Gamecock named one Catholic who believes that the victims of abuse were (in most cases) the real perpetraitors of abuse. Why not put it into a larger context? Those of us on that thread learned from that same Catholic that:
a) (Most) Catholic priests were engaging in completely legal sex actsIf that's not excusing the priests for their crimes, I don't know what is.
b) (Most of) the priests' sexual conquests were at an age of legal consent, according to Catholic apologists, meaning that
c) (Most of) the priests were therefore engaging in consensual sex acts
, but that d) (Some of) the priests were actually seduced by teenage boys into engaging in these legal, consensual sex acts
e) A priest who finds teenage minors sexually attractive (ephebophilia) is harboring neither a pathological nor a mental disorder.
f) There's a legal difference between molestation and rape, which means that molesting a 13 year old is better than raping a 13 year old..
g) There's at least as much abuse in Presbyterian churches as there has been in Catholic ones [which can't be very much, given points a - f]
h) There's 3-4 times as much abuse by clergy in Protestant denominations [which can't be very much, given points a - g]
i) Silence in regards to abuses by clergy shows a lack of care and concern for the victims. Speaking out in regards to abuses by clergy is exploiting the victims in order to harm others. [which condemns those who brought up points g and h, above]
You need to ping Judith Ann since you are maligning her by writing that her posts say something completly different from what they actually said.
Yes I bothered to read every post you linked to. None of them in anyway resembled what you claimed.
Shame on you.