I have said previously that I know of several clergy abuse accusations that I knew were false.
Anyone else?
Catholic Discussion Ping!
So... of 10 allegations, 5 are false/exaggerated... that means there’s still 5 that are true, when there should be zero, and the church is/was lax in dealing with it.
The clergy is being attacked in the same way.
On the flip side, Clinton raped and abused women, but the Left didn't see anything wrong with it.
The "sex positive" crowd seems to take advantage of these claims in several ways. Their friends can be defended with a "nuts and sluts" defense, and their enemies can be destroyed with a "sexual assault is never OK" attack strategy.
It doesn’t surprise me.
My guess is there will be the same charges along with heterosexual abuse charges against the Protestants, though, since they don't have the same restrictions on the clergy. It's funny to watch Protestants carry torches and pitchforks right along with the gays and atheists who are out to get the Catholic Church. I say that as a Protestant waiting to see how shocked and upset those same people are when they're the ones in the cross hairs.
Duh! Once word got out there were millions of dollars in payouts to be had simply by accusing a priest of sexual abuse every scumbag from hades came scampering out of their holes to grab a scumbag lawyer and make the abuse claim, then gather up the dough. The Catholic Church doesn't know how to protect itself from this stuff, priests are certainly among the most forgiving, loving men on earth; forgiveness, mercy and love is what they are all about. How hard is it to attack such men, and the Church itself? In any case, this whole debacle was about HOMOSEXUAL PERVERSION, AND NOTHING ELSE. Anyone who truly followed this travesty could not help but notice that the vast majority of the plaintiffs were males, and almost every one of them was a post pubescent, (sexually mature), boy, from the ages of 12 to 17. The media is swirling with homosexual perverts, so they labeled every single charge to be a case of "pedophilia". Almost none of the actual cases met the criteria for pedophilia, but they did meet the criteria for NAMBLA.
The Church's big mistake was in allowing these base people into the seminaries.
Back in 1961 Pope John XXIII wrote an Apostolic Letter to the bishops of the world, declaring that homosexuals have a harder time controlling their lusts than do normal men, hence they should not be allowed into the seminaries. But that letter was ignored because Vatican II swept over the Catholic Church in a luciferian attempt to "protestantize" the Church, (to liberalize her, in order to gain a more favorable opinion from the world, which thought of the RCC as 'ancient'). The Church did perfectly well in her 'ancient', (traditional), ways. Liberalism has destroyed just about every last vestage of decency on earth. But the ending to this story is a good one, we Christians know Who wins the final, decisive battle.
Sadly enough, the fact that the current Pope and the legal offices of the Vatican have done so much to try and hide the true facts means that there are actually MANY MORE cases that we’ll never know about.
No, I think it is more likely 1 out of 100 of the claims were valid.
The ones that are most likely to be true are those related to homosexual encounters because traditionally the Catholic church has tried to keep men and women separated.
In all my years, I don’t think I can remember an instance where a male at any position was left alone in a room with a female. Maybe that was just the churches I attended, but I really believe that was quite common.
Steier’s legal maneuver is the latest in a long series of moves by him and Catholic officials to block the disclosure of thousands of pages of long-secret files concerning hundreds of LA-area child molesting clerics.The motion was filed in a case called Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al, # B227743, 2nd District, Division 8, overseen by Judge Emilie H. Elias.
...Mahony will be deposed in California later this month in a pending civil suit involving Fr. Michael E. Kelly (CV035092). For months, Mahony’s lawyers fought to prevent the deposition, claiming he’s a “corporate president.” Three weeks ago, Judge Elizabeth Humphreys denied Mahony’s request.
Sorry, but don't get your hopes up based on Mahoney's laplawyers.
I've personally known multiple victims as well as multiple priests accused of abuse. Of the multiple examples of each, I only know of one priest who was falsely accused, and only two accusers who were obviously lying.
And of the priests who were accused of homosexual molestation, all were guilty as charged.
I remember when I hung out at bars. I over heard someone talking about setting up a priest if he could go all the way to prove. I told him I will remmeber his name. It was like some men wanted to take advantage of a drunken woman. I have talked people out of it. Just what a crazy world.
Jesus help us!
AMEN=So Be It!
Thanks for posting.
I know of one. The priest is retired and was living in the rectory of his former parish. As there is a parish school, he had to move away so as not to be near children. He is fighting the claim that he and another priest molested the man when he was a child. The funny part is that anyone who knew this priest knew that he did not particularly like being around children. He even avoided visiting classes at the parish school. It is a tragedy but he is determined to fight the plaintiff for the benefit of the younger priests.
The four I knew were true. The murder of a childhood neighbor is still unsolved, but his abuse is pretty well documented.
And a relative worked for the diocese and had to deal with the Bishop who was a diddler.
So, no...your ratio is probably not the norm.
They all should have been removed as found. ANY case where there is good provable evidence that there is a homo among the clergy should be dealt with severely and quickly. NO forgiveness, NO mercy.
The church should have a policy of cooperating at bringing priest to answer for their crimes in court and do it ruthlessly and quickly. That would get the bad ones to leave and keep out the others.
I want CRIMINAL trials for all priests accused...I want the accusers to stand up in court and face the justice system.....until they do, I don't believe most of them....the evidence needs to be tested just like it would in other criminal cases...
many of the accused are dead and never could defend their names....
Second, When you see money, the false accusations will pop up and give you fancy stories, which any normal person would wonder about they are so absurd.
I know of one famous court case when my boys were young, and in this case the accuser claimed a priest abused him at age 14-16...in reality, it was his much older brother who concocted the story. The brother, who was 17 or 18, met the priest in a nearby gay bar (not in the church) and had a relationship with him and later the family decided to sue for money...since the older brother had a weak case, they concocted a story about the younger one being abused.
The family won a lot of money not because anyone really believed his story, but because everyone knew that the bishop had covered up a lot of this stuff, and they wanted to punish the diocese.
That said, the sad part is that probably most of the abuse cases will never be reported.
This is sad, because a lot of these priests were serial molesters...they were actually “nice guys”, i.e. gay priests who got turned on by young boys and saw the relationship as something good. (and the psychiatrists instructed the bishop it was merely a lapse that should be overlooked).
So they continued to “lapse”, harming more young boys... and the families who did complain were “persuaded” to cover up the molestation because arresting a priest would harm this nice priest and embarrass their son, and they didn't want to do that, did they?(and I know of one of these cases too).
Salvation,
I agree totally with you. If a story comes out tomorrow, about something that happened 20 years ago, why didn’t the story come last year of the year before or the year before that? You know what I mean? They, the individuals that are trying to destroy the Catholic church, do this all the time.