Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

[apophenia]

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.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. I appreciate the links and the information you have provided, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. The quotation you extracted from my post was clearly ex hypothesi, as explicitly clarified later in the post that I do accept your information, do not have doubts about its veracity and accept your position as an authority on the subject. That you chose to quote part of my reply giving the impression that I had serious doubts about your information, while completely ignoring and omitting where I explicitly acknowledged you as an authority seems to me little more than a demonstration that you can egregiously misquote someone. Is that your point?

[odysseus]

http://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... -positive/

Arrested Italian priest confirms he is HIV positive...

Posted on May 26, 2011 by The Voice Of Bombay's Catholic Laity

An Italian priest accused of sexually abusing minors and supplying them with illegal drugs has admitted to prison doctors that he is HIV-positive, Italian media reported Saturday.
Father Riccardo Seppia was arrested last week.
He is accused of abusing a 16-year-old boy and giving him cocaine.
Investigators have since said Seppia, who regularly frequented discotheques, saunas and gyms, would frequently ask his drug dealers to provide him with young boys.
According to dailies La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera, Seppia later confirmed a prosecutor’s report on his medical condition and has since asked staff at the Marassi prison in Genoa to be transferred to another prison because of the constant abuse he has been receiving from other prisoners.
The Vatican, which has already suspended Seppia from all priestly duties, has recently urged parishes to report sex crime suspects to civil authorities.
The Catholic Church has in the past been accused of not reacting strongly enough to allegations of sexual abuse by priests in Italy and elsewhere.

What a marvellous example to us all. Praise teh LOARD! I hope he gets buggered to within an inch of his life....

[Ronja]

I would not describe Zilla as a typical member of any group, neither Ratz, nor homo sapiens!

He is a lovable, cuddly example of a (how many hundred meters tall was it again?) fire-breathing lizard. The best of that kind.

Somewhat more seriously:

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.

In other words: you ain't in Kansas anymore, apophenia. Most - if not all - bets are indeed off here. But most of these people are deeply caring and very, very funny, if you let them. (I'm not funny, but that's just a personal shortcoming)

Please stick around and take time to look us over more thoroughly. If you don't like all the cheese and bacon, fine, but please don't judge us on this one thread.

Yes, please do. I made a list of the threads that have touched me for the benefit of another newcomer some time ago, and I still stand by my choices, see here if you are curious: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ja#p700550

[charlou]

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.

The church must maintain a semblence of divinely sanctioned, heirarchical authoritative morality, and so cannot be seen to waver under the pressure of mere evil worldly ethics.

[Ronja]

The church must maintain a semblence of divinely sanctioned, heirarchical authoritative morality, and so cannot be seen to waver under the pressure of mere evil worldly ethics.

Unfortunately.

[.Morticia.]

.

Morticia. wrote:
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?

There is no doubt as to the guilt of individual priests and the complicity of the church up to the highest levels. The impression left by the concern troll is one of doubt, and thus by extension, doubt of all accusations , and proof, against priests and the Church.


And yes, I understand what healthy skepticism is. There is also a point where the evidence is so overwhelming as to remove reasonable doubt. And since we are discussing crime, not scientific endeavors, reasonable doubt is the applicable measure.

[apophenia]

Please stick around and take time to look us over more thoroughly. If you don't like all the cheese and bacon, fine, but please don't judge us on this one thread.

Yes, please do. I made a list of the threads that have touched me for the benefit of another newcomer some time ago, and I still stand by my choices, see here if you are curious: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ja#p700550

Did someone say cheese?

[Thinking Aloud]

Blue cheese, to be specific.

With bacon.

[Cunt]

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?

I think all that is left is to moon everyone. Wins every argument - true story.

[apophenia]

.

Morticia. wrote:
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 !

There is no doubt as to the guilt of individual priests and the complicity of the church up to the highest levels. The impression left by the concern troll is one of doubt, and thus by extension, doubt of all accusations , and proof, against priests and the Church.

And yes, I understand what healthy skepticism is. There is also a point where the evidence is so overwhelming as to remove reasonable doubt. And since we are discussing crime, not scientific endeavors, reasonable doubt is the applicable measure.

"Much of what is narrowly termed 'politics' seems to rest on a longing for certainty even at the cost of honesty, for an analysis which, once given, need not be examined. Such is the dead-endedness -- for women -- of Marxism in our time."

-- Adrienne Rich, "Women and Honor: Some Notes On Lying"

Now, I welcome you to start a thread devoted to how I suck, but in the meantime, I suggest you take your ad hominems and find some place warm and damp to shelter them in. The day I accept you as the measure of what is "reasonable" is the day I shove red hot pokers in my eyes, worms in my mouth, needles in my ear, a knife in my heart, and fling myself in front of a speedily moving large metal object, like a bus.

Now, if you have something to say to any point I have made, I am willing to listen. But this continual psychoanalyzing of my motives and intent is both tiresome and pathetic.

[.Morticia.]

You're welcome to stay and put up some more lame arguments in support of pedophiles .

No one is stopping you.

[Cunt]

You're welcome to stay and put up some more lame arguments in support of pedophiles .

No one is stopping you.

I didn't see any arguments she made, lame or otherwise, in support of pedophiles.

Can you quote some of those lame arguments for me?

Or are you just full of shit and unwilling to acknowledge your own aroma?

[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.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. I appreciate the links and the information you have provided, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. The quotation you extracted from my post was clearly ex hypothesi, as explicitly clarified later in the post that I do accept your information, do not have doubts about its veracity and accept your position as an authority on the subject. That you chose to quote part of my reply giving the impression that I had serious doubts about your information, while completely ignoring and omitting where I explicitly acknowledged you as an authority seems to me little more than a demonstration that you can egregiously misquote someone. Is that your point?

I don't egregiously misquote, and I read enough following the "how do I know" to make it clear in my mind that I was being asked to front up some sources to go with my earlier claims,. As for me "being an authority", that's simply not the case. To quote Gandalf "... that would be the study of many lives", and in fact the information we have now is the result of many thousands of person years of research, investigation, etc. Because I'm Irish (never mind atheist), I'm just unusually well attuned to the whole issue. But there are no particular barriers to entry for being aware of it. Clerical sexual/physical abuse has been on-off headline news right across the world during the past 15-20 years or so.

Let me try and frame the context of this discussion (and the way some people here have reacted to you) another way: This is an atheist site. A small site for sure, and one that generally tends towards the madcap end of the spectrum. Why that is happens to be another story altogether, and not relevant here. But be that as it may, we still take stories such as these very seriously at heart. More than that, many of us are veterans of internet forums, and are very familiar with all manner of arguments, positions and debating tactics, especially those related in any way to religion in theory or practice. Given the subject matter of this thread, your second post:

Subject: Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

... would have belonged on the very first page of an Apologists for Catholic Sex Abuse handbook, to be used as an opening gambit. You were probably not to know that. In another context, it might constitute a perfectly valid theoretical/philosophical submission, but not in this context. If a new user with no established position makes a post like this, other users will assess it on the basis of content, and also experience from previous debates. Hence the somewhat negative reaction, although it differed in its strength and expression from one person to the next. "We're all individuals ..."

To the user base on this forum (and to a great many people at large to be honest), the issue of widespread sex abuse involving the Catholic Church is long since settled as a matter of overwhelming fact. There are still a great many discussions to be had on the hows and the whys, not to mention the general extent, or guilt/innocence in numerous particular cases. But in general terms, the lie of the land is well understood: Only last week we had the first TV exposé on alleged abuse by Irish missionaries in Africa, something which I had predicted for a long time ...

[Azathoth]

"We're all individuals ..."

I'm not

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Can we just keep things civil here? There have been a few posts bordering on personal attacks in this thread. I recognise that it is an emotive subject but that really is no excuse.