Biden: To hell with God and the Church. I'm taking communion.

[JudgeRightly]

Chrys (@chrysostom) has covered this before but the choice by the RCC leadership to allow homosexuals to become priests is the key to understanding how the abuse started and was allowed to continue.

It also doesn't help when the current pope is pro-homo.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html

Vatican Invests $1.1 Million in Steamy Elton John Biopic

The Vatican invested upwards of a million dollars to back the Rocketman film about singer Elton John with a graphic scene of gay sex.

www.breitbart.com

Franklin Graham: Pope trying to 'normalize homosexuality' | WND | by WND Staff

Franklin Graham, the influential evangelical Christian leader of the worldwide Samaritan's Purse ministry, says the promotion by Pope Francis regarding homosexuality is "unthinkable in light of the Word of God."

www.wnd.com

Pope Francis named ‘Person of the Year’ by leading gay rights

The religious leader is the December coverstar of The Advocate magazine, on which he appears with a photoshopped tattoo on his cheek

www.independent.co.uk

More at https://kgov.com/pope

 

[Right Divider]

Chrys (@chrysostom) has covered this before but the choice by the RCC leadership to allow homosexuals to become priests is the key to understanding how the abuse started and was allowed to continue.

And don't forget the celibacy requirement. That required ALL priests to hid their sexual behavior, even the heterosexual ones. Unlike, of course, Peter... who was married.

 

[ok doser]

Um, no. The abuses were going on for decades before any decision by Church leadership.

And of course any time Chrys would make his argument you'd have the pro-homos like the bananahead jump all over him and tell him he was wrong

 

[Idolater]

Like Cardinal McCarrick, first Cardinal in the history of the Church to be laicized because of his sexual misdeeds and crimes (adults and minors were involved).

Yes, McCarrick that violent criminal, thank you for the example. My point was that he was an outlier, that most child rapists did not ascend to bishop.

You know who was told about McCarrick and didn't believe the reports? Pope John Paul II.

Pope St. John Paul II. And you're saying it as if because he couldn't bring himself to believe this, that he was just as guilty of child rape as child rapists are, and that's just flatly incorrect. He didn't commit that violent crime, and he wasn't an accessory. His guilt is in his naivete.

You're going too far when you say any bishop who didn't call the police on a molesting priest was "probably a child rapist himself." Their crimes of culpability are bad enough

If they knew, with full knowledge just what a child rapist is, the sort of human being that that violent criminal is, then I'm not going too far. They're an accessory if they knew fully what they were dealing with and didn't call the police.

I think the bishops knew. No doubt. If they didn't, I can only think they were intentionally ignorant for their own purposes as I've outlined previously.

This is your proposed alternative to my notion that they were all deceived as to the gravity of the violent crimes being committed, and to the irredeemabilty of the violent criminals that they were dealing with.

This (a priest's perspective vie Rod Dreher) may shed some light how priests think differently and why that mattered when it came to dealing with fellow priests. Not agreeing, I think clericalism is a continuing factor and unfixable problem, but it's another facet of the picture.

It was too long, as I tire quickly of Dreher's pontificating and sanctimony, but I did see that his priest friend wrote something that I've been saying all along: "priests generally don’t grasp the seriousness of the offense, and the damage it does"

They didn't, and I hope we can all learn the lesson that thinking of child rapists as anything other than just as dangerous as an unrepentant murderer, is a profound mistake.

 

[Idolater]

And of course any time Chrys would make his argument you'd have the pro-homos like the bananahead jump all over him and tell him he was wrong

He is wrong. One of the other 'safe havens' for child rapists is of course the unmarried mother with young children. They marry the mom, and rape the kids. They're not homosexual or heterosexual, they're violent criminals, as dangerous and as without conscience as serial killers.

 

[ok doser]

Got me wanting to rewatch Doubt. Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderfully sleazy as only he could be. And Meryl Streep's portrayal of a suspicious nun was very well done as well.

 

[ok doser]

He is wrong. One of the other 'safe havens' for child rapists is of course the unmarried mother with young children. They marry the mom, and rape the kids. They're not homosexual or heterosexual, they're violent criminals, as dangerous and as without conscience as serial killers.

Yes, this is the argument that pro homos would make - that child abusers don't distinguish between gender.
It is absolute nonsense when discussing pedophiles.

 

[Idolater]

Got me wanting to rewatch Doubt. Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderfully sleazy as only he could be. And Meryl Streep's portrayal of a suspicious nun was very well done as well.

My impression at the time was that it was well done, agreed. I'd been thinking of trying to rewatch it as well. I hadn't developed my understanding of child rapists when I watched it the first time, maybe I'll see it differently the second time around.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, this is the argument that pro homos would make - that child abusers don't distinguish between gender.
It is absolute nonsense when discussing pedophiles.

I disagree. I think it's absolute nonsense to speak about 'sexual orientation' when we're talking about child rape or serial killing or any other violent crime. The salient thing is the violent crime, not the sex of his victims.

This is all said with the knowledge that the evidence might suggest a higher percentage of child rapists tend to victimize boys instead of girls, than the percentage of homosexuals in the general public. The distinction that's important is that they are child rapists, and all of us who aren't child rapists, are in a different category.

If anything I think child rapists themselves would prefer we get distracted about it being a homosexual matter, it just gives them a little more time to rape more children before they're caught.

 

[annabenedetti]

And of course any time Chrys would make his argument you'd have the pro-homos like the bananahead jump all over him and tell him he was wrong

What you said was incorrect, I'm telling you what's correct.

There were many decades of abuse before the 2005 instruction was issued re: homosexuals in the priesthood.

 

[annabenedetti]

I disagree. I think it's absolute nonsense to speak about 'sexual orientation' when we're talking about child rape or serial killing

Would you stop with the "child rape or serial killing." You're muddying the water. Stick with child rape, child molestation, whatever legal term you want to use and stop adding serial killers in with it.

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes, McCarrick that violent criminal, thank you for the example. My point was that he was an outlier, that most child rapists did not ascend to bishop.

We really don't know that, even after all these years.

Pope St. John Paul II. And you're saying it as if because he couldn't bring himself to believe this, that he was just as guilty of child rape as child rapists are, and that's just flatly incorrect. He didn't commit that violent crime, and he wasn't an accessory. His guilt is in his naivete.

He's culpable, to the degree he could have taken massive action and didn't. But I'm the one who's been telling you that you have to differentiate between the culpability and the actual crime. You want to call them all violent rapists - until they get to be bishop or pope, I guess.

If they knew, with full knowledge just what a child rapist is, the sort of human being that that violent criminal is, then I'm not going too far. They're an accessory if they knew fully what they were dealing with and didn't call the police.

I've already said that, are we talking past each other?

It was too long, as I tire quickly of Dreher's pontificating and sanctimony, but I did see that his priest friend wrote something that I've been saying all along: "priests generally don’t grasp the seriousness of the offense, and the damage it does"

They didn't, and I hope we can all learn the lesson that thinking of child rapists as anything other than just as dangerous as an unrepentant murderer, is a profound mistake.

Most of it wasn't Dreher, it was the priest's commentary, which gives some insight, agree or not, into clerical thinking. I thought you might be interested but no worries if you're not.

I've been following this since 2002, more closely in the early aughts then now, but I still remember a lot. Did you ever read the John Jay Report?

 

[ok doser]

What you said was incorrect, I'm telling you what's correct.

There were many decades of abuse before the 2005 instruction was issued re: homosexuals in the priesthood.

You're giving your opinion.


Which is, no surprise, wrong.

 

[annabenedetti]

You're giving your opinion.


Which is, no surprise, wrong.

No, I'm giving you facts.

And you really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ok doser]

No, I'm giving you facts.

And you really don't know what you're talking about.

I should take a cue from @chrysostom and just ignore your silly nonsense

 

[annabenedetti]

I should take a cue from Chrys and just ignore

If you don't want to look silly because you're pretending to know more about Catholicism than you actually do - that might be a good idea.

 

[ok doser]

Meanwhile we have a child abuse crisis in the RCC that is directly linked to their decision to ordain sexual perverts aka homos

 

[annabenedetti]

Meanwhile we have a child abuse crisis in the RCC that is directly linked to their decision to make priests of homosexuals

 

[annabenedetti]

I disagree. I think it's absolute nonsense to speak about 'sexual orientation' when we're talking about child rape or serial killing or any other violent crime. The salient thing is the violent crime, not the sex of his victims.

This is all said with the knowledge that the evidence might suggest a higher percentage of child rapists tend to victimize boys instead of girls, than the percentage of homosexuals in the general public. The distinction that's important is that they are child rapists, and all of us who aren't child rapists, are in a different category.

If anything I think child rapists themselves would prefer we get distracted about it being a homosexual matter, it just gives them a little more time to rape more children before they're caught.

In the decades when most of the abuse was taking place, there were no girl altar servers, only boys. Opportunity and access.

 

[ok doser]

In the decades when most of the abuse was taking place, there were no girl altar servers, only boys. Opportunity and access.

And there were no opportunities or access other than altar servers?