I don’t think you are wrong. And thanks.

As for the accused priest in the article it was a VICAR FOR PRIESTS and CANON LAWYER THAT SAID “A CREDIBLE ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL ABUSE” had been made against him. TWICE.

You didn't read the article, did you? Yes, two allegations were made, the second one AFTER the massive publicity on the first one. Did you read where the priest did not even KNOW the accuser? Does the priest get an attorney, a trial? Or have you already judged him guilty?

BTW - one more thing.

What about all the sexual abuse that’s going on in the schools? Speaking personally, there’s not a week that goes by where this hasn’t come up on FR.

In these cases the individuals are gone after by the state, but the institutions seems to always get a pass.

Massive double standard, if you ask me.

Remember The Rules:

Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the universe.

Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.

Corollary: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else is irrelevant.

Looks like the situation has been addressed as best our justice system is capable, with your first link:

Andrew Spallek, the former pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Black Jack, pleaded guilty to a federal child pornography possession charge Wednesday and admitted possessing 13 images of children engaged in sex acts.

Spallek, 49, of Florissant, resigned as pastor on Sept. 23, citing “personal reasons.” He was indicted the next day in U.S. District Court in St. Louis on two child porn charges.

He faces roughly three to four years in prison when sentenced in May.

Regarding your second link, the case is more complicated, with an adult male suing a former pastor, who is or was no longer with the church, as well as the church itself and the Synod. A quick Google search gives me no indication as to a verdict, if one has been reached.

I'll look into it further this evening. I will note that the man, Christopher Benson, is no longer a pastor with the Lutheran Church.

As wrong, disgusting and disturbing as these two cases are, there is no indication of any attempt to conceal, there appears to have been no secrecy. That's been the aggravating factor with the abuse cases with priests. It gives the appearance of complicity with the church as a whole.

Children, persons under the age of majority. That would include many teens, also known as minors, children.

Oh them wicked homosexual thirteen year olds, worming their way into the Catholic church to entice corrupt priests!!!!

“Remove the wicked from among yourselves”. (1 Cor. 5:13)
See, I read quite well.

But I wonder why you continue to blame the victims. Do you have a father, husband, etc. caught up in the sexual abuse scandal net? Or maybe some male in your life that has “come out” recently?

One wonders because it wasn't homosexual children, teens, minors that enticed corrupt priests.

In some cases, the “children” are old enough that the age of consent renders the case moot and there is no prosecution. If/when that is ever the case with Catholic priests, the “victims” are still called “children” and prosecution, at least in the press, proceeds apace.

Is there such thing as an age of consent? What does it mean to you?

Nope, no father or other male relative or friend caught up in the scandal or ever accused. No male in my life has “come out” recently or even a long time ago.

I am Catholic. I love my Church. I have many memories of priests, nuns, teachers and other Church people who have been wonderful friends and a real blessing in my life and my family’s life.

Is it inconceivable to you that a person would want to defend their Church, and their friends within it from devious, deceitful, malicious malice? That might be understandable if you have no friends.

Children, persons under the age of majority. That would include many teens, also known as minors, children.

So, you can talk of a "child" of 17 years of age? Or 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days? Don't be ridiculous.r

Age of consent refers to the age which a person can legally consent to sexual activity. If that age is 15, are we talking about "child" abuse? What about 14?

No - the reason the cases in the schools come to attention are that the offenders are, in fact, being prosecuted. But the point is that there is never any focus on the institution that allowed the abuse to take place when it comes to the schools. I’m all for rooting out any child abuse in all its forms and wherever it takes place. But has anyone stopped to think that the schools as institutions NEVER get called to account for all the cases of abuse that transpire between teachers and students?

I just started thinking about this fairly recently. My guess is that there is a massive institutional issue. A culture and atmosphere needs to be created in the schools where there is a zero-tolerance attitude towards child abuse. First time an inappropriate comment gets made, first time a student “drops by” a teacher’s house, or “gets a lift” from a teacher, all sorts of alarm bells start going off.

But so far the silence has been deafening when it comes to addressing this as an institutional issue in the schools.

Just fine and dandy to take the church to task, however.

Because I’M not claiming to be too good for anything. I said, “This is Free Republic and we are too good for that.”

Who is this "we" that you speak of? The statement "I'm not claiming to be too good" stands in ironic contrast to the prior statement/claim that "we are too good". Based on those recent Presbyterian-bashing threads, it would seem that somebody must think that FR isn't too good for that sort of thing.

Since it seems that presbyterians get all wee-wee’d up about threads critical of their church

And right there is another thing that I'd like to know - what is it with this recent Catholic preoccupation with male genitalia, anyway?

And right there is another thing that I'd like to know - what is it with this recent Catholic preoccupation with male genitalia, anyway?

Sick question.

“what is it with this recent Catholic preoccupation with male genitalia, anyway?”

Umm...so, for you, urine is “male genetalia?”

Here is a case from this year, handled in a manner that is beyond reproach:

California Reverend Removed from Catholic Church for Sexual Misconduct

By Clergy Abuse News on January 6, 2010 6:20 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

The Modesto Bee reported today that Rev. Leo Suarez, a priest at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church in Modesto, Calif., was removed from his position after it was discovered that he engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor 20 years ago.

The age of the minor at the time of the incident is still unknown, and it is not known whether the victim is a boy or a girl. Suarez was serving as an associate priest at St. Anthony's in Hughson at the time the misconduct occurred. He didn't come to Our Lady Fatima until 2009.

The incident was revealed by the Stockton Diocese, however, it is unclear whether the victim reported the abuse to diocese, or the diocese found out about the misconduct another way.

Under the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, Suarez will never be allowed to serve as a priest again.

No lawsuit has been filed against Suarez or the Catholic Church at this time.

If you or a loved one was sexually abused by a member of the Catholic church, an experienced clergy abuse attorney at the Zalkin Law Firm can assist you in taking legal action. As a victim of sexual abuse, you have the right to be compensated for the damages you have suffered. To learn more about the services offered at our firm, please do not hesitate to contact the office today to schedule an appointment to discuss your case.

” Did you read where the priest did not even KNOW the accuser?”

I read where the priest SAID he didn't know the accuser and where the vicar and canon lawyer SAID the accusations were “CREDIBLE”. “Credible” as in believable, plausible, worthy of belief. Twice.

Age of consent and age of majority vary from state to state but majority always means at or above a person is an adult and below is a minor, a child.

‘Does the priest get an attorney, a trial?” Who knows from an incomplete and anonymous letter?

“Or have you already judged him guilty?”
It was the vicar and lawyer who said there was credible accusations against him so at this point the priest has offered no contrary evidence beyond his own word in the letter.

No, I haven't judged him guilty as you seem to have the victims but I sure wouldn't let him near my children(of any age) either!!

Here is a case from this year, handled in a manner that is beyond reproach:

A press release from an attorney group that specializes in getting awards for ADULTS claiming they were abused 20 years ago?

You're joking, right?

No, I’m not joking. I didn’t notice the ad at the bottom when I copied the source code.

The guilty party was removed from any position of authority and will never be a priest again.

The church did not become party to his sin. They removed the wicked from among themselves.

The victims have a right to legal representation as much as anyone else. And the dioceses certainly have enough lawyers in their employ.

But good for the diocese for removing him as the Bible counsels.

Just yesterday I was reading a thread insulting Martin Luther, a commenter talked about how he ripped six books out of the Bible and tried to take out more, etc.

Maybe you could give us a link so we could read the context.

Secondly, he did take seven (not six) books out of the Bible: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and Esther. Those books were accepted as canonical in both the East and the West, up until the point in time that Fr. Luther relegated them to a status of apocrypha.

Third, he did denigrate several of the books of the NT in his writings.

For example, on the Epistle of James, he did say:

In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles—especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians—and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and good for you to know—even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them. For it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.

Preface to the New Testament (1524 ed)

In the introduction to the Epistles of James and Jude, he said (about Jude):

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

In regards to the book of Revelation, Luther said:

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

So what is a person supposed to think about Luther's attitude to much of the Scriptures? I'm not trying to be insulting to you or Lutherans; but those are Luther's own words.