NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.aol.com/article/priest-scandal/468553?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fpriest-scandal%2F468553

Apparently touching a consenting adult age woman is a heinous crime in the Catholic Church.

Molest a boy, get quietly transferred. Hug a grown woman, be stripped of your duties.

:p

Ugh, priorities are so fucked up.

No wonder they end up all homosexual and all ...

SHe was over-age obviously. :p

No wonder they end up all homosexual and all ...

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/exploding-head.gif

Hmm...Catholic bishop....playing about on a beach...

http://www.channel4.com/video/images/mb/Channel4/video/clip%20images/Father_Ted/Father_Ted_003_006_001_001.jpg

First of all both are wrong in the Catholic Church.

Second, this was done in public and so many more people saw it rather than a few people who could hush it up, which leads to greater outcry by people which means that consequences are dealt out as quickly.

Thirdly, maybe just maybe after the whole child molestation incedents the chruch is going to go overboard on any action that seems wrong.

This thread is full of fail.

This is why I think Catholic priest should be allowed to marry. That and any offsprings they have could also choose to be Fathers, and trust me, there is a severe shortage of Catholic priest.

So much bullshit dogma found nowhere in the Bible. I like Catholic architecture, early music and its drama, but that's about as far as it goes.

So much bullshit dogma found nowhere in the Bible. I like Catholic architecture, early music and its drama, but that's about as far as it goes.

Well, there's also the Catholic charity organizations and what not. Those have done some good.

http://news.aol.com/article/priest-scandal/468553?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fpriest-scandal%2F468553

Apparently touching a consenting adult age woman is a heinous crime in the Catholic Church.

Molest a boy, get quietly transferred. Hug a grown woman, be stripped of your duties.

:p

Didn't fund his Vegas visits with church funds, didn't have money 'resting' in his account, no sign of drink or drug addiction, not Irish...The mans almost a saint.

This is why I think Catholic priest should be allowed to marry. That and any offsprings they have could also choose to be Fathers, and trust me, there is a severe shortage of Catholic priest.

Y'know Willy, here in Australia at the same time all this was going down in the US, the same thing was happening in Australia, however, it was primarily the Anglican Church who found themselves in trouble. Now Anglican priests are actually allowed to marry.


I do believe that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry and might just be a way to increase the clergy.

Y'know Willy, here in Australia at the same time all this was going down in the US, the same thing was happening in Australia, however, it was primarily the Anglican Church who found themselves in trouble. Now Anglican priests are actually allowed to marry.


I'd been under the impression that Anglican priests have been allowed to marry for years, centuries even? Or does this depend where you are in the communion?

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/exploding-head.gif

What is that from, anyway?

So much bullshit dogma found nowhere in the Bible. I like Catholic architecture, early music and its drama, but that's about as far as it goes.

Islamic architecture > Catholic architecture

No, scratch that. Islamic architecture > all other architecture

What is that from, anyway?

"Scanners" - Cronenberg movie.

So much bullshit dogma found nowhere in the Bible. I like Catholic architecture, early music and its drama, but that's about as far as it goes.

In my youth I quiet liked Catholic girls!:D Ahhh the memories.

"Scanners" - Cronenberg movie.

Thanks.

So because some Catholic one is doing this, all are doing that?

I like the way how people build up their generalisations. :)

So because some Catholic one is doing this, all are doing that?

I like the way how people build up their generalisations. :)

To be fair though, there is a documented history of this happening in the Cristian church in general and the Catholic church in particular isn't there. So it is logical to assume that some dogmatic principle(ohh like not allowing priests to marry, and thus ensureing that they can also nevr have sex) of the Catholic faith may well be causeing this. Coupled with the also documented historty of the way in which the Catholic church treats these priests after being caught. Well you can see how normal non peadophillic people may get a bit ansty, huh?

To be fair though, there is a documented history of this happening in the Cristian church in general and the Catholic church in particular isn't there. So it is logical to assume that some dogmatic principle(ohh like not allowing priests to marry, and thus ensureing that they can also nevr have sex) of the Catholic faith may well be causeing this. Coupled with the also documented historty of the way in which the Catholic church treats these priests after being caught. Well you can see how normal non peadophillic people may get a bit ansty, huh?

I don't believe that the celibate is driving them to paedophile adventures. If they can't handle their sex-drive they have several options, like visiting a prostitute. Maybe we should compare figures. I'm rather sure that teachers do count more paedophiles as astronauts. Someone already said before that paedophiles look for jobs where they can have access to children.... But that doesn't mean that all teachers are paedophiles. About most paedophiles you will never heard a word in the press, but when it's a priest, it's suddenly 'news'.

You miss the real message:

Consensual contact = bad.

That's one of the core values, after all. Pleasurable sex, particularly sex that women enjoy, is sinful and dirty. Even having feelings about liking sex is sinful, whether or not you ever act on them. Sexual contact is only okay if you don't enjoy it and regret it after and only did it because you wanted a baby. A woman who enjoys sex at all is clearly a dirty filthy horrible creature, so no man should ever have contact with any consenting female. And since females are all liars and deceivers (thanks Eve!) it's actually just safer for men to stick with raping boys who are young enough that consent is impossible. That way there is no possible chance of accidentally having sinful, wicked, consensual sexual contact.

I don't believe that the celibate is driving them to paedophile adventures. If they can't handle their sex-drive they have several options, like visiting a prostitute. Maybe we should compare figures. I'm rather sure that teachers do count more paedophiles as astronauts. Someone already said before that paedophiles look for jobs where they can have access to children.... But that doesn't mean that all teachers are paedophiles. About most paedophiles you will never heard a word in the press, but when it's a priest, it's suddenly 'news'.

Yes it is news, and I for one can understand why.

So what would you say it is about the Catholic church that makes some of it's priest molest children?

Yes it is news, and I for one can understand why.

So what would you say it is about the Catholic church that makes some of it's priest molest children?

Most paedophiles do not face jail-time. Most of them can control their drive. The ones who can't, deserve jail-time. It doesn't matter what profession they have.

No, I don't like it that people who committed crimes (any crime) enter the news with big headlines, pictures and names. It reminds to the dark ages where criminals were brought to the marketplaces, where the crowd could cheer to the convicts.

If people commit a crime and when they are properly judged they deserve a punishment, but there is nowhere written in the law books that they should not have a life anymore AFTER their punishment.

Also, it is influencing the people with biased 'news'. Lot of people have the feeling that by instance many priests are paedophiles, that youth criminality is higher as before. While it isn't at all, at least not in my country.

It would not be the first defrocking. It happens now and then. It is sad in a way. I agree they should be allowed to marry. They would have to convert to Anglican for that.

You miss the real message:

Consensual contact = bad.

That's one of the core values, after all. Pleasurable sex, particularly sex that women enjoy, is sinful and dirty. Even having feelings about liking sex is sinful, whether or not you ever act on them. Sexual contact is only okay if you don't enjoy it and regret it after and only did it because you wanted a baby. A woman who enjoys sex at all is clearly a dirty filthy horrible creature, so no man should ever have contact with any consenting female. And since females are all liars and deceivers (thanks Eve!) it's actually just safer for men to stick with raping boys who are young enough that consent is impossible. That way there is no possible chance of accidentally having sinful, wicked, consensual sexual contact.

I'll have to remember this explanation. *takes notes*

That's one of the core values, after all. Pleasurable sex, particularly sex that women enjoy, is sinful and dirty. Even having feelings about liking sex is sinful, whether or not you ever act on them. Sexual contact is only okay if you don't enjoy it and regret it after and only did it because you wanted a baby. A woman who enjoys sex at all is clearly a dirty filthy horrible creature, so no man should ever have contact with any consenting female. And since females are all liars and deceivers (thanks Eve!) it's actually just safer for men to stick with raping boys who are young enough that consent is impossible. That way there is no possible chance of accidentally having sinful, wicked, consensual sexual contact.

I can never tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

http://news.aol.com/article/priest-scandal/468553?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fpriest-scandal%2F468553

Apparently touching a consenting adult age woman is a heinous crime in the Catholic Church.

Molest a boy, get quietly transferred. Hug a grown woman, be stripped of your duties.

:p
im pretty sure that fondling a kid on a public beach would get him defrocked even before the scandal hit.

rules is rules no matter which is more strongly enforced. priests are not allowed girlfriends. if it comes to the attention of the church authorities it will be punished.


do you really have a problem with that?

im pretty sure that fondling a kid on a public beach would get him defrocked even before the scandal hit.

rules is rules no matter which is more strongly enforced. priests are not allowed girlfriends. if it comes to the attention of the church authorities it will be punished.


do you really have a problem with that?

I do not have a problem with the attention of the church authorities, but I do have a problem with the paparazzi culture.

I do not have a problem with the attention of the church authorities, but I do have a problem with the paparazzi culture.
me too.

How DARE he break the unwritten commandment ordering priests to prefer little boys!? :p

And for the record, asian architecture > arabic architecture.

So, let's (accurately) rephrase this story:

Employee violates the terms of his employment, publicly and with many witnesses.
Employee is fired.

Why exactly is this an excuse to bash Catholics (beyond the fact that damn near everything seems to be an excuse to bash Catholics for some people)? When you become a priest, you take a vow of chastity before God. You can argue about whether this vow is necessary or good, but you can't really argue that he took it. What on earth would you have the Church do here, just decide out of the blue that it's totally okay for priests to ignore their vows? Because, to me, it seems like religious leaders kinda ought to think that things they promise to God matter.

It's also painfully stupid to claim this is hypocrisy by comparing it to the child molestation cover-ups - because, y'know, the church had the opportunity to cover them up. Do you really think if one of the cases had involved a newspaper publishing pictures of a priest molesting a child, that priest wouldn't have been booted out on his ass, too? I was as disgusted by the behavior of church authorities in those cases as anyone, but accusing them of preferring that priests molest children is absurd and childish. The Church has done a lot worth criticizing. This case isn't it.

Islamic architecture > Catholic architecture

No, scratch that. Islamic architecture > all other architecture
How DARE he break the unwritten commandment ordering priests to prefer little boys!? :p

And for the record, asian architecture > arabic architecture.



Roman Architecture> Islamic Architecture > Asian Architecture.

But this is another thread, gentlemen.

"Scanners" - Cronenberg movie.

Really?

I've seen Scanners a load of times and don't remember that.

So, let's (accurately) rephrase this story:

Employee violates the terms of his employment, publicly and with many witnesses.
Employee is fired.

Employers in the US can legally restrict who you can have sex with?

So, let's (accurately) rephrase this story:

Employee violates the terms of his employment, publicly and with many witnesses.
Employee is fired.

Why exactly is this an excuse to bash Catholics (beyond the fact that damn near everything seems to be an excuse to bash Catholics for some people)? When you become a priest, you take a vow of chastity before God. You can argue about whether this vow is necessary or good, but you can't really argue that he took it. What on earth would you have the Church do here, just decide out of the blue that it's totally okay for priests to ignore their vows? Because, to me, it seems like religious leaders kinda ought to think that things they promise to God matter.

I don't think anybody is arguing that this individual didn't break the stated rules of his job, or that his employer didn't have the right to fire him.


It's also painfully stupid to claim this is hypocrisy by comparing it to the child molestation cover-ups - because, y'know, the church had the opportunity to cover them up. Do you really think if one of the cases had involved a newspaper publishing pictures of a priest molesting a child, that priest wouldn't have been booted out on his ass, too? I was as disgusted by the behavior of church authorities in those cases as anyone, but accusing them of preferring that priests molest children is absurd and childish. The Church has done a lot worth criticizing. This case isn't it.
You just argued that it's wrong to criticize the church because THIS time there was too much evidence for them to get away with breaking the law and violating their own stated rules.

You also seem to have totally misunderstood what people are saying when they call the church hypocrites. See, what is hypocritical is that the church claims to have rules about "chastity" that are so important they have to fire people for having consensual contact with another adult, and they make this claim at the same time that they have been HELPING CHILD MOLESTERS RAPE LITTLE KIDS.

It's not that the Church shouldn't get to have rules, Poli. It's not that they shouldn't get to pick whatever bullshit religious ordinances they want, like chastity or poverty or any of that other shit. It's that the Church gave up any claim to have their values respected or taken seriously when they decided to become a clubhouse for rapists. The Church can claim to value chastity all they want...and everyone should point and laugh and call them liars. :D

I don't think anybody is arguing that this individual didn't break the stated rules of his job, or that his employer didn't have the right to fire him.

You just argued that it's wrong to criticize the church because THIS time there was too much evidence for them to get away with breaking the law and violating their own stated rules.

You also seem to have totally misunderstood what people are saying when they call the church hypocrites. See, what is hypocritical is that the church claims to have rules about "chastity" that are so important they have to fire people for having consensual contact with another adult, and they make this claim at the same time that they have been HELPING CHILD MOLESTERS RAPE LITTLE KIDS.

It's not that the Church shouldn't get to have rules, Poli. It's not that they shouldn't get to pick whatever bullshit religious ordinances they want, like chastity or poverty or any of that other shit. It's that the Church gave up any claim to have their values respected or taken seriously when they decided to become a clubhouse for rapists. The Church can claim to value chastity all they want...and everyone should point and laugh and call them liars. :D

One fairly critical point: to the best of our knowledge, no one is doing this "at the same time" as they help child molesters rape little kids. I mean, if we find out that the priest in the next parish over raped kids, his superiors knew it, and he didn't get in trouble for it, then I am more than happy to accuse them of being hypocritical worthless shits for booting this guy. The thing is, though, as far as I know, that didn't happen, so this thread basically seems like an excuse to shriek about events of several years ago as if they were news without adding any new information to the discussion. I am totally cool with criticizing any church leaders who protect child molesters, but I just don't see the point of this thread beyond standard-issue NSG whinging-about-some-group-we-don't-like, because as far as I can tell, the Catholic church didn't do a darn thing wrong in this particular case. I'm no great fan of the Church - there's a reason why I left it, after all - but I'm frankly BORED with having every single discussion of anything to do with Catholicism turn into "lol, priests rape kids, Catholics are teh suxx0rs."

I guess, to me, it just ends up creating a boy-who-cried-wolf effect, where the criticisms that really matter get buried under an avalanche of criticisms that don't. There are things the Church does that are really, colossally, utterly Not Okay. I don't quite see why we can't stick to criticizing them for those and not somehow trying to rope in "plus they expect their priests to consider their holy sacraments kind of important, those BASTARDS!"

I'd been under the impression that Anglican priests have been allowed to marry for years, centuries even? Or does this depend where you are in the communion?

You are quite correct I used the term 'now' as in a way to introduce a statment or question rather than at this present time.

Hmm...Catholic bishop....playing about on a beach...

http://www.channel4.com/video/images/mb/Channel4/video/clip%20images/Father_Ted/Father_Ted_003_006_001_001.jpg

/win

Ted: Just forget all about it. Just forget about it. Just do not mention the son. Have you got that?
Dougal: I have Ted. The lights are on but there's nobody home!

Really?

I've seen Scanners a load of times and don't remember that.

I'm 100% positive.

A search has revealed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52pXvOFy1A4

/win

Ted: Just forget all about it. Just forget about it. Just do not mention the son. Have you got that?
Dougal: I have Ted. The lights are on but there's nobody home!

Don't call me Len, ya little prick! I'm a bishop!

The people are in shock because the priest actually touched a woman !!!

The people are in shock because the priest actually touched a woman !!!

They take a vow not to, you see.

They take a vow not to, you see.

No, no, you misunderstood my little joke.

Woman is in italics. If it was a boy, it was ok. :)

One fairly critical point: to the best of our knowledge, no one is doing this "at the same time" as they help child molesters rape little kids. I mean, if we find out that the priest in the next parish over raped kids, his superiors knew it, and he didn't get in trouble for it, then I am more than happy to accuse them of being hypocritical worthless shits for booting this guy.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait ten years to see who comes forward.

Personally, I think the history of the Catholic Church and their response to all the previous abuses is enough. Not only are they not apologizing for having sheltered rapists, but they continue to defend it as right for them to do so. The Vatican has stated that helping rapists is the appropriate action for the Church to take. I don't know how more explicit they need to be before people accept that the Church is objectively pro-rape.


I am totally cool with criticizing any church leaders who protect child molesters, but I just don't see the point of this thread beyond standard-issue NSG whinging-about-some-group-we-don't-like, because as far as I can tell, the Catholic church didn't do a darn thing wrong in this particular case.

If you don't understand the function of criticizing an organizations actions in the context of its past actions, then I really can't help ya.


I'm no great fan of the Church - there's a reason why I left it, after all - but I'm frankly BORED with having every single discussion of anything to do with Catholicism turn into "lol, priests rape kids, Catholics are teh suxx0rs."

Tell you what:

When the Catholic Church stops helping rapists, I'll stop bringing up the subject.


I guess, to me, it just ends up creating a boy-who-cried-wolf effect, where the criticisms that really matter get buried under an avalanche of criticisms that don't. There are things the Church does that are really, colossally, utterly Not Okay. I don't quite see why we can't stick to criticizing them for those and not somehow trying to rope in "plus they expect their priests to consider their holy sacraments kind of important, those BASTARDS!"
Which, again, misses the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the church, of which this is a glowing example. The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church should, in my opinion, be pointed out at every opportunity, no matter how large or small, because the Catholic Church is a ridiculous yet also dangerous organization. Ideally, we should all make sure that nobody ever listens to the Church or regards them as anything other than a ghoulish cult, because most of the damage they do around the world could be prevented if only their "Holy" status were taken away.

Employers in the US can legally restrict who you can have sex with?

Actually I believe they can, I have heard of many companies that don't allow people to form sexual relationships with other people working for the same company.

Actually I believe they can, I have heard of many companies that don't allow people to form sexual relationships with other people working for the same company.

If that included brown nosing and rimming I'd support it here, I'll tell ye.

You also seem to have totally misunderstood what people are saying when they call the church hypocrites. See, what is hypocritical is that the church claims to have rules about "chastity" that are so important they have to fire people for having consensual contact with another adult, and they make this claim at the same time that they have been HELPING CHILD MOLESTERS RAPE LITTLE KIDS.

So the entire church decided to become a clubhouse for rapists did they?

Or did some dioceses decide to cover up when members of the clergy molested children?

Was the diocese that this priest was in have any priests come up as child molesters and as you say helped them rape kids?

Are the same people in charge today where in charge back then?

So the entire church decided to become a clubhouse for rapists did they?

The leadership of the Church decided to assist and protect rapists, yes. The Vatican was directly involved.

I honestly thought this was common knowledge by now. It's been known for like 5 years at least, even in the popular press.


Or did some dioceses decide to cover up when members of the clergy molested children?

That as well. Individual dioceses have helped rapists, and the Vatican has protected and defended their actions. The Vatican has also directly protected and assisted rapists.


Was the diocese that this priest was in have any priests come up as child molesters and as you say helped them rape kids?

Are the same people in charge today where in charge back then?
Far as I know, they haven't fired the Pope.

And not only did they not fire the people "in charge," they don't even fire the people that THE VATICAN finds guilty of raping kids. The Vatican has held their own investigations about this stuff for years, after all, and when they find somebody guilty the punishment is usually that the offender is moved to a new congregation where nobody will know they are a rapist.

Far as I know, they haven't fired the Pope.

And not only did they not fire the people "in charge," they don't even fire the people that THE VATICAN finds guilty of raping kids. The Vatican has held their own investigations about this stuff for years, after all, and when they find somebody guilty the punishment is usually that the offender is moved to a new congregation where nobody will know they are a rapist.

But we do have a different Pope do we not?

And is there any evidence that Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul I or Paul IV was directly involved in the cover ups?

And was the diocese that this priest apart of had any members of their clergy to be found gulty of child molesters? If so was the Bishop of the time the same Bishop now?

But we do have a different Pope do we not?
Well yeah, they do replace them when they die.


And is there any evidence that Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul I or Paul IV was directly involved in the cover ups?

Are you kidding?

There is specific documentation, confirmed as genuine by the Church, instructing bishops to cover up sexual abuse on pain of excommunication. (To be clear: sexual abuse would not be punished with excommunication, but failing to cover it up would be.) If memory serves, the earliest document giving this order dates from the 1960s, and the most recent document upholding the order was from the late 1990s or early 2000s.

Seriously, this was in all the papers like 5 years ago.


And was the diocese that this priest apart of had any members of their clergy to be found gulty of child molesters? If so was the Bishop of the time the same Bishop now?
I don't know what you mean by "this priest" or "the Bishop." These orders involved all bishops and all priests who are answerable to the Vatican.

Maybe the Church should just let Catholic priests marry other Catholic priests

Maybe the Church should just let Catholic priests marry other Catholic priests
Well, that would require them to give up either their fag-hate or their woman-hate, so I certainly think it would help. :D

Well yeah, they do replace them when they die.

Yes...

Are you kidding?

There is specific documentation, confirmed as genuine by the Church, instructing bishops to cover up sexual abuse on pain of excommunication. (To be clear: sexual abuse would not be punished with excommunication, but failing to cover it up would be.) If memory serves, the earliest document giving this order dates from the 1960s, and the most recent document upholding the order was from the late 1990s or early 2000s.

Seriously, this was in all the papers like 5 years ago.

Good then you mind linking some of these articles and maybe even copies of this specific documentation.


I don't know what you mean by "this priest" or "the Bishop." These orders involved all bishops and all priests who are answerable to the Vatican.

I am talking about the incident that has bee described in the OP.

People may wish to link the actions of some priests and bishops decades ago, and say well now these officials are hypocrites cause they didn't do the same in the 1980's well are they the same people?

Maybe since the church has been found out and will now be under a lot of scrutiny has decided to be even harsher than before.

Well, that would require them to give up either their fag-hate or their woman-hate, so I certainly think it would help. :D

:rolleyes:

Maybe since the church has been found out and will now be under a lot of scrutiny has decided to be even harsher than before.


Yeah right. Bottle is correct, this IS common knowledge and has been now for many years, we know that it went on in the 60's and is still going on today. If the church has not changed their stance for 40 years then what makes you think they will now?

If you don't understand the function of criticizing an organizations actions in the context of its past actions, then I really can't help ya.

Of course I do, when those actions have anything to do with each other.

Tell you what:

When the Catholic Church stops helping rapists, I'll stop bringing up the subject.

I'm not at all suggesting you stop bringing up the subject. I'm just suggesting it should perhaps be brought up in discussions of how the Catholic Church has helped rapists, rather than how the Catholic Church isn't okay with priests making out with chicks on the beach.

Which, again, misses the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the church, of which this is a glowing example. The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church should, in my opinion, be pointed out at every opportunity, no matter how large or small, because the Catholic Church is a ridiculous yet also dangerous organization. Ideally, we should all make sure that nobody ever listens to the Church or regards them as anything other than a ghoulish cult, because most of the damage they do around the world could be prevented if only their "Holy" status were taken away.

Eh, here we disagree, and here's where I see the problem - because, to me, this ends up reading less like "I object to the actual exceedingly not-okay policies the Church supports" and more like "I object to Catholicism, full stop" - and seeing as I know lots of wonderful Catholics (I come from a whole big family of 'em), I really can't agree with the idea that Catholicism in itself is so very bad. I leave calling for the destruction of other people's religions to people like Ann Coulter, and stick to criticizing the things those religions actually do wrong myself.

So much bullshit dogma found nowhere in the Bible. I like Catholic architecture, early music and its drama, but that's about as far as it goes.

1 Tim. Chapter 4 says:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

:)

Cuban American Father Alberto is very popular and loved in the Cuban American community. As in the general community of Miami. Very popular in Puerto Rico as well.

God Bless Father Alberto.

I don't know how more explicit they need to be before people accept that the Church is objectively pro-rape.


The way I see it, they see the desire to rape as more of an illness, and that these priests suffering from it need help and treatment or counselling that I suppose they think the catholic church has a duty to provide, instead of just shunning them which I suspect they think will probably make it worse. Priests that engage in mere sexual pleasure with women would not be seen as an illness that needs to be addressed, it's a normal function of man, and so is just a flat out breaking of vows that priests are required to keep for them to keep their job. Whereas the Catholic Church may view the rapists as having major psychological issues which excuse them from full responsibility.

Of course I do, when those actions have anything to do with each other.



I'm not at all suggesting you stop bringing up the subject. I'm just suggesting it should perhaps be brought up in discussions of how the Catholic Church has helped rapists, rather than how the Catholic Church isn't okay with priests making out with chicks on the beach.



Eh, here we disagree, and here's where I see the problem - because, to me, this ends up reading less like "I object to the actual exceedingly not-okay policies the Church supports" and more like "I object to Catholicism, full stop" - and seeing as I know lots of wonderful Catholics (I come from a whole big family of 'em), I really can't agree with the idea that Catholicism in itself is so very bad. I leave calling for the destruction of other people's religions to people like Ann Coulter, and stick to criticizing the things those religions actually do wrong myself.

You could make the argument that if they are 'very wonderful', they're not 'Catholics'.

Based on the fact that things like the sex scandal cover-ups come from the very highest level, and thus, are institutional.

You could make the argument that if they are 'very wonderful', they're not 'Catholics'.


One could make that argument, but given your username, I don't think I really have to explain why it wouldn't be a particularly persuasive one.

One could make that argument, but given your username, I don't think I really have to explain why it wouldn't be a particularly persuasive one.

I would guess it would be because you have already established that you have a bias that won't let you be objective?

I love it when christians of some weird subdivison (by instance the real newborn again christians) cry out loud that christianity is the biggest religious force on the planet and thus count their catholic brothers and sisters as well. But when some catholic priest is touching some woman then they do their best to run away from those same catholic brothers and sisters. Suddenly they are another religion.

I love it as well when they think that their priests do not touch women or little boys. No, we don't do that here, sir :)