, Castrillon, etc.) alone. 1064. godlessclif - 6/17/2002 11:53:13 AM Comedian Julia Sweeney is another catholic school victim and she used it in her humor HBO special. She played St. Paul's wife. St Paul went around whipping himself because it was the end of the world and he was a sinner. His wife was trying to talk him out of it. "Why don't you write a nice letter to the Corinthians instead dear. They have been waiting to hear from you. you can dictate it to me." or "What would you do if the world doesn't end for 100 years, 1000 years, even 2000?" 1065. dbltyme - 6/17/2002 2:47:04 PM The "Texas Treatise", as it should be called, reads the Bishops know they're in deep KimChi, but still fails to acknowledge the victims as priority #1. After watching their live debate on C-SPAN, some of these guys even professed surprise (after hearing the victims) at the degree of emotional angst still displayed by them. I say B/S! They've known for years about it and chose to direct all efforts to protecting their 'brothers.' 1066. ronski - 6/17/2002 2:53:29 PM I'm not sure they knew. I think a lot of people do not understand how being sexually abused can thoroughly damage a person for his or her entire life. It's not like being an expert in human sexuality is a prerequisite for the priesthood or the hierarchy. 1067. glendajean - 6/17/2002 4:44:07 PM Did anybody see this story in Saturday's NY Times? It's about girls abused by priests. If somebody else has already linked this, so sorry for the repetition. 1068. ronski - 6/17/2002 4:49:07 PM What? Homosexual priests are now abusing girls, too? 1069. dbltyme - 6/17/2002 6:03:24 PM ronski - I would have said the same thing until finding out, in 1985, these guys went through the whole drill (with professional psyche's reports and recommendations); so claiming insufficient knowledge just doesn't cut it. 1070. dbltyme - 6/17/2002 6:59:31 PM Source for my information: 1071. ronski - 6/17/2002 8:38:49 PM I knew of the 1985 report, it's been reported. Still, I think it takes a great deal of time and repetition for these things to sink in, especially when there is as much resistance to acknowledging the possibility of error as has clearly been evident in the Catholic church. 1078. godlessclif - 6/18/2002 9:05:44 AM like potato chips it is hard to have only one. 1079. godlessclif - 6/18/2002 9:07:10 AM 1080. dbltyme - 6/19/2002 7:22:06 AM 1081. dbltyme - 6/19/2002 8:51:22 AM Cardinal Law eyed by Grand Jury 1082. wonkers2 - 6/19/2002 6:36:53 PM They deserve to fry! 1083. dbltyme - 6/19/2002 11:55:52 PM Who could have believed it would take two years, and a threat by her to go to the local prosecutor? 1084. godlessclif - 6/20/2002 6:22:07 AM I would be happy to read a headline that said, "Cardinal Law Fried" instead of "Cardinal Law Lied" or "Cardinal Law Eyed" 1085. rubberducky - 6/20/2002 9:19:34 AM missing posts are in the Inferno 1086. jexster - 6/20/2002 10:58:27 AM Speaking of the firey lake... 1087. judithathome - 6/20/2002 2:38:42 PM Go to Notices & Queries for news of Maria Gleason's passing...sad day for all of us here and on other forums where she contributed so very much. 1088. Property of Jesus - 6/24/2002 7:17:16 PM The Washington Post defends you-know-who... 1089. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 7:21:35 PM Homosexuals who are not pedophiles no doubt trying to shift the blame off the Bishops and Opus Die where it belongs. 1090. godlessclif - 6/24/2002 7:24:46 PM 1091. Goody Hoo - 6/25/2002 9:01:10 AM Interesting link, Property! 1092. godlessclif - 6/25/2002 3:16:53 PM I think I detect a homophobic agenda 1093. rubberducky - 6/27/2002 1:47:35 PM i'm thinking of retiring this thread for now with the understanding that it'll reopen once a significant event occurs. 1094. Property of Jesus - 6/27/2002 2:12:05 PM I think not. 1095. rubberducky - 6/27/2002 2:16:45 PM what Center? 1096. Property of Jesus - 6/27/2002 2:31:05 PM THE Center. 1097. rubberducky - 6/27/2002 2:43:33 PM oh, ok. 1098. Property of Jesus - 6/27/2002 2:53:13 PM You should have never volunteered to host the thread if you have a conflict of interest, rubber. 1099. rubberducky - 6/27/2002 3:02:31 PM whatever. 1100. Property of Jesus - 6/27/2002 3:20:48 PM "whatever" should be your middle name, rubber. 1101. rubberducky - 6/27/2002 3:22:59 PM yeah, this isn't your greatest hits thread. 1102. jexster - 6/27/2002 4:18:13 PM We will have no more Caflic Bashing around here.. 1103. rubberducky - 6/28/2002 8:28:19 AM as somewhat of a parting shot... 1104. wonkers2 - 6/28/2002 3:21:51 PM It's not all that uncommon, in my opinion, for heterosexual males to seek out underage girls. It's impossible to tell who is underage by appearance. My impression is that it's normal for heterosexual males to be attracted to post pubescent teenage girls, and the only things that prevent them from actually pursuing them is their sense of morality or propriety, fear of punishment, lack of much in common, etc. I assume the same is true of gay men with regard to teenage boys. Hetero and gay adults who pursue teens are exceptions, probably in comparable percentages. The percentage who do may depend on a variety of factors such as how well adjusted their normal sex life is (not well for priests),the opportunity to do so without getting caught and punished (until recently fairly good for priests) and frequency of contact with teens (high for priests as in other professions such as teachers, camp counselors, etc). Moreover, the percentage of gays in the priesthood is apparently significantly higher than in the general population. 1105. rubberducky - 7/1/2002 8:19:03 AM i'd like to thank everyone who participated in this thread for making it an interesting read. The Mote | Mote Archive
It would be hopeless to discuss the issue of homosexuality in the Catholic Church with POJ, since his posts here show he merely wants to bash gays.
But Rama is capable of making an intelligent argument. Claiming, as he did earlier, that most of the cases that have come to light involve homosexuals who have attacked teenagers do to poor self control does not advance such an argument, however.
We know very little about the sexual lives of these priests, but most seem to have been pedophiles or ephebophiles/hebephiles, who did not have regular sexual relations with homosexual adults.
Shanley raped a six-year-old boy. The priest he reported on and got sent to counseling raped an eleven-year-old boy. Sex between adults and six- and eleven-year olds is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality, as generally defined.
Ronski is dishonest or confused. I never claimed that homosexuality was a synonym for pedophilia, or that there were not many cases of pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church. I claimed, based upon the reports I have seen, that majority of the sexual misconduct cases were not pedophile, but rather were homosexual, cases.
We know very little about the sexual lives of these priests, but most seem to have been pedophiles or ephebophiles/hebephiles, who did not have regular sexual relations with homosexual adults.
This wrongly excludes "ephebophiles" from the category of homosexuals, merely because they don't have sex with men of their own age as well. They had sex with males who are considered adults by many cultures, though we consider them boys (and I think quite properly so, given our patterns of socialization.)
It would similarly be erroneous to claim that a case where a priest molested a 16 year old girl was pedophilia, and not the act of a heterosexual with poor self control, merely because the priest had not also had sex with women over 18 (or 21 in some jurisdictions).
Do you approve, rama? Do you think, as many in the Church do, that pedo-priests should get a second chance if they say they're really really sorry and promise not to do it again?
Of course I don't approve. I'm not the one posting about a 17 year old taking a 21 year old, who he has been dating for a year, to the senior prom, as if this were fine, fine, fine, merely because they are both boys. Cellar Deary is the one who approves of adults dating teenagers.
NOW!
you did say the kid was your hero...but mostly i think rama is confusing you and ducky...must be all gay men look alike to him.
Of course all gay men look alike to him. All the ones he knows wear black.
Just as we correctly differentiate between pedophilia and those whose drive is to have sex with teenagers who are beyond the development of secondary sex characteristics, we are sophiscated enough to distinguish between an adult who regularly has sex with other adults and who may wrongly have had sex with a minor, and those adults who are attracted only to minors.
But keep trying, Rama. I keep hope that your efforts here are not to promote bigotry like POJ, but to advance a worthwhile discussion.
POJ I've given up on, since I am not inclined to talk about such matters with someone who calls me a deviant. (I rather think that telegraphs a certain prejudice.)
My guess is that Rama thinks either all gay people are bad, or a disproportionate percentage are, and deserve second-class citizenship, but I would be delighted to be shown Rama feels otherwise.
I'm waiting.
If there are any takers for talking about how the Catholic Church can exclude candidates from the priesthood who are likely to glom onto kids, I'm game. But I won't indulge bigots.
This goes for all sorts of situations, not just that of the Church.
I agree. I cite the example of gay-run groups such as the Hetrick-Martin Institute of NYC, however, to show that it is more than possible to prevent perverts from getting their filthy hands on kids. I'm sure you would concur.
It occurred to me, when I heard what an oddly high percentage of the priesthood (and hence, I assume, its upper ranks) have engaged in homosexual activity. They also, of course, tend to not have children of their own. These last two factors could cause them to feel that these reports are not as great a concern as I find them to be.
However, it has occurred to me that there might be another reason they did such an awful job of dealing with these incidents: they listen to confession. When I used to do the background investigations for security clearances, I was surprised to discover that a significant portion of the population live lives that make the plot lines of soap operas look tame. I am not Catholic, so I don?t know how much information actually is passed on in the confessional, but I wonder if hearing the amount of madness and mayhem actually perpetrated by many people, who appear very conformist and stable to most of the world, gives some priests an extremely jaundiced view of humanity. I know this is an occupational hazard for cops, where everybody begins to look like a perp. Is it possible that some priests hear so many crimes that they loose the ability to distinguish between them?
I don't object to such a differentiation (Cellar is the one who objects to the specialized term). I do object to the assumption that these men who have sex with teenagers are only attracted to minors. That is possible, of coarse, but is there a reason to believe it is likely?
Bad guess. Of hand, the only gay person I know who is any worse than the average is Cellar Deary, and he isn't nasty and dishonest because he is gay. He just uses it as an excuse.
I do think gay men are more likely to date teenaged boys than any other segment of the population except teenaged girls.
Irony much?
On what evidence do you base such a statement?
Have you been hanging out in "Datalounge"?
Being an ex-Catholic who has many issues with the Church you might expect that I'd be happy to see the chickns come home to roost. But I'm not. I NEVER imagined the situation would be this bad. Not simply the molestations but the extent to which the Church covered it up and protected the molesters. Yes, they are wicked. But what stokes that wickedness is power and the insistence on protecting power for its own sake.
But when the civil damages reached $100 million, you think they would have wised up.
I would expect it even if you didn't claim to be an ex-Catholic. And I have no reason to believe you aren't happy to see this happen.
They are also likely to have an odd view of money, both due to doctrinal issues, and how they get money.
Your other point is well taken.
Typical.
You have no reason to believe I wouldn't be happy to see your head on a stick.
I agree on the money. I think that the introduction of publicity and depositions in lieu of confidential settlements negotiated by white shoe firms and hidden from parishes will create a new sophistication.
Well that's putting the best possible face on it. But what you're talking about gets to the whole heart of catholicism re Sin and Redemption. It'skind of moral "revolving door." Sin is "expected" and because of Confession, almost encouraged. As a child I had to think up sins in order to confess them. I looked back over what hahd happened during the week and decidd where I had been "disobedient" or something in order to "confess" it to an unseen priest.
For the Church the abuse "didn't really register" because of Denial. Moreover the sins of the laity and the "mistakes" of the prelates are seen as two entirely different things.
The best possible face on it would be "The Devil Made them Do It".
I too made up confessions. But, in the process, it did get me thinking about my real sins.
It's just that you are dishonest so often, I have no reason to believe anything you post.
Now read this.
DAVENPORT, Iowa (Reuters) - A 31-year-old Roman Catholic priest pleaded guilty on Wednesday to conspiring with five other men to manufacture and distribute the illegal drug commonly known as the "date-rape drug."
Rev. Jeffrey Windy of rural central Illinois admitted to the scheme to make gamma hydroxybutyrate, or GBH, which is called the date-rape drug because it can incapacitate its user and is used in sexual assaults on unsuspecting victims.
At the time of Windy's arrest, prosecutors said he was apparently driven by greed after witnessing the immense profits available from the drug's sale.
It would be good for everyone if they were forced to sell it.
Put the property back on the tax rolls.
ALL RELIGION SHOULD BE TAXED!
For obvious reasons.
Message # 672
I have not been around much, so sorry about the tardy reply. Like you, I have no knowledge of these priests' lives and could only guess as to why they would commit suicide. Given the scale this scandal has achieved my best guess is they could not face the almost certain, never ending, public shame.
Thanks for the Breslin link.
One of the things I am discovering is how little one really needs in order to practice one's religion. As the group in the Breslin article seems to suggest, maybe the real blessing that will come from all this is the realization of how little we need those who cling so tenaciously to their earthly power.
Weakland okayed $450,000 of the parishioners' donations to the church as hush money.
All criminals make excuses like that.
"In his statement, the archbishop sought to pre-empt criticism that church money had been used to pay off Mr. Marcoux, saying that over the years he had turned over to the archdiocese the money he had earned from lectures and writing, and that "cumulatively, those moneys far exceed any settlement amount."
Outragious! I wonder how much money he had spent to live his expensive-gay-bishop lifestyle.
SEATTLE (AP) - A Roman Catholic priest who was monitored by an archdiocese-hired parole officer because of sexual abuse allegations was removed from his post after at least a dozen new abuse accusations, diocese officials said Friday.
The Rev. John Cornelius , 56, apologized to his accusers, to Seattle Archbishop Alex Brunett and others.
......................
(And this is extra special)
An outspoken urban priest and a former city police chaplain, Cornelius drew national attention in the 1980s for championing the cause of black adoption and adopting 13 children himself.
Cornelius was first investigated by the archdiocese and police in 1989 for alleged past molestation of a teen-ager, after a church deacon raised concerns.
As in the 1996 investigation, no charges were filed.
OMIGAWD! Thank you for posting that link. That was such an informative editorial. In no way predictable or reactionary. It's nice to see someone bravely speaking out aginst those depraved homosexuals who are unable to control themselves. and I'm surprised, you being such an apologist for those deviants, were the one to show the light. Thank you Property of Jesus for changing my life with that link!
I begged God for "forgiveness"and he flashed me! Can you believe that?
I actually don't care that much for "pornography", it's doesn't do much for me...but a live show, that'll get me humming!
The Vatican wasted no time in dealing with this "scandal" to rid itself of an outspoken advocate of persons with AIDS, of gay rights, wonen's interest, and determined champion of the Gospel's preferential option for the poor and oppressed.
Rightly so, Milwaukee Saddened At Loss of Beloved Cleric
Let the Witch Hunts begin!
T"he purpose of the press is to let the truth be known to the people. But having seen report after report of the sex scandal in the Catholic Church, I am sorry to say that yet again the media is failing us by refusing to tell us that the primary problem within the church is an epidemic of homosexual priests. We know that most victims of these crimes are young boys, and the perpetrators are grown men—why is it so hard to say that this epidemic is a direct result of homosexuals being given authority that they should not have?
We know that some priests fall victim to the Daddy fantasies of horny teenage twinks, walking hormonal bombs given to premature, even spontaneous combustions...err...ejaculations.
Its 2 o'clock, does Rosie know which rectory Lunch Money prowls tonight searching for the father he never had?
Religious life, in all times, cultures, and faiths, have attracted gays. The Creator has given to us a spiritual depth, knowledge, ability, and insight in superabundance.
The dimly lit breeder soul has depended on the Nellie Queen for relief of spiritual poverty through all human history.
Outside the Nellie Fags no salvation for Rosie The Incubus.
For example, our church is full of kids, with the "breeders" trying to keep them in line and have more at the same time while the priests just want to stay between closed doors trying on pretty robes.
Really? What's the fantasy involved with the six year-olds?
How about the 8 month-old girl digitally raped by a priest?
Props finds it more comforting to imagine an "innocent" Church at the mercy of Aliens from the Planet Homo.
Of course if homo votes Republican and encourages others to do likewise, he can even spread HIV and Props will love him.
"The Vatican wasted no time in dealing with this "scandal" to rid itself of an outspoken advocate of persons with AIDS, of gay rights, wonen's interest, and determined champion of the Gospel's preferential option for the poor and oppressed."
The what was he doing working for the Catholic Church?
And why the monstrous pay-off to the aging boytoy?
None of my business other than he had access to lots of other Catholic peoples' monies that they gave to the parish.
And being liberal, the corrupted bishop thought what's theirs is also mine.
Thank God for sparing me from the hell he made for Rosie the Incubus...and for delivering his eldest son to Queer Daddy Love...
And who better for liturgical camp than girlie-boyz??? 
Cardinal John Henry Newman
by Robert Lentz
Cardinal Newman represents the best in Roman Catholic scholarship, whish is the reason Catholic centers on college campuses in the United States are named for him. He began his career as an Anglican priest and a professor at Oxford. He ended his life as a Roman Catholic cardinal. His conversion cost him his position at Oxford, one of the greatest personal sacrifices he could have made.
Newman was a sensitive man who loved people. He believed that “the best preparation for loving the world at large, and loving it duly and wisely, is to cultivate an intimate friendship and affection towards those who are immediately around us.”
At the end of his life he was buried at his own request in the same grave as one of his dearest friends, so that even death might not sever their companionship.
St. Aelred of Rievaulx
Aelred lived in northern Britain at the time when Norman cultural values were displacing more ancient Celtic ways. He was himself most likely a Celt, the son of a married priest. As a young man he was taken into the service of King David of Scotland. Intimate male friendship was common in the old Celtic culture and Aelred became the closest of friends with the king’s son and stepsons.
Aelred was abbot of Rievaulx by the time he was 38 years old. The abbey swelled to 600 monks, largely because of his reputation as a wise and gentle leader. According to a biographer of his time, “He did not treat them with the pedantic imbecility habitual in some silly abbots who, if a monk takes a brother’s hand in his own or says something they do not like, demand his cowl, strip and expel him.” Aelred encouraged his monks to be friends and was himself close friend to a monk named Simon. When Aelred was dying, monks sat all over his bed and “talked with him,” says his biographer,”as a little child prattles with its mother.” Although Latin was the common language for monastic prayer, with his last breath he called on God to hasten ,”for Crist luve.”
Aelred has been called the patron saint of friendship [and fags]. He wrote a treatise called Spiritual Friendship, in which he says, “...what is true of charity I surely do not hesitate to grant to friendship, since he that abides in friendship abides in God, and God in him.”
Not getting away with that one Cllr.
You know full well what I am talking about now don't you?
And why the monstrous pay-off to the aging boytoy?
Nor will I give you a pass on silly shit like this.
Two questions the answers to which you know full well.
- Some homos are generals, some are priests, some bishops, some steal cars, a whole shit load kite checks, even more do speed and fuck, and why some even write Hollyweird gossip pieces
- Some have suffered shame and persecution and persevere, others think they're the Linda Tripp of the Left
Silly faggot,
He fought for gay rights, appointed women to roles of authority in the archdiocese, gave his priests unprecedented autonomy, and during the 1980s, led a group of American bishops in drafting a still-influential letter that called on the U.S government to reform its welfare system and narrow the gap between rich and poor.
His influence was diminished and his critics emboldened to some degree by the traditional policies of Pope John Paul II, but Weakland retained considerable support among the faithful here, in large part, people say, because he was such a genuine, fascinating leader.
He has written or co-written more than a dozen books, speaks several languages fluently and can muddle through in more than a dozen, friends say. Even as he pursued his religious studies, and then led hundreds of thousands of fellow Catholics, he studied music in France, Italy, Germany and some of the best schools in the United States, earning a doctoral degree from Columbia University in 2000.
"This guy is something, you know," said Tom Schloemer, who usually teaches at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., but has been leading one of the city's larger congregations this spring, Gesu Church, as the parish searches for a new priest. "He has made a tremendous contribution. He is one of the architects of the church in America.
"We're all devastated. The predominant feeling is just sadness."
Yup the queer bashers lynched another one, and Cllr's selling little gallows, a 21st century Madame DuFarge
Weakland was hoisted on his own petard, jex.
Madame DuFarge? Surely not. I'm simply reporting the news, not making it. Had I known that Shanley was a Catholic priest when I met him at his Palm Springs hotel back in the early 90's and turned him in, THEN I'd qualify for a Dickensian parallel.
Clearly the Church has meant a lot to you.
It's meant a lot to me as well -- but in a far more negative fashion.
I plan to write about it at considerable length, shortly.
A GAY CULTURE IN THE CHURCH
I sincerely doubt Cardinal Newman fucked Broadway chorus boys. He may very well have been an A.E. Houseman-style same-sexer. But your insistence on clinging to the myth of a heterosexual and celibate Spellman is Beyond Laughable, Props.
In cases throughtout the nation, the Catholic chursh is facing scandals and being forced to pay millions of dollars in claims to families whose sons have been molested by Catholic priests.
These are serious and damaging matters that have victimized the young and innocent and fuel old suspicions against the Catholic church and a celibate clergy. But a related and broader scandal seemingly rests with local bishops and a national episcopal leadership that has, as yet, no set policy on how to respond to these cases.
In January of 1988, we pleaded again for the bishops to act and by the early 1990's victims groups were organizing - and disaffection was spreading.
By 1997, we wrote:
Twelve years have passed since NCR revealed to the wider world that some Catholics priests were betraying their priesthood in the most heinous way, by sexually abusing children.
One might reasonably expect that by now the scandal would have been subdued, that church leaders would have done everything necessary to rekindle the trust of the everyday Catholic and to reclaim the church and the priesthood for the pursuit of holiness.
Instead, we have had 12 years of bishops and others, with a few notable exceptions, doing what was minimally required, too often driven by legal and financial imperatives rather than by justifiable outrage at the violation of innocence and by heartfelt pastoral care for the victims.
This one always gets Rosie of God...
St. John the Evangelist -
The disciple called out specially as the one Jesus "loved"; whose head lay on the Lord's breast at the Last Supper, the man to whose care Jesus entrusted His Most Holy Mother with his dying breath....
Was St. John queer, fundamentally disordered?
And what about Jesus?
In cases throughtout the nation, the Catholic chursh is facing scandals and being forced to pay millions of dollars in claims to families whose sons have been molested by Catholic priests.
These are serious and damaging matters that have victimized the young and innocent and fuel old suspicions against the Catholic church and a celibate clergy. But a related and broader scandal seemingly rests with local bishops and a national episcopal leadership that has, as yet, no set policy on how to respond to these cases.
In January of 1988, we pleaded again for the bishops to act and by the early 1990's victims groups were organizing - and disaffection was spreading. In November, 1992, we reported the following threat:
A potentially crippling rift is growing between U.S. lay Catholics and their clergy, and the issues involve sex and authority in the church. . . These issues have become so tightly wrapped together that they have virtually merged into one. The result is tearing at the foundations of the church.
By 1997, we wrote:
Twelve years have passed since NCR revealed to the wider world that some Catholics priests were betraying their priesthood in the most heinous way, by sexually abusing children.
One might reasonably expect that by now the scandal would have been subdued, that church leaders would have done everything necessary to rekindle the trust of the everyday Catholic and to reclaim the church and the priesthood for the pursuit of holiness.
Instead, we have had 12 years of bishops and others, with a few notable exceptions, doing what was minimally required, too often driven by legal and financial imperatives rather than by justifiable outrage at the violation of innocence and by heartfelt pastoral care for the victims.
"As much as you would like to believe it, it's just not true, CD. I grew up in NY and never heard that accusation before.:
Silly Freeper. I grew up in New York too, Rosie, and heard everything about it.
How old are you, BTW?
The Christian Science Monitor reports that most congregations hit by sexual abuse are Protestant, and abusers are church volunteers. Psychologists tell us that the profile of a pedophile is a white, middle-aged, married male. This would challenge assumptions that sexual abuse of minors is necessarily related to either celibacy or homosexuality. None of this data mitigates the terrible evil and often irreparable damage done by priest abusers who, held to a high standard, violated a sacred trust bestowed on them through ordination.
It has been suggested that this has been blown out of proportion by the media who have given the impression that a large number of priests have been preying on minors. The scandal may be misunderstood at times, but that does not mean it is overblown. One priest abuser is one too many. And, as the CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights said last week: “It is a lie to say that the media created the problem. We created the problem. It is not Catholic bashing to report on it.”
Easter homily delivered by Fr. Bob Oldershaw, pastor of St. Nicholas Church in Evanston, Ill
Rosie...as I understand the current state of medical science there two possible treatments...
one..snip..snip gets to the root of your problem
The other a pill that makes greets those filthy thoughts with wave upon wave of nausea.
I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV...
Consult your physician.
The president is responsible for protecting the children of the country. All of them.
I'm sure the Pope was surprised to hear the discussion but someone has to be straight with him regarding this scandal.
ROTFALMAO!
The problem is they don't want to turn the the priest over to the cops at all.
In fact, they don't even ant to defrock him.
Why?
Because he goes to confession, and lies about being sorry. Then he's got a free pass to go out and do it again.
Sounds simple, doens't it?
Maybe too simple.
To be perfectly honest, I'm stumped.
It's not just "denial." They WANT to keep these guys on.
Honest everyday upstanding honest gays and lesbians are anathema to the Church.
Child-raping priests are to be protected.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- in my wildest dreams I never suspected the hierarchy to be so Truly Evil.
And athiest that I am, I'm sorry for sincere and truly moral Catholics -- both priests and lay people --who are stuck with dealing with the consequences of all this horror.
1961 Vatican guidelines on homosexuality and the priesthood.
You can go on all you want to about an innocent Church being taken over by aliens from Planet Homo, but it won't wash.
The fundamental problem springs from the Church's hierarchical totalitarianism, and it's sado-masochistic imposition of rules for the laity that it doesn't follow itself.
We both know there are thousands and thousands more incidents of that nature wrt pedophilia than with gays. CD's absolutely right--the protection for these priests that was in place in many districts to the detriment of no telling how many children and families--for whatever reason it was handled that way--is the problem the Catholic church has to deal with.
And sorry Cllr for not responding above but Weakland was lifted high on a cross by a bunch of fag bashing hypocrites in the Vatican.
Surely you and I would say now and when it happened, that paying "hush money" for settlement was wrong. But the RCC is in no position to claim that. Hiding homos, in their view, prevents the sin of homosexuality from becoming a "scandal" (ie notoriously evil example). So Weakland, under the RCC view, was merely spending for a good and Godly corporate purpose. And of course, the RCC has been settling REAL tort cases right and left for 20 years.
And just as surely, you would agree that had Weakland been makin kissy face with a 10 year old, the RCC would have sent him off to a parish in Bumfuck USA (pun intended).
So you must agree with me finally that such swift and decisive action was hypocritical and was anti-gay from the get go.
In the end it all comes down to the Church's INSANE view of human sexuality -- which would send to hell mere human frailty, and cover for criminal sexuality when the perp is a priest.
As an order priest, as opposed to a secular priest, he has a vow of poverty.
His lame excuse to the people of the archdiocese that the money was not from the people's donations but from income from rental property, etc., was bogus. He doesn't own the real estate of the archdiocese: the people do. Then he said it was his own money from his books and lecture fees: but that money belongs to his order. He had no business paying hush money.
However, it's true that the Opus Dei-controlled Vatican hated him and was glad to see him brought low.
Hi, Pelle and bub!
(Rosie Joe is a proud member of Opus Dei. He would hardly be caught posting any criticism of the cult. His Leader might tell him to tighten his cilice and whip himself for an extra half hour.)
This is a letter in this week's National Catholic Reporter which, imho, represents the way a lot of old-time (pre-Opus Dei takeover) Catholics feel about the situation.
Hello. Welcome to the Mote.
Thanks for the NCR link. It helped. The follow up answer to that letter in the next NCR article is worth reading too.
And y'all are right. Weakland was wrong. And the Curia almost stumbled all over itself to take advantage of the opportunity to get rid of him.
A six-column account in today's Houston Chronicle of a predator's three-decade meander through the church's pathetic system of denial, delusion, and deceit.
Learn from the Boy Scouts' experience. Zero tolerance.
are you trying to interject fact into a conversation with Props?
No, no, no, that's not how you do it, you have to make shit up, and then link to your post in another forum as documentation.
Like this: Property of Jesus eats fetuses
From what I can tell, almost 100% of those priests accused (or convicted) of being pedophiles are homosexual. I've kept a count.
Teenagers are another matter. But even there, it's the boys who get chosen by the monster priests.
This is not to say that hetro priests are celebate. However, mature weathy middle-aged women have taken many of them in.
In our family, that's happening right now. Both ultra-liberal, Irish-born/IRA sympathitizer priest and my favorite cousin have been an item since her husband died of cancer at 52.
It looks completely normal, and it is, although her grown-up kids don't think so.
CRISIS BRINGS NEW MISSION FOR CATHOLIC LAYMEN
He wants all bad homosexual priests sent packin'...
but, let's continue to keep personal insults to a minimum, even if asked for.
HAUNTED BY WOUNDS OF THE CHURCH: Man Describes Abuse by Maryland Homosexual Priest, Anguish Afterward
But most of these monster priests have no interest in girls anyway, but young boys (anyone under 16 is young to me) are fair game.
Discusting.
He's swimming in it. And he has given his children to the cult.
Thanks Goody; that link was extremely interesting.
After I typed in the code password phrase: "You should be like a carpet where people can step onto," she disappeared.
Good Clean Fun
And cilices.
An ONGOING EXAMINATION of the SEXUAL ABUSE of Children by Homosexual Priests, and its effect on the Catholic Church, its officials and its members.
His links have nothing to do with homosexuals.
Fascinating article on the St. John cult, Joe.
One cult calling several other cults homosexual.
Too good to be true. This is just what I've been PRAYING for, a war of the cults.
That link was hilarious. Reform the Reform, Opus Dei's far-right wing? In the old Roman Catholic Cults thread in the Mind and Spirit folder at TT, I posted a few links to the St. John cult. It was plain to see that it was a con. With its city soon to be built.
LOL
I e-mailed them for their brochure and it came to my house. A fabulous thing, heavy paper, gorgeous graphics, medieval font, misty pictures of the future city. The book itself cost them several dollars to produce.
BTW, all religions are a "con" to the unfaithful, Goody. That's a given.
For the record, I'm not Opus Dei, although the streams of life seem to be moving us into that river.
It's deep and the water is pure.
Instead, they use corporate hardball litigation, spin control and attack their favorite targets as the source of their faults. I'm praying that the church returns to its foundation- increasing the practice of the cardinal virtues, rather than attempting to root out the cardinal vices in others.
What "church", Joe? The St. John cult is a cult, not a church.
>BTW, all religions are a "con" to the unfaithful, Goody. That's a given.
True, but not all religions are cults. Most con their members out of bits of their income, not ALL of it. And they permit them to remain in contact with their families, and they don't force them to spend all their free time recruiting (or spreading lies on message boards) like YOUR cult does.
>For the record, I'm not Opus Dei,
But Opus Dei requires you to lie. FATHER insisted that everyone lie. Stealth. That's his MO. That's why your cult's schools have neutral names instead of bearing FATHER'S name (with all its PURCHASED titles of nobility attached).
>although the streams of life seem to be moving us into that river. It's deep and the water is pure.
Swimming with Hanssen and Franco and Hitler and all of FATHER'S heroes? I'm always curious about why a person would hand his children over to a cult.
Who will win the battle of the cults? Maciel the Molester, the "most powerful man in Rome" according to ABC News?
Or Herrantz, head of Opus Dei, the fascist cult?
Or Castrillon, another Opus Dei fave, the cardinal who whipped the American cardinals into shape at their "meeting" and the one who slapped that ABC News reporter's hand. He's the pope's special emissary to the SPXS cult, which was so roundly criticized in the great article Joe linked.
The cults hate each other. LOL
Stick around...most of the old Fray is still here.
ROME (Reuters) - A leading Catholic newspaper criticized a cut-throat "law suit culture" in the United States on Friday as being partly to blame for the child sex scandal rocking the American Catholic Church.
.......................
The article, headlined "USA -- A Country in the Hands of Lawyers," appeared to be part of a concerted attempt by Catholic media in Italy to take a stand against American society ahead of next week's meeting on pedophilia by U.S. bishops in Dallas.
Oh, boy. Another thing to worry about.
"ronski" says: "Religions generally do not "con" people out of anything. Believers get plenty in return for their support of the faith in question."
But s/he provides no examples of what the gulls get for their hard-earned money.
Ron's Cult sells prayer rags.
(Get yours today!)
"ronski" says: "Religions generally do not "con" people out of anything. Believers get plenty in return for their support of the faith in question."
But s/he provides no examples of what the gulls get for their hard-earned money.
Ron's Cult sells prayer rags.
(Get yours today!)
'long as I got my plastic jesus
on the dashboard of my car.
'long as I got the holy power
God has protected me so far.
Click here, Joe, if you're out of Atkinson's (cheap but strong) Cologne, the favorite scent of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer y Marquis Peralta.
Everyone, including his numero-uno fan, Juan Pablo II, will be wearing it at the canonization!
Why?
Because some survivors have sued to be released from their confidentiality agreements. (See NYTimes this morning.) The bishops think once hush money has been paid, the survivor should stay hushed forever about his sexual abuse at the hands (at least) of a person who holds the Keys to Heaven.
SUMMARY: As the U.S. Catholic bishops prepare to decide how the church should respond to the clergy sex abuse crisis, many gay and lesbian Catholics wait to see if the final plan will address gays in the priesthood.
As the U.S. Catholic bishops prepare to decide how the church should respond to the clergy sex abuse crisis, many gay and lesbian Catholics are waiting to see if the final plan will address gays in the priesthood.
After reviewing a draft policy plan that bishops released earlier this week, Dignity/USA, the nation's largest group of gay and lesbian Catholics, reacted with "cautious optimism" that the document steered clear of linking gay priests with sexual abuse, as some church leaders have done in recent months.
"We are very pleased that in this document, the U.S. bishops are finally agreeing with what experts have been saying all along --that there is absolutely no link between the sexual abuse of children and homosexuality," said Mary Louise Cervone, Dignity/USA president.
The proposal, drafted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse and made public on Tuesday, recommends a "two strikes" approach to priests who sexually abused minors, and immediate expulsion for any priest who commits such acts in the future. All such violations should be reported to law enforcement officials, the panel stated.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference will vote on the proposal during a meeting in Dallas, June 13-15.
Some gay Catholics, however, had a different interpretation of the document's silence on homosexuality.
"An apology is needed," said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a national group that serves gay and lesbian Catholics, "because several bishops, including the president of the bishops' conference, have made dangerous and hurtful statements about gay people."
The Church may not give a second change...but what happens when they toss out their pedophiles...who has to deal with them?
You may find this interesting.
One Priest's Story
Theologians Call For Wider Debate
I went to a Jesuit University for college and l.s., and there was such a seminary neary boy...and yes...kids 14 or so were there...there lives decided forever. I often thought this was horrible and that all groups should be like the Jesuits who don't even consider admitting you until you have a college degree, and then, while still not ordained, you are expected to study, pick up a masters' and also a ph.d. By the time you had been with the Jesuits for 7-9 years, you might be ordained. They screened carefully, and are also a highly intelligent group...they never say "visit with."
None of them were stuck in a seminary with no other options and that is an excellent thing. There will be few Jesuits at this conference...Bishops and the other orders don't much like them...they are too bright, too active, etc., and while they have to, each year, swear their allegigence to the local Bishop, they take their orders from the Provincial head.
Errr, make that allegence,above.
Cardinal blasts U.S. media for homosexual priests coverup The media's motivation, according to the Rodriguez Maradiaga interview, is to strike back at the church for its opposition to abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia -- all of which are legal in the United States -- and for its support for the creation of a Palestinian homeland.
Yeah, the media is getting back at the church for all those things, because heaven knows there is no real problem involving the misbehavior of priests and the church heirarchy worth publicizing.
That much is clear.
What a disaster. Forget an American cardinal becoming a Pope for a hundred years. Maybe longer. Maybe never.
GUILTY AT THE TOP
But if it turns out Law, Daly, and all the others who protected these priests are actually themselves pedophiles, ephebophiles, or practising homosexuals (and I suppose Weakland at least at one time fell into the last category), that would prove most interesting.
But I don't think it's true, either. I think they (save Weakland) are themselves heterosexually oriented men who simply wanted to avoid scandal, or couldn't bring themselves to believe the magnitude of the problem. (And I've yet to see any evidence that the incidence of abuse by priests is greater than occurs in the general population, though that is no excuse for the way the hierarchy behaved.)
Unfortunately, POJ does not so much add to the discussion here as he does promote bigotry and falsehood, as usual.
After all, it isn't nuns taking advantage of kids.
Lots of reasons, especially because boys associate themselves with priests more than girls.
According to my sources, the Jesuits are by far the worst. Probably because they've become the most liberal.
I would be delighted if you would drop your attempts at demonizing homosexuals and be willing to have a serious discussion about all this.
But virtually everything you've posted so far is crap. You don't honestly think that male/priest and female/nun sexuality are the same, do you?
Or have you suddenly become a leftist-relativist because it suits your campaign, at the moment, against gays?
Would you like an honest discussion, or not?
But it will have to wait until Thursday.
School is over for my two prep school boys and I'm taking them to The Manhattan Club in NYC tomorrow morning for three days. Plan to see the musicial "Oklahoma" and a NY Yankee-Diamondback baseball game at the house that Ruth built.
Maybe eat at our favorite hole in the wall in China Town and take a ferryboat to Staten Island.
Did I say "ferry"?
My guess also is that Weakland treated his lover like utter crap.
And the poor old Catholic ladies who devotedly and decently put their pennies into the collection plate ultimately had to pay for this evil.
The evil, it should be noted, had nothing remotely with being homosexual.
Tell that to POJ, who has failed, so far, to enter into any nuanced discussion on the subject.
I don't blame him for ducking the Marxist Cellar (I mean, what good would it do?), but I stand ready, willing, and able, to discuss this.
Any takers?
It's convenient for you to always pull out "facts" from a "source." As usual, you are wrong. A huge percent of Jesuits are teaching at Universities and Colleges in the US and only a few are actually in parishes.
A person's sexual preference, whether it be heterosecual or not has nothing to do with who will be a pedophile. Pedophiles are people who attempt to pray on children of both sexes and are generally staunch memebers of the GOP.
We libertarians are so into property rights, you know. Sorry.
Like Cellar said at the beginning, the issue is how the institution handled it, not the revelation that some sickos have managed to become priests.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/PRESS/2002/06-07-02catholichealthcarewest2.pdf
They've made it abundantly clear that nothing is to be done. The media are to blame. And the lawyers. And the culture. Baaaad Americans!
(Dallas Morning News)
Roughly two-thirds of the top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working, a practice that spans decades and continues today, a three-month Dallas Morning News review shows.
..............................
Now, with the world watching and the crisis deepening, members of the Catholic hierarchy are in Dallas to debate a draft policy on abuse – which does not address church leaders' roles in concealing or enabling it.
Oh and yo mama, don't forget to blame yo mama
Eh. I guess I missed the 'ultimate screaming anti-gay bigotry' part in the Ann Coulter piece, godlessclif. I thought she was stating her understanding of the reasons why the Boy Scouts banned gays (as if). I recognize her name as much-reviled but that's the first article of hers I've read. I found her reference to Norman Mineta quite funny.
No surprises here, judithathome. Thanks for pointing that out, though; I had fun snooping around the different states.
"What are they going to do for me?" he asked. "What can they do for me? I
feel like there's nothing but sharks out there, and I have to look out for
myself."
The Catholic church and any other church, for that matter, is 'for weak people'. A certain kind of weakness that isn't necesssarily always bad.
I regret to inform you that the privelege of changing thread titles at will is now revoked until further notice. Most of you this will not affect at all so I apologize for the interruption to your thread.
IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DYING? by Andrew Sullivan
link to a specific article if you wish to link to something. do NOT like to a general front page like POJ has done in Message # 987.
any such future posts will be deleted.
any issues with this can be taken up in the appropriate thread (read: not this one)
And how ABOUT that bishop of Newark? He said he doesn't believe the dallasnews.com article yesterday "for a minute".
LOL
(Hey, Property, how did you like your cult's opulent new headquarters in Manhattan? Lavish enough for a shrine to Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer y Marquis Peralta?)
Great going with boys rather than our women family folk. No interest in shopping at all, other than Yankee T-shirts.
But we did spend five minutes listening to a terrific subway preacher speaking about Jesus's love for his flock down in the depths of the 34th street terminal.
I told him that he reminded me of St. John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness. He appreciated that, I think.
BISHOPS' SPOKESMAN SHIELDED HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS
Almost all of the pedophile priests are homosexuals.
But let's not be honest about it, motermouths, and let the homosexuals who "host" this thread delete topical posts.
Instead of piece-meal and incoherent innuendo about Opus Dei, I would dearly appreciate a comprehensive breadown on what this "movement" is, where it is coming from, and what its intent is.
The hysterical links don't do the job.
I'm eager to learn more about Opus Dei, more than willing to accept its malfeasance, but spell it out at some length in your own words please. At this point, from this chair, you're yapping like the reverse image of the very funny POJ.
>Goody Hoo, Instead of piece-meal and incoherent innuendo about Opus Dei, I would dearly appreciate a comprehensive breadown on what this "movement" is, where it is coming from, and what its intent is.
Whom are you quoting? I have never referred to the cult as a "movement".
>The hysterical links don't do the job.
What hysterical links?
>I'm eager to learn more about Opus Dei, more than willing to accept its malfeasance, but spell it out at some length in your own words please. At this point, from this chair, you're yapping like the reverse image of the very funny POJ.
"Yapping"? You seem to dislike my posts. Why not skip them and confine yourself to reading those of "the very funny" Property?
He will be happy to take you to his Leader.
Property is breaking the rules about using "monikers" only.
Expel his well-flagellated butt TODAY!
If people here couldn't mess with other posters' monikers and name-call there'd likely be about five people left who hadn't been banned (and I'm ashamed to say I wouldn't be one of them). There is the ROE about harrassing other posters to consider in that regard before getting too carried away, though.
Catholic cults.
The victims' groups are mad!
Text: Dallas Morning News...
increasing the practice of the cardinal virtues, rather than attempting to root out the cardinal vices in others.
Heh
The Child Lovers get to stay in the priesthood, but instead of whatever minimal work they did, they now get to retire to a monastery/resort, and the suckers (the laity) get to support them for the rest of their lives.
While you and all of us hate the crime ad want to take action taken, let's see some practicallity. You'd rather seem them at a resort prison where the taxpayors would support them the rest of their days. I think you want just a simple burning at the stake...okayfine, but start with the Jimmy Swaggerts of the world first.
Right. They should be thrown in jail.
>Some of the resolution requires bishops to refer the matter to prosecutors. I'd much rather have a pedophile priest under house arrest in a monastary
As I suspected, you're not Catholic. (A Catholic would know how to spell "monastery".)
The priests who were in the "treatment" centers in New Mexico were allowed out on weekends to help out in the parishes. Guess what. (But it's okay, because Indian families won't have the money to hire private investigators.)
>You obviously haven't been in a monastary lately..
You obviously have never been in a MONASTERY.
>as within the last 40 years..and btw, many monastaries are self supporting.
Duh. They're like resorts. BTW, anyone who hasn't visited one should do so. Minimal donation, or none, if you're poor. Go to Gethsemane, Kentucky. You don't have to be Catholic or attend services. Although hearing the monks chanting Lauds at 3:00 A.M. in the shadowy chapel is great. Maker's Mark distillery nearby. Lexington, with its great Martin's Bar, nearby. Great food. Et cetera. (Just be careful of the "monks" in the orange suits.)
>Jimmy Swaggerts of the world first.
They don't claim to be alter Christi.
The bishops talked about that in the meeting yesterday. They know that guests at monasteries pay, even those sent against their will. They seem to think, however, that the diocesan money is THEIR personal money, rather than the hard-earned pennies of the poor, and that it's okay for them to use it to support the poor lonely old Child Rapers.
No, I'd just rather see them treated as any garden variety pedophile is treated...especially the repeat offenders.
Jimmy Swaggert committed adultry with a grown-up prostitute, he didn't molest children. There's a bit of difference. If he did this with a 13 year old girl (or boy) he should go to prison like any pedophile.
Judith, I agree with them being treated like other pedophiles and at one priest has already been sentenced to life in prison, a sentence much stiffer than most repeat offenders receive.
As to Jimmy Swaggert...you miss my point. I know he's from your part of the country...but did I suggest he was a pedophile??? NOoOoOo...I did suggest if we were were going to have witch hunts with concommitant burnings we start with him...Anyone who goes on tv and praises his own selfworth, and then comes crawling back with "Oh Lord I have sinnnned, whine whine whine," may be the perfect candidated for a witchhunt.
I don't think you are very friendly regarding Cathlics or priests, but surely you don't think all of them are pedophiles or enablers...and the fact you feel compelled to point out the difference to me, is rather amusing. (Oh, and how do you know he didn't molest children??? He wasn't accused, and mayhap he didn't...but you say it with such certitude.)
I have no idea what Jimmy Swaggert did or did not do; he may have had an affair with a pig named Daisy. I wasn't taking up for the sleazebag; I was saying his sins were not the same as the priests who have been caught in this scandal. I wasn't lecturing you but trying to express my opinion. I couldn't care less if Swaggert is hung up by his heels except that he might like it; he seems relatively kinky.
After the DOLT paragraph, I then went on to address you, and I thought you knew that since I started with "Judith" and addressed your comments.
And it may have seemed like anger to you (I guess I could respond and say "don't project" but I'm not angry at all...been talking to my son, drinking a latte, etc, during this exchange.
You must admit, that would be a low blow. ;-)
What "two southern monasteries?" I mentioned ONE, Gethsemane, former home of Thomas Merton.
And Jesuits, btw, as any Catholic would know, do not live in monasteries. Jesuits are not monks. Ergo, they do not live in monasteries. They do not accept prisoners at their houses.
Westcoast? Not sure what you mean. There are monasteries all over the country.
You're quick to call names, but slow to learn. The "rich faithful" are getting mad at the bishops, too. See yesterday's NYTimes for an article on that.
As far as the "papal gems" go, many of the Vatican treasures were looted from the temples of my Pagan Ancestors. They should be returned to me, not used to support Child Lovers.
You, Absensia, spout out a lot of uniformed drivel. The bit about the "last 40 years?" Total nonsense.
(Read any history of western monasticism to learn how monks in the darkest ages brought agriculture, art, architecture, etc. to the remotest ends of Europe, preserved manuscripts, opened schools, etc.)
And the bit about "weekend passes or vacations"? Read about St. John's Abbey in Minnesota to learn what their priest/prisoners have been up to. (Murder?)
>He was in Jesuits schools from 4th-highschool..the 4th-8th was in a Benedictine run parish...the pastor just gave off bad vibes.
Bull. There are no Jesuit grade schools. And Jesuits do not teach in Benedictine parish schools.
>At the college where I taught,
Bull. You never taught college.
I read the papers more than you or POJ and don't need anyone to read them to me.
Forget you getting any of those gems...they are mine all mine...and I want the red velvet shoes and the popemobile too.
There were lots of catholics in my family long before I converted and from an early age I felt the ostentatious show of display, ripping off the poor to dress up the pope, bishops and cardinals.
Not all jesuits are teachers or missionaries, doctors, etc.,btw,
BUT wait...do I want to give any more info to someone who is only baiting me because he holds repressed anger at his parents or authority or something and only likes to tear down...a critic with never suggestions for improvement???? That would be sooo NO....so you believe what you want, honey.
This is a person who claims to have taught at a college?
LOL
Show me a link to "Mout St. Michael's" or to any Jesuit "monasery". The Jesuits are not monks and they do not refer to their provincial houses, university residences, etc., as monasteries.
>I read the papers more than you or POJ and don't need anyone to read them to me.
Bull. A "catholic" who read papers would know that Jesuits are not monks and do not house prisoners.
>There were lots of catholics in my family long before I converted and from an early age I felt the ostentatious show of display, ripping off the poor to dress up the pope, bishops and cardinals.
Huh? This is a person who claims to have taught at a college?
LOL
>Not all jesuits are teachers or missionaries, doctors, etc.,btw,
Who said they were? The one thing no Jesuit is, is a grade school teacher in a Benedictine parish. And no Jesuit is a monk. And no Jesuits refer to any of their houses as monasteries.
I thought Property was your hero.
>yeah, I taught, yeah I have a j.d. and a master's degree...and practiced law as well as taught policy sci,
Riiiight. Policy sci.
LOL
>business law, and helped work on the beginning of totally online classes. Now baby cakes, what have you done? and BTW, I've got the credentials to prove what I've done....do you?
Post your c.v., and maybe I'll post mine.
>BUT wait...do I want to give any more info to someone who is only baiting me because he holds repressed anger at his parents or authority or something and only likes to tear down...a critic with never suggestions
Huh? This is a college professor?
>for improvement???? That would be sooo NO....so you believe what you want, honey.
Okay. I believe you like to pretend. Lots of people on message boards do that. I believe you're in a cell in a prison, lonely, scared, longing to talk to anyone about ANYTHING. (Ask the chaplain to bring you a book on Jesuit history and another one on western monasticism.)
Wabbit meant it when she said don't do that wrt PJ (or anyone else, for that matter). I'm required by the ROE to remove the offending post. You may repost without the information that Wabbit already asked not be posted at this site. Only what personal information has been purposely shared by the individual himself or herself on this site may be included, and even there we know that Moters will use discretion in that case.
The reason he was allowed to come back as another id is that he wasn't banned, only suspended.
Yeah, it's Poli Sci...but typing fast causes a huge plethora of typos,,,but if they make you feel superior.
Oops ducks, this should have all been in the inferno...I apologize...and you are out of town...Ms. No, Arky, feel free to move it, please...my only defense is PDT... : )
Since there's no topical content, if you'll continue it there, that will be fine.
You might want to copy it over there if you would like Goody to respond.
LOL
Still waiting for the link to a Jesuit grade school in a Benedictine parish.
LOL
Still waiting for a reference to forty years of monasteries being self-supporting.
LOL
The bishops have no authority over Opus Dei. That cult answers to the pope only, and even that is in question. It's more like the pope answers to his Opus Dei masters, Herrantz and Castrillon.
The Catholic Church is truly under fire from these hellish organizations.
And why is Padre Pio being foisted on Catholics today as an object of required veneration. (Catholic MUST venerate saints, and today the weird Pio gets canonized. October for the fascist Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer y Marquis Peralta.)
All I know about "her" are the messages she's posted attacking me. And I'm surprised to learn that the college professor/lawyer is FEMALE.
Still waiting for a link to a Jesuit monastery.
And to a Jesuit grade school (LOL) in a Benedictine parish.
And for her c.v.
But is you like her, Judith, she must be okay. (Come back, Absensia! All is forgiven!)
Whatever Absensia's problems are, they're nothing compared to the Catholic Church's.
Click here for information on the "saint" all Catholics must venerate after tomorrow.
The church has a star in Rev. Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Bishops. Might have been in the running for being the first pope who's American, but Rome wants nothing to do with the liberal U.S. church now.
Sure, most of bishops might be pro-gay, but they seem to get it.
Don't fool around with the help. Especially same sex, especially minors. That's really icky. And expensive. And criminal. And they might be shot by angry Catholics. Takin' it to the streets.
The parishioners are on to them now, and will be more direct with their local priests to protect their sons. Next step is figuring out who the 40% of homosexual priests are.
Peace be with you.
Not these days Baby
The other point is anecdotel. A couple of years before we sent our son to St. Ben's, things were a bit in disarray (I knew this thanks to a cousin who was basically a church lady there.) They had an interim pastor there and he asked a friend of his, a jesuit priest to come and pull things together in the school and establish curriculum. (He dealt with the religion curriculumn.) His friend agreed to stay only one year. Then he went to a secular school where he became principal and also left the priesthood. By the time our kiddo went there, the former priest's wife, who had been a nun, was principal, and we got to know both of them. Very nice people and highly respected.
You want my cv? Send me a note via email, and give me your word you won't disclose any of it, and send me yours.
Your anecdote about a Jesuit teaching grade school for one year in a Benedictine parish doesn't square with your earlier claim. In 1019 you said:
>My son said he never ran into pedophiles, but he wasn't a likely topic, having always been a mouthy candidate. He was in Jesuits schools from 4th-highschool..the 4th-8th was in a Benedictine run parish
Your diction, punctuation, spelling, ("anecdotel", "curriculumn"), name-calling, tale-telling, inability to complete a thought, bad Latin, ("absensia", "grandious personas"), etc., etc., make it obvious that you never went to law school, practiced law, taught college, etc.
I came to this thread to talk about the Catholic Church's problems. You are uninformed about those problems.
The bishops in their meeting did what their Opus Dei masters, Herrantz and Castrillon, wanted: NOTHING.
The cults run weird boarding schools in remote places. Will the bishops send investigators to the Maciel boarding schools and the SPXS schools? How many children, thrown away by their parents, are being raped, beaten, tortured, starved, etc., in those places?
No, you didn't.
>I considered him to be jesuit educated since theprinciple was married to a former jesuit priest
More bad spelling. Just remember, the PRINCIPAL is your PAL. (And her husband's former status does not make your child Jesuit-educated.)
>and sorry you don't like my diction, etc...
It isn't that I don't like it. It's just that it makes it obvious that you didn't go to law school.
>be gracious...and as I said, send me an email and I'll give you info...not that you deserve it.
Not interested in your "info".
>BTW, as far as my life, you don't know shit...you want to be only a naysayer, then fine.
I'm not interested in your life, or in your insults, your scatology, your characterizations, or your tall tales.
I AM interested in discussing the Catholic Church: history, religious life, priesthood, cults, saints, liturgy, devotional practices, scripture, theology, literature, etc., etc., etc.
Any Catholics here?
You haven't bothered to read my posts, or you would see that I have talked about "a facet of Catholicism" in each one. AND, I haven't accused "other posters of lying about their professions." I have simply pointed out the obvious fact that ONE poster is lying.
If you had been educated in Catholic schools, you would have studied logic. You would have learned of the fallacy called Argument from Authority. (If this were a thread about health, and someone claimed to be a doctor and to have all the answers, that would be an Argument from Authority: the poster would be saying, I know more about this than the rest of you, because of my education. If it was obvious that the person was lying, what, iyho, should happen?)
Absensia makes many claims to authority. Here's one example: >>>>>963. Absensia - 6/9/02 9:24:03 PM "A huge percent of Jesuits are teaching at Universities and Colleges in the US and only a few are actually in parishes."
No link, of course, to support this nonsense. Few Jesuits teach in their universities any more. It's a problem discussed in many books and articles on the Society of Jesus.
Another example: >>>>>"A person's sexual preference, whether it be heterosecual or not has nothing to do with who will be a pedophile. Pedophiles are people who attempt to pray on children of both sexes and are generally staunch memebers of the GOP."
Huh? This is a lawyer and a college professor? I suggest you print out Absensia's posts and show them to a lawyer. Ask her if the author of the posts ever went to law school.
You accept that? It's not true. No one educated by Jesuits writes like that. No one who attended law school writes like that. And let her name the "seminary neary boy" where "kids 14 or so" live. (Hint: it doesn't exist.) And the Jesuits do not require candidates to come in with a college degree. Etc.
Why all the false claims? Why all the lies?
Another example: >>>>>947. Absensia - 6/9/02 3:40:33 AM I got to know several of the Misters (Jesuits in training, not yet a priest,)
Jesuit SCHOLASTICS are addressed as Mister Smith or whatever, but no one refers to them as "Misters".
>>>>>There will be few Jesuits at this conference...Bishops and the other orders don't much like them...they are too bright, too active,
No link, of course, to support this conclusion. Cardinal Dulles, S.J., addressed the bishops.
A discussion of an important topic like this is being derailed by a poster making false claims of authority. What is her reason for doing this?
The rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral says that pedophile priests should be "harassed for their sexual sins against teenage boys."
Meanwhile, Egan apologized to the congregation at St. Charles Church in State Island for the clergy's handling of the scandal.
That much is clear.
(What do Scalia of Opus Dei and Uncle Thomas of Opus Dei and Hanssen of Opus Dei and Property of Opus Dei SCREAM while they're whipping themselves? Baaaaad Tony! Baaaad Clare! Baaaaaad Bob! Baaaaaad ___!)
(FBI profilers specializing in sex crimes against children know that "pedophiles" GET INSULTED when accused of being homosexual. The idea of having sex with an ADULT of either sex is REPULSIVE to them.)
Therefore, Opus Dei priests who are Child Rapers cannot be disciplined (LOL) by the bishop of the diocese in which they operate.
Will those homosexuals stop at nothing? Is there no limit to their perversity?
1985 Study - Given Church-wide dissemination
But perhaps I am being too forgiving or naive.
Parish Shaken
Vatican A Breeding Ground for Homosexuals - Special Investigative Report
FOR HOMOSEXUAL CATHOLIC PRIESTS, NEW SCRUTINY
McCloskey of Opus Dei (and boss of the BIG SHRINE to ESCRIVA at the Catholic Information center in D.C. which ALL American Catholics are required to support whether they approve of the fascist cult or not) said on Russert's show Saturday that only 2% of priests are homosexual. When Russert and Garry Wills suggested that scholars say the number is much higher, he just smirked. (Prettily.)
Maybe the seminaries will kick out the old guys (who already have failed at making a successful life on the outside), the low I.Q. guys (the despair of the rectors), the rigidly political guys (like you, Property), the converts (followers of Scott Hahn and others determined to further Protestantize the Church), the foreigners (unable to speak English, much less Latin, Greek, or Hebrew), and all the other misfits who find the NEW Opus Dei-controlled Church so friendly.
(All these types are documented in the many studies of seminaries and theologates. See, e.g, Sr. Katarina Schuth.)
if you have objections, please post them within 24 hours
This thread is now linked into a master list published by the Center. However, if you have a conflict of interest and don't want to be host...
Keeping a list, checking it twice.
Georgia Homosexual Priest Held, Charged with abuse of Maryland Boy in 1970s
so that makes noone interested in keeping this thread thus far.
I warned everyone here about that conflict when you started it.
You have a tendency to take on responsibilites and then lose interest in the results. The homosexual priest problem in the American Catholic Church is far from over.
And I remember you last summer hosting the Redesign Thread without CalGal approval...
What you did to WoW and PR in the "new design" for mote was outrageous. Lots of work done by talented people with no intention of changing designs.
you've had your say and we'll see if anyone else is interested. kindly move on.
God Bless America, Love it or leave it God Damn it.
For Experts on Abuse, Priests' Orientation Isn't the Issue Behavioral scientists are virtually unanimous in their emphatic rejection of a linkage between homosexuality and child sexual abuse by priests or any other group.
learn it, believe it
"The only reason this is even a question is that this is a homophobic society," said Robert Prentky, a forensic psychologist who has spent two decades studying sexual predators at the Massachusetts Treatment Center inside the state prison at Bridgewater.
"Most men who molest boys are disgusted at the thought of having sex with adult males," said William Samek, a Miami psychologist who treats sex offenders and their victims. "Sometimes they choose boys because they are less frightened of them or because they feel a connection with them."
Although some pedophiles are gay, most sex crimes against minors are committed by heterosexual married men. Behavioral scientists say gay men are no more likely to seek out young boys for sex than heterosexual men are to seek out underage girls.
back to top
