How can the church let this happen ?!!

[Bricker]

Originally posted by George Papoon:
Hello? How can you simultaneously quote me for the sake of including one part of the sentence, and seemingly read right past my reference to “religious institutions of all denominations”? (emphasis added)

I beg your pardon – I knew you had said “all denominations,” which was a much broader statement than “the Roman Catholic Church.” I sought clarification because the original topic was so specifically anti-RCC, and if you were thinking more of the Branch Davidians et al, your assertion was on safe grounds.

But, to be more specific – no, I cannot provide a specific cite to a specific case of the RCC specifically trying to hide a pedophile priest behind a claim of religious privilege . . . however, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it has occurred. Pedo-priests could not be a recent occurrence in the church, only the awareness of them, and the rise of proactive policies.

With respect to the RCC defending an accused pedophile priest on the grounds of freedom of religion, I claim that such a thing has not happened, your lack of doubt notwithstanding. Provide a reference or withdraw that portion of your claim.

• Rick

[system]

Originally posted by Fillet:
And please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that on the SDMB the people who are loudest are those who have a bone to pick with religion. (For whatever the reason.)

Consider yourself corrected. The loudest ones are the trolls, their various puppets, and the dips who allow themselves to become embroiled in BBQP threads that aren’t strictly for the sake of fun.

To those folks who feel that the case described in the OP is just one more reason to rage against organized religions: what is your response to the “blue wall of silence”?

Y’know, I really don’t know what the hell point you’re trying to make; you seem to think that to be against one means to be in favor of the other, just because any individual must choose to prioritize their life around the things they believe they have the best hope of changing.

There have been numerous publicized cases . . . law enforcement officials . . . yadda-yadda-yadda . . . Why not be more vocal about those cases as well?

When a case arises in central freakin’ Kentucky, I will. Organized religion, however, is just about everywhere, as are the abuses it commits.

When I encounter the subject of the abuses committed by organized religion, I’ll bitch about 'em. When the thread is about police corruption and abuse, I’ll bitch about that. As it happens, the central strand of this thread is the presumable moral corruption of the RCC (and, by extension, organized religion generally) as evidenced by its toleration of pedophiliac clergymen.

---

If I throw a stick, will you go away?

[system]

Originally posted by Bricker:
With respect to the RCC defending an accused pedophile priest on the grounds of freedom of religion, I claim that such a thing has not happened . . .

Yeah, but can you PROVE that it didn’t happen? And what about Plan Nine from Outer Space? Hah? Hah?

. . .Provide a reference or withdraw that portion of your claim . . .

Hm. No.

---

If I throw a stick, will you go away?

[Fillet]

George said:

Consider yourself corrected. The loudest ones are the trolls, their various puppets, and the dips who allow themselves to become embroiled in BBQP threads that aren’t strictly for the sake of fun.

This is true; please excuse me. I should perhaps have said “insistent.”

Y’know, I really don’t know what the hell point you’re trying to make; you seem to think that to be against one means to be in favor of the other, just because any individual must choose to prioritize their life around the things they believe they have the best hope of changing.

You’ve completely missed my point, which is: if you are against criminal activity being concealed by members of RELIGIOUS authority, then you should also be against criminal activity being concealed by members of any CIVIL authority. It’s very easy to jump on an anti-religious bandwagon

When a case arises in central freakin’ Kentucky, I will. Organized religion, however, is just about everywhere, as are the abuses it commits.

Gee, last time I checked there were law enforcement organizations all over this country. Are you saying that because they happen to be divided into more local jurisdictions, any transgressions they commit aren’t as serious?

When I encounter the subject of the abuses committed by organized religion, I’ll bitch about 'em. When the thread is about police corruption and abuse, I’ll bitch about that. As it happens, the central strand of this thread is the presumable moral corruption of the RCC (and, by extension, organized religion generally) as evidenced by its toleration of pedophiliac clergymen.

That’s terribly funny, George! You see, the OP was about a specific person who was an RCC prienst. So if we’re all supposed to stay strictly with the subject of the thread, how do you justify expanding your discussion to a) the presumed general “moral corruption” of the RCC, b) the practices of the Branch Davidians, and c) ailments of religious organizations in general? Most of the threads I’ve visited have gone off on all sorts of tangents. So I made reference to an analogous situation in the non-sectarian world to see what your reaction might be.

Not one that was well-thought out, apparently.

[John_John]

George Papoon

While you’re railing against gay pedophiles, be sure to remember there are almost certainly many more heterosexual predator-priests diddling their female students. Not to mention the ones who take advantage of the emotional vulnerability of single Catholic women to “whip it on 'em”.

There is a much greater population of straight men to homosexual men, so it would stand to reason that in total numbers you would be correct, but NOT as a percentqage of total. Your last statement is totally without foundation, as is most of what you opine.

me[[[[It is curious that the very same people that decry gays in religious orders, understandable, are all for having gays serve openly in the Military.]]]]]

papoon

Y’know what I find ‘curious’? I find it curious that anyone so ignorant of a subject has the temerity to display their ignorance on a public forum.

I do admit that I do not have your first hand knowledge on such subjects.

papoon

So that’s what yer really bitchin’ about – those damn Liberals. Yeah, right. ‘Liberals’ are to blame for all your disappointments with the world your abysmally ignorant viewpoint perceives.

At least you got this right. Liberals never like to clean up their mess, do you?

Papoon

No, little man. The problem isn’t liberals, it’s the legions of doofs who think they’ve earned the right to call themselves ‘conservative’ when they’re really only pseudoconservatives masking their closeted bigotry.

I see you’re not closeted about you views.

You are totally wrong about gays in the military, they can serve, but, like the straight men, they have to keep their preference to themselves. Why do you have to blab about it? You can serve if you’re gay but you don’t have to wear it on your sleave. The military is not the place for social experimentation.

---

To handle yourself, use your head. To handle others, use your heart. unknown

[Felice]

There is a much greater population of straight men to homosexual men, so it would stand to reason that in total numbers you would be correct, but NOT as a percentqage of total. Your last statement is totally without foundation, as is most of what you opine.

Everything I have read suggests that the incidence of pedophilia is about the same in gay men as it is in straight men. If we assume the incidence of gay men in the Church is the same as the incidence of gay men across the population at large, then, logically, the incidence of priests molesting little boys as opposed to little girls is the same as that of non-priests molesting little boys and girls.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Bricker:
With respect to the RCC defending an accused pedophile priest on the grounds of freedom of religion, I claim that such a thing has not happened . . .

Originally posted by George Papoon:
Yeah, but can you PROVE that it didn’t happen? And what about Plan Nine from Outer Space? Hah? Hah?

What the heck are you talking about? Of course I can’t prove a negative. As the proponent of the assertion, the burden is on you to provide evidence.

Originally posted by Bricker:
. . .Provide a reference or withdraw that portion of your claim . . .

Originally posted by George Papoon:
Hm. No.

Well, then. There you have it. It never happened. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.

Or, in this case, slightly more gratuitously.

• Rick

[Surgoshan]

Hmm. More likely than not, there are things that are NOT said here. Probably, the church also required that the pedophilic priest in the OP get counseling with every move (whether two or three). Also, there is a lot of demand for priests in some areas, and it’s possible that he was moved simply because some parents voiced anonymous complaints (that is, they simply wanted him out, didn’t want lots of attention.

I am also very certain that the church would be dead set AGAINST any form of pedophelia, gay or straight, just as the church would be against the other betrayals that Falcon mentioned. The church is against this for at least one reason: Priests must remain celibate, meaning no marriage, meaning no sex (sex outside of marriage is fornication, definite no no). Also, the church is not about pain, especially that caused by those priests.

No, I’m not a church member, haven’t been for years, don’t want to be, don’t believe any of it.

Yes, it could have been a very small number of people involved. Let’s say the bishop in charge of the diocese got wind of the problems, and ordered the priest moved, the other people involved in the transfer need never have known, priests probably move all the time.

I can’t provide any numbers to support myself, but my guess is that the number of pedophiles in the church is proporionally the same as the number of pedophiles in society (ie. 15% of church members and 15% of society’s members, those numbers aren’t real, just saying that the % is the same). Further, those members of the clergy that are gay, same % as in the general population. And again, pedophiles that are gay, same %age as in the general population. What I mean to say is, just because they’re clergymen doesn’t make them gay pedophiles that rape little boys, and it probably (my guess) doesn’t make them more LIKELY to be evil gay pedophiles that rape little boys.

George Papoon:
I’m afraid Bricker is right, he cannot prove that it was never the case that the church defended itself by touting “freedom of religion”. To do so, he would have to provide every single case in which the church defended its actions in moving a pedophillic priest out of the area, and show that not one of those cases involved the church touting freedom of religion.

However, it would be very easy for you to show that the church did, by providing a single case in which it did. If you did that, and provided sources that Bricker could check, then, logically, he would have no choice but to accept that the church sometimes does use that defense.

Not only that, but it is within his rights to demand it. After all, this is a debate. I assume you are trying to bring people to your way of thinking. As I see it, to do that, you will have to back up your claims. If you are correct, this shouldn’t be too difficult to do. So, when Bricker desired to see evidence for what he saw as an unlikely claim, you should have stated that you could not provide the evidence and lowered your claim from fact to belief, or done your damndest to find evidence.

JonJohn:
Unless you can prove that there’s something unutterably attractive about the Catholic Clergyhood that makes it so that gay pedophiles are drawn to it, then your claim that there are as many, numerically, gay pedophiles in the clergy as in the world at large, I’m afraid I cannot believe your statement.

All right, people, now I’m going to get back to work on this Lab Report (and I am sure I will regret posting here at 1 AM when I’m still working).

---

I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[John_John]

Surgo

JonJohn:
Unless you can prove that there’s something unutterably attractive about the Catholic Clergyhood that makes it so that gay pedophiles are drawn to it, then your claim that there are as many, numerically, gay pedophiles in the clergy as in the world at large, I’m afraid I cannot believe your statement

I didn’t say there are many in the priesthodd, quite the contrary, but that there are ANY is do, I believe, to lax screening at a period of low enrollment. I think they have now resumed rigid screening.

Where did I say they had MORE than the general population?

---

To handle yourself, use your head. To handle others, use your heart. unknown

[Doctor_Jackson]

Bricker - Thanks for stepping in on my behalf. Unfortunately, I don’t often have the time to check any particular post more than once per day, which tends to limit my participation in GD. I just couldn’t resist addressing Mr. Papoon’s hypocrisy. In his posts on this thread I have seen:

1. Opinion posted as fact
2. Cults equated with religious denominations
3. The “sins” of a few applied to the whole
4. Refusal to change his position on a factual matter even after admitting he had no evidence
5. Belief that one can prove a negative
6. Responses that in no way address the question he is supposedly answering
7. Smokescreens instead of discussion

Add one more name to the list of “posters I ignore”.

---

The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik

[Kent_Clark]

How can ANY institution let this happen? Unfortunately it does.

The Boy Scouts have a rule that no adult leader can ever be alone with a boy. They have this rule precisely because some Scouts were molested by their leaders.

If I recall, didn’t Sports Illustrated take a long look at athletic coaches who molest?

I did volunteer work in a public school where the principal was later convicted of molesting students. His staff was astonished.

I know a woman who claims she was molested by one of the administrators in high school. She later found five classmates who claimed the same thing.

And I personally know two women (from Kentucky, no less) who claim to have had sexual relationships with their high school teachers, and who later married them. That may not fit the legal definition of molestation, but it certainly is creepy.

And none of these cases involved the Roman Catholic church in any way.

Were their official coverups in these instances? Can’t say. For the most part, the victims or their parents didn’t want to blow the whistle.

Let’s get off the religion bashing and take a more comprehensive look about how to keep sexual predators away from children.

[system]

Puffington, what’s your opinion on the Michael Jackson situation?

He should be imprisoned or executed, as should Woody Allen.

Unfortunately some gay people slipped through <snip>It is curious that the very same people that decry gays in religious orders,understandable, are all for having gays serve openly in the Military. All the Liberals wanted EVERYTHING open to EVERYONE so it is no surprise that some problems would
arise.

Those statements deserve no response. What kind of a dimwit are you?? Homosexuality & pedophilia, as has been pointed out, are two different things. When you get done sucking Rush Limbaugh’s dick and wish to post something intelligent, please do so … or don’t. I don’t care.

His plea bargain was decided upon by Church officials? His sentence was handed down by the local cardinal?<snip> prosecutors and judges that imposed those terms, was it not? Where is your rage against them?

I didn’t mean to make it sound as if the church had anything to do with sentencing. Of course I’m mighty peeved at the system for letting this happen.

To those folks who feel that the case described in the OP is just one more reason to rage against organized religions: what is your response to the “blue wall of silence”?

Makes me even MORE sick than when the church does it, since these are the people that are supposed to be protecting us.

Hmm. More likely than not, there are things that are NOT said here. Probably, the
church also required that the pedophilic priest in the OP get counseling with every move (whether two or three).

Upon further investigation, Gauthe was asked to get counseling exactly once by the Catholic church, right before his second move.

Now, I can almost understand why a church, fucked up as it may seem, would cover this up. What I CANNOT understand is why they didn’t just FIRE the pervert! They simply shipped him off to have his pick of a different litter! What the FUCK ?!

---

Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.
–Writer Ron Hubbard in 1949 who later founded the Church of Scientology

[Bricker]

Puffington, I’m not sure what you’re looking for, here.

1. It was a terrible act on the part of the priest, and anyone who sought to cover it up.
2. It’s not part of Church policy.

This thread is full of countless examples of people who have done wrong and are associated with organizations. The people are guilty, but it doesn’t make the organizations evil.

What more can I say?

• Rick

[Esprix]

Originally posted by John John:

The military is not the place for social experimentation.

Um, do you realize you just quoted exactly the philosophy behind the anti-integration argument when blacks were fighting for their right to serve? Yeah, that was a bad idea… :rolleyes:

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by John John:

There is a much greater population of straight men to homosexual men, so it would stand to reason that in total numbers you would be correct, but NOT as a percentqage of total. Your last statement is totally without foundation, as is most of what you opine.

You should be the last person to point fingers about talking without foundation. 90% was the last figure I heard of straight child molesters vs. gay child molesters. Do your homework. And if you’re even implying that there is a some disproportionate percentage of child molesters among homosexual men, you are really going to go down in flames in this forum, so I’m going to assume that’s not what you were implying, because I’m a nice guy…

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[Pariah]

I did volunteer work in a public school where the principal was later convicted of molesting students. His staff was astonished.

Isn’t this a Groucho Marx bit?

[Tominator2]

Bricker wrote:

you’re not suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church ever defended pedophilia with a claim of freedom of religion, are you? If so, please provide a cite.

I can’t provide an example of the RCC promoting pedophilia per se, but I provide some reasoning based on a “freedom of religion” argument (and some vague memories of a case from a while back) as to why it would shield a pedophiliac.

The bedrock of religious freedom is twofold: the freedom to believe whatever one wants and the freedom to act according to those beliefs. This freedom to act is one of the broadest freedoms recognized by American society today - it took the War on (Some) Drugs to curtail it.

Well, part of the RCC creed is that canon law is superior to and supercedes secular law. As applied to this case the RCC claimed that the proper canon law mumbo-jumbo has been carried out, and the priest was thereby relieved of any further liability. It wasn’t a question of whether the priest was under suspicion. Heck, the RCC had already found him guilty and imposed a judgement. It was a question of jurisdiction.

So in the one corner we have the RCC wielding the right of religious freedom. In the other we have the State wielding its right to set and enforce laws upon its citizens. For a while it looked like a Constitutional crisis on the order of the Mormon/polygamy thing. Eventually the RCC relented and cut a deal of some sort. Interesting legal wrangle, though.

[Pariah]

Tominator2 said:

Well, part of the RCC creed is that canon law is superior to and supercedes secular law.

I honestly didn’t know this; where is this written?

In the early stages of the RCC, the church often pass through the secular arena to burn folks. Dukes were asked to give up heretics in their townships (and, much to the clergy’s chagrin, oftentimes they would not).

Someone give me some insight as to the supremacy of RCC canonical law versus secular law? [/inquisitive]

[Pariah]

…which creed?

[John_John]

Originally posted by Esprix:
** Um, do you realize you just quoted exactly the philosophy behind the anti-integration argument when blacks were fighting for their right to serve? Yeah, that was a bad idea… :rolleyes:

Esprix

**

No, I do not, and those two issues are not the same, although I’m sure YOU’D like people to think so. Let me see documentation?