Posted on 11/24/2014 11:26:43 AM PST by Gamecock
An American priest named by Pope Francis as the Vatican’s sex crimes prosecutor in September was among church officials who failed to report an abusive priest to law enforcement before the now-jailed and defrocked man committed other acts of sexual abuse, according to legal documents reviewed by The Boston Globe.
The Rev. Robert Geisinger, the second-highest-ranking leader of the Chicago Jesuits in the 1990s, knew as early as 1995 about abuse complaints against the Rev. Donald McGuire, and he advised church officials as late as August 2002 on how to discipline McGuire, the Globe reported in Sunday editions. The newspaper cited legal documents including church records produced during lawsuits by McGuire’s victims.
Court documents also show that abuse complaints against McGuire date back to the 1960s, but the Jesuits failed for years to tell police.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
That sounds like they got their man.
2000
And some underage boys as well.
In an interview titled "Careerism and vanity: Sins of the Church," Tornielli's last question to you was: Can you tell us how the Roman Curia is perceived from the outside?
And you, Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio, replied:
I see it as a body that gives service, a body that helps me and serves me. Sometimes negative news does come out, but it is often exaggerated and manipulated to spread scandal. Journalists sometimes risk becoming ill from coprophilia and thus fomenting coprophagia: which is a sin that taints all men and women, that is, the tendency to focus on the negative rather than the positive aspects. The Roman Curia has its down sides, but I think that too much emphasis is placed on its negative aspects and not enough on the holiness of the numerous consecrated and lay people who work in it.
Now the term "coprophilia" which you used spontaneously in the interview refers to a sexual perversion (fetish) by which a person derives sexual excitement from the presence of feces. The term "coprophagia" pertains to the actual act of eating excrement. Both paraphilias are commonly associated with homosexual behavior and are a regular feature of homosexual pornography.
That a bishop should so glibly refer to such disgusting and perverted practices in a public interview clearly indicates to me that you are not unschooled in the ways and dangers of sexual perversion, and hence, have no real need for me to instruct you on the perversity of homosexual behaviors, nor on the grave necessity of combating the Homosexual Collective and other forces of organized perversion.
It does speak volumes......
Wow! Protect their own still applies evidently.
The word in question refers, much more frequently, to a solid-waste-eating behavior in animals. In some cases it is normal, in some it indicates a nutritional deficiency. But you, assuming it meant a gay behavior, just used, repeatedly, the word copro--- oh, nevermind.
I'm going to assume you've been over-exposed to veterinarians.
Sick perverted complicity comes to mind. How anyone can defend the hierarchy of that cult is beyond me.
Telling the truth isn’t bashing.
Hiding behind the word bashing is akin to accusing people of being “rassis.” The sole purpose is to shut people down.
It is a well know liberal tactic.
coprophilia: marked interest in excrement; especially : the use of feces or filth for sexual excitement
No mention of veterinarians here. The fact that the Pope made such a vulgar reference in an interview is bizarre and certainly raises questions.
Mm-hmm. And you just *happen* to spend a preponderance of your time in the Religion Forum posting threads and comments against the Catholic Church. Right.
...and the fact that your “band of brothers” (i.e. those of like mind to you) pepper their Catholic Church comments with words such as “cult”, etc., is completely coincidental. Right.
Look: faithful Catholics are *more* outraged about the errors and abuses committed by Catholics (especially clerics) than you are. We don’t like them, and we don’t approve of them. But if you think the Catholic Church has some sort of monopoly on “fallen humans in the ranks” (including idiots who shuffle other sinners from place to place, rather than dealing with it rightly), then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s when you (and your “buddies” who hate the Catholic Church) try to make a “connection” such as “Catholic official [x] did [insert bad thing], therefore the Catholic Church is a false Church and a cult”, THAT’s when any reasonable person will part ways with your comment (and start to wonder about your credibility).
Rhetorically, it's a distinctionw without much difference. He was speaking metaphorically. He was rather brusquely referencing people who are drawn to, and have always in their mouths, the mud of negative talk. In the context, he was speaking of sinful defamation, aspersions, innuendoes. Similar concept: muck-raking. Conveys the idea of uncleanness in the mouth.
There are those who defend the words and actions of this Pope no matter how outlandish, outrageous, or inappropriate.
That a foul reference to a filthy sexual perversion could ever be considered edifying language for the purpose of “teaching and sanctifying” is extremely sad.
However it is short-sighted to object to an uncomfortable lexical choice, which was evidently meant to be strong. It is not nearly as strong as what St. Paul said, when he preached against circumcision, and said "I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!"
THis whole strange copro-theme is a read herring which has dwawn up far afield from the subject of the thread. I'm done with this topic. Good night.
A crude and revolting reference to a disgusting sexual perversion is merely an “uncomfortable lexical choice” worthy of St. Paul? Talk about a twisted rationalization. Good night.
The fact that you refuse to address the fact that Archbishop Bergoglio also used the word coprophilia has convinced me that you deliberately ignore negative facts concerning Francis.
It's a word used by Bergoglio when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires which absolutely fits into the context since he is clearly denouncing sin in the most vehement terms. He is not endorsing it! It's like St. Paul saying arsenokoitai.
How dare he use that word! (Shakes head.) As if one can't compare to sin to sin, when denouncing sin.
This discussion is useless. G'bye.
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.