Child rape and the Catholic Church

[notachance]

Can we all agree that raping a child is bad?

Now, there have been numerous fully documented cases of Catholic priests raping children.

This is important: I do NOT blame the institution of the Catholic Church for those rapes.

While a case could be made that for the Church to forbid consensual sex among its adults members might enhance the desire to rape children in those members who already have a tendency to do so, but that is NOT the argument I make here.

The responsibility for those child-rapes ultimately rests with those priests who committed the rapes.

Here is my problem: It's an irrefutable fact that the Church, instead of immediately reporting these rapes to the authorities, and instead of using their considerable influence to ensure that the criminals faced the most stringent punishments for their crimes, they did the opposite.

They actively labored to ensure that these pedophiles could continue raping as many children as possible. It's an incontrovertible fact that they used their influence to protect the rapists from justice by hiding their identity and relocating them to new parishes where they could rape again. When they were relocated and they raped children again, they would relocate them again. And again. And again.

This is fully documented and undeniable. If anybody is unaware of the facts, I strongly recommend you watch the documentary "Deliver us from evil", which I think is both on Netflix and Hulu.

That is the problem. If the Church had not labored to protect these rapists and give them the means and opportunity to continue raping, less children would have been raped.

While the Catholic Church is not responsible for the fact that some people are seriously mentally sick and enjoy raping children, they are responsible for every single child that was raped subsequent to it coming to their attention that rape was taking place, and subsequent to their failure to stop further incidents.



Lets assume that there are some pedophiles among the American Atheist Association. I know of no reported cases, but it's not impossible, and let's assume that it's the case for the purpose of the argument.

That in itself does not speak about the morality of that atheist institution as a whole. BUT, if it transpired that the atheist institution was using its influence to enable extensive raping by its members instead of reporting the crime to the police, there would be an outrage. The entire American Atheist Association would literally be dismantled overnight by the FBI, and every upper management executive would spend the rest of his life as the personal boy toy of some prison gang leader.


Raping children is wrong. An institutionalized and systemic policy to ensure that as many children as possible are raped is even worse.

The only thing that's worse than killing a Jew is designing a concentration camp to kill many Jews.

The only thing worse than raping a child is designing an institutionalized system to rape many children.

I submit to you that the Catholic Church's actions are unforgivable, and that it's immoral for anybody to associate himself/herself with such an evil institution.

If you ever donated money to the Catholic Church, it's an inescapable mathematical fact that some of it went to pay off rape victims, pay for the expense of relocating a rapist, and to otherwise prevent rapists from being arrested, thus enabling additional rapes.

While I'm sure that my distaste comes across in this post, I submit that it cannot be called inflammatory, or offensive, or a carpet statement, or otherwise forbidden, unless a reasonable case can be made that anything I'm saying is not true, and that my anger is not justified.

[notachance]

Let me put this another way:

If you were the kind of person who enjoys raping young boys but doesn't want to go to jail, what would be the best profession for you?

What profession would grant you extensive contact with young boys, and very little risk of criminal prosecution?

[dianaiad]

Let me put this another way:

If you were the kind of person who enjoys raping young boys but doesn't want to go to jail, what would be the best profession for you?{/quote

Why, you would join a group that is universally trusted, because its members are more ethical, moral, and more interested in the good of other people than most; who can be trusted to be with young people more than other groups, and is thus more likely to have access to young people than other groups.

Pedophiles go where the children are, just like wolves go where the deer congregate.

This is, you realize, not an indictment of the Catholic priesthood. It is, rather, an acknowledgement of their more then ordinary trustworthiness. Pedophiles who want to hide their propensities and have access to victims do not choose professions and avocations that are viewed as dangerous to young people. IT is counterproductive.

..........or don't you remember why the saying goes 'a wolf in sheep's clothing,' not "a wolf in cougar costume?"

[quote="Mr.Badham"What profession would grant you extensive contact with young boys, and very little risk of criminal prosecution?

Where HAVE you been lately?

For the last few years, a priest is far more likely to be accused falsely...and to be convicted, removed from office and his priesthood, AND prosecuted...than he is to be honestly caught. The pendulum has well and truly swung the other way.

Now everybody is looking for McMartins.

[notachance]

Let me put this another way:

If you were the kind of person who enjoys raping young boys but doesn't want to go to jail, what would be the best profession for you?

Where HAVE you been lately?

For the last few years, a priest is far more likely to be accused falsely...and to be convicted, removed from office and his priesthood, AND prosecuted...than he is to be honestly caught. The pendulum has well and truly swung the other way.

Now everybody is looking for McMartins.

Can you please give me the name of a priest who served time in jail for child rape, but then it turned out he had NOT raped a child and was subsequently released from jail?

Because you do understand that unless you can provide the name of that priest, then what you said amounts to a fantasy-based claim, right?

And to present fantasy as fact is a violation of Exodus 20:16. You understand that, right?

Think again Diana.

If it's discovered that you're a pedophile, are you more likely to end up in jail if you're a priest or if you're not a priest?

[dianaiad]

Let me put this another way:

If you were the kind of person who enjoys raping young boys but doesn't want to go to jail, what would be the best profession for you?

Where HAVE you been lately?

For the last few years, a priest is far more likely to be accused falsely...and to be convicted, removed from office and his priesthood, AND prosecuted...than he is to be honestly caught. The pendulum has well and truly swung the other way.

Now everybody is looking for McMartins.

Can you please give me the name of a priest who served time in jail for child rape, but then it turned out he had NOT raped a child and was subsequently released from jail?

How about the name of a man who falsely accused a priest, caused him to be removed from his calling and disciplined ....without any trial, ruined his life and his ability to be a priest, and was finally caught and sentenced to four years for lying about it?

How about a group that had to be formed to help priests who have been thrown under the bus because of the zero tolerance policy of 2002?

There is Father Murphy, who was completely innocent of all wrong doing but who was required to leave his ministry and his home...at the age of 70, without resources, until the courts got around to dismissing the charges two years later.

Fr. Raymond Larger Who was not only denied his job (and any place to live OR income) until his name was cleared in criminal court, he was not restored until after the CIVIL suit was settled in his favor.

The headline that reminds me most of your posts here is this one: Where the author really excoriates the government of Ireland for letting some 'Pedophile priests' go. He states that they should all, every single one of them, should go to prison.

The problem, of course, is that in the case he was referring to, the priests were not guilty of anything.

I notice that your demand was pretty specific. Does that mean that you did the same search I did, found all those examples of falsely accused and exonerated (after having their lives destroyed without a trial) priests, and then couched your question in a way that skips all that?

There is the case of Fr. Gordon McRae, who has been in prison for 14 years now. He has maintained his innocence, passed lie detector tests. The evidence against him was strictly McMartin type evidence, without any physical evidence to go with it. His accusers got a LOT of money. Lawyers are still writing letters to him telling him that someone is going to sue him, and the church, for money over his alleged actions...people who never lived within 100 miles of anywhere the priest had ever been.

His case is an absolute study in the miscarriage of justice, but it's not politically correct to free a convicted priest. Is THAT why you asked the question in precisely the way you did?

Shoot, everybody completely abandons an accused priest...an accusation is better than an official conviction. Look what happened here; When Ronald L. Bourgault was accused falsely, he was told to leave immediately. He was given NO help by the church, no funds, no support...if the accuser hadn't decided, on his own, that he had accused the wrong priest, Bourgault would be on trial now.

...........and probably convicted.

THIS is what I mean when I said that the pendulum had swung too far the other way, and that we are looking for McMartins. An accused priest now? He has no recourse. A simple accusation is a conviction; a few words, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, will ruin his life. He is immediately discarded by the church.

Because you do understand that unless you can provide the name of that priest, then what you said amounts to a fantasy-based claim, right?

And to present fantasy as fact is a violation of Exodus 20:16. You understand that, right?

Think again Diana.

If it's discovered that you're a pedophile, are you more likely to end up in jail if you're a priest or if you're not a priest?

Right now? If a priest is even ACCUSED of being pedophile, it doesn't matter whether the accusations come from a credible source or not; a mere hint of it will ruin him. From one of the articles I have given you above: "a priest is guilty until proven guiltier."

ARE there pedophile priests? Yes. Not as many, by a long shot, as you seem to think there are, though.

It has become a witch hunt.

[notachance]

Let me put this another way:

If you were the kind of person who enjoys raping young boys but doesn't want to go to jail, what would be the best profession for you?

Where HAVE you been lately?

For the last few years, a priest is far more likely to be accused falsely...and to be convicted, removed from office and his priesthood, AND prosecuted...than he is to be honestly caught. The pendulum has well and truly swung the other way.

Now everybody is looking for McMartins.

Can you please give me the name of a priest who served time in jail for child rape, but then it turned out he had NOT raped a child and was subsequently released from jail?

How about the name of a man who falsely accused a priest, caused him to be removed from his calling and disciplined ....without any trial, ruined his life and his ability to be a priest, and was finally caught and sentenced to four years for lying about it?

How about a group that had to be formed to help priests who have been thrown under the bus because of the zero tolerance policy of 2002?

There is Father Murphy, who was completely innocent of all wrong doing but who was required to leave his ministry and his home...at the age of 70, without resources, until the courts got around to dismissing the charges two years later.

Fr. Raymond Larger Who was not only denied his job (and any place to live OR income) until his name was cleared in criminal court, he was not restored until after the CIVIL suit was settled in his favor.

The headline that reminds me most of your posts here is this one: Where the author really excoriates the government of Ireland for letting some 'Pedophile priests' go. He states that they should all, every single one of them, should go to prison.

The problem, of course, is that in the case he was referring to, the priests were not guilty of anything.

I notice that your demand was pretty specific. Does that mean that you did the same search I did, found all those examples of falsely accused and exonerated (after having their lives destroyed without a trial) priests, and then couched your question in a way that skips all that?

There is the case of Fr. Gordon McRae, who has been in prison for 14 years now. He has maintained his innocence, passed lie detector tests. The evidence against him was strictly McMartin type evidence, without any physical evidence to go with it. His accusers got a LOT of money. Lawyers are still writing letters to him telling him that someone is going to sue him, and the church, for money over his alleged actions...people who never lived within 100 miles of anywhere the priest had ever been.

His case is an absolute study in the miscarriage of justice, but it's not politically correct to free a convicted priest. Is THAT why you asked the question in precisely the way you did?

Shoot, everybody completely abandons an accused priest...an accusation is better than an official conviction. Look what happened here; When Ronald L. Bourgault was accused falsely, he was told to leave immediately. He was given NO help by the church, no funds, no support...if the accuser hadn't decided, on his own, that he had accused the wrong priest, Bourgault would be on trial now.

...........and probably convicted.

THIS is what I mean when I said that the pendulum had swung too far the other way, and that we are looking for McMartins. An accused priest now? He has no recourse. A simple accusation is a conviction; a few words, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, will ruin his life. He is immediately discarded by the church.

Because you do understand that unless you can provide the name of that priest, then what you said amounts to a fantasy-based claim, right?

And to present fantasy as fact is a violation of Exodus 20:16. You understand that, right?

Think again Diana.

If it's discovered that you're a pedophile, are you more likely to end up in jail if you're a priest or if you're not a priest?

Right now? If a priest is even ACCUSED of being pedophile, it doesn't matter whether the accusations come from a credible source or not; a mere hint of it will ruin him. From one of the articles I have given you above: "a priest is guilty until proven guiltier."

ARE there pedophile priests? Yes. Not as many, by a long shot, as you seem to think there are, though.

It has become a witch hunt.

Ironic that you would call it a which hunt, considering it that the term was coined by Catholics who burned women alive for no reason whatsoever. Thank you for reminding us all that this latest one, is just the most recent of a loooong list of evil things these perverts did.

Now, regarding the heart of your post, I have three things to say. First, believe it or not I didn't ask for a "priest who was convicted and subsequently found innocent" because I had some Catholic-style hidden agenda. I asked for that specifically, as opposed to "a priest who was ALMOST convicted" or "convicted but NOT exonerated", because "a priest who was actually convicted and subsequently found innocent" is what it would take to prove your point. I take it that you cannot prove your point.

People getting falsely accused of crimes happens all the time. Happens to black people more than to priests.

The difference is that I personally know the lawyer of a guy who served 22 years in jail for a rape charge, and then was exonerated by DNA evidence. Now THAT proves that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime.

That's the first point I would make. Here is the second one.

Why is it that the police is more forceful in prosecuting organized crime than it is in prosecuting petty thieves? Because organized crime uses its influence to protect its guilty members from prosecution.

Let's assume that there's a kernel of truth to your position. Who's fault is it that this unfortunate situation has come to pass?

This is the Church's fault. Not only is the Pope responsible for all the rapes that each pedophile perpetrated AFTER being relocated/protected, but the Pope is personally responsible for the life of every innocent priest that was ruined as a result of his negligence.

So while I feel slightly sorry for priests wrongly accused (though nowhere near as sorry as I feel for raped children), I don't feel sorry for the evil institution that inconvenienced its priests and (much much much much more important) enabled the rape of the children.

The church can cry me a river.


I's wrong to discriminate against all Muslims because of 9-11. But it is NOT wrong to discriminate against members of Al-Quaeda specifically.

Want to avoid getting wrongfully accused of terrorism? Don't join a terrorist organization. Find some other way of serving Allah.

Want to avoid getting accused of child rape? Don't join a pro-rape organization. Find some other way of serving Jesus.

It's a hard life, I know. But I have zero sympathy for innocent priests accused of rape. All my sympathy is used up for the children their colleagues raped, and their boss failed to protect.

[Clownboat]

If there was no Catholic organization, I believe that less children would be raped. (I am not claiming that there would be less child rapers in the world, just that they would not be protected and allowed to continue, thus less rape). To me it seems fair to blame the Catholic organization for this protection.

The pope could have done much much more than I (likely anyone in the history of the world) ever could to prevent child rape.

I would imagine many Catholics would try to say that the church overall has done more good then harm, but I would think the actual victims would disagree.

To call this a black eye for the Catholic church is insulting. It is much worse than that IMO.

[dianaiad]

Ironic that you would call it a which hunt, considering it that the term was coined by Catholics who burned women alive for no reason whatsoever.

Actually, the term 'witch hunt' was first used in 1885, and is defined by every dictionary I've ever seen as a hunt for someone/thing that is considered to be subversive, traitorous or evil...usually on slim to no evidence. It was used mostly when referring to the hunt for 'subversive' communists in Germany, Europe generally, and the USA.

Thank you for reminding us all that this latest one, is just the most recent of a loooong list of evil things these perverts did.

Wow, that is the most convoluted admission of error I think I've ever seen.

Now, regarding the heart of your post, I have three things to say. First, believe it or not I didn't ask for a "priest who was convicted and subsequently found innocent" because I had some Catholic-style hidden agenda.

Oh, notachance, your agenda isn't hidden AT all.

I asked for that specifically, as opposed to "a priest who was ALMOST convicted" or "convicted but NOT exonerated", because "a priest who was actually convicted and subsequently found innocent" is what it would take to prove your point. I take it that you cannot prove your point.

The problem is that the CHURCH does not handle imprisonment or legal matters. The CHURCH cannot prosecute or jail anybody. Therefore you are limited to what the church can, and does, do.

And what the church does is to punish any priest who is accused of such things, no matter how ill supported the accusation may be. It cuts them off without income, support or legal aid. It does to the accused priest everything that it could do to the legally convicted one, and by so doing, makes it very difficult for the priest to defend himself.

Please note; the priest who spent four years as a 'non-person' in terms of his priesthood calling, without income or place to live, was punished EXACTLY the way he would have been had he actually been jailed.

As well, Fr. McRae's story would tell you what the realities are; he's been in prison for over 16 years, maintaining his own innocence, passing lie detector test after examination, while his accusers settled for lots and lots....and lots....of money. He was offered a plea deal; had he pled guilty, he would have served three years. if he had admitted guilt at any time, he could have been treated far better in prison than he has been, and most probably been out on parole long ago.

He did not, and has not, and says that he will not admit to being guilty of a crime he didn't commit.

Would YOU maintain your own innocence in the face of the sort of pressure he's had to deal with? If you knew that, simply by pleading guilty to a crime everybody already thinks you are guilty of , and for which you are being punished to the fullest extent, you could walk out of the prison gates and be free, would YOU still claim innocence?

Never mind that. If you knew you were stuck there, and the only difference between sleeping 8 to a two man cell (where your fellow prisoners know that you were convicted as a child molester) and a move to a place where you only had to share a cell with one other man, would you still maintain your innocence?

If you knew that the only thing standing between you and freedom was one word, 'guilty,' what would make you refrain from saying it?

I'd never heard of Fr. McRae before yesterday. However, I am VERY familiar with the McMartin case, and so....yeah, I have a real problem with what's happening right now. I'm asking you to step back away from the hysteria; yeah, early Catholics engaged in witch hunts (not quite as much as the early Protestants did, but, well....) how does that excuse YOU from participating in this one?

People getting falsely accused of crimes happens all the time. Happens to black people more than to priests.

.........but you don't think that any accused priest HAS been falsely accused, do you?

The difference is that I personally know the lawyer of a guy who served 22 years in jail for a rape charge, and then was exonerated by DNA evidence. Now THAT proves that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime.

That's the first point I would make. Here is the second one.

Why is it that the police is more forceful in prosecuting organized crime than it is in prosecuting petty thieves? Because organized crime uses its influence to protect its guilty members from prosecution.

The Catholic church hasn't 'used its influence to protect' any of its priests from such accusations for at least ten years. Quite the opposite...and frankly, if it so much as provides legal help to an accused man, people like you cry foul.

Let's assume that there's a kernel of truth to your position. Who's fault is it that this unfortunate situation has come to pass?

The hysterics. And there is far more than a 'kernal' of truth in it.

This is the Church's fault. Not only is the Pope responsible for all the rapes that each pedophile perpetrated AFTER being relocated/protected, but the Pope is personally responsible for the life of every innocent priest that was ruined as a result of his negligence.

Wow.

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You DO realize that the current pope wasn't pope when all this stuff started, right? That he didn't take office until 2005, four years after the 'zero-tolerance' policy was put in place, and that he, himself, is one of the reasons Catholic priests DO get punished as soon as they are accused?

So while I feel slightly sorry for priests wrongly accused (though nowhere near as sorry as I feel for raped children), I don't feel sorry for the evil institution that inconvenienced its priests and (much much much much more important) enabled the rape of the children.

The church can cry me a river.


I's wrong to discriminate against all Muslims because of 9-11. But it is NOT wrong to discriminate against members of Al-Quaeda specifically.

Want to avoid getting wrongfully accused of terrorism? Don't join a terrorist organization. Find some other way of serving Allah.

Want to avoid getting accused of child rape? Don't join a pro-rape organization. Find some other way of serving Jesus.

It's a hard life, I know. But I have zero sympathy for innocent priests accused of rape. All my sympathy is used up for the children their colleagues raped, and their boss failed to protect.

I see. OK. Stalin murdered millions. He was an atheist. Using your logic, I should see to it that YOU are sentenced to jail?

[notachance]

Ironic that you would call it a which hunt, considering it that the term was coined by Catholics who burned women alive for no reason whatsoever.

Actually, the term 'witch hunt' was first used in 1885, and is defined by every dictionary I've ever seen as a hunt for someone/thing that is considered to be subversive, traitorous or evil...usually on slim to no evidence. It was used mostly when referring to the hunt for 'subversive' communists in Germany, Europe generally, and the USA.

False statement (A sin, according to your beliefs). A witch hunt is when you HUNT A WITCH. Which is what Catholics would do. Please be honest.

Thank you for reminding us all that this latest one, is just the most recent of a loooong list of evil things these perverts did.

Wow, that is the most convoluted admission of error I think I've ever seen.

Come again? I don't understand. Are you denying extensive atrocities committed by the Catholic Church?

Now, regarding the heart of your post, I have three things to say. First, believe it or not I didn't ask for a "priest who was convicted and subsequently found innocent" because I had some Catholic-style hidden agenda.

Oh, notachance, your agenda isn't hidden AT all.

true that.

I asked for that specifically, as opposed to "a priest who was ALMOST convicted" or "convicted but NOT exonerated", because "a priest who was actually convicted and subsequently found innocent" is what it would take to prove your point. I take it that you cannot prove your point.

The problem is that the CHURCH does not handle imprisonment or legal matters.

True. They cannot convict a person and incarcerate them. But they can do the opposite - PREVENT a person from being tried, convicted and incarcerated. That's what they did. That's why they're evil.

Please note; the priest who spent four years as a 'non-person' in terms of his priesthood calling, without income or place to live, was punished EXACTLY the way he would have been had he actually been jailed.

Emmm.... NO????? Deprivation of income and housing is NOT the exact same thing as incarceration.

As well, Fr. McRae's story would tell you what the realities are; he's been in prison for over 16 years, maintaining his own innocence, passing lie detector test after examination, while his accusers settled for lots and lots....and lots....of money. He was offered a plea deal; had he pled guilty, he would have served three years. if he had admitted guilt at any time, he could have been treated far better in prison than he has been, and most probably been out on parole long ago.

He did not, and has not, and says that he will not admit to being guilty of a crime he didn't commit.

Would YOU maintain your own innocence in the face of the sort of pressure he's had to deal with? If you knew that, simply by pleading guilty to a crime everybody already thinks you are guilty of , and for which you are being punished to the fullest extent, you could walk out of the prison gates and be free, would YOU still claim innocence?

Never mind that. If you knew you were stuck there, and the only difference between sleeping 8 to a two man cell (where your fellow prisoners know that you were convicted as a child molester) and a move to a place where you only had to share a cell with one other man, would you still maintain your innocence?

If you knew that the only thing standing between you and freedom was one word, 'guilty,' what would make you refrain from saying it?

Very touching. I'd have taken the easy way out even though I'm innocent. Just like the fact that my taking the easy way out would not prove that I was guilty, the fact that he's being stubborn doesn't prove that he's innocent.

Either way, if I were a good and honest priest and discovered that Catholicism is nothing more than a glorified pedophile ring supported from the very top, I would immediately get the hell out of there. Even if that guy is innocent, the reason that he is in jail is partly because he doesn't think that child rape is as big a deal as I do.

If I knew my colleagues at work raped children in the office and I didn't quit my job, and then one day the FBI arrests everybody including me even though I never did any raping, then tough luck for me.

I'd never heard of Fr. McRae before yesterday. However, I am VERY familiar with the McMartin case, and so....yeah, I have a real problem with what's happening right now. I'm asking you to step back away from the hysteria; yeah, early Catholics engaged in witch hunts (not quite as much as the early Protestants did, but, well....) how does that excuse YOU from participating in this one?

How do I excuse my adversity to the Catholic church, as compared to Catholics murdering innocent women? Well, I excuse it like this: Murdering innocent women is wrong. Condemning child rape is right.

People getting falsely accused of crimes happens all the time. Happens to black people more than to priests.

.........but you don't think that any accused priest HAS been falsely accused, do you?

I didn't say that. I just said that there is no definite proof of a priest having indeed been falsely accused. I also said that I have no sympathy for people who choose to stay active members of an evil institution and then end up in trouble.

The difference is that I personally know the lawyer of a guy who served 22 years in jail for a rape charge, and then was exonerated by DNA evidence. Now THAT proves that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime.

That's the first point I would make. Here is the second one.

Why is it that the police is more forceful in prosecuting organized crime than it is in prosecuting petty thieves? Because organized crime uses its influence to protect its guilty members from prosecution.

The Catholic church hasn't 'used its influence to protect' any of its priests from such accusations for at least ten years.

Oh GOODY! How nice of them! After 1600 years of raping children, it's been a whole decade of taking a break from actively and openly supporting it? That is just wonderful! Clearly they've fully regained their credibility!

Hey. I hear that the latest serial killer they caught has been going a solid 30 days without butchering anybody. That means he's rehabilitated. Let's release him!

Let's assume that there's a kernel of truth to your position. Who's fault is it that this unfortunate situation has come to pass?

The hysterics.

I see. You call them hysterics. I call them righteous indignation about priests raping our children.

Could anything have been done to prevent the "hysterics"?

Do you think a mother getting hysterical about her child having been raped might have something to do with HER CHILD GETTING RAPED?

I dunno. I can't quite put my finger on it. I almost think that there is something the Catholic Church could have done to prevent the whole world from hating them.

It's right on the tip of my tongue....

Oh yeah.

They might have not raped so many children.

I think the rule of thumb is this: Rape 1000 children or less, and we'll be a little upset with you and politely ask you to stop.

Rape WAY MORE THAN 1000 KIDS, AND YOU MAY HAVE A WITCH HUNT ON YOUR HANDS.

This is the Church's fault. Not only is the Pope responsible for all the rapes that each pedophile perpetrated AFTER being relocated/protected, but the Pope is personally responsible for the life of every innocent priest that was ruined as a result of his negligence.

Wow.

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Nope. Damned if you do, and damned if you do. The Papacy destroyed the lives of thousands of children and (hardly important by comparison) damaged the life of a few priests.

Again cry me a river about the priests.

You DO realize that the current pope wasn't pope when all this stuff started, right? That he didn't take office until 2005, four years after the 'zero-tolerance' policy was put in place, and that he, himself, is one of the reasons Catholic priests DO get punished as soon as they are accused?

I should have specified. While I believe that the current pope is a criminal who should be in jail, my anger is not directed at him exclusively. I also am appalled by the choices of his predecessor. It's the ENTIRE INSTITUTION that is at fault. The entire Papacy should be abolished.

So while I feel slightly sorry for priests wrongly accused (though nowhere near as sorry as I feel for raped children), I don't feel sorry for the evil institution that inconvenienced its priests and (much much much much more important) enabled the rape of the children.

The church can cry me a river.


I's wrong to discriminate against all Muslims because of 9-11. But it is NOT wrong to discriminate against members of Al-Quaeda specifically.

Want to avoid getting wrongfully accused of terrorism? Don't join a terrorist organization. Find some other way of serving Allah.

Want to avoid getting accused of child rape? Don't join a pro-rape organization. Find some other way of serving Jesus.

It's a hard life, I know. But I have zero sympathy for innocent priests accused of rape. All my sympathy is used up for the children their colleagues raped, and their boss failed to protect.

I see. OK. Stalin murdered millions. He was an atheist. Using your logic, I should see to it that YOU are sentenced to jail?

Wrong. I am in no way affiliated with Stalin and the fact that I'm also an atheist is purely circumstantial. Similarly a moderate muslim cab driver in NYC is in no way associated with Bin-Laden and the fact that he also is a Muslim is purely circumstantial. Similarly you are in no way associated with the Pope, and the fact that you both believe in Jesus is purely circumstantial.

Stalin, Bin Laden and the Pope are criminals.

Members of Stalin's political structure, active Al-Quaeda terrorists, and Catholic clergymen are directly associated with those three criminals respectively.

Me, the NYC cab driver and you are not.

Your argument is completely 100% absurd. To lock me up, or a cab driver, or you, for the crimes of Stalin, Bin Laden and the Pope respectively, would be absurd.

To hold accountable members of Stalin's political party, Al-Quaeda Terrorists and Catholic priests for their direct involvement in the criminal activities of their direct superiors is an entirely different story.

Why do you pretend to misunderstand me?

[dianaiad]

Ironic that you would call it a which hunt, considering it that the term was coined by Catholics who burned women alive for no reason whatsoever.

Actually, the term 'witch hunt' was first used in 1885, and is defined by every dictionary I've ever seen as a hunt for someone/thing that is considered to be subversive, traitorous or evil...usually on slim to no evidence. It was used mostly when referring to the hunt for 'subversive' communists in Germany, Europe generally, and the USA.

False statement (A sin, according to your beliefs). A witch hunt is when you HUNT A WITCH. Which is what Catholics would do. Please be honest.

Notachance, do I REALLY have to quote the dictionary definitions and websites? Really? The phrase 'witch hunt' as it is used today (and in the way I used it) didn't even exist before 1885. Please don't make me pull out the OED.

Thank you for reminding us all that this latest one, is just the most recent of a loooong list of evil things these perverts did.

Wow, that is the most convoluted admission of error I think I've ever seen.

Come again? I don't understand. Are you denying extensive atrocities committed by the Catholic Church?

Now, regarding the heart of your post, I have three things to say. First, believe it or not I didn't ask for a "priest who was convicted and subsequently found innocent" because I had some Catholic-style hidden agenda.

Oh, notachance, your agenda isn't hidden AT all.

true that.

I asked for that specifically, as opposed to "a priest who was ALMOST convicted" or "convicted but NOT exonerated", because "a priest who was actually convicted and subsequently found innocent" is what it would take to prove your point. I take it that you cannot prove your point.

The problem is that the CHURCH does not handle imprisonment or legal matters.

True. They cannot convict a person and incarcerate them. But they can do the opposite - PREVENT a person from being tried, convicted and incarcerated. That's what they did. That's why they're evil.[/quote]

They did do that. They haven't done that, or anything close to that, for over ten years. That's why I said that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. NOW, simply being accused is enough to destroy a priest; no matter how wild, uncorroborated, off-the-wall or strange the accusation, simply being accused is conviction. I fail to see how this manner of handling things helps the true abuse victims in any way.

Please note; the priest who spent four years as a 'non-person' in terms of his priesthood calling, without income or place to live, was punished EXACTLY the way he would have been had he actually been jailed.

Emmm.... NO????? Deprivation of income and housing is NOT the exact same thing as incarceration.

You need to read more carefully.

He was treated exactly the same way, by the church, as he would have been treated, BY THE CHURCH, had he actually been tried, convicted, and jailed. The church did everything to him that they would have done to a priest who was actually proven guilty.

As well, Fr. McRae's story would tell you what the realities are; he's been in prison for over 16 years, maintaining his own innocence, passing lie detector test after examination, while his accusers settled for lots and lots....and lots....of money. He was offered a plea deal; had he pled guilty, he would have served three years. if he had admitted guilt at any time, he could have been treated far better in prison than he has been, and most probably been out on parole long ago.

He did not, and has not, and says that he will not admit to being guilty of a crime he didn't commit.

Would YOU maintain your own innocence in the face of the sort of pressure he's had to deal with? If you knew that, simply by pleading guilty to a crime everybody already thinks you are guilty of , and for which you are being punished to the fullest extent, you could walk out of the prison gates and be free, would YOU still claim innocence?

Never mind that. If you knew you were stuck there, and the only difference between sleeping 8 to a two man cell (where your fellow prisoners know that you were convicted as a child molester) and a move to a place where you only had to share a cell with one other man, would you still maintain your innocence?

If you knew that the only thing standing between you and freedom was one word, 'guilty,' what would make you refrain from saying it?

Very touching. I'd have taken the easy way out even though I'm innocent. Just like the fact that my taking the easy way out would not prove that I was guilty, the fact that he's being stubborn doesn't prove that he's innocent.

No. His passing lie detector tests and the evidence (or lack of same) does.

And it SHOULD 'touch' you. What happened to the ideal of justice that says it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted? Or does that apply only to NON theists?

Either way, if I were a good and honest priest and discovered that Catholicism is nothing more than a glorified pedophile ring supported from the very top, I would immediately get the hell out of there. Even if that guy is innocent, the reason that he is in jail is partly because he doesn't think that child rape is as big a deal as I do.

That's quite an assumption. He's innocent, and it doesn't matter because he's a priest and DESERVES it?

You are exposing your own bias and bigotry a little too much here, notachance.

If I knew my colleagues at work raped children in the office and I didn't quit my job, and then one day the FBI arrests everybody including me even though I never did any raping, then tough luck for me.

.....and if the only thing you did was quit your job, they should jail you and give you MORE time. But...what if you did NOT know? Most priests...indeed, the vast, VAST majority of them, are not, and do not serve with, child abusers.

So...let's see. There have been child abusers found in every area of life; every organization, every church, every club, every career field; cops, judges, teachers, youth counselors, volunteers of every type, politicians, doctors, janitors, field workers and all manner of businesses; employed and unemployed, male and female.

I absolutely guarantee you that no matter what you do for a living, where you volunteer, where you went to school, within your neighborhood...there IS a child abuser. Somewhere.

So...how many things CAN you quit before you simply have to check out of the human race, notachance?

Perhaps the real solution isn't to QUIT, but to join; after all, if YOU are doing the job, a child abuser is NOT.

I am, you notice, doing you the courtesy of assuming that you are not, indeed, a child abuser.

Let's see; according to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, in the last half of the twentieth century (that's fifty years, by the way) between 3 to 6% of priests have been accused of child abuse. That's three to six men out of a hundred priests.

Let us look at some other statistics. By FAR the largest group of child abusers are...parents. Parents are responsible for 80% of all child abuse, whatever its nature. Are you going to quit being a parent? Quit being a family member?

According to Charol Shakeshaft, who prepared a report on child abuse in the schools for the US Department of education, what she found led her to claim that... "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

It is thought that, not that 3 to 6% of teachers commit abuse, but that almost 10% of all school children SUFFER abuse at the hands of their teachers. That takes a lot more than 3% of the teachers.

So. Should all teachers quit their jobs, notachance?

Would you like to, y'know, take a couple of steps BACK?

Because what you are doing here is exactly what I saw with the McMartins. I fully expect you to start looking for devil worship and tunnels next.

I'd never heard of Fr. McRae before yesterday. However, I am VERY familiar with the McMartin case, and so....yeah, I have a real problem with what's happening right now. I'm asking you to step back away from the hysteria; yeah, early Catholics engaged in witch hunts (not quite as much as the early Protestants did, but, well....) how does that excuse YOU from participating in this one?

How do I excuse my adversity to the Catholic church, as compared to Catholics murdering innocent women? Well, I excuse it like this: Murdering innocent women is wrong. Condemning child rape is right.

You don't see the similarity between the medieval hunt for witches and what YOU are doing?

They, at least, had the excuse of ignorance and the honest thought that they were battling the plague when they killed the innocent. What's your excuse?
<snip to end>

I'm done.

[I AM ALL I AM]

[center][youtube][/youtube]

[/center]


CDF orders prominent Chilean priest to life of prayer, penitence

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has found Father Fernando Karadima, one of Chiles most prominent priests, guilty of sexual abuse. The 80-year-old priest, according to the congregations ruling, is subject to a lifelong prohibition from the public exercise of any ministerial act, particularly confession and the spiritual guidance of any category of persons and retirement to a life of prayer and penitence, also in reparation to the victims of his abuses.

G'day.

It is interesting to note that there are those that are within a religious institution that are willing to defend a religious institution FOR HAVING COMMITTED CRIMES.

Aiding and abetting, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, are two of the crimes that they have committed in relationship to CHILDREN BEING RAPED.

How anyone can continue to support an institution, whether religious or not, that to this day continues to protect paedophiles is one of the major issues involved in all of this. Whosoever supports the catholic church, supports the raping of children.

Think of it this way ...

You've got a soccer (football for Eurpeans ) club and a few of the coaches are paedophiles. The club doesn't report them to the authorities, in fact, when a complaint is made, the club simply transfers the coach to another team and allows them to go on coaching and raping the children that they coach. The club is unrepentant of its actions and continues to not cooperate with authorities to bring about the prosecution of offenders.

Would you continue to support a club that did this when such behaviour was exposed ?

Now, is it a case that there are those that WILL and DO continue to support the catholic church, even if it is only by defending it in a debate arena, BECAUSE of a professed belief in the same/similar religious text ?

How many crimes are the religious institutions allowed to commit before the 'followers' stop following and supporting them ?

Religion is a corrupt, sickening perversion that has been propagandised as being its opposite. Even a cursory comprehension of history shows this to be true and reveals the sickness that religion has been and continues to be.


Magdalene asylum

Magdalene asylums were institutions in 19th- and 20th-century Ireland for so-called "fallen women", a euphemism for women who became pregnant outside of wedlock, but often young women were simply put in the institutions because of spurious reasons. Asylums for "fallen women" operated throughout Europe, Britain, Ireland, Canada and the United States for much of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. The first asylum in Ireland opened on Leeson Street in Dublin in 1767, founded by Lady Arabella Denny. In Belfast there was a Church of Ireland run Ulster Magdalene Asylum (founded in 1839) on Donegall Pass, while parallel institutions were run by Catholics on Ormeau Road and Presbyterians on Whitehall Parade.[1]

Initially the mission of the asylums was often to rehabilitate women back into society, but by the early twentieth century the homes had become increasingly punitive and prison like (at least in Ireland and Scotland). In most asylums, the inmates were required to undertake hard physical labour, including laundry and needle work. They also endured a daily regime that included long periods of prayer and enforced silence. In Ireland, such asylums were known as Magdalene laundries. It has been estimated that up to 30,000 women passed through such laundries in Ireland.[2][3] The last Magdalene asylum in the Republic of Ireland closed on September 25, 1996.[3]

continued at ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum


The Magdalene Sisters (2002)
[youtube][/youtube]




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/


The Magdalene Sisters - part 1 of 10
[youtube][/youtube]