N.J. priests arrested in Canadian sex case

[Guest ssn774]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/27/priests.arrested/index.html

 

N.J. priests arrested in Canadian sex case.

 

NEWARK, New Jersey (CNN) -- Two New Jersey priests, including the former head of the Seton Hall Prep school, were arrested last week in Montreal, Canada, on charges of soliciting sex with minors, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Newark said.

 

The July 18 arrests resulted from a police sting operation targeting a prostitution ring that employed boys as young as 14. Canadian police said most of the clientele were Americans.

[ad rian]

>N.J. priests arrested in Canadian sex case.

 

 

Ho hum. What a bore. Why don't we hear of rabbis who molest? I find these anti-catholic diatribes to be both hypocritical and tiresome!

[Guest Hole_4_Hire]

...Why don't we hear of rabbis who molest?

 

I believe that is called circumcision!!

 

(Maybe you should start another thread.)

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>N.J. priests arrested in Canadian sex case.

>

>

>Ho hum. What a bore. Why don't we hear of rabbis who

>molest? I find these anti-catholic diatribes to be both

>hypocritical and tiresome!

 

I'm sure if rabbis had been caught in this sting we would have heard about them too. Why do you consider that reporting factual news is "hypocritical"? Just because you're Catholic?

 

As a Canadian, I'm disgusted to hear that 14 year old boys were being offered for sexual purposes in a city I used to live in. But I don't know how I could ever conclude the reporting of same was hypocritical.

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>I'm sure if rabbis had been caught in this sting we would

>have heard about them too. Why do you consider that

>reporting factual news is "hypocritical"? Just because

>you're Catholic?

 

I am not sure it would be reported widely. Did you read the links I provided on the other thread? As I have pointed out on the other thread, the publicity of these incidents with Ccatholic priests has something to do with anti-Catholic sentiment and the deep pockets of the Church. Until I see a Hollywood movie depicting a Hasidic rabbi abusing a child, I will continue to find the targeting oif Catholic priests to be tiresome and hypocritical.

[CT Dick]

Ad rian, I think the issue is more than just the abuse. It is also the systematic cover-up by the church.

 

It was widely reported in greater NYC that the cantor of Temple Emanuel on 5th Avenue, the premier reformed synagog in the City, was arrested for molesting his nephew.

 

The priests also stand out more because the RCC is the largest single denomination in the USA (There are sooo many more priests than rabbis.) and they all are unmarried without a legit outlet for their sexual urges.

 

It's not as if the Catholic clergy is being villified while the Lutherans are getting a free pass on child abuse.

 

Dick

[ad rian]

>The priests also stand out more because the RCC is the

>largest single denomination in the USA (There are sooo many

>more priests than rabbis.) and they all are unmarried

>without a legit outlet for their sexual urges.

 

I really don't see what celibacy has to do with it. If the stats are correct that there is no greater incidence of abuse in the catholic church than in others, what is the statistical significance of celibacy as a causal factor? I think you need to look deeper in the culture to try to understand the extent of anti-catholicism in the U.S.

 

>It's not as if the Catholic clergy is being villified while

>the Lutherans are getting a free pass on child abuse.

 

I just don't see that it gets anywhere near the same media coverage or "artistic" representation in movies. In fact, I do think that other denominations do in fact hide behind catholic skirts on this one.

[jack]

Ad, you're simply in a state-of-denial. That's dangerous, because when you're in a state of denial, you don't do anything, you sit there frozen. Its not healthy to be in a state of denial. You reflect Cardinal Law's logistical history which in his state of denial, sheltered the animal villians. You just don't get it. You automatically look for blame elsewhere, some other cause that caused this, other than 80 priests in Boston alone did this to our kids. We catholics don't need people like you at this late stage of this exposition continuing to deniel the sabotage of our faith. Get real.

[ad rian]

>Ad, you're simply in a state-of-denial.

 

Oh well, if you are right, than what can one say of the denial of the Jews and Protestants who choose to attack the abuse of a few catholic priests rather than tham that of their own. This whole debate is laughable. I don't excuse a few incidents of catholic infedelity, but I think t it is truly amusing that so few have the courage to confront abuse by jewish rabbis and other forms of protestants. Perhaps, it is simply too close to your own homes? I have always wondered what percentage of gays where abused. When I read these anti-catholic diatribes, I come to suspect that much more abuse has taken place, and that for not a few of you it is easier to strike out at a priest than your own rabbis. How sad, but I will pray for you nonetheless.

[+ deej]

>I think t it is

>truly amusing that so few have the courage to confront abuse

>by jewish rabbis and other forms of protestants.

 

And the rest of us find it amazing that you can completely and blithely dismiss the sociological differences involved and proffer a myopic view of a world which, frankly, does not exist.

 

As usual, Ad, you are over the top. Of course, you can never be wrong reg ... errr ... ad rian. We'll just let you drool on here unhampered by facts.

 

I'm sure any Jews who post here will be just thrilled to be described as "other forms of protestants". Nicely done, dude. You've denigrated one of the most gracious cultures on the planet, equated it to one of the most nebulous, and thumbed your nose at the entire non-Catholic world.

 

Go ahead and pray for us. We know you don't mean it. (And so does He.)

[Guest 7Zach]

It's a big story!!!That's why!!! Look at the number and positions of people in the church who have either apologized, been charged, or the subject of suits.

And your reaction as a Catholic is that you won't believe any of this until the Protestants and Jews have the same investigation, charges and publicity? That's pretty close to the attitude that the Church has taken in that the result is the same - just deny it.

The stories have made the front pages of most newspapers; one main story in vanity fair (alright, not the best choice to cite, but the article about Shanley in the August issue was just unbelievable about the charges over the years and how the church ignored, transferred, denied, etc.)

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>Ad, you're simply in a state-of-denial.

>

>Oh well, if you are right, than what can one say of the

>denial of the Jews and Protestants who choose to attack the

>abuse of a few catholic priests rather than tham that of

>their own. This whole debate is laughable.

 

I really can't understand why a subject this serious can be dismissed as "laughable" One more example of denial.

 

>I don't excuse a few incidents of catholic infedelity,

 

"A FEW" ???

 

>but I think it is truly amusing that so few have the courage to >confront abuse by jewish rabbis and other forms of protestants. >Perhaps, it is simply too close to your own homes?

 

If it appeared to be as rampant as it is in the RC church, I'm sure people would be equally as upset. If it is, than why is it not reported in the media - or are you suggesting a media conspiracy against Catholics?

 

>I have always wondered what percentage of gays where abused. When I >read these anti-catholic diatribes, I come to suspect that much

>more abuse has taken place, and that for not a few of you it

>is easier to strike out at a priest than your own rabbis.

 

Now you're assuming and inferring that the majority of us are Jewish. As Jack said to you - it's time for you to get real and admit to the problem for what it is. And this is coming from a man who is also Catholic. You're tendancy to pass the blame and shift the focus to other religions only serves to perpetuate you state of denial.

 

Thunderbuns

[BewareofNick]

>>N.J. priests arrested in Canadian sex case.

>

>

>Ho hum. What a bore. Why don't we hear of rabbis who

>molest? I find these anti-catholic diatribes to be both

>hypocritical and tiresome!

 

To suggest that one has to be anti-Catholic to disapprove of priests molesting children is naive at best and hypocritical at worst. This tends to apply that you approve of it.

 

Secondly, trying to justify the sins of one group by alledged sins of another is not only laughable, but it smacks of desperation. It is classic sleight of hand to divert attention from the true issue by trying to take the conversation in a different direction.

 

Thirdly, the reason you don't hear about rabbis molesting children on the scale that Catholic priests do is because it doesn't happen. One contributing factor is that rabbis have a healthy outlet for their sexuality, their spouse of partner. Catholic priests don't. Pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood becasue it gives them access to children in a way that allows them to practice their perversion without question. There is also a power structure in place that over the centuries has protected these men.

 

President of Catholic bishops' conference apologizes to abuse victims

 

Associated Press

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

 

Pledging to keep working to prevent sexual abuse by priests, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed regret to children victimized in the past.

 

 

``We continue to apologize to the victims and to their parents and their loved ones for this failure in our pastoral responsibilities,'' Bishop Wilton Gregory said in a written statement Tuesday.

 

The remarks were a response to troubles in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, where Cardinal Bernard F. Law has admitted he knew in 1984 that a priest had molested children, yet approved the priest's transfer to another parish and stayed publicly silent about the abuse.

 

More than 130 people have come forward claiming the former Rev. John Geoghan fondled or raped them between 1962 and 1995, and Geoghan has been convicted in one criminal case. Law has apologized and has given Massachusetts prosecutors the names of more than 80 active and former priests accused of sexual abuse.

 

The bishop in Manchester, N.H., followed suit this month, giving prosecutors the names of clergy suspected of molestation. Another bishop, in Portland, Maine, said Tuesday that they plan to do the same for clergy in the Maine diocese.

 

Gregory acknowledged that sexual abuse by priests, which first gained national attention in the mid-1980s, has done ``immeasurable'' damage to the church. He outlined steps taken by the U.S. bishops to address the problem nationwide, such as improving seminary screening and requiring a certificate of good standing for priests moving among dioceses.

 

``While we have made some tragic mistakes, we have attempted to be as honest and open about these cases as we can, especially in following the law on these matters and cooperating with civil authorities,'' he said. ``We remain committed to seeing these initiatives implemented fully, because the church must be a place of refuge and security, not a place of denial and distress.''

 

Gregory, who leads the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., said only a small percentage of the nation's more than 40,000 priests were guilty of molestation. He asked U.S. Catholics to work together to prevent abuse

[CT Dick]

You don't get it!

 

>This whole debate is laughable. I don't excuse

>a few incidents of catholic infedelity, but I think t it is

>truly amusing that so few have the courage to confront abuse

>by jewish rabbis and other forms of protestants.

 

YOU DON'T GET IT. The debate isn't just over abusive priests, it's over the institutional Holy Mother Church which has paid victims to be quiet so they can pretend that there is NO PROBLEM.

 

Then, there are the cases where princes of the church have repeatedly transfered known pedophiles to other parishes where they have preyed again and then been moved again.

 

I defy you to find a Protestant denomination or Jewish group that has done this.

 

Dick

[Guest 7Zach]

Pontiff speaks out

 

from newdsay, today's edition.

 

TORONTO -- Speaking publicly on the scandal for the first time, Pope John Paul II told young Catholics on Sunday that sexual abuse of children by priests "fills us all with a deep sense of sadness and shame," but he urged them to support the vast majority of priests who do good.

 

The frail, 82-year-old pope spoke clearly and at times forcefully during the three-hour Mass for World Youth Day, faltering only at the end when he grew visibly tired, slurred some words and lost his place in his text.

 

He told the estimated 800,000 pilgrims at a soggy, muddy outdoor Mass that young believers should not let the actions of a few sway their faith.

 

"If you love Jesus, love the Church. Do not be discouraged by the sins and failings of some of her members," John Paul said.

 

"The harm done by some priests and religious to the young and vulnerable fills us all with a deep sense of sadness and shame," he said.

 

"But," he said, emphasizing that word, "think of the vast majority of dedicated priests and religious whose only wish is to serve and do good."

 

"Be close to them and support them," the pontiff said to cheers from the vast crowd, which was basking in sunshine after spending all night outside and getting drenched by morning rainstorms"

 

What I found most interesting is that the Pope said nothing about the victims of the admitted abuse. And 300 leaves of absence this year. That's a story (said in the accent of "that'sa somma meatball").

[BgMstr4u]

From Ad rian: "I do think that other denominations do in fact hide behind catholic skirts on this one."

 

Many protestant churches began dealing with this issue seriously 15 or 20 years ago, and put systems in place back then which are still effective. They are light years ahead of the RC "system", such as it is or is coming to be. Almost all mainstream protestant churches have made rooting out abuse a major priority for a generation now. Most have placed lay people, legal and abuse and childhood development specialists, in charge of the process, have removed bishops (or their counterparts) from all but the "sentencing" aspect, have initiated universal required awareness training for clergy and other church workers, and in some cases have had years-long open periods when any person could come forward with an accusation from the past. The reason you are not hearing so much from the protestants now is that the process of taking abuse seriously has been going on for a long time.

 

A second observation. Because most protestant ministers are married and straight, most abuse cases have been heterosexual, usually involving grown women. In the 80's there was an especially egregious case of a very successful Unitarian minister in Santa Barbara who was called to a new, more prestigious pulpit, in Cleveland, I think. As the ladies of the church were preparing the farewell reception, they started talking. It turned out that he had diddled more than 30 of them. A pretty big case. But the media frenzy was feeding on other flesh at that point. The current hysteria has a lot to do with the sensational nature of the acts, and the power and size of the RC church. What journalist would not like to bring down a cardinal as other journalists have tried to bring down presidents?

[BgMstr4u]

I would add another thought here. Part of what appals so many people about the RC church is their incredible arrogance. Attention has rightly been drawn to the church's hierarchical, authoritarian structure, to mandatory clerical celibacy and all that entails, and to the lack of lay participation in real decision making. But another element in their monumental arrogance is having ignored -- simply ignored as if it does not exist -- the experience of non-RC Christians and the solutions they have found. There is a price for arrogance, and they are beginning to pay it. There is also a price for pretending that you are the only church and that others need not be taken seriously. This is not true, and not living by the truth ultimately costs. As so many other matters in this scandal, if the RC leadership were humbler (as in the personality of the Founder, perhaps) they might be both wiser and better for their people, who now suffer under this horrendous and totally unnecessary load of scandalous clerical hypocrisy.

[ad rian]

>To suggest that one has to be anti-Catholic to disapprove of

>priests molesting children is naive at best and hypocritical

>at worst. This tends to apply that you approve of it.

 

>Secondly, trying to justify the sins of one group by

>alledged sins of another is not only laughable, but it

>smacks of desperation. It is classic sleight of hand to

>divert attention from the true issue by trying to take the

>conversation in a different direction.

 

I don't approve of abuse. I just don't like witch hunts. The sociological evidence simply does not indicate that there is any highewr incidence abuse amog RC priests than Greek orthodox priests, Baptist minsisters or Jewish rabbis. (Read the links on the other thread.) I am sorry to fuchk with your fundamental assumptions, but that being trhe case, my only point is we need a better understanding of why the focus on the RCs. I am always suspicious of people who get worked up over other people's sexual deviancy. Celibacy is not my bag (I can assure you of that) but then again penetrating a nice bubble but or getting deep throated may not be someone else's. I find this judeo-protestant puritanism to be most hypocritical. For my money, I would be suspicious of anybody advertising piety about sexual mores. I just don't discriminate or profile RC priests.

 

>Thirdly, the reason you don't hear about rabbis molesting

>children on the scale that Catholic priests do is because it

>doesn't happen.

 

Again read the links on the other thread. It happens and it is quite common. The real question is why inductive logic is okay for catholics but not for jews or other forms of protestants.

[ad rian]

>You've denigrated one of the most gracious cultures on

>the planet, equated it to one of the most nebulous, and

>thumbed your nose at the entire non-Catholic world.

 

I guess if anybody can be gracious dropping 2000 bombs from F-16 fighter jets on civilian populations, the Jews can do it to perfection. There are no saints, mon ami, just sinners.

[+ deej]

>>I guess if anybody can be gracious dropping 2000 bombs from

>F-16 fighter jets on civilian populations, the Jews can do

>it to perfection. There are no saints, mon ami, just

>sinners.

 

Hmmm ... interesting logic. So there are no catholic fighter pilots?

 

I don't think so.

 

Your bigotry and hatred is so stunning I don't understand what keeps you from being pummelled walking down the street. And if it happens, it probably doesn't matter which minority delivers the pummelling. You'll hate them too with equal self-righteousness. It'll be their fault, not yours, of course.

[ad rian]

>>>I guess if anybody can be gracious dropping 2000 bombs from

>>F-16 fighter jets on civilian populations, the Jews can do

>>it to perfection. There are no saints, mon ami, just

>>sinners.

>

>Hmmm ... interesting logic. So there are no catholic fighter

>pilots?

 

Oh, I see your comments about catholics are not bigoted, but my comments about jews are? I don't want to bother teaching you logic, but here it goes. I never said that catholics were gracious. I was only pointing out the flaw in your earlier post by showing an obvious example of a lack of grace by some jews. And then I concluded, as I will here again, there are no saints, my friend, only sinners. I have always found that calling someone a noble savage to be just as condescending as calling them a savage. Recognizing flaws in some jews, including abuse by rabbis, does not require denigrating a whole group. The same is true of catholics. It is a funny world when pointing that out leads to a charge of bigotry, but then again your evident reading comprehension problems no longer surprise me.

 

P.S.

 

I am not Reg either, as you might recall from some earlier debates I had with him on other threads. Nice try, though . . . .!

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: Pontiff speaks out

 

>TORONTO -- Speaking publicly on the scandal for the first

>time, Pope John Paul II told young Catholics on Sunday that

>sexual abuse of children by priests "fills us all with a

>deep sense of sadness and shame,"

 

This is just a bunch of yada yada yada. He still did not say that any priest found to be molesting a child, will be defrocked on the FIRST instance and turned over to authorities.

 

>"If you love Jesus, love the Church. Do not be discouraged

>by the sins and failings of some of her members," John Paul

>said.

 

Right - practice unconditional love - what's the worst that can happen to an eight year old boy? A little diddle here, a little diddle there - shut up and stop your snivelling. If it happens too often we might look into it, but hell, just once? Get over it and stop complaining.

 

>"Be close to them

 

If you dare......

 

>and support them," the pontiff said to

>cheers from the vast crowd,

 

History tells us they cheered Hitler too!

 

Thunderbuns

[taylorky]

He is secretly a jew and his real name is George

>Bushinsky>

...............................................bush a polish jew...utuh we wouldn't have him....

[Guest YFSC]

Adrian:

Why don’t we hear of rabbis who molest?

 

As everybody knows, jews (no, I refuse to capitalize them) control the media and they are just suppressing the truth about all those degenerate rabbis. Rabbis even have rituals where they are required to abuse Christian children. I have seen a videotape of one. The current attack on priests is simply an extension of their evil anti-Christian campaign. Bless you for exposing it. First they killed our Lord and now they are trying to kill His Holy Church by smearing its blameless leaders. It is part of their larger plot to dominate the world. Have you read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I can send you a copy if you want. George Bush is a part of their plot too. He is secretly a jew and his real name is George Bushinsky. The proof is in what he does. Why else do you think he always sides with the jews and criticizes Arafat?

 

(Aside to Ethan: Relax. That bulge in my cheek is not a dick, it's a tongue.)

[ad rian]

>(Aside to Ethan: Relax. That bulge in my

>cheek is not a dick, it's a tongue.)

 

Nice try at sarcasm, but if you are interested in my substantive response, you will find it at post 79 of the other thread.