Bishop indicted for failing to report child porn on priest's computer

darrenl wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Ummm, but it is still going on? Your source proves nothing. It is happening less is not a good argument against it happening at all.

But...you asked for a source which backup up my claim that most were in the 60's and 70's. I provided it. Surprise surprise that you now changed the concern from "source from assertion that cases are from 60's and 70's" to "prove it's not happening AT ALL today....I said nothing of the sort.

You said:

"The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks (...most of the cases are from the 1960s and 1970s"

SallyNasty asked: "Source that for me."

It's possible you had the italicized portion of your statement in mind while SallyNasty had the bolded portion in mind.

Only you can prevent relative pronoun antecedent misidentification.

SallyNasty wrote:
darrenl wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Ummm, but it is still going on? Your source proves nothing. It is happening less is not a good argument against it happening at all.

But...you asked for a source which backup up my claim that most were in the 60's and 70's. I provided it. Surprise surprise that you now changed the concern from "source from assertion that cases are from 60's and 70's" to "prove it's not happening AT ALL today....I said nothing of the sort.

Sorry, Darren, I honestly did think you were implying that it didn't happen at all. My mistake was made in good faith.

I made the same mistake, primarily because the paragraph SallyNasty had responded to with the source request read:

darrenl wrote:

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks (...most of the cases are from the 1960s and 1970s, and today's priests are put through a litany of psych tests that would scare you...), nor is it "happy" to provide cover for them, that is an emotion that is clearly not evident. Choose your words more carefully please. Nobody is happy about this.

I don't think either of us were making up interpretations out of whole cloth, though I see now that isn't the assertion darrenl intended to make.

Yeah...I see how my phrasing could be read there. I'll take the blame for that.

Kraint wrote:
darrenl wrote:

I'm not sure who to be more angry at: the priests and bishops who betrayed the trust of these kids, their parents and their parishes....or the media and others who portray every priest as a pedophile and every bishop as a "guess where the pedophile is" game show host.

I honestly hope this isn't what you actually meant to say.

Ditto. If you're serious, that's f*cking appalling.

clover wrote:
Kraint wrote:
darrenl wrote:

I'm not sure who to be more angry at: the priests and bishops who betrayed the trust of these kids, their parents and their parishes....or the media and others who portray every priest as a pedophile and every bishop as a "guess where the pedophile is" game show host.

I honestly hope this isn't what you actually meant to say.

Ditto. If you're serious, that's f*cking appalling.

I get equally angry at a) people who ruin entire lives by abusing kids, and b) people who ruin entire lives accusing innocent men of abusing kids. Both cases put people on paths that you never recover from.

I'm not saying the *acts* are equivalent because THEY AREN'T; one is illegal and the other isn't. I'm saying *I* get equally furious because lives are ruined in both cases.

darrenl wrote:

I get equally angry at a) people who ruin entire lives by abusing kids, and b) people who ruin entire lives accusing innocent men of abusing kids. Both cases put people on paths that you never recover from.

I'm not saying the *acts* are equivalent because THEY AREN'T; one is illegal and the other isn't. I'm saying *I* get equally furious because lives are ruined in both cases.

Well, I think we're finally getting to the crux of the issue: the fact that other people don't get equally furious doesn't add up to an anti-Catholic agenda.

Especially considering there's a heck of a lot more that makes them different beyond just one being illegal and the other legal.

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

I get equally angry at a) people who ruin entire lives by abusing kids, and b) people who ruin entire lives accusing innocent men of abusing kids. Both cases put people on paths that you never recover from.

I'm not saying the *acts* are equivalent because THEY AREN'T; one is illegal and the other isn't. I'm saying *I* get equally furious because lives are ruined in both cases.

Well, I think we're finally getting to the crux of the issue: the fact that other people don't get equally furious doesn't add up to an anti-Catholic agenda.

Especially considering there's a heck of a lot more that makes them different beyond just one being illegal and the other legal.

Well...clearly there is a lot more difference between one being illegal and the other not being illegal...I didn't see the need to list every, single fracking one. We can go on for pages on the differences between the two and how they are not equivalent. I'm not highlighting the differences, my post was about the one similarity in both cases: a ruined life.

darrenl wrote:

I'm not saying the *acts* are equivalent because THEY AREN'T; one is illegal and the other isn't. I'm saying *I* get equally furious because lives are ruined in both cases.

And yet you only seem to get upset at the gangs and not the kiddy-diddling Catholic priests. I guess as long as they're members of your tribe it's OK.

OG_slinger wrote:
darrenl wrote:

I'm not saying the *acts* are equivalent because THEY AREN'T; one is illegal and the other isn't. I'm saying *I* get equally furious because lives are ruined in both cases.

And yet you only seem to get upset at the gangs and not the kiddy-diddling Catholic priests. I guess as long as they're members of your tribe it's OK.

WTF!!! Get your head examined!

Anyone who defends an organization that systematically protected and hid pedophiles, or does not come out against such an organization that does is complicit in my opinion.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Anyone who defends an organization that systematically protected and hid pedophiles, or does not come out against such an organization that does is complicit in my opinion.

I'm f*cking done with this community.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Anyone who defends an organization that systematically protected and hid pedophiles, or does not come out against such an organization that does is complicit in my opinion.

I think Ulairi nailed it on the first page of this thread.

Ulairi wrote:

I believe it's anti-Catholic to not be so outraged at the Church for allowing these crimes to continue unpunished for decades. Catholics should be the most angry and want justice second to the actual victims. I want mass arrests and trials for the criminals that allowed and did these evil crimes. Anyone who knew about abuse, hid abuse or allowed abuse should be in prision.

And, because I think it was missed in the fracas: until the church acts decisively to root out this issue, it will continue to lose believers, as well as cede any claims to the moral high ground. Pointing to other cases of child abuse in an attempt to diminish and deflect blame, or dismissing anyone's concerns as somehow being a pawn in an anti-papist agenda, does the Catholic church a grave disservice.

darrenl wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Anyone who defends an organization that systematically protected and hid pedophiles, or does not come out against such an organization that does is complicit in my opinion.

I'm f*cking done with this community.

Take a deep breath. Why do you feel the need to carry the entire Catholic Church on your shoulders? You've already spoken out against the people in question so why are you taking Dr.Ghastly's opinion personally? Despite your feelings of solidarity you are not every Catholic and every Catholic is not you. Obviously there are bad people in any group that large, it's a statistical certainty. But that does not give them a pass, no matter how hard you argue that this is just a blip and shouldn't register on our radars. This is literally the highest ranking church official to face legal prosecution, despite decades of these kinds of revelations. Like it or not, this is news. And interesting news. Remember that a lot of us are condemned to burn in Hell because we don't agree with the Catholic path to salvation... While I take no pleasure in seeing one of the guardians of that path fall I feel it is important for those of faith to realize that their 'shepherds' are also human and not above temptation or reproach. Membership in these upper circles does not bestow supernatural powers or insight... yet many people treat them as untouchable and I believe many of the humans in those positions fall prey to that belief and consider themselves immune. That delusion must be dealt with, at all levels of all institutions. Be they CEO's, Politicians, or Religious leaders.
Today it was a religious leader. Tomorrow it will be a Senator.
Life goes on, but in the meantime we demand our pound of flesh for these crimes of hubris.

Yeah, there are lots of of us in this thread who are either former or currently practicing Catholics. My first job out of music school was working as a liturgical musician, and though it's no longer a full-time gig, my wife and I still sing for and help run a local parish music program. My faith has been deeply damaged by this ongoing scandal, and the immensely disturbing fact that children continue to be abused and Church officials continue to shelter the abusers. It's my firm belief that if the Church is to survive, this cancer needs to be cut out. Any apology for it, well-meaning as it may be, only contributes to the problem.

Rezzy wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Anyone who defends an organization that systematically protected and hid pedophiles, or does not come out against such an organization that does is complicit in my opinion.

I'm f*cking done with this community.

Take a deep breath. Why do you feel the need to carry the entire Catholic Church on your shoulders? You've already spoken out against the people in question so why are you taking Dr.Ghastly's opinion personally? Despite your feelings of solidarity you are not every Catholic and every Catholic is not you. Obviously there are bad people in any group that large, it's a statistical certainty. But that does not give them a pass, no matter how hard you argue that this is just a blip and shouldn't register on our radars. This is literally the highest ranking church official to face legal prosecution, despite decades of these kinds of revelations. Like it or not, this is news. And interesting news. Remember that a lot of us are condemned to burn in Hell because we don't agree with the Catholic path to salvation... While I take no pleasure in seeing one of the guardians of that path fall I feel it is important for those of faith to realize that their 'shepherds' are also human and not above temptation or reproach. Membership in these upper circles does not bestow supernatural powers or insight... yet many people treat them as untouchable and I believe many of the humans in those positions fall prey to that belief and consider themselves immune. That delusion must be dealt with, at all levels of all institutions. Be they CEO's, Politicians, or Religious leaders.
Today it was a religious leader. Tomorrow it will be a Senator.
Life goes on, but in the meantime we demand our pound of flesh for these crimes of hubris.

Yup, even when I was a Catholic (even was considering becoming a priest), I was very critical about how the church hides pedophiles and didn't seem to care about ridding itself of those evil people. If you read the catechism (I don't know where mine is anymore, but I'm sure you can find one to read), you will realize there is a difference between doctrine and canon law/non-doctrinal acts of priests. Take a deep breath like Rezzy said, and realize that you can still be a faithful Catholic and despise what non-doctrinal acts the Catholic church commits. If you have any questions about Catholic teachings on doctrine -vs- non-doctrinal statements/acts I'm sure I can help you out with that (or others can as well). That being said, I am disgusted by how the Catholic church has not actively sought out the prosecution of those horrible pedophiles.

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks

Are you even reading the news? I'm sure the organization matters to you, but have you been completely tuning out the last five years? It's NOT just 60s and 70s, it's RIGHT NOW. It's ongoing. It's not old dirty laundry, it's brand new dirty laundry.

The Church continues to shelter pedophiles NOW. And they don't just keep them out of police hands, they (at least up until very recently) put them back to work with kids again! Like, last couple years recently, not decades ago.

Name me any other worldwide organization with such a systematic focus on hushing up child abuse. We're not beating on these people because they're the Catholic Church, we're beating on these people because they continue to shelter pedophiles.

Oh, and:

I'm f*cking done with this community.

Sorry to see you go, but if you have to pick sides ... dude, what a side to choose.

About 5 years ago, a buddy of mine got married. His wife is Catholic and she wanted to get married in her home parish in Western PA.

After a beautiful ceremony, one of two wedding photographers was taking candid shots at the reception. I was having a really neat discussion with the priest at the time and when the photographer rolled around to us, I (having had a couple drinks) put my arm over the father's shoulder.

The mother of the bride gasped that I would be so casual with a man of the cloth, but the father laughed and said "I'm just glad I wasn't asked to turn to the right".

He and I talked the rest of the afternoon about why he decided to be a diocesan priest rather than joining an order (he didn't want to live in poverty), what he thought about the whole chastity thing (he thought it was outdated, but he joined the order after his wife died and his kids were grown), and eventually the whole clergy sexual abuse scandal.

He told me that he regretted that there was what he called an "iron wall" between the clergy and the laity that created, in some, a sense of arrogance in the church leadership. He believed some honestly thought they were above the law or that they were both adjudicators and authors of a law all their own. He also said that this is not an uncommon opinion among diocesan priests.

I asked him what, if anything, the laity and parish priests could do to change this. He lamented that as hierarchical as the church is, that the organization was not built in a manner that easily facilitated change from the bottom. He told me that the best he could think of to do was to pray about it.

When I told him I was an atheist, he expressed surprise and told me I would have made a great priest.

I find it interesting that this is a problem that the Catholic Church made for itself:

1. The Church prohibits priests from marrying so that church property wouldn't pass to priest's families
2. Celebate organizations tend to be a "haven" for those struggling with "unnatural" urges that they think they can control. In essence, but not being able to indulge any carnal appetites, the decision is almost taken out of their hands. Until they can no longer control the urges, of course.
3. The Church has a very difficult time admitting that it is wrong and makes mistakes. There are too many examples throughout history to deny

I just find it interesting to see the chain of events that brought the Church to this point.

Frankly, I'm just surprised that anyone in the US would still have any kind of trust in any Catholic priest whatsoever. I don't even live there and the only thing that's shocking to me is how little the law is acting to prosecute these individuals. This is as much a fault of the Catholic Church as it is the law enforcement officials of the US.

I can only speak for my strict localities in Manila, but those sort of shenanigans just aren't going to fly in the parishes I've been. As "warm" and "friendly" as Filipinos may be, our treacherous and somewhat feudal society dictates that we trust no one outside our clan circles, priest or no. It is common for a new parish priest to be "vetted" by his congregation through background checks (among other things) before he is fully accepted.

Priests of any denomination are human. I think it would serve the faithful well to always remember that.

LarryC wrote:

Frankly, I'm just surprised that anyone in the US would still have any kind of trust in any Catholic priest whatsoever. I don't even live there and the only thing that's shocking to me is how little the law is acting to prosecute these individuals. This is as much a fault of the Catholic Church as it is the law enforcement officials of the US.

I can only speak for my strict localities in Manila, but those sort of shenanigans just aren't going to fly in the parishes I've been. As "warm" and "friendly" as Filipinos may be, our treacherous and somewhat feudal society dictates that we trust no one outside our clan circles, priest or no. It is common for a new parish priest to be "vetted" by his congregation through background checks (among other things) before he is fully accepted.

Priests of any denomination are human. I think it would serve the faithful well to always remember that.

Any kind of trust in any Catholic priest? Keep in mind that while the abuse scandal is alarmingly widespread through the Church, we're not talking about some majority population of the Church being pedophiles or those who are protecting them. They really are still a tiny minority of the overall clergy. They just happen to be in some positions of power. There are certainly systemic issues with the organization as a whole, but any individual priest is free of blame in my eyes until proven otherwise. There are plenty of church workers and clergy who might have no idea what's going on, or might have a suspicion but have nothing to act on. Keep in mind that suspected sexual abuse can be a tricky thing to handle - you accuse someone of it and you're wrong, you've murdered their career anyway.

It's not a matter of accusation, but of reputation. Given how common these threads are in the P&C, how could the Catholic Church in the US still have any reputation to speak of? This is not something from which you can save face.

I generally don't leave my kids out of any grown-up's eyesight for any length of time, but right now, I would not leave them in the company of any American priest whatsoever, regardless of circumstance. That's not an accusation. That's just prudent.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank the various current-and-former Catholics we have on the forums who took the time to weigh in with thoughtful, measured responses.

This community continues to impress me.

LarryC wrote:

It's not a matter of accusation, but of reputation. Given how common these threads are in the P&C, how could the Catholic Church in the US still have any reputation to speak of? This is not something from which you can save face.

I generally don't leave my kids out of any grown-up's eyesight for any length of time, but right now, I would not leave them in the company of any American priest whatsoever, regardless of circumstance. That's not an accusation. That's just prudent.

Well, to be clear, I'm taking exception to the idea that you seemed to have - how can you trust any priest at this point? My point is that the Church, as an entity, should be met with a healthy dose of distrust and caution now, sure. But on the individual level, most of the people in the Church don't deserve to be treated in such a manner.

Bloo Driver:

Why not? I treat everyone else in that manner. Did you miss the part where I said that we didn't trust anyone outside our clan circles?

LarryC wrote:

Bloo Driver:

Why not? I treat everyone else in that manner. Did you miss the part where I said that we didn't trust anyone outside our clan circles?

I didn't miss that, but you're the one singling out individual priests by your words after saying such. You're not asking "does anyone have a problem with my attitude," the statement was -

Frankly, I'm just surprised that anyone in the US would still have any kind of trust in any Catholic priest whatsoever.

And I responded to that.

Let's not go vilifying all American priests. I have met wonderful priests, who take their calling seriously and responsibly.

LarryC wrote:

Bloo Driver:

Why not? I treat everyone else in that manner. Did you miss the part where I said that we didn't trust anyone outside our clan circles?

Trust should be earned, not commanded. I think this a prudent way of approaching things on a societal level LarryC.

Americans, in general, believe too much of what they are told and give too much credence to titles and authority figures. We see this in the church, we see it in our media, we see it in our schools, and we see it in our government.

I am slow to trust. Where my family's health and safety are concerned I'm even more critical.

Blind faith in the institutions we work at, worship at, shop at, or vote for is a vehicle for facism, imo.

how can you trust any priest at this point?

I don't think that's fair either. The Catholic Church has some fundamental organizational problems, but that doesn't mean you can make the assumption that any particular priest, Catholic or otherwise, is somehow tainted by the systemic scandals.

I knew a priest, I think Greek Orthodox, that was the most spiritual man I've ever met. Just a wonderful, wonderful guy, funny as hell. Everyone loved him. He actually lived at the church, I think with his wife (I believe he was married, though I never met her), and he worked constantly on the grounds. A real sunup-to-sundown kind of guy. I don't think I ever once saw him sitting down. Lovely little church, too, so well cared for.

If I were ever going to join a church, I think I'd want to be in that congregation. I have met few people I'd trust as much as that priest, and I'm embarrassed to admit I don't even remember his name.

I think the problem with the Catholic Church is the same fundamental problem with Communism. In any hierarchical organization in which authority derives from the top down, obedience is demanded, and innovation is vigorously repressed, the ability to change in a meaningful organizational way is greatly limited by vested interests of the comfortable and corrupt. There may be good Catholic priests (as I am sure there were perfectly decent Communist party officials), but the organizational structure favors the leverage of the worst offenders.