POPE GAVE HIS BLESSING (to transfer of pedophiles!)

NY Post ^ | 11 December 2002 | KATE SHEEHY

[Illbay]

It is like saying a male gynecologist cannot treat a woman patient because he has a different body.

Equating human physiology to human emotional interaction is a false analogy.

I have never been a car, either, but I've fixed engines before. You just follow the diagram, make sure part "A" fits snugly into part "B" as the diagram shows, and it works.

There is no way in my mind that a man who not only doesn't participate, but ESCHEWS familial responsibility as somehow a compromise with our evil natures, is a man who can offer help in such areas.

I have never been a Roman Catholic. I'm not talking from my own experience. But I've heard this said, time and time again, by practicing Catholics whom I've had as friends.

You want a REALLY good analogy? It's like a lifelong hermit being touted as the perfect sociologist, because he hasn't got the slightest idea how humans can or should interact, and therefore he's "objective."

It isn't objectivity that's called for. Actually, quite the opposite.

And lastly, I submit that it is this "standing outside looking in" attitude that has led to the priesthood being considered a "safe haven" for homosexuals, and also the notion that FIRST, the "brotherhood" must be protected at all costs before we worry about the victims.

They're "below the salt" in many ways, and so only worthy of secondary consideration.

[Illbay]

Well, I would respect the request of a victim's parents who ask me not to notify the police. You apparently would ignore their plea.

What a singularly ignorant statement. You don't "respect the request of a victim's parents" when such a request is unethical and would lead to possible future victimizing of others.

That's a horribly anti-social attitude.

[Notwithstanding]

Your hermit analogy sucks - especially after my explaining to you how extremely involved in the lives of young families this pope was as a priest. He talked with them about their marriages ALL the time.

Married men eschew (to use your word) priesthood to get married. Priests eschew marriage to become ordained.

Have you given much thought to YOUR discussing the life of a priest when you yourself have not lived it? If a priest (who grows up in a family, by the way, and hear's the confessions of many married people such that he knows their problems very well) cannot offer advice about marriage because he has not lived it, then you best keep your advice about the priesthood to yourself!

[Notwithstanding]

No, its a human attitude.

[Illbay]

I'm not deigning to "judge the life of a priest." In fact, my attitude about, say, the monastic orders would be quite different. After all, they're not being asked to minister to those who are "inferior" to them, as the priests are.

What I'm judging is the RESULTS of this peculiar, insular institution, in its effects on the wider world. If this were just a problem of "the priestly life" and how they conduct themselves with ONE ANOTHER, that'd be one thing. But many of these have proven themselves inwardly to be ravening wolves. You have to be an imbecile not to be able to adjudge that.

Granted, I have some biases of my own. One scripture that comes to mind: "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man." [Doctrine & Covenants 49:15]

Not just some sort of "compromise" with our weak, carnal natures, but ORDAINED of God unto man.

So, in my world-view, a celebate priesthood is contrary to the law of God.

And since I believe such laws are immutable and disregarded at our peril, it seems logical to me that problems such as the current scandal should result.

[Illbay]

Yes, you might be right. It is "human" to disregard the greater good in favor of that which is comfortable to us.

Thus, for example, instead of holding a trial and weighing actual evidence on Bill Clinton, as the Constitution requires, the Republicans in the Senate took the "easy route" and let him off the hook.

History will judge all such decisions made for the sake of expediency.

I repeat: If a clergyman or teacher or anyone else abused a child and I knew about it, I wouldn't give a hoot in h*ll what the parents' "preferences" were. I'd blow the whistle.

[scannell]

People are not felons until convicted in a court of law. Criminal charges were not filed by the victims. Prosecutions did not take place.

People are not criminals because they break the law, people break the law because they are criminals, you see it is a condition of the heart or mindset, not a judical process. Don't get hung up on the formalities of a democracy when it declares that a man is innocent until proven guilty. This only pertains to the perogative of society to impose a sanction. If a man is guilty he is guilty whether it is proven or not. Your line of argument is reminicent of the "Lanny Davis" Bill Clinton defense when he attempts to deconstruct what we know (can prove) and don't know (can't prove) about Clintons veracity and honesty. It all seems to add a lot of nosensical "lawyerily" disinforming words to an issue that is obvious to most clear thinking people.

[Jael]

Your queston brings up a point that is missed in all of this: the pope and the bishop were performing a religious act (isuing a religious decree), and therefore he law of the US cannot in any way control how the Church conducts such an act.

Are you actually claiming that a Roman Catholic decree supercedes the law of the US?

[IrishRainy]

..."But many of these have proven themselves inwardly to be ravening wolves. You have to be an imbecile not to be able to adjudge that..."

For the record, according to the Washington Post, a decidedly liberal paper, 99.3% of priests have never been accused of molestation. That means only 0.7%, less than 1%, have been. Furthermore, in reviewing data over the last 40 years, the Post noted that only 1.5% of priests have been found guilty of such crimes. That means 98.5% of priests are truly good men, trying to serve God as best they can.

Please take the time to acquaint yourself with the facts before posting your "imbecilic" thoughts.

[Petronski]

So, will you call on FR administrators to amend your title, now that the lie of the accusers in this post has been exposed?

[AmericaUnited]

With regard to gays, the mainline churches solve their problems by openly embracing homosexuality. The national Church of the Christian (Disciples of Christ) has just accepted same sex unions. The Presbyterians and even the Lutherans have gone the same route. The Episcopalian Church wears rose-colored garments every Sunday.

We agree 100%

[Illbay]

But a large percentage of the Catholic HIERARCHY have been covering up, even (some would say) aiding and abetting the behavior.

Can you not understand, this is the REAL scandal? And some of these people who were covered for were pretty outrageous, such as Paul Shanley and Michael Geough.

Also, what is the casual observer to make of all this equivocating on the public statements and published works of some of these people. For example:

In February 1979, the same month as the NAMBLA meeting, Cardinal Medeiros sent a letter to the Vatican's Cardinal Franjo Seper, telling the cardinal that he had met with Shanley and told the priest he was "confusing people" with his teachings about homosexuality. Shanley had produced tapes for distribution called "Changing Norms of Sexuality."

"I believe that Father Shanley is a troubled priest," Medeiros later told the Vatican.

Yet Shanley was allowed to continue in the priesthood for years. When he moved to California to join the San Bernardino Diocese in 1990, he served for three years without restriction on his contact with children.

-- Story on FoxNews.Com (LINK HERE)

I mean, these are things that the average person just does NOT understand. Why is it unclear in the minds of these leaders that public statements and published writings of people like Shanley, that are not only in violation of Roman Catholic teachings but of standards of morality everywhere, are more than just "troubling"?

Why have these people been dealt with in such a "kid gloves" fashion? I suspect that any "bigotry" against the Church arises from what appears to be the outrageous coverup.

[Zviadist]

If he has been laicized, how can they control where he lives?

Exactly.

[Zviadist]

he ordered the priest defrocked and within that very order of defrocking he suggested the man make a fresh start elswhere for his own good and the good of those (individuals and the parish) whom he injured. He merely added that if those whom he injured would not be scandalized, then the man need not be sent elsewhere to begin his new life as a defrocked priest.

See Maximum Leader's post above for an answer to this. At the very least, it is preventing justice from being done. You don't expect more from the pope himself???

Nothing new or notable here, move along.

Spoken just like a Clintonite when scandal breaks.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

OK, so how high does this scandal go???

Funny you should ask.

I was thinking just the other day...

Have you ever heard of the three secrets that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave to the little kids at Lourdes?

The first two were predictions that have already come true and the third is closely guarded by the Pope himself. Every Pope since then has been apprised of it and has declined to reveal what it is.

I am now guessing that the third secret, or prediction has to do with the downfall of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and this pedophilia scandal is it and was revealed by Mary at Lourdes those many years ago.

Just a guess.

[Zviadist]

Well done, ML. You sound like darn fine counsel.

[Capt. Tom]

OK, so how high does this scandal go???

I hope it doesn't go any higher than the Pope. - tom

[Domestic Church]

**Post Wire Services** Valid Source?

Not unless you read Mad Magazine for its intellectual content.

[Zviadist]

I am now guessing that the third secret, or prediction has to do with the downfall of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and this pedophilia scandal is it and was revealed by Mary at Lourdes those many years ago.

Which is why the Vatican released a phony third secret amidst great fanfare last year. You may have a point.

[Snuffington]

This article is rather unusual. There is nothing in it implicating the pope in any capacity more than what was already known. We already knew he allowed bishops to handle these issues on their own, with only loose guidelines from the Vatican rather than firm mandates. That has been a hallmark of this papacy on a whole host of issues.

I am disturbed by the article confusing the Church's legal use of the term scandal, with the modern colloquial use of the term. In the modern sense, "scandal" is about avoiding bad PR. The Church's use is quite a bit deeper. The difference has a significant impact on the "spin" this article is putting on the statements from the pope.