But his old habits had nothing to do with kids.
Should the archdiocese have assumed that his old habits would lead to molesting kids?
Perhaps more to the point, do you believe that if you’re a priest, and your bosses in the church discover that you’ve sought to break your vow of chastity with a woman, should they out you?
That someone here (the OP) is arguing that the Church is too compassionate to gays is fucking incredible. Take your homophobia and shove it up your arse.
Oh for fucks sake, quit trying to pin gay bashing on me and think for a second. I don’t give a shit if he’s gay or not. If the church does and that’s why they sent him to a looney bin that’s on them. I don’t care who he’s trying to screw, he shouldn’t be trying to screw anyone.
The article doesn’t mention ‘gay’ even once. Let’s say for sake of argument that he did all of this to women. Is it now ok? No.
Let’s say for sake of argument that he did all of this to people who were at least 18. Does that make it ok? No.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that there are no children in the story and the victims were women. Now is it all ok? Hell no.
Did the church/people involved know there was something going on before the shit hit the fan? Yes, they said so. I don’t know what the church’s policy on punishment for breaking shit is, but apparently it includes getting moved around and whatever you did hushed up. They had plenty of warning signs, and they did nothing. Even if the people he abused weren’t children something still should have been done. The fact that it was children just makes the results all that worse. They didn’t have to see signs of pedophilia (although apparently someone did, enough to register a complaint) to see that something bad was happening.
Did this guy do something that should have warranted a closer watch by the church? Yes he trying to get laid. Is that so bad? Yes hes a fucking priest. This is aberrant behavior for a priest. If the people in charge of your moral sanctity can’t keep their dicks in their pants then why should anyone do anything but point and laugh? They should have done something just avoid the inevitable shitstorm when what he doing went public, even if it didn’t involve kids.
They should still have kept a better eye on him regardless of who he was going after. Instead they shoveled him off to some parish and ignored everything after that. They didn’t have to post banners all over the town outing him, they could have just let someone in administration know so they could maybe keep an eye on him. And they could have done it all in the name of ‘saving his soul’, and excuse that seems to work for everything else.
Are you fucking stupid? That’s really all the response something like this deserves.
Why do you care that he is a priest who, as far as the RCC knew, wanted to have sex with adults? Do you think every priest in the world who wants to have sex with adults should be viewed as a danger to children?
What is it about the priesthood that you think actually changes the ethical rules for the rest of us? Why should I judge the situation differently because he’s a priest?
No I’m not fucking stupid, but it seems you are. You want someone to be publicly shamed for being gay, and don’t seem to get what’s wrong with that.
Yes, he abused kids and that’s terrible, and he should be punished for that. But having normal sexual desires - which, as far as we know, is all he displayed in the past - is not cause for punishment or shame. The congregation have no need or right to know about the sins of their priest, that’s a job for the bishop. Same as in any organisation.
Now, if they did ignore warning signs that’s a different issue, but there’s no reason to think they did. There’s plenty of reasons to hate the church, don’t make up ones that aren’t real.
[quote=“hotflungwok, post:24, topic:669659”]
Oh for fucks sake, quit trying to pin gay bashing on me and think for a second. I don’t give a shit if he’s gay or not. If the church does and that’s why they sent him to a looney bin that’s on them. I don’t care who he’s trying to screw, he shouldn’t be trying to screw anyone.
The article doesn’t mention ‘gay’ even once. Let’s say for sake of argument that he did all of this to women. Is it now ok? No.
[/quote[
Did what to women, exactly? Hit on them? Yeah, I think hitting on women is okay.
Yes, actually, asking adults if they want to have sex is okay. This is a thing that most normal people do pretty often. You should maybe try it sometime, because you seem to be wound pretty fucking tight.
If there were no children involved? Yeah, if there were no children involved, then this would be okay. If the story were, “Adult man has sex with adult woman,” then there would be no story, because that’s just a thing that people do.
Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I personally don’t give a shit, but the church he belonged to should have. And I’ve already said I don’t think he should have been considered a danger to children way up the thread.
Priests have a position of authority based on their church’s morality. It’s even in the article, people are supposed to be able to trust them in that capacity. They have different rules, plain and simple. If you belonged to a church and found out that one of the priests there was caught trolling for sex in a public park would that change your opinion of him?
No I don’t. I’ve already stated this multiple times, go read it.
This would only be true if wasn’t a priest. He’s allowed to have normal desires, he’s not allowed to act on them. Doing so is a cause for punishment and shame for a priest. Which he is. A priest. Vows, etc. Cuz he’s a priest.
And the bishop, who, as you say, should have done his job, didn’t. Thank you for making my point
Yes they did. The guy got several complaints, including inappropriate behavior around the boys he molested, prior to the incident. Even with his past, which would give the church a reason to at least keep an eye on him, they ignored warnings.
If the church wasn’t supposed to worry about him being a paedophile, what did they do that merits a trip to the woodchipper?
Is it ok for a priest to hit on women? Ask them if they’re fucking horney? Drive drunk to gas station parking lot at night at hit on them? Cuz he’s a priest. Did I mention that? The priest thing? Vows, other rules, public trust, etc? What with the being a priest and all?
Normal people, yes, fine, go for it. Now, how about someone like, say, a priest? You know, someone who has taken vows of chastity and stuff?
No, it would say ‘Priest has sex with adult woman, get defrocked, whole community stunned, holy shit wtf was wrong with this guy?’
Apparently, it’s the fact that I’m the only one who seems to realize that the person we’re talking about here is a fucking priest, and ‘normal’ rules don’t apply to him. He’s not supposed to try to pick up people to have sex with, much less drunk in a gas station parking lot at night. Seriously, how many fucking times to I have to say it before it sinks in?
Perhaps you can show us where a priest was defrocked for having sex with a woman.
Because they ignored aberrant behavior (for a priest) and ignored complaints, including on that he was behaving inappropriately around the kids he later molested, and could have very easily stopped this from happening. Kids got molested, screw this guy.
Perhaps you can quit picking on semantics in the words I use. I’ve already said I don’t know what church policy is about priests who break vows, I just picked defrocked cuz it’s something that can happen to a priest. From what I’ve been able to find online it varies with the bishop in charge.
So you believe that gay men are likely to be child molesters, but only if they are priests. What is the basis for your distinction?
Regards,
Shodan
Bullshit. You started from the premise that, because he liked men, he also liked boys, and the church should have known that. You’ve backpedalled to include the theory that, because he also liked women, the church should have known he liked boys, but that’s also offensive bullshit, just not quite such a dangerous stereotype.
No, it is not a cause for that. Which is why the Bishop did not do that. Priests are not expected to be perfect, any more than anyone else is, and - as everyone is imperfect, there is no inherent shame in that imperfection. You need to study the theology a hell of a lot more before you make any more asinine comments like that.
Damn, too late, there’s another one. The Bishop did his job. He attempted to help the priest overcome his desires, moved him to a new community where there was no stigma to help that happen, and assessed the risk. Which was, at that point, apparently none.
His past gave them no reason to assume he was a danger to children. You need to drop that offensive stereotype - the one you claim not to be perpetuating in your first paragraph - right fucking now.
I would, but it seems a bit unfair to hold you responsible for semantics in the words other people use. Can you give us any examples at all of priests who were publicly disciplined for having heterosexual intercourse?
The OP seems outraged that the priest engaged in entirely normal human behavior, but the DAMNED CHURCH didn’t follow it’s homophobic AND heterophobic sex policies and … expel him, or condem him from the pulpit or … something.
So you believe that ice cream is good for computers? Why would think something like that?