Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you read her post, she is not suggesting that this is, or should be, the church's sole punishment or policy in such cases. She is simply pointing out that no organisation of the church's size, even if it knowingly covered up such acts, would then compound that error by then promoting that priest to high office - ie. cardinal.

I think you have misjudged her intent in much the same way as you misread the original article.

That's what I'm disagreeing with. Because it's obvious bullshit.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If you read her post, she is not suggesting that this is, or should be, the church's sole punishment or policy in such cases. She is simply pointing out that no organisation of the church's size, even if it knowingly covered up such acts, would then compound that error by then promoting that priest to high office - ie. cardinal.

I think you have misjudged her intent in much the same way as you misread the original article.

That's what I'm disagreeing with. Because it's obvious bullshit.

Why is it? It is in direct response to your post:

I couldn't help commenting the other day when a person said "They don't know what the lower levels of the priesthood is doing." I pointed out that all the upper levels had once been lower levels, and right at the heart of the problem.

I doubt she would have mentioned promotion had you not made that post. Simply because someone has been in the lower echelons does not mean that they knew of, and shared, the crimes of every minority group thus represented.

Are generals directly responsible for wartime atrocities committed by a single platoon, simply because they were once in the lower ranks?
Is the chief of police in LA responsible for Rodney King's assault because he was once a junior officer?

I agree that the catlicks should be rightly castigated for knowingly covering up paedophilia in their ranks once it became apparent but that is a very different thing from implying that all past and present priests in a certain diocese are paedophiles simply because one is shown to be! Even in the church, it is hardly feasible that Paedos go around openly advertising the fact to fellow priests!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, then.

[.Morticia.]

it's the tone and method I object too

Both make it clear that her aim is to discredit posters, introduce doubt as to guilt, deflect blame from the church heirarchy and to derail the discussion.

[Hermit]

As for clergy higher up in the hierarchy, an instruction titled "Crimen sollicitationis" was sent to all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite in 1962. It basically forbade anyone from reporting sexual abuse to civil authorities on pain of excommunication and consequent eternal fire and brimstone, the gnashing of teeth, et cetera.

While I in no sense want to defend this doctrine or the churh's conduct, I will point out that, from my quick read, it appears that while the investigation of offenses was indeed sworn to secrecy, if the findings were positive, the penalties were of a public character.

I have a problem imagining you saying that with a straight face. Klr has summarised what really happened in Ireland: Offenses were kept secret, full stop, and this has gone on all over the catholic world. As for punishment, you are now being ridiculous. The fucking (yes, fucking) priests concerned are quietly shunted prom parish to parish without warning the parishioners about why they had those new priests. The result was that they were able to continue fucking their flock. You also seem to wilfully ignore the fact that the catholic church keeps defending tooth and nail its practice of refusing to hand the paedophiles among its midst over to criminal court. Lastly, you might think that justice might better be served if court cases are conducted in secret, but that scurrilous idea is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor is it the catholic church's motivation for keeping the immoral and illegal activities of its clergy secret.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

it's the tone and method I object too

Both make it clear that her aim is to discredit posters, introduce doubt as to guilt, deflect blame from the church heirarchy and to derail the discussion.

I simply read it that her aim was to criticise the fact that the wrong person was boing accused of being a paedophile - ie. the pope's advisor and not simply a priest in the same diocese - as is explicitly and wrongly stated in the OP! Had I read it more carefully, I would have pointed out the same error!

I see nothing wrong with discrediting such posts. And furthermore, her tone was fine in her first post. It was only when she was attacked for it that she became sarcastic in return and took the argument to the opposition - for which I can't really blame her.

Can we please talk about something nice like tits or beer now? I haz hedayk.

[Cunt]

Post reported, zilla.

I am not quite sure why you have turned up and jumped right in with this frankly, especially here, an essentially atheistic forum. You are free to do so of course, but a hello and a little about you would be good too.

Such a pleasant and welcoming way to invite a new person to share.


apophenia, I may not agree with all your points, but like your input. I hope you won't be put off by the proprietorial rudeness here.

I haven't found much to disagree with (though I would really like to sully the church's reputations at every opportunity, too)

I welcome you, apophenia, and welcome your contribution.

Don't let the old petunias worry you...they make a lot of noise, but most of it doesn't make much sense.
When some jackass interrupts a serious discussion with non-sequitors, ad-homs and other irrelevancies, I just laugh and smile the way one does with the mentally ill, or respected elders in the grips of dementia. (I don't know if it's good advice, but it works for me when I take it)

---------------------

You got me there. I'll just have to retire with the consolation of knowing I didn't start a thread proclaiming patently false information in its title.

lol well that's not half as funny as his unwillingness to acknowledge his error

---------------------

it's the tone and method I object too

Both make it clear that her aim is to discredit posters, introduce doubt as to guilt, deflect blame from the church heirarchy and to derail the discussion.

That's fucking hilarious! She pointed out an error of fact, and look at all this sauce !

She reminds me of another poster who I didn't feel as free to lust after because at that time the persona was a male. I LIKE this one. Seems downright reasonable! I hope she brings doubt often. Science lives and grows on doubt, doesn't it?

---------------------

I would like to ask if we could please inquire as to the size and quality of apophenias genitals. Photos or videos would be best, but a line-drawing or even a REALLY good description would do in a pinch.

[charlou]

Yep, intelligent, witty people give me the horn, too .... Cunt

[charlou]

I am sorry that you seem to have got off on the wrong foot here, apophenia. Maybe you expected us to take things a little more seriously than we do. Our style is far more frivolous than most sites - and atheism is far more of an optional accessory here than it is an unshakeable ethos.

Here, XC is speaking only for those members of the forum who aren't all that interested in serious discussion, of course.

Some of us welcome it, as you will have noticed.

[charlou]

Can we please talk about something nice like tits or beer now? I haz hedayk.

[apophenia]

As for clergy higher up in the hierarchy, an instruction titled "Crimen sollicitationis" was sent to all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite in 1962. It basically forbade anyone from reporting sexual abuse to civil authorities on pain of excommunication and consequent eternal fire and brimstone, the gnashing of teeth, et cetera.

While I in no sense want to defend this doctrine or the churh's conduct, I will point out that, from my quick read, it appears that while the investigation of offenses was indeed sworn to secrecy, if the findings were positive, the penalties were of a public character.

I have a problem imagining you saying that with a straight face. Klr has summarised what really happened in Ireland: Offenses were kept secret, full stop, and this has gone on all over the catholic world. As for punishment, you are now being ridiculous. The fucking (yes, fucking) priests concerned are quietly shunted prom parish to parish without warning the parishioners about why they had those new priests. The result was that they were able to continue fucking their flock. You also seem to wilfully ignore the fact that the catholic church keeps defending tooth and nail its practice of refusing to hand the paedophiles among its midst over to criminal court. Lastly, you might think that justice might better be served if court cases are conducted in secret, but that scurrilous idea is not relevant to the topic at hand, nor is it the catholic church's motivation for keeping the immoral and illegal activities of its clergy secret.

Yes, it was said with a straight face, and I am most grateful for the education in these matters. I was simply ignorant of the facts of the matter. Should I have instead shut my mouth and continued to labor in ignorance on these matters? Everybody here is acting paranoid, that somehow asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom is some kind of sin. I see it as a win-win. I learned a lot, and anybody coming to this thread who may be under the misconceptions and ignorance that I had coming to this thread, they will learn what I learned. This idea that challenging set ideas about the phenomenon is some heinous crime seems rather dogmatic and somewhat religious to me. But maybe I should have shutup from the get go, so that you all could blindly echo Gawdzilla's faulty info and all proceed like lemmings to base your world, even a tiny portion of it, on a mistake. And I still hold firm on some issues, such as wondering how people think we should prosecute hypocrisy; nobody likes my view, but then nobody has stepped forward with a concrete mechanism to punish hypocrisy that they are willing to apply universally, whether that be the hypocrisy of the church, the hypocrisy of some conservatives and tea partiers or the hypocrisy of people like Gawdzilla who are all too happy to rush the surgeons in to remove the mote from my eye, but is curiously silent about the log in his own. How would you good folk suggest we punish such people? But waitaminute. How do I know what klr says is true? He apparently couldn't or didn't detect Gawdzilla's lies, or is simply curiously silent on the subject. How do I know his entire world is not built on countless bits of misinformation; he hasn't demonstrated any credibility by being the one to correct Zilla's faux pas. Why should I trust his information, or anyone here's information? Now the fact is that I do trust his information, but I think that attitudes have been ascribed to me less on the basis of what I have said, and more as an expression of personal prejudices. A lot of good information has been shared here, and I feel immeasurably enriched as a result. Unfortunately something darker I believe has also been shared, and that's a lot of blind, unthinking hate. Coming to this thread, I had not really taken the time to study the things klr and others talked about. But simply opening my mouth and saying things which others didn't agree with seems to have brought out the hanging judge. My crime? Ignorance. Way to go fellow free thinkers.

[apophenia]

Don't let the old petunias worry you...they make a lot of noise, but most of it doesn't make much sense.
When some jackass interrupts a serious discussion with non-sequitors, ad-homs and other irrelevancies, I just laugh and smile the way one does with the mentally ill, or respected elders in the grips of dementia. (I don't know if it's good advice, but it works for me when I take it)

Sadly, I haven't mastered your art. A tragic confession for a Taoist, I know. Perhaps I need to do some more penance. Maybe invest in a good quality hair shirt, and some professional quality implements of self-flagellation. I have many sins to confess and no priest in sight. Oh, what shall I do?

[Hermit]

[Snip] Everybody here is acting paranoid, that somehow asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom is some kind of sin. [Snip]

Wow! What's with this sudden mood change? I admired your self-control and measured replies when facing the provocations of our head-troll, and now this.

Nobody has told you not to ask questions, least of all I, thank you. I have replied to a number of assertions you made because I think you were wrong. Do you have a problem with that?

Please lay off the passive-aggressive approach to debating. It only invites derision and encourages baiting. Surely, you don't want either.

[apophenia]

[Snip] Everybody here is acting paranoid, that somehow asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom is some kind of sin. [Snip]

Wow! What's with this sudden mood change? I admired your self-control and measured replies when facing the provocations of our head-troll, and now this.

My bad. Open mouth, insert foot. Some people here have been rather reactionary. I'm not going to make a list of who's been naughty and nice, but not everybody here has responded with your level of grace, fairness, impartiality and tact. (And I'll amend that to say that I've enjoyed the company of most of the people I've met here, even Zilla who has a very sharp tongue and a quick wit. I understand why I have attracted some of the fire that came my way, that doesn't mean I have to respect it. Rotters claiming that I'm defending pedophiles I think are guilty of a serious mis-read of my behavior. I know. i should control my temper. I'll work on it. I'm very new to forums, and I guess I'm still learning the ropes -- the hard way. I'm very opinionated, and I'm not what one would describe as a "conventional thinker", and I think that creates a lot of misunderstanding. I'm not going to take to wearing a cow bell or pinning a yellow star on me to forestall such occurrences. It's just something I'll have to figure out through experience, painful experience. It's odd, I've spent the last 10+ years moderating a popular irc channel, trolls and tards, don't faze me a bit. Before that it was usenet for several years, which I ably navigated. And before that, another 10 years on the BBS scene -- though I was a bit testy at times in those waters. And before that.... well, I'm dating myself. The point is, this forum stuff is new to me, and I'm still getting my sea legs. I feel like Bambi on ice at times. If I have erred and committed an indiscretion here, I apologize for my awkward incompetence. As the saying goes, "I'm dancing as fast as I can.")

[klr]

How do I know what klr says is true?

"Let Google be your friend ...". There's no obligation on me give detailed references, when all one has to do is plug "Catholic Church sex" into a search engine text box, and let it auto-complete the "scandal" bit. Hit the search button, and Bob's your uncle.

But to take just one well-known example, the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA). The full reports are available for anyone to read here: reporthttp://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/

The wiki summary is also worth reading if you're short on time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... hild_Abuse

The summary page for Catholic sexual abuse in Ireland is also a must-read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_s ... in_Ireland

And this is only Ireland. For a global overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

EDIT:
This extract from the wiki CICA summary page is worth quoting:

In November 2009, the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse reported its findings in which it concluded that:

"the Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State".[53]

So much for the primacy of Canon Law in the eyes of the Church. When it suited, Canon Law was ignored just as readily as the laws of the land.