Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Alex Murphy
Actuaally, I think this letter sums up nothing but a bunch of ill-informed rhetoric.

the Catholic Church has just added a number of new sins that address pollution, mind-damaging drugs and social injustice.

Not strictly speaking true. But certianly promoted with amusement by the secular media.

However, the Catholic Church is deafeningly silent on the issue of clergy sexual abuse of children.

That is not only untrue but almost certainly a lie - a culpable untruth. There have been discussions, letters, articles, programs, announcemnt of programs, diocesan background checks, and so on. I volunteer at my Church in a capacity having nothing to do with children and still had to authorize a background check. After this statement, the rest of the letter cannot be taken seriously.

No one connected with the church that I know of has addressed that issue with the laity.

All these questions have been addressed. I would suggest to this writer that he pull his head out and do some reading. I'd suggest "First Things" as a good place to start.

Alex, could you tell me what exactly it is that this letter sums up pretty well?

11 posted on 04/02/2008 7:25:50 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Mad Dawg
Alex, could you tell me what exactly it is that this letter sums up pretty well?

As you have said (and I would agree), "There have been discussions, letters, articles, programs, announcemnt of programs, diocesan background checks, and so on." None of which rise to the level of a categorical, public, "no tolerance" condemnation of the practice. All true. But none rise to the level of a public anathema against sexual predators within the Catholic Church. We Reformers got one, so why not the pedophiles and other sexual deviants?

Take the recent case of the "sweaty naked jogging priest" Father Robert Whipkey. He was seen by an off-duty police office naked on the streets around a public high school, admitted to the same, offered a not guilty plea in court, and had his lawyers strike his prior admission from the official court records. His Archbishop, Charles Chaput, has yet to demand Whipkey be barred from the priesthood for his actions, nor has Chaput made any categorical statements to the media re "sexual predators will not be tolorated within my archdiocese". Instead, the archdiocese has sent Whipkey out of state, delaying the trial, for "some treatment". Five will get you ten than Whipkey gets reassigned to an even smaller parish (as if Frederick, Colorado isn't small enough), or to an administrative position out of public sight.

This is where the letter "sums it up pretty well" IMO:

However, the Catholic Church is deafeningly silent on the issue of clergy sexual abuse of children.

No one connected with the church that I know of has addressed that issue with the laity. Is it a sin to knowingly assign pedophiles to a round of parishes? Is it a sin to pay victims to keep their mouths shut and then have them sign a statement that if they ever tell about their abuse to repay the money with interest?


14 posted on 04/02/2008 7:54:20 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson