[NYer]

Ping!

[cripplecreek]

Back in the 80s it was primarily Baptists who were being accused. In one case near me the whole congregation was accused and lost their children for a while.

That witchhunt fell apart when it was proved that the child psychologists involved in the cases were coaching small children to make up stories of molestation.

Obviously it does occasionally happen but only an idiot would believe that its widespread and institutionalized.

[count-your-change]

“I was recently asked by a newspaper reporter about the Church’s policy of placing priests on leave after they are accused of abuse [alleged to have occurred] decades ago. I told him that I thought that priests should first have a right to reply to the charges. If they acknowledge wrongdoing, then they should immediately be removed. If they deny the charges, and there have never been any such accusations before, then they should be afforded innocence until information shows otherwise. (Again—I am referring to a previously unblemished priest facing an accusation dating back decades.)”

Sifting through files in search of an accusation made decades ago and then removing the accused does nothing to protect children. It sounds more like back sides being protected.

If the news media have used a double standard (like anyone would expect otherwise) toward accused priests then so has the Catholic church.
The bishops that acted as enablers for the guilty certainly weren't tossed out on mere accusation.

I didn't see any mention of the Dallas Charter and the role it plays in dealing with accusations.

[Jacquerie]

Isn't it true the abused were teenage boys?

The media always portray the problem as “pedophilia,” which I understand as the perverted attraction of adult men to prepubescent girls.

For some reason, the media never describe it for what it is; the attraction older faggots have for adolescent boys.