OK -
I get it.
No problem here, everyone just move along. It’s old news anyway. The Church did what it should have. The Times is biased. Some of the facts are in dispute. The church did not castrate the victim, a doctor did under legal conditions. Are we sure he was really a victim of abuse?
>> No problem here, everyone just move along... Are we sure he was really a victim of abuse?<<
Obviously there’s a problem. Someone was sexually abused. But your absurd straw-man arguments contribute nothing to any conversation; no-one suggested he wasn’t really a victim of abuse. In fact, the Church turned in the culprits, and he was sentenced and sent to jail, so your reason for putting hateful and ridiculous statements into other people’s mouths is what?
You apparently feel like haranguing on the malfeasance of church officials. There should be plenty of good targets: Mahony, Bernardin, Weakland. You write like I’ve been arguing to whitewash the episcopacy, when I know very well that you’ve read my posts about black masses, the pink mafia, etc. But apparently you have nothing constructive or informative to say, so I’ve had enough.