Nope. Please point out where I say that because he likes men he also likes boys.
Well I can’t seem to find anything about official punishment for a priest who breaks their vows, but of course as I’ve already said, I didn’t know what their official policy on this matter was and just assumed that there was something. However, I can easily find examples of priests resigning due to breaking said vow, so yes there is inherent shame in it.
So his job included ignoring the complaints filed against the priest? Including the complaint that the priest was behaving inappropriately with the children he later molested?
Yes, I’ve already said this.
And you need to read what I’ve posted in this thread.
It is never a good sign when you can’t follow your own logic.
Do you believe that attempts at having sex with other adult males are an indication of a desire to have sex with minor males? If you say Yes, then OK, you believe that gay men are child molesters. If you say No, then you have no basis to criticize the diocese for its actions. If you say “Yes, but only in the case of a priest who is breaking his vows”, then kindly produce cites showing that to be the case.
Just to make sure I have everything correct, you believe that because the bishop had prior knowledge of the priest’s high libido and tendency to act on it, he and/or the church administration should have done something much sooner to protect the reputation of the church and priests in general which would coincidentally have also spoked his wheel when it comes to the child abuse?
And yet you still can’t actually explain what they did wrong, without referring to the fact that the priest had sex with adults. That has no bearing on his later crimes. You’ve admitted you don’t know what the procedures for dealing with priests who break their vows are, so you can’t claim that, and you’ve also claimed to be saying they couldn’t have predicted his abuse.
I don’t have different rules for priests than I do for a businessman or a taxi driver.
I don’t have different rules for members of one religion versus another.
I don’t encourage the RCC to be more hateful and more repressive of sexuality.
I don’t consider it aberrant to want to have sex with other adults.
I don’t consider it aberrant to hit on other adults, barring exceptions that are not in this story like the person is your underling at a company, etc.
The RCC can be outraged that someone broke their vows to the church, but I couldn’t possibly care less about their vows.
What the OP isn’t getting is that there would be an ethical problem with keeping a priest at a parish if he was sexually harassing parishioners or people he interacts with as part of his job. For the same reasons that it’s inappropriate for a doctor to have sexual relationships with his or her patients…it’s a power imbalance and takes advantage of potential vulnerability of the other party. A priest “sinning” by having sex with random individuals who probably don’t even know he’s a priest is not an ethical issue as far as his job or responsibilities to his flock are concerned, any more than any other sin would be. One has nothing to do with the other, and as everyone has pointed out, you can’t assume that one type of sexual behavior indicates that there will be other types of sexual behavior.
No, as a matter of fact, you don’t. I know you have said so, a lot, but you are incorrect. There is no non-contradictory way simultaneously to claim that [list=A][li]Making sexual advances to adult males is not evidence of a desire to molest children, and [*]A priest who makes sexual advances towards adult males is thereby demonstrating a desire to molest children.[/list]You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you say “The diocese should have known he would do this because of his prior actions which don’t go to show that he would do this.” [/li]
Sorry, but there it is.
All I can figure is that the church had some evidence of the priest acting immorally and breaking church rules, and did not remove the priest from the parish and warn all the parishoners that the priest had some history of immoral acts.
There’s a difference between immoral and unethical, though. What the priest had a history of doing isn’t unethical. And, really, the parishioners don’t have a right to know about the priest’s immoral acts, as long as they have no bearing on his job.
Personally, I don’t even think it’s immoral, considering the church’s draconian rules about priests and sex with other consenting adults. It’s just that what I wrote is the only way I can parse the OP as even remotely making sense … except that it doesn’t, and the OP thinks we’re somehow either deliberately misinterpreting the outrage, or we don’t understand it.
Well, OP, you’re wrong. We do understand it, in the sense that we understand that nonsense is nonsensical.
Yeah, exactly…that’s what I’m trying to do, as well. And, it’s reasonable to think that what he did was not immoral, but even if you do adhere to the RCC’s teaching on it (which is that it would be immoral for anyone to cruise for sex), it isn’t a predictor that it will carry over to his job…and CERTAINLY not that he will molest children.
I truly have no idea where all the ‘OMG u hate fags!!!111’ shit came from. I hadn’t said a single thing about him being gay until after someone else brought it up, and even then I agreed with them.
Apparently now it’s perfectly normal for priests to bang whoever they want, I must have missed the memo.
It’s a matter of sin for a priest to bang any adult, but it’s not the kind of sin that is handled by announcing to the public that the priest has sinned in this way. Your expectation seems to be that the normal punishment for a priest who sins by having sex is some sort of public shaming ritual. It’s not. It’s prayer, counseling, and an effort to avoid that sin and the near occasion of that sin in the future. It’s most emphatically NOT an announcement of the sin to the public.
Sometimes a priest’s response to counseling, and discernment, will make him realize that he wants to continue having sex, and to no longer act as a priest. If that happens, he can resign, and be removed from the clerical state. Sometimes, he will decide that while he fell off the wagon, he still wants to be a priest, and he is typically permitted to remain.
None of these events should make any entity decide that the priest in question is a danger to children.
The ‘OMG u hate fags!!!111’ shit came from your apparently unconscious assumption that a gay man is a danger to children, sexually, because that’s the only thing that the diocese had to go on, and you announced they failed their duty by not acting against him.
How convenient when you’ve been shown to be an ignorant hateful moron.
No, I’m sure you genuinely don’t know where it comes from. Because you are an ignorant hateful moron.
I’ll explain it again though.
You think the church should have stopped the priest from having contact with children, for the protection of those children, because the priest had (attempted to have) sex with adult men. That is what you said, and what you have repeatedly said. You think a priest that has sex with men - a gay person, in other words - is a threat to children.
Because you are an ignorant, hateful moron.
Yep, perfectly normal.
It’s also normal for people to cheat on their partners, and get drunk and hit them, it’s normal for people to lie and cheat and steal and kill in all manners and all walks of life.
Doesn’t make it right, but as I’m sure even you can figure out there’s different appropriate responses to each of them.
A priest having consensual sex with an adult should not be treated the same as one having sex with a child. They are completely different acts, both morally and legally (statute and canon).
What you are doing is the equivalent of saying we should execute shoplifters because hey, they’re criminals, they might be murderers.