Not All Priest fuck kids and the church is trying to sort it out

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
They call the priests back from Washington and work on a policy trying to protect children, the due process of priests, the treatments of priests who are pedophiles, the methodology of deviance,the sacredness of the cofessional(sp),canon law and public realtions.

They come back with a document that manages to try to do all of this. It is a fair document and remarkably quick for mother church.

I wish people would concentrate on how much effort the church has done to try to fix this. These people are sick and need to be treated not sent to jails to be harrassed and killed. Part of the reason recidvism rates are so high is that they are using tools from the fifties

What they need to do and what they are in the process of doing is making the rules for defrocking less complex and allow for wider information to be spread. They need to sponsor prograsm of recovery for the victims as well

What they do not need to do is end celibacy. Without a celibate preist class you have people who are trying to juggle G-d, a family and work. The priesthood is a holy calling single to the glory of G-d, one that is vital to many people.

anthony, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Why do you not put the "o" in God? I've never seen that before.

Lindsey B, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is it some sort of YHWH thing?

Lindsey B, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah, basically since G-d is unknown to name him is at best arrogant.

anthony, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Strange that it works that way, with the human arrogance and all. I thought YHWH was in fact the true name of God and couldn't be spelled out for fear that the true name of God might be destroyed, while God/Gott/Bog and so forth is just a notional convention. Isn't saying "G-d" in naming God the same thing as saying "God" in naming God?

By the way it is not appropriate to print this page out and then throw it away.

Benjamin, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Don't walk under ladders. If you must put people on pedestals, wear a big hat.

Momus, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Fine God-
Now atheists refuse to acknowledge the infulence of religon on peoples lives but you cannot anaylze a system without fulling understanding the way it works, so lets ignore the semantics and talk about Catholicism

anthony, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Well I think all of this is really more of an attack on the Catholic church's attitude toward sexuality, a sort of cathartic release. Personally, I can't see why any catholics think the policies shoudl be changed. As a reliigious person, you agree to let other people decide what God wants for you anyways. They think the Bible was written by people who knew what God wanted. Ha ha

mike hanle y, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This is what i mean, the view of a bible brought forth from nothing is a protestant view, the catholic view is one of a bible as text.

anthony, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I wonder what the victims think of how much effort the church has put into this.

Ally, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's a legitmate question ally. I suspect the church has so much riding on this that they are nto as responsive as they might be, but they are attemoting to be more responsive.

anthony, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, the church has allot riding on the kids alright. thats the problem!

Father Porkybutt, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"What they do not need to do is end celibacy". I strongly disagree, for the church to survive it needs to end celibracy. Id rather have a local priest who is married, than a South American pedaophile.The view that a married priest could not devote enough of his love and energy to his vocation is outdated and irrelevant- I cant believe that there are young Catholics who still support this thinking. Better to juggle a wife than altar boys in my book. The doctrine of "celibracy at any costs" is unacceptable to me . No mention of your stance on Catholic acceptance of homosexuality, to me this a bigger issue facing the church, celibracy is a complete non-issue for me.

kiwi, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What amazes me about the Catholic Church is how utterly and retchedly single-mindedly they cling to their out-dated and harmful dogma. When devout Muslims in Iran are more flexible with their religion than you are (see Ned's post on Iran from the BBC) your religion has got some serious problems.

Celibacy may breed devoted priests (I'm not sure about this one actually) but celibacy (as well as unsupervised access to children and the protection of a church) certainly seems to be a perfect place for sexual predators.

Sexually predatory priests need to be sent to jail. Parents who molest their own kids need to go to jail. Sexual predators and child abusers need to go to jail. Period. This is not a cureable sickness, it's a fucking crime. This hand-wringing and namby- pambying around sexual predation sickens me. These are children at risk (woo hoo, "Think of the children"). I'm not gonna take the abusers side in this, they can rot in jail for the rest of their lives as much as I care about them. The way our criminal justice system reacts to child abuse/molestation is abyssmal enough that the Catholic Church protects these fuckers is even more abyssmal.

Alex in SF, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

People who commit serious sex crimes against children deserve no sympathy and should rot in jail forever. Simplistic but I cant help but agree, some things are unforgivable. Fuck em they deserve it.

kiwi, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is it acceptable to think of prison as punishment? I mean you take one stance and be like "oh that thief, *he's* being rehabilitated, but hey, you see that paedophile over there, we're punishing that guy, yeah his rehab was for the first 5 years 3 days and 6 minutes, it's all pain from here on in".

I mean which is it? Personally I think if you start talking about prison in terms of "punishing these bastards" then there's something wrong.

Ronan, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Who's talking about punishment? I'm talking about removing the possibility of them continuing to be able to molest children which is in my opinion just as grotesque a crime as murder. We lock murderers up for life, right.

Alex in SF, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

well, prison is punishment. but as long as it is combined with rehabilitation it's excusable.

not entirely sure whether i believe it or not, but a recent study claimed that about 80% of paedophiles who have been imprisoned don't reoffend.

as for the abolition of celibacy, i'm for it - juggling family and parish seems to have worked for church of england vicars. even at that, why do people think that this child abuse is a consequence of enforced celibacy? has more to do with sick people than sick roolz, i think.

nickie, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ronan you are dead right, the view I have is not a rational,logical one, nor is it one Im likely to change. I know prison is not just about punishment, I know people can change, I know they may be sick etc, but fuck em. Red neck emotional response, probably- I dont care.You fuck little children and you are not found to be criminally insane , you can rot away forever period.

kiwi, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't buy any of the possible rehabilitation arguments for pedophiles. I've seen no evidence that any such rehabilitation is possible and all the post-incarceration programs in this country (Meggan's Law, hormone injections, etc) are very very easily loopholed. Again. These are children at risk (I sound like fucking Barbara Walters). Sexual predators are not just sick (whatever sick is). They are committing a serious crime (as serious if not more so than rape, as serious if not more so than murder). Treat them like criminals.

Alex in SF, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My reaction was a gut one, however House of Commons Hansard shows that the dirty fuckers cant help themselves: "A 10 year follow-up study on reconviction rates for a sample of paedophiles released from prison in 1980 showed that 36 per cent of paedophiles committed further sexual offences. For serious offences, which included sex or violent offences, the rate of reoffending increased to 45 per cent." 45 per cent are caught in the act again, bet theres more than a few who dont get caught. Clearly recdivist offenders. Recidivists, who by definition have demonstrated an inability to change, should be separated from the society and individuals against whom they offend. Recidivists should not be eligible for restorative programmes.

kiwi, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

In my haste I may have misinterpreted the figures,looks like 36% offend again.

kiwi, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The problem with paedophilia as a criminal act is very much the one alluded to above. If the desire comes from a psychological problem (be it illness, the old cycle of abuse etc) then sending them to prison for punishment alone seems a touch unfair - since we are punishing an urge which they themselves may not be able to control. Certainly the idea of incarceration to protect society works a lot better - but then we are treating them as one deviant urge and not as a whole person who could be a useful member of society (at least a society with no children in it).

I really don't know where I stand on this - the emotive argument is very string and I don't like much of the language I have used above to describe it. But I think if you are going to use the sick to describe them then you should also accept the possibility that sick people are usually not responsible for their sickness. ('Cept the bird on Hollyoaks with throat gonohrea).

Pete, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i don't think prisons are the answer. at the same time, i don't think that rehabilitation alone is enough. it seems like a ridiculous argument even as i write it, but i think people need to be punished to stop them from reoffending (even though i know that prison isn't hugely successful in doing this). an acquital on condition of rehabilitation is usually viewed, at least by drug addicts, as getting away with a crime. unless you *really want* to stop doing whatever it is that you're doing (abuse/drugs), rehabilitation may not be taken seriously by the offender.

the justice system is entirely flawed, but i can't think of any viable alternative. rehabilitation alone is not enough.

nickie, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

oh, it all seems so simplistic.

i hate picking flaws when i can't think of a solution

nickie, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The last time this was discussed the best solution I could come up with was exclusion from society but not in a prison environment.

The demonisation of paeophilia is emotionally understandable but it creates a big problem - if you are a paedophile who has never offended but feels the urge and desire to, where can you go for help? The most urgent need in dealing with child abuse isn't punishment, surely, it's stopping it happening in the first place.

Tom, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hmmn. I don't disagree that people who haven't actually acted on whatever urges they have should get counseling or help of some sort. Certainly someone aware of such desires should remove himself from any possible temptation (i.e. working with children, having children, etc). But I'm not advocating locking people up for mind-crime. I sincerely hope these people (who have not acted on their fantasies) can get real help and lead normal child-free lives.

That all said, the line in the sand is clear. Once one moves beyond fantasy into the realm of action, "sickness" is no excuse, "genetics" is no excuse, you are committing a crime against another human being and it should judged as serious as any other crime. Serial killers are supposedly "sick" and are compelled to kill too if their own stories and the medias tales are to believed. Create a prison solely for pedophiles if you like. The only thing I care about is that people who committ crimes against children are removed from society and unable to reduplicate their crimes again and again and again. The line once crossed is crossed and going back is not an option.

I'm not sure what the exact sentences are for child molestation in the US are, but I know for certain that parents that molest children rarely get more than a slap on the wrist and that repeat offenders (60 plus victims) are often released. This is unacceptable. This is the problem here. We are creating a nation of damaged children who will beget another generation of damaged children. This circle has to stop.

Alex in SF, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Realized I'm coming off kind of pedantic so I'm just gonna stop. Obviously this is a touchy issue for me.

Alex in SF, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Does anyone know anything about studies documenting paedophilia and nature/nurture etc?

Ronan, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah Alex and like I say I sympathise - my position is still that rehabilitation is as important as punishment for *any* crime, even someone whose punishment is a life sentence (and life seems a fair tariff for child rape) can become a happier and more useful individual within prison.

But the point I was making isn't really about punishing paedophiles, it's about the creation of this extreme hate-figure, 'the paedophile', who cannot be redeemed. The extremity of the hate means that potential paedophiles probably feel that the only people who could possibly understand or sympathise with them are active paedophiles, and that way lies tragedy. Especially if the reason you have sexual desires for children is because you yourself were abused and it was normalised for you.

I don't know what the solution is really - I agree that there's a line that is crossed, I'm just saying that society and the law should be trying to make sure that line isn't crossed in the first place - and that goes for ALL kinds of crime.

Tom, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This might sound a bit outrageous but I often wonder is my social conscience a bit questionable. I mean I physically can't get extremely irate or angry about paedophilia or any crimes whatsoever. Obviously I recognise they're wrong, but I can't relate to the thought process which leads to people feeling so strongly. I don't mean that in a trite way either, I'm saying I just tend to detach myself. When I was younger I might have suggested people were just putting on a fake display of emotion;keeping up appearances etc, now I don't think that.

Is this normal?

Yours,

Desperate in Dublin.

Ronan, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No Ronan you're a sociopath.

Actually I feel this about crime in the abstract, if someone says "paedophilia" or "murder" or "mugging" I don't feel anything - but a report of an actual specific crime with specific victims can make me really boil with anger.

Tom, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

We are creating a nation of damaged children who will beget another generation of damaged children.

You say this as if it was something new.

Dan Perry, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Toss a "continuing to" in their Dan. You're right, of course.

Alex in SF, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is pedophilia a problem among ministers in religions where marriage is allowed? I ahve no idea myself but I'm wondering if someone else might know.

lawrence kansas, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Preists should fuck nuns

mike hanle y, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No,leave the nuns out of it; Priests should fuck Priests

kiwi, Friday, 26 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"When devout Muslims in Iran are more flexible with their religion than you are (see Ned's post on Iran from the BBC) your religion has got some serious problems."

Right, Muslims are more flexible with their religion - allowing teenagers to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up and others along with them - all in the name of Allah! Go, fly a plane into a building, and when you die and go to heaven there will be 7 virgins waiting for you. Train very young children to be terrorists, the "leaders" are not going to blow themselves up, they are training the young ones to do that - it is called "brainwashing" - they are trained to hate, kill, and destroy anyone who is not a muslim.

Yeah, that is real flexible.

As for pedophiles, there is no cure, except for castration - that is the only cure. Pedophiles imprisoned for years will tell you themselves, if they come out of prison, they would do it all over again because their attraction to children is so great...that is all they think about in prison - getting out and having sex with children. (from documentary aired on TV last year)

Celibacy does not make a pedophile and marriage does not cure it.

Greg, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah, that is real flexible.

You're a fascinating and intelligent young man. Tell me, when you wake up in the hospital after yet another evening of drunkenly picking fights with anyone not exactly like you and then collapsing in a stinking heap, don't the staff on duty get tired of having to explain to you that the porridge in your brain cavity is susceptible to easy leakage through the Saran Wrap that's in place of your skull?

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I agree with, Ned. Greg, you should do a couple of things:

1) Read posts a little more carefully before responding to them. It was pretty clear that I was speaking of flexibility solely in terms of their respective birth control policies, a fact you might have realised if you had bothered to read the other fucking thread!?!?! Why you felt the need to post your bit of ill-informed racist nonsense is beyond me, but it might have something to with the fact that you should:

2) Get your head out of your ass. While I'm not one to advocate any of the collective psychoses we call religion, I must say your over- simplified doofus-y view of Islam might benefit from a perspective a little broader than watching HARD COPY.

Alex in SF, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"When devout Muslims in Iran are more flexible with their religion than you are (see Ned's post on Iran from the BBC) your religion has got some serious problems". I havent read Neds link either but.. By comparing the very worst parts of Catholic doctrine to Muslim doctrine in the way you did, does that not imply Islam is a fucked up religion , or did I miss something.It follows that Gregs comments would only support your own argument. Me, Id take a 5 min confession over a stoning any day but hey whatever.

kiwi, Saturday, 27 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hmmn. I was actually implying that Islam is a pretty oppressive religion and that in the realm of birth control and female sexuality it's generally considered it to be one of the most conservative and constraining of the major religions. And yet despite that fact, Iran has developed a far more sensible stance (as government policy!!!) than anything proposed by the Vatican. Simple as that. Perhaps an oversimplication of both religions, yes, but nowhere did I intimate that Islam was a religion of kill crazy zealouts. Conservative does not equal "fucked up", at least in my eyes.

Alex in SF, Sunday, 28 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That said, I do think religions are all pretty "fucked up".

Alex in SF, Sunday, 28 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

three years pass...
Vatican coming to America to hunt for Teh Gaye

Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for "evidence of homosexuality" and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process...

kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 15 September 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

Not All Priest fuck kids

dr gary busey (dr g), Thursday, 15 September 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

Not All Gaye fuck kids

Old School (sexyDancer), Thursday, 15 September 2005 18:31 (twenty years ago)

http://gapd.com/MusicPhotosPR/MaxiPriest01.jpg

"Not All Me fuck kids, man"

dr gary busey (dr g), Thursday, 15 September 2005 18:33 (twenty years ago)

And here I was wondering what the Spanish Inquisition had been doing for the past few hundred years...

My mum is having to go through all kinds of psychological tests to make sure that she's sane and has no odd paedophillic tendencies and would make a good priest .... the irony being that often the "best" or most charismatic and inspiring religious figures of the past have been completely bonkers and wouldn't make it past the selection process these days.

The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 16 September 2005 07:07 (twenty years ago)

Jesus would probably fail.

Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Friday, 16 September 2005 07:18 (twenty years ago)

I think he already did :-/

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 16 September 2005 07:26 (twenty years ago)

Yes, I can just see it now... "serious messianic tendencies, persecution complex, all this mucking about with suffer the little children, does that mean he's paedo? never make the cut, this Nazareth fellow."

The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 16 September 2005 07:32 (twenty years ago)

The title of this thread kills me. Like the church is saying "What the fuck you mean not all of us are fucking kids? We need to sort that out pronto!"

Like Bush saying (paraphrased) "One out of four shootings results in a fatality. These numbers aren't good enough."

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 16 September 2005 08:09 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

Phila. Priest Accused Of Stealing $900,000
PHILADELPHIA (AP) ―
A priest who led the largest Roman Catholic high school in Philadelphia stole $900,000 and used some of it to ply a student he had molested with drugs and alcohol, prosecutors said Thursday.

The Rev. Charles Newman became president of Archbishop Ryan High School in July 2002 but was fired 15 months later when questions arose about his handling of school finances.

Forensic audits show he stole $331,000 from the school and more than $500,000 from his religious order, the Franciscan Friars, District Attorney Lynne Abraham said.

Newman, 57, gave $54,000 to former student Arthur Baselice III, who later sued over what he described as a sexual relationship with Newman that started when he was a high school junior.

The pair would meet at Newman's office or residence and often used drugs together while having sex, prosecutors said.

Baselice unsuccessfully sued the archdiocese and spoke publicly about the case before dying of a drug overdose on Nov. 30, 2006. He was 28 and had struggled with addiction to cocaine, marijuana and alcohol, according to his lawyer, Jay N. Abramowitch.

The indictment unsealed Thursday charges Newman with six counts of felony theft and one count of felony forgery, the latter stemming from his alleged use of another friar's signature stamp.

The deadline for filing sex-abuse charges in Pennsylvania had passed before Baselice raised the claims.

Prosecutors believe that Newman sexually abused at least three or four other underage students during his time at Archbishop Ryan, where he spent nine years as principal and 13 years as a religion teacher before his promotion to president.

After his dismissal from the school, Newman was sent to a treatment center for priests and now lives at a Franciscan retirement home in Pulaski, Wisc., where he remains a restricted member of the clergy, authorities said.

Abraham's office will seek to extradite him to Philadelphia in the coming days.

It was not immediately clear if he had retained a criminal lawyer. A message left in the general mailbox of the Assumption Friary in Pulaski, Wisc., was not immediately returned Thursday.

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 20 December 2007 22:47 (eighteen years ago)

PAEDOPHILADELPHIA

Heave Ho, Saturday, 22 December 2007 14:34 (eighteen years ago)

c'mon catholic church, sort it out, willya?

pc user, Saturday, 22 December 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

this message has been brought to you by a pc user.

s1ocki, Saturday, 22 December 2007 15:01 (eighteen years ago)

hall of fame thread title.

Frogman Henry, Saturday, 22 December 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

Not All Priest listen to teenpop and the church is trying to sort it out

gershy, Saturday, 22 December 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.