Biden: To hell with God and the Church. I'm taking communion.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Chrys (@chrysostom) has covered this before but the choice by the RCC leadership to allow homosexuals to become priests is the key to understanding how the abuse started and was allowed to continue.

It also doesn't help when the current pope is pro-homo.


More at https://kgov.com/pope
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Like Cardinal McCarrick, first Cardinal in the history of the Church to be laicized because of his sexual misdeeds and crimes (adults and minors were involved).
Yes, McCarrick that violent criminal, thank you for the example. My point was that he was an outlier, that most child rapists did not ascend to bishop.
You know who was told about McCarrick and didn't believe the reports? Pope John Paul II.
Pope St. John Paul II. And you're saying it as if because he couldn't bring himself to believe this, that he was just as guilty of child rape as child rapists are, and that's just flatly incorrect. He didn't commit that violent crime, and he wasn't an accessory. His guilt is in his naivete.
You're going too far when you say any bishop who didn't call the police on a molesting priest was "probably a child rapist himself." Their crimes of culpability are bad enough
If they knew, with full knowledge just what a child rapist is, the sort of human being that that violent criminal is, then I'm not going too far. They're an accessory if they knew fully what they were dealing with and didn't call the police.
I think the bishops knew. No doubt. If they didn't, I can only think they were intentionally ignorant for their own purposes as I've outlined previously.
This is your proposed alternative to my notion that they were all deceived as to the gravity of the violent crimes being committed, and to the irredeemabilty of the violent criminals that they were dealing with.
This (a priest's perspective vie Rod Dreher) may shed some light how priests think differently and why that mattered when it came to dealing with fellow priests. Not agreeing, I think clericalism is a continuing factor and unfixable problem, but it's another facet of the picture.
It was too long, as I tire quickly of Dreher's pontificating and sanctimony, but I did see that his priest friend wrote something that I've been saying all along: "priests generally don’t grasp the seriousness of the offense, and the damage it does"

They didn't, and I hope we can all learn the lesson that thinking of child rapists as anything other than just as dangerous as an unrepentant murderer, is a profound mistake.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And of course any time Chrys would make his argument you'd have the pro-homos like the bananahead jump all over him and tell him he was wrong
He is wrong. One of the other 'safe havens' for child rapists is of course the unmarried mother with young children. They marry the mom, and rape the kids. They're not homosexual or heterosexual, they're violent criminals, as dangerous and as without conscience as serial killers.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Got me wanting to rewatch Doubt. Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderfully sleazy as only he could be. And Meryl Streep's portrayal of a suspicious nun was very well done as well.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
He is wrong. One of the other 'safe havens' for child rapists is of course the unmarried mother with young children. They marry the mom, and rape the kids. They're not homosexual or heterosexual, they're violent criminals, as dangerous and as without conscience as serial killers.
Yes, this is the argument that pro homos would make - that child abusers don't distinguish between gender.
It is absolute nonsense when discussing pedophiles.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Got me wanting to rewatch Doubt. Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderfully sleazy as only he could be. And Meryl Streep's portrayal of a suspicious nun was very well done as well.
My impression at the time was that it was well done, agreed. I'd been thinking of trying to rewatch it as well. I hadn't developed my understanding of child rapists when I watched it the first time, maybe I'll see it differently the second time around.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes, this is the argument that pro homos would make - that child abusers don't distinguish between gender.
It is absolute nonsense when discussing pedophiles.
I disagree. I think it's absolute nonsense to speak about 'sexual orientation' when we're talking about child rape or serial killing or any other violent crime. The salient thing is the violent crime, not the sex of his victims.

This is all said with the knowledge that the evidence might suggest a higher percentage of child rapists tend to victimize boys instead of girls, than the percentage of homosexuals in the general public. The distinction that's important is that they are child rapists, and all of us who aren't child rapists, are in a different category.

If anything I think child rapists themselves would prefer we get distracted about it being a homosexual matter, it just gives them a little more time to rape more children before they're caught.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I disagree. I think it's absolute nonsense to speak about 'sexual orientation' when we're talking about child rape or serial killing

Would you stop with the "child rape or serial killing." You're muddying the water. Stick with child rape, child molestation, whatever legal term you want to use and stop adding serial killers in with it.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Yes, McCarrick that violent criminal, thank you for the example. My point was that he was an outlier, that most child rapists did not ascend to bishop.

We really don't know that, even after all these years.

Pope St. John Paul II. And you're saying it as if because he couldn't bring himself to believe this, that he was just as guilty of child rape as child rapists are, and that's just flatly incorrect. He didn't commit that violent crime, and he wasn't an accessory. His guilt is in his naivete.

He's culpable, to the degree he could have taken massive action and didn't. But I'm the one who's been telling you that you have to differentiate between the culpability and the actual crime. You want to call them all violent rapists - until they get to be bishop or pope, I guess.

If they knew, with full knowledge just what a child rapist is, the sort of human being that that violent criminal is, then I'm not going too far. They're an accessory if they knew fully what they were dealing with and didn't call the police.

I've already said that, are we talking past each other?

It was too long, as I tire quickly of Dreher's pontificating and sanctimony, but I did see that his priest friend wrote something that I've been saying all along: "priests generally don’t grasp the seriousness of the offense, and the damage it does"

They didn't, and I hope we can all learn the lesson that thinking of child rapists as anything other than just as dangerous as an unrepentant murderer, is a profound mistake.

Most of it wasn't Dreher, it was the priest's commentary, which gives some insight, agree or not, into clerical thinking. I thought you might be interested but no worries if you're not.

I've been following this since 2002, more closely in the early aughts then now, but I still remember a lot. Did you ever read the John Jay Report?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Meanwhile we have a child abuse crisis in the RCC that is directly linked to their decision to ordain sexual perverts aka homos
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Meanwhile we have a child abuse crisis in the RCC that is directly linked to their decision to make priests of homosexuals

digging.jpg
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I disagree. I think it's absolute nonsense to speak about 'sexual orientation' when we're talking about child rape or serial killing or any other violent crime. The salient thing is the violent crime, not the sex of his victims.

This is all said with the knowledge that the evidence might suggest a higher percentage of child rapists tend to victimize boys instead of girls, than the percentage of homosexuals in the general public. The distinction that's important is that they are child rapists, and all of us who aren't child rapists, are in a different category.

If anything I think child rapists themselves would prefer we get distracted about it being a homosexual matter, it just gives them a little more time to rape more children before they're caught.

In the decades when most of the abuse was taking place, there were no girl altar servers, only boys. Opportunity and access.
 
Top