| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption.
Many of the founders were suspicious of the RCC due to its tendency toward political intrigue and corruption. Defending such corruption doesn't make Catholics look anything but stupid in the eyes of their fellow Americans.
Even more telling is not the books Martin Luther removed but the books he actually authored. (On the Jews and Their Lies, Vom Schem Hamphoras, Warning against the Jews) His extreme antisemitism were the basis for much of the agenda and propaganda of the Nazi Party.
Perhaps you could explain your silence regarding the sexual abuse by the clergy of the protestant denominations, including yours which research shows is 3-10 times greater than that by the Catholic clergy.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the "suspicion of the Founders". Jefferson despised clergy of all faiths and Adams railed against the Protestant Popes of Mass.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to get at. We were accused of insulting him by accusing him of ripping books out of the Bible and the point I was getting at was that those are the facts...using his own words...and even from Protestant-leaning sites.
Who is posting under this handle? Jesse Ventura, or Bill Maher? Or maybe Chris Hitchens?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2496350/posts
The church did not become party to his sin. They removed the wicked from among themselves.
Where did it say he was convicted in a court of law of a crime? If he wasn't, HE WAS NIFONGED!!
It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption.
[Faithful Departed author Philip] Lawler points out that while less than five percent of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse, some two-thirds of our bishops were apparently complicit in cover-ups. The real scandal isn't the sick excesses of a few dozen pedophiles, or even the hundreds of priests who had affairs with teenage boys -- the bulk of abuse cases. No, according to Lawler, it is the malfeasance of wealthy, powerful, and evidently worldly men who fill the thrones -- but not the shoes -- of the apostles. In case after case, we read in their correspondence, in the records of their soulless, bureaucratic responses to victims of psychic torture and spiritual betrayal, these bishops' prime concern was to save the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar and mortgages. Ironically, their lack of a supernatural concern for souls is precisely what cost them so much money in the end.
-- excerpted from the "Inside Catholic" blog article and 'Catholic Caucus' thread Kneeling Before the World"The Dublin Archdiocese's preoccupations 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," said the report. "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"....
-- excerpted from the article and thread Pope calls Irish church leaders to Vatican to discuss abuse report
If the InsideCatholic.com blog can be believed, two-thirds of all American bishops were complicit in covering up the immoral and illegal actions of 4% or fewer Catholic clergymen. All we can say with certainty is that 96+% - 105,302 Catholic clergymen - were never accused, yet 95 percent of all Catholic dioceses in the United States were impacted negatively. The numbers are more damning for the bishops than they are for the priests.
.... Alex Murphy, Sept. 29, 2009
“Nifonged?” By whom? The Catholic Church? That’s who removed him. It’s the only proper course of action under the circumstance.
What other sort of authority figures do you make such blanket exceptions for, politicians? No, otherwise you wouldn’t be on FR. Law enforcement? No. Corporate CEO’s or even midlevel managers sexually harrassing employees? No.
Why here, then? Get them out of any position to abuse the trust placed in them. Sheltering them and making excuses for them and sending them off to another jurisdiction to avoid the just consequence of their actions taints you and your church.
Why can’t you see that? Evidently at least one diocese in California sees it.
bfl
That was a press release from a legal firm that specializes in bringing lawsuits against the Catholic Church. The priest was not convicted of anything in a criminal court, the charges were decades old and likely past the statute of limitations EVEN IF there was any truth to them, which was not addressed, and the priest was tried and convicted in the MEDIA to benefit a venal aim.
That’s what I mean by “nifonged.”
Another link to the same old thread. The “caucus” designation was removed. So, it is not a caucus thread. I did notice, however, that your remarks did not engender a lot of interest. Not surprising.
The article came from a website entitled “Clergy Abuse Watch.” It covers clerical sexual abuse across denominations, Catholic, Protestant, even other religions. I found the site by a web search on terms in your second link regarding former Lutheran Assistant Pastor Christopher Benson, who is now apparently in prison. His case was covered in more detail on that site than on the link you provided.
The fact of this particular situation is that the diocese in California disassociated themselves from a sexually abusive priest. He was removed and will never be a priest again. The legal consequences are his to bear, and not the Church’s. There can be no case made for the church being complicit, condoning the behavior or somehow colluding. It’s the only proper course of action given the circumstance.
That is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand.
And he did admitt to the accusation. No nifong, no fog at all.
Where’s the post with the link to that, showing that he admitted the accusation?
This is one of several reports which are freely available and only took a minute to find.
www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100107/A_NEWS/...
I copied and pasted your web address and got this:
Sorry, that page can not be found.
Please try again.
Google “Stockton record Jan. 8, 2010 priest removed”. It worked for me but come back if not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.