Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
Nobody ever said it was.
I'll repeat it again for anyone unbiased enough to read a non-Catholic opinion without reading into it what they want.
Everyone recognizes that abuse is going to happen. It's virtually impossible to prevent.
That's not the issue here or in the trial. The problem is that the abuse was known and nothing was done about it except measures to protect the priests. They weren't disciplined, or defrocked, or turned over to the authorities. They were covered up and moved around and basically given access to fresh game.
Sexual abuse has been an issue in the Catholic church for over a thousand years. Just how long are people expected to not speak up about it? How long are people expected to wait for something to be done?
In non-Catholic situations, say, public schools for example, the perps are arrested and charged and the districts participate with the authorities in seeing justice done. It's a sad state of affairs that the Catholic church cannot do as well as public schools in addressing the issue of abusers in their midst.
THAT'S the issue.
If the Catholic church had acted appropriately when abuse was found out, nobody would have anything to criticize them for. All the flak they're taking is their own fault. They have no one to blame but themselves.
***THAT’S the issue.***
Amazing how FRoman Catholics insist that this is Catholic bashing. Kindda makes you wonder....
Not that the defense would ever want to compromise the trial or delay the trial or confuse the trial or subvert the trial. Nah.
Let's think about this for a moment. Either the defense attorney was a seminarian at the same time and same place the abuse was occurring or he wasn't. That's not too difficult to discern.
And if it is true that he did attend the same seminary at the same time when the abuse took place, don't you think that's a pretty salient fact he should have disclosed so as to avoid a mistrial down the line?
They sure would have liked that, wouldn't they?
I can't believe for a minute that the defense attorney didn't realize that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that having him as the attorney was part of the plan all along, just for a contingency. They HAD to know that he had attended the seminary. He had to know that that would be a conflict of interest and cause a mistrial. If he didn't, he has no business being a lawyer.
That probably explains why he blew a gasket over the issue and tried to make it personal.
It all fits in with what I’ve known the vatican cesspool to be since my childhood.
It is the most antichrist body on Earth.
.
An abomination!
Our Lord Jesus Christ would never have made that vile “three finger salute” even by accident.
Just like every other “icon.”
So, is your argument that the celibate priesthood is evidence that “Rome” wants homosexual priests?
What is your explanation for the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches allow married priests and the fact that the Latin Rite allows for married priests in certain situations?
Thx for the pings.
How can that not be uppermost in the minds of every single Roman Catholic in this country?
Their children are being destroyed and all they can muster is a prayer for protection of these priests.
>> “Amazing how FRoman Catholics insist that this is Catholic bashing. Kindda makes you wonder....” <<
.
Its a catholic ‘tradition.’
Don’t they have a right to their traditions? (@*#^%&*@#)
When Rome does away with its ludicrous “celibacy” requirement, Rome hopefully will attract less homosexuals.
Until then, Rome gets what it wants.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." -- Matthew 7:16-18
What men defend and uphold and protect and promote, they get more of.
Historical literature and even historical accounts certainly contain enough evidence that the unmarried priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church has long been a haven for men who are attracted to men, and men who are attracted to boys, WPaCon. Archaic terms for such like catamite and sodomite are not at all difficult to find, even pertaining to individuals highly placed in the hierarchy, right up to certain medieval Popes themselves. That the Eastern Catholic Churches and certain Latin Rite Churches permit marriage only points out the fallacy and folly of Rome’s insistence upon it.
Even the bozo defense attorney in this article falls back on the old “Catholic-bashing” defense.
They need a new drug.
When pederasts they are found to be in Protestant churches, they are usually turned over to police authorities, tried and convicted if guilty.
They are not protected, hidden nor promoted, as they are in the RCC.
And further, the cases you cite are from a dozen states.
37 Roman Catholic priests suspected of pederasty in one city in one diocese.
My argument is not over whether there are homosexuals in the priesthood, but whether “Rome” wants homosexuals in the priesthood.
Amen.
Prove it, GC.
Here, perhaps, is a sobering thought for you; how do you know?
lol. Same old/same old. A defensive, empty whine must be part of being "properly catechized."
And just who let them in?
Mant FRoman Catholics seem to think gay priests have been around for quite some time.
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.