The Pope Arrives In Canada

[Guest gentle guy]

>If you truly think that the child molesting priests were

>hetrosexual, I feel sorry for you. Your head is stuck so far

>into the sand, you must be able to see China by now.

>

>Some people will go to any lengths to defend homosexuals

>regardless of right or wrong. Get a grip, before reality

>escapes you alltogether.

 

A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. Some pedophiles are interested in boys, some--including priests--in girls, some in both. The object of sexual attraction is a prepubescent child. Labelling a pedophile as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" can be misleading. Such labelling also perpetuates the erroneous association of pedophilia with homosexuality among the public (and among the RC hierarchy, by the way).

 

I do not think that anyone here is defending pedophile priests (or any other pedophiles). Pedophilia must be stopped, but please don't encourage confusion between a sexual deviation and sexual orientation.

[BewareofNick]

>>Since I can see that you truly do not understand, let me

>>explain it to you. Sexual orientation has nothing to do

>>with whether a person molests a child. A heterosexual child

>>molester is just as likely to molest a boy as a homosexual

>>one.

 

>If you truly think that the child molesting priests were

>hetrosexual, I feel sorry for you. Your head is stuck so far

>into the sand, you must be able to see China by now.

 

>Some people will go to any lengths to defend homosexuals

>regardless of right or wrong. Get a grip, before reality

>escapes you alltogether.

>

>Thunderbuns

 

Do you not even read what people post? I am sure some of the priests involved were homosexual and some were heterosexual, but:

 

SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE BEING A PEDOPHILE.

 

What's even more distressing is someone in the gay community willing to throw the rest of us under the bus for something that isn't even true. Were you not outraged when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church tried to make these cases of pedophilia a problem created by homosexuality rather than sexual deviancy? Or are you that self loathing that you buy into the notion that all pedophiles are homosexuals?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Do you not even read what people post? I am sure some of

>the priests involved were homosexual and some were

>heterosexual, but:

>

>SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO

>WITH SOMEONE BEING A PEDOPHILE.

 

If you would read my original post, you would see that I didn't specify "HOMOSEXUAL child molesters". Nor did I single out ony one sex of victim. I said boys & girls.

 

I really don't care if it is the cleaning lady who sweeps out the pulpit, who is the molester. My whole point is that the Pope, does not have the balls to approve a zero tollerance policy. That makes him an enabler and just as guilty as the person, male or female, straight or gay, who molestes the children. As another poster put it:

HE IS AN EVIL MAN, who expects the whole world to kiss his ring.

>

>What's even more distressing is someone in the gay community

>willing to throw the rest of us under the bus for something

>that isn't even true.

 

Totally false.

 

>Were you not outraged when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church >tried to make these cases of pedophilia a problem created by >homosexuality rather than sexual deviancy?

 

No - not in the least as I believe this to be the probable case. Why are you going to such lengths to pretend that 90% of the priests so accused are not gay?

 

>Or are you that self loathing that you buy into the notion that all pedophiles are homosexuals?

 

I have no self loathing what so ever. And I never said all pedophiles are homosexuals. But....... I do believe that most pedophiles within the church are! Don't try and put words in my mouth.

 

Thunderbuns

[LAShowbiz]

>BUT....... in view of our attempts to abide by the new rules

>for posting here, I think the term "fucking", in this

>instance, was uncalled for and downright rude.

>

>

>Thunderbuns

 

What a "FUCKING" hypocrite... "downright rude"

 

Yeah, you called me "pathetic" on another thread, but after reading your gazillion posts (especially one that attacks a religious figure who should be respected regardless of your personal beliefs), I can see what a small mind you have.

 

Go ahead and reply (as I'm sure you will a billion times... you can have the last word 'cause I'm done addressing you). I wasn't going to respond on the previous thread, but after reading your constant hypocricies, I had to say it...

 

Thunderidiot... GET A LIFE... stop using this board as a social outlet... you really need to see a therapist 'cause your jadedness comes out in every single post. If you don't think you need a therapist, then you should have a heart-to-heart with your parents and find out what went wrong with your upbringing.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>What a "FUCKING" hypocrite... "downright rude"

>

>Yeah, you called me "pathetic" on another thread, but after

>reading your gazillion posts (especially one that attacks a

>religious figure who should be respected regardless of your

>personal beliefs), I can see what a small mind you have.

>

>Go ahead and reply (as I'm sure you will a billion times...

>you can have the last word 'cause I'm done addressing you).

>I wasn't going to respond on the previous thread, but after

>reading your constant hypocricies, I had to say it...

>

>Thunderidiot... GET A LIFE... stop using this board as a

>social outlet... you really need to see a therapist 'cause

>your jadedness comes out in every single post. If you don't

>think you need a therapist, then you should have a

>heart-to-heart with your parents and find out what went

>wrong with your upbringing.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>What a "FUCKING" hypocrite... "downright rude"

 

Temper, temper honey - watch your blood pressure!

 

>Yeah, you called me "pathetic" on another thread, but after

>reading your gazillion posts (especially one that attacks a

>religious figure who should be respected regardless of your

>personal beliefs), I can see what a small mind you have.

 

So you respect child molester enablers. You're sick!

 

>Go ahead and reply (as I'm sure you will a billion times...

>you can have the last word 'cause I'm done addressing you).

 

That's a good decision - now you can get back to shinning you 30 pairs of designer shoes and pressing your $2000 sports jackets.

 

>I wasn't going to respond on the previous thread, but after

>reading your constant hypocricies, I had to say it...

 

I know - the devil made you do it.

 

>Thunderidiot... GET A LIFE... stop using this board as a

>social outlet...

 

I SHOULD GET A LIFE? - when you think the most important subject of social relevance is the selection of your wardrobe for Brazil?

If you can't cope with social relevance issues such as a morally bankrupt religious leader, maybe YOU should get a life!

 

>your jadedness comes out in every single post.

 

Jaded? I don't think so. I just happen to call shit, SHIT, when I smell it. If you want to live in an "Alice in Wonderland" world, that's your choice. I wonder if your marginal involvement in "Show Business" has not blinded you to what really is important in society?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Chazzz69]

What is it they say about conversations about religion and politics? Well here is my two cents as Roman Catholic, former alter server,has relatives who are priests and at one time considered the calling myself.

 

1. North America barely comprises five percent of the 1 Billion Roman Catholics in the world. This tiny number, fed by our secular, materialistic, consumber, and media driven culture is trying to control what the other 95 percent should practice. Growth is occurring fastest in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

 

2. The odds are very likely that the next pope will be from the Third World. Forget the media speculation about the next pope being Italian or a conservative or liberal. There is an old saying regarding choosing the next pontif - "The cardinal that walks in to the Conclave a Pope comes out a cardinal." Meaning speculate all you want but there is a higher level of politics and perhaps divine intervention involved in the selection.

 

I would put money on the prelates from Nigeria, Brazil, or one of the Asian countries as the next pontif. The last African pope was Adrian IV or V (can't remebmer exactly) and that was in the 5th century.

 

3. I served mass for 10 years from grade school until going to college. Druing that time not one of the numerous priests in my parish ever made any advances. In fact one priest was brought up on charges, he was removed and sent to another parish. Which was wrong but that is another issue. I served dozens of masses with this man and never once did try anything with me. (We were alone in the sacrasty many times.) I guess I was too easy for him since I was gay. Hell, who knows if I would have even complained, he was damn good looking.

 

3. Celebacy does not mean that one will not have sexual relations. The Latin root of the word means that someone will not get married. Chastity is the final vow making sexual relations out of the equation.

Of all the priest that I have known in my life not a one of them would make a decent provider for a family in my opinion. There is not enough time or space for me to elaborate on this issue and I am not going to open that can of worms about priests marrying.

 

A parish priest makes very little money when compared to other denominations. The average salary INCLUDING benefits for a pastor is $50K. An associate even less. Therefore, could any one of them support a family on such an income, no. Catholics are notoriously tight with their tithes and some parishes would not generate enough money to support the extened family of priests. The ideal here is that one sacarfices worldly luxuries to devote one's life to service.

 

Besides, celebacy came in to existence in the 10th and 11th cenutries. Until that time priests did marry, however, their wives were inheriting the parishes and the Curia wanted the money so celebacy came into practice since the church would have more control over the distribution of the parishes.

 

4. Finally, I chose not to pursue the instruction for the simple reason I was gay and felt that I could not make the commitment. There are a number of other reasons behind this decision but that was 20 years ago and I have not regretted it.

 

Priests are human just like the rest of us and make mistakes and fail like anyone else. People can rant on all they want about the issues of hypocracy, the money, the betrayals and whatever. All I have to say is, pick up the first stone and throw it if you are without faults.

[+ Lucky]

If everyone had to be free of fault before they leveled a criticism, the wicked and the evil would surely be having more of a field day than they do now.

In discussing the church, we are not talking about a fault. We are talking about a crime and vast corruption. The damage the church has caused millions of people while the fat cardinals lunched at the five star restaurants and flaunted the church's own rules is immeasurable..and continuous.

[CT Dick]

pedophilia is NOT a gay disease

 

>If you truly think that the child molesting priests were

>hetrosexual, I feel sorry for you. Your head is stuck so far

>into the sand, you must be able to see China by now.

>

>Some people will go to any lengths to defend homosexuals

>regardless of right or wrong. Get a grip, before reality

>escapes you alltogether.

>

>Thunderbuns

 

TB, you are buying into one of the defenses the Church has used in this crisis. They are clouding the waters by claiming the it IS a gay issue.

 

The press has made a lot of boys being molested by there are plenty of girls and women, too.

 

Why do you need to demean "homosexuals regardless of right or wrong?" How do things look in China, my friend? ;-)

 

Dick

[Guest Chazzz69]

>If everyone had to be free of fault before they leveled a

>criticism, the wicked and the evil would surely be having

>more of a field day than they do now.

>In discussing the church, we are not talking about a fault.

>We are talking about a crime and vast corruption. The damage

>the church has caused millions of people while the fat

>cardinals lunched at the five star restaurants and flaunted

>the church's own rules is immeasurable..and continuous.

 

 

It is a fault, a crime, and certainly corruption. If the US based cardinals had adopted the policy of Canadian cardinals this issue would not be as widespread as it has become. In Canada they take a slightly different approach which does seek to remove these men from the pulpit and get them treatment. I am not sure of the success of this effort but at least they were willing to take up the issue in a more direct manner than in the US.

 

Its the cover up that is causing this "vast corruption". Had the local bishops been more responsible in dealing with this matter then they would not be in the situation we currently have. Through their own faults and misjudgements they have created a crisis of faith not just for their own flocks but for others as well.

 

They failed their flocks and their priests by not addressing the matter in a forthright and honest manner. Those individuals who needed counseling should have gotten better treatment, they should have been removed, and handed over to the local law enforcement authorities. The families who were victimized should have received fair and just compensation as well as psychological treatment at the expense of the church.

 

Chazzz69

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: pedophilia is NOT a gay disease

 

>TB, you are buying into one of the defenses the Church has

>used in this crisis. They are clouding the waters by

>claiming the it IS a gay issue.

>

>The press has made a lot of boys being molested by there are

>plenty of girls and women, too.

 

If this is so, how come we never hear media reportage of priests molesting girls (can't recall one) while there are hundreds of documented case of boys being molested. I can't buy into the argument that a hetro priest would molest a boy. At best that would make him bisexual,(that dredded word again) right?

>

>Why do you need to demean "homosexuals regardless of right

>or wrong?"

 

How am I demeaning homosexuals? If a person commits a crime, he is guilty regardless of his sexual orientation. Should I defend him just because he is gay?

 

How do things look in China, my friend? ;-)

 

Don't know - haven't made it there yet - still trying!

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>If everyone had to be free of fault before they leveled a

>criticism, the wicked and the evil would surely be having

>more of a field day than they do now.

>In discussing the church, we are not talking about a fault.

>We are talking about a crime and vast corruption. The damage

>the church has caused millions of people while the fat

>cardinals lunched at the five star restaurants and flaunted

>the church's own rules is immeasurable..and continuous.

 

Lucky: We're setting some kind of record here - we agree twice in one week! Is there no hope? :-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Its the cover up that is causing this "vast corruption".

>Had the local bishops been more responsible in dealing with

>this matter then they would not be in the situation we

>currently have. Through their own faults and misjudgements

>they have created a crisis of faith not just for their own

>flocks but for others as well.

>

>They failed their flocks and their priests by not addressing

>the matter in a forthright and honest manner. Those

>individuals who needed counseling should have gotten better

>treatment, they should have been removed, and handed over to

>the local law enforcement authorities. The families who

>were victimized should have received fair and just

>compensation as well as psychological treatment at the

>expense of the church.

 

Thank you - my point entirely. All the Pope had to due to regain his respect in the eyes of many people was to agree with his American Bishops that it was an unacceptable crime and endorse a policy to remove these criminals from their position of trust on the FIRST incidence. Instead he has not done that for whatever reasons, either political or financial. It is commendable that as Pontif he feels his primary goal is to increase the number of Catholics in the world (and by so doing increase the coffers of the Vatican, let us not forget) but this does not give him the right to ignore the laws of the land just because they are not important to him or do not meet his priorities.

 

He is not a law unto himself nor is the RC church. And until ALL Catholics realise this, we are not going to see the problem solved.

 

Thunderbuns

[handyandy]

>Much as Americans like to think that we are the center of

>the world, from the point of view of the Roman Catholic

>Church, we are not. The center of the RC and Christian

>world in general is rapidly shifting to Latin America, the

>Philippines and Africa, with huge and almost unnnoticed

>gains in India, Korea and China. The Vatican, rightly or

>wrongly, views the current hysteria about abuse as a North

>American elitist issue which pales in significance to the

>famine, disease, persecution, and explosive growth

>Christians face in the larger world.

 

A North American elitist issue???

Oh, I see. So it's OK to molest children, as long as they are in Latin America, the Philippines, etc.? Only North American children shouldn't be molested? Or maybe it's only the North American environment that causes priests to molest children, and child abuse doesn't occur among priests in other places (including North Americans posted elsewhere)...

[ad rian]

>the underlying cause of priests' absolutely reprehensible

>behavior is the catholic church's official prohibition on

>sex, including the prohibition on homosexual sex. let the

>priests fuck or be fucked by whomever they want, just as

>long as it is CONSENSUAL.

>only then will the hypocrisy and forced rape of young boys

>(and girls) stop.

 

Oh, give it a restm, buddy! How do you explain the same phenomenim among rabbis. See http://www.usajewish.com/scripts/usaj/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=1363. These anti-catholic diatribes are very tiresome. Why not pick another denomination for a change, or maybe you just happen to agree with their pro-capital punishment and pro-abortion views!

[ad rian]

>I do not think that anyone here is defending pedophile

>priests (or any other pedophiles). Pedophilia must be

>stopped, but please don't encourage confusion between a

>sexual deviation and sexual orientation.

 

I agree, and please end this silly fascination with the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. See below:

 

 

http://www.rickross.com/reference/clergy/clergy69.html

 

http://www.jewsweek.com/society/080.htm

 

http://detnews.com/2002/religion/0203/25/a04-448218.htm

[Guest Dougie49]

THanks Ad rian I thought we catholics were the only one with the problems, the priest the pope. Easy Targets.

[Guest newawlens]

I can understand that people are upset about the behavior of certain priests and bishops, but several of the posts in this thread show a lack of perspective. Ad rian touches on this fact: according to what I have read the percentage of Catholic clergy who commit sexual abuse is about the same as the percentage of clergy in Protestant and Jewish denominations, about 5%. So it is a grotesque exaggeration to say that the Church is full of abusers.

 

What is unique about the Church is not cases of abuse by clergy but the hierarchical organization that makes it possible to conceal abuse. Bishops who helped conceal abuse should be removed from office and if the abusers they shielded went on to harm others then the bishops should be prosecuted as accessories in my opinion. None of the bad behavior by priests or bishops negates the great charitable work that the Church accomplishes in this country and others.

[Guest Chazzz69]

>[... according to what I have read the percentage of

>Catholic clergy who commit sexual abuse is about the same as

>the percentage of clergy in Protestant and Jewish

>denominations, about 5%. So it is a grotesque exaggeration

>to say that the Church is full of abusers.

>

>What is unique about the Church is not cases of abuse by

>clergy but the hierarchical organization that makes it

>possible to conceal abuse. Bishops who helped conceal abuse

>should be removed from office and if the abusers they

>shielded went on to harm others then the bishops should be

>prosecuted as accessories in my opinion. None of the bad

>behavior by priests or bishops negates the great charitable

>work that the Church accomplishes in this country and

>others.

 

AMEN!!!

 

Chazzz69

[Chuck50]

And Alleluia

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>according to what I have read the percentage of

>Catholic clergy who commit sexual abuse is about the same as

>the percentage of clergy in Protestant and Jewish

>denominations, about 5%. So it is a grotesque exaggeration

>to say that the Church is full of abusers.

 

I don't personally know of these stats but I am willing to accept them if you say it is so. But, I don't think this thread was ever about the Catholic Church being "full of abusers".

 

>What is unique about the Church is not cases of abuse by

>clergy but the hierarchical organization that makes it

>possible to conceal abuse. Bishops who helped conceal abuse

>should be removed from office and if the abusers they

>shielded went on to harm others then the bishops should be

>prosecuted as accessories in my opinion.

 

I totally agree. My problem with the whole mess stems from the fact that the Pope, as head of the church does not have the moral fortitude to say enough is enough and put an end to the coverups and endorse the expulsion of the guilty.

 

>None of the bad behavior by priests or bishops negates the great >charitable work that the Church accomplishes in this country and

>others.

 

Who ever said it did? But all the charitable work does not negate the abuse issue and this argument re charitable work should not be used to draw attention from the problem.

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>What is unique about the Church is not cases of abuse by

>clergy but the hierarchical organization that makes it

>possible to conceal abuse.

 

I am not sure I buy that. Every study on the subject suggests that there is no higher rate of abuse among Catholic priests than any other denomination. The real question is why it appears to be more socially acceptable to talk about it with Catholics. Part of it seems to me to be that there is tremendous anti-Catholic sentiment in the U.S. It is possible to portray priests in movies in ways that no other religious leaders are.

 

The real key is not so much that centralized church institutions make it easier to hide abuse. If that were the case, we would hear more about abuse in other denominations than in the Catholic church. Rather, the key, I believe is that the Catholic church represents an attractive "deep pocket" for rapacioius trial lawyers to sue, and from whom to recover substantial sums.

 

That is not to say that church hierarchy needs not evolve, but rather that is a different issue with many other implications beyond abuse. A Catholic church with American style "popular sovereignty" would likely be like other American protestant denominations - a right wing force on issues such as the death penalty and poverty.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>What is unique about the Church is not cases of abuse by

>>clergy but the hierarchical organization that makes it

>>possible to conceal abuse.

>

>I am not sure I buy that. Every study on the subject

>suggests that there is no higher rate of abuse among

>Catholic priests than any other denomination.

 

It could be that if the "rate" is the same, Catholic priests are more visable because there are more of them, given that the RC church is the biggest religious group in the US (as someone else has posted).

 

>Part of it seems to me to be that there is tremendous anti-Catholic >sentiment in the U.S.

 

I'm not sure that I buy this. But if it is true, it could be due to the many other crimes of the Church as outlined in the book "In God's Name" - which I have mentioned on this message board before. As a Catholic, I believe you are forbidden to read it. That prohibition alone should go a long way to explaining the rot within the Church.

 

>It is possible to portray priests in movies in ways that no other >religious leaders are.

 

It is still POSSIBLE to portray other clergy the same way. But it may be that as Hollywood is largely controled by Jews, they conspire to give rabbis a clean bill of health.

 

>Rather, the key, I believe is that the Catholic church represents an >attractive "deep pocket" for rapacioius trial lawyers to sue, and >from whom to recover substantial sums.

 

Now that is the most self-serving piece of rationalization I've heard in a long time. You are in effect saying, "they only sue us because they know we have the money to pay up." This implies that if the victims lawyers though they would come up with a dry judgement they wouldn't take on the case.

 

That's the same as saying if a millionaire hits you with his car - sue his ass off. But if a homeless guy does the same thing - forget it - let him go. While it may seem prudent to act in this manner, it does nothing to address the wrongs that have been committed.

 

Thunderbuns

[BewareofNick]

>>Were you not outraged when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church >tried to make these cases of pedophilia a problem created by >homosexuality rather than sexual deviancy?

>

>No - not in the least as I believe this to be the probable

>case. Why are you going to such lengths to pretend that 90%

>of the priests so accused are not gay?

>

>>Or are you that self loathing that you buy into the notion that all pedophiles are homosexuals?

>

>I have no self loathing what so ever. And I never said all

>pedophiles are homosexuals. But....... I do believe that

>most pedophiles within the church are! Don't try and put

>words in my mouth.

>

>Thunderbuns

 

Actually, I was just trying to put words in your head since there seems to be a large vacuum in there. You are very obviously lacking in the understanding of what pedophilia is and what it is all about. It is not an issue of sexual orientation. It is an issue of mental illness and attraction to children.

 

What you are doing is playing into the hands of the Catholic Church's hierarchy by coming to the conclusion that all the priests that molested these boys are homosexual.

 

One more time:

 

SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE BEING A PEDOPHILE.

 

More importantly, heterosexual sexual pedophiles will molest boys and girls. Homosexual pedophiles will molest boys and girls. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Just because there have been a large number of boys molested does not mean that there was a large number of homosexual priests doing the molesting.

 

What I don't understand is why you are being so deliberately think about this.

[ad rian]

So much thunder in your little buns! Look, I am a lawyer in our two countries, and I hate to tell you that in the U.S. with punitive damages and class action suits, trial lawyers only sue in tort and contract against deep pockets, and invent legal theories until they find a deep pocket to sue. (That may not be the case in Canada yet because of rules that require that the loser indemnify the winner in court cases, but class actions at least are permissible in BC and Ontario so hold on to your hats.) That makes sense because it maximizes their own recovery. So yes, they won't sue the homeless guy, but they will sue the rich guy that gave him a quarter, and encouraged him to stay homeless which, of course, encouraged in or made it possible for him to hit you with his car. (It's not the best analogy since the homeless guy would probably not have a car, but I try to work with your irrationality.)