Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Per poster’s request



Skip to comments.

Nifonging the Catholic Church
me ^ | April 18, 2010 | vanity

Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 2,751-2,775 next last
To: Mears

bfl


151 posted on 04/19/2010 5:28:56 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

That was a press release from a legal firm that specializes in bringing lawsuits against the Catholic Church. The priest was not convicted of anything in a criminal court, the charges were decades old and likely past the statute of limitations EVEN IF there was any truth to them, which was not addressed, and the priest was tried and convicted in the MEDIA to benefit a venal aim.

That’s what I mean by “nifonged.”


152 posted on 04/19/2010 5:31:46 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Not a caucus thread, and posted in 2008.

Reading is fundamental!

153 posted on 04/19/2010 5:33:07 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Another link to the same old thread. The “caucus” designation was removed. So, it is not a caucus thread. I did notice, however, that your remarks did not engender a lot of interest. Not surprising.


154 posted on 04/19/2010 5:36:05 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

The article came from a website entitled “Clergy Abuse Watch.” It covers clerical sexual abuse across denominations, Catholic, Protestant, even other religions. I found the site by a web search on terms in your second link regarding former Lutheran Assistant Pastor Christopher Benson, who is now apparently in prison. His case was covered in more detail on that site than on the link you provided.

The fact of this particular situation is that the diocese in California disassociated themselves from a sexually abusive priest. He was removed and will never be a priest again. The legal consequences are his to bear, and not the Church’s. There can be no case made for the church being complicit, condoning the behavior or somehow colluding. It’s the only proper course of action given the circumstance.

That is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand.


155 posted on 04/19/2010 5:46:36 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

And he did admitt to the accusation. No nifong, no fog at all.


156 posted on 04/19/2010 5:55:33 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Where’s the post with the link to that, showing that he admitted the accusation?


157 posted on 04/19/2010 5:59:00 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

This is one of several reports which are freely available and only took a minute to find.

www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100107/A_NEWS/...


158 posted on 04/19/2010 6:06:08 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I copied and pasted your web address and got this:

Sorry, that page can not be found.

Please try again.


159 posted on 04/19/2010 6:11:25 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Google “Stockton record Jan. 8, 2010 priest removed”. It worked for me but come back if not.


160 posted on 04/19/2010 6:20:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

WELL?


161 posted on 04/19/2010 6:38:46 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

“After YEARS of HARD EVIDENCE that those mafiosi in robes and high-hats covered up crimes of the utmost perversion, there can be NO comparison.”

In decades and centuries past, it was often thought better *by everyone* to handle such matters with discretion. This was not to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Especially in small towns, disclosure of the fact that a boy had been molested by a sodomite could be social and economic disaster not only for the victim, but for his entire extended family.

Certainly there was wrongdoing. However, not every decision to keep something out of the public eye was made to protect the guilty.

As Samuel Clemens wrote, “To arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man’s character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours.”

“It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption.”

If I could be pleased by my imagination as easily as you are disgusted by yours, I’d probably just daydream my life away.

Boiled down, refined, and condensed, the statement above reduces to this: “Both the defense of the innocent and the extension of a presumption of innocence until trial are not merely as bad as defending the guilty, they actually *are* defending the guilty.

IOW, when one defends the innocent, one defends the guilty.

“Defending such corruption doesn’t make Catholics look anything but stupid in the eyes of their fellow Americans.”

Really? I would think that equating defense of the innocent with defense of the guilty would be a better indication.

The fact that there were real offenses, real crimes (and I consider molesting a boy to be second only to murder in the rankings), is not a license to exaggerate without limit.

Some—some—of the accused priests are innocent.

Some—some—priests and bishops acted to protect sodomites from the consequences of their crimes, or at least turned a blind eye.

All—all—who did not are innocent.

This history is exactly as bad as it is, not a bit better, but also not a bit worse.

To repeat myself, the fact that there were real crimes is not a license to exaggerate without limit.


162 posted on 04/19/2010 7:22:13 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; count-your-change; Alex Murphy
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?

Nowhere in these United States is the age of consent for sexual activity 15 or 14. The youngest age in any state is 16.

Age of consent in 18 is my state.

Where do you live? Saudi Arabia?

163 posted on 04/19/2010 7:31:34 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Age of consent? Mere pettifogging.


164 posted on 04/19/2010 8:16:38 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Judith Anne
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?

I believe the question is "are we talking about statutory rape?"

From the website Legalmatch.com (emphasis in red mine):

What is Statutory Rape?

Statutory rape occurs when a person over the age of consent engages in sexual intercourse with someone under the statutory age of consent.  In most states, the age of consent has been arbitrarily designated by statute.  However, this age of consent varies widely from state to state.  Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense.

What is The Age of Consent?

Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you.  Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18.  Some states, such as California and New York, set an age at which all sexual intercourse is considered statutory rape.  For example, a state might set the age of consent at 18.  In this hypothetical state, two seventeen year olds who had consensual sex could both theoretically be convicted of statutory rape.  

Other states imply a different method which, like the federal statute, takes into account the relative ages of both people.  In these states, such as Texas, the age of consent is determined by age differentials between the two persons and limited by a minimum age.  For example, a state might set a minimum age of 14, but limit consent to partners who are within 3 years of their age.  This would allow a sixteen year old to lawfully have sex with a fourteen year old, but make it criminal for an eighteen year old to have sex with that same fourteen year old.

Examples of different state's statutory ages of consent:


165 posted on 04/19/2010 8:20:09 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Judith Anne
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?

I believe the question is "are we talking about statutory rape?"

From the website Legalmatch.com (emphasis in red mine):

What is Statutory Rape?

Statutory rape occurs when a person over the age of consent engages in sexual intercourse with someone under the statutory age of consent.  In most states, the age of consent has been arbitrarily designated by statute.  However, this age of consent varies widely from state to state.  Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense.

What is The Age of Consent?

Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you.  Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18.  Some states, such as California and New York, set an age at which all sexual intercourse is considered statutory rape.  For example, a state might set the age of consent at 18.  In this hypothetical state, two seventeen year olds who had consensual sex could both theoretically be convicted of statutory rape.  

Other states imply a different method which, like the federal statute, takes into account the relative ages of both people.  In these states, such as Texas, the age of consent is determined by age differentials between the two persons and limited by a minimum age.  For example, a state might set a minimum age of 14, but limit consent to partners who are within 3 years of their age.  This would allow a sixteen year old to lawfully have sex with a fourteen year old, but make it criminal for an eighteen year old to have sex with that same fourteen year old.

Examples of different state's statutory ages of consent:


166 posted on 04/19/2010 8:20:11 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Dr. Eckleburg; count-your-change
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?

Catholic apologetics, 21st century style: bugger a 14 yr old boy, and the priest can say he never violated his chastity vows. Everything's okay (and no one was hurt), because the Catholics now tell us that it wasn't rape-rape.

From Dominic Lawson's blog at The Independent:

The world of film – indeed, of art in general – regards this (Polanski's arrest, that is, not his abuse of a 13-year-old girl) as a scandal. This attitude was most clearly evident in the remark of the Hollywood actress Whoopi Goldberg, who last year defended him with the observation, "I know it wasn't rape-rape". With this remarkable neologism, Goldberg gave a new gloss to the old line (usually uttered by men) of "she said no, but she meant yes".
It is not sexual misconduct, rather it is sexual assault, that Catholic priests were accused of in the John Jay Study. The topic isn’t “who’s accused of sexual misconduct”, it’s “who’s accused of committing a felony against a minor”...The John Jay study speaks of 4% of Catholic clergy (mostly priests ordained between 1950 and 1979) who were accused of raping underage male parishioners...Of the 38% of all Protestant clergy being accused of some level of inappropriate sexual contact, only 4.6% have engaged in actual sexual intercourse outside of marriage. And none of them of rape...If the Catholic apologist were really comparing apples to apples, the real statistics would speak of Protestant clergy accused of criminal sexual contact with minors, or would adjust the John Jay study’s four percent upwards to include inappropriate but otherwise legal sexual relations. But the Catholic apologist does no such thing. They start with John Jay’s 4%, move on to Protestantism’s 38%, and leave the reader thinking that 4% “statutory rape” is comparable to 38% “inappropriate relations”. Sometimes you have to keep score, to tell when the other side is moving the goalposts on you.
....Alex Murphy, Sept. 29, 2009

[Faithful Departed author Philip] Lawler points out that while less than five percent of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse, some two-thirds of our bishops were apparently complicit in cover-ups. The real scandal isn't the sick excesses of a few dozen pedophiles, or even the hundreds of priests who had affairs with teenage boys -- the bulk of abuse cases. No, according to Lawler, it is the malfeasance of wealthy, powerful, and evidently worldly men who fill the thrones -- but not the shoes -- of the apostles. In case after case, we read in their correspondence, in the records of their soulless, bureaucratic responses to victims of psychic torture and spiritual betrayal, these bishops' prime concern was to save the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar and mortgages. Ironically, their lack of a supernatural concern for souls is precisely what cost them so much money in the end.
-- excerpted from the "Inside Catholic" blog article and 'Catholic Caucus' thread Kneeling Before the World

....“The thesis of this book,” writes Lawler, “is that the sex abuse scandal in American Catholicism was not only aggravated but actually caused by the willingness of church leaders to sacrifice the essential for the inessential; to build up the human institution even to the detriment of the divine mandate.” Bishops again and again responded to the crisis as institutional managers, employing public relations stratagems to evade, deceive, and distract attention from their own responsibility. Lawler several times invokes the terse observation of St. Augustine, “God does not need my lie.” The bishops lied, says Lawler, and many of them are still lying. This is offered not as an accusation but as a conclusion that he believes is compelled by the evidence.

“The first aspect of the scandal, the sexual abuse of children, has been acknowledged and addressed,” Lawler writes. “The second aspect, the rampant homosexuality among Catholic priests, has been acknowledged but not addressed, and later even denied....The third aspect of the scandal has never even been acknowledged by American church leaders.” The third aspect, the malfeasance of bishops, “is today the most serious of all.”
-- excerpted from "Paved with the Skulls of Bishops" by Richard John Neuhaus

167 posted on 04/19/2010 9:10:59 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I personally think Luther was iffy by reading those comments.

But, to get to the point of this thread, I don’t see your comments or citations as Protestant-bashing or Lutheran-bashing.

They aren’t particularly hateful. You are just giving your point of view, and using true quotes, and so on.

Similarly, any time anyone criticizes the RC church - whether over the child abuse revelations or anything else - it doesn’t necessarily mean they are Catholic bashing.

Most are shocked and/or horrified over these abuse allegation, many of which have been proven, and have good questions to ask and good points to make. In no cases that I have read has the priest denied the charges! Although there may be such cases. There are legitimate concerns there. I think most of us know that not every allegation could possibly be true; that not all abuse was necessarily covered up; and that most priests are good guys.

But it is in the news and it is a big deal, a very big deal. So people are talking about it. Hopefully, and I actually think this is happening, the RC church in America will get some really good guidelines in place in the present and future to deal with wolves in priest’s clothing.

Like officers who kill someone in the line of duty. We most of us love our police and know they are good guys. But, if they kill somebody, they get put on paid administrative leave, before they are convicted of anything or disciplined, while those in charge look into things and make sure they are innocent of murder.

Similarly, I’d think that those in the clergy, if accused of child abuse, could reasonably be told to stay away from unsupervised minors until the charges are explored. Then the clergyman could be restored as before, or taken away in handcuffs, as appropriate.


168 posted on 04/19/2010 9:17:05 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Alex, I started to copy a pertinent line or two from your post and realized EVERY line is worth rereading and understanding.

The papacy has a cancer in its midst and it seeks a band-aid. Its priests rape children and Roman Catholic apologists decry the publicity.

Who's nifonging whom?

169 posted on 04/19/2010 9:18:35 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I didn’t HAVE them posting under my name. They just did a few times, inadvertently, while surfing FR and then deciding to comment here or there.


170 posted on 04/19/2010 9:19:02 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you.

And the crime here is rape.

Therefore most of these pedophile priests are accused of (and found guilty of) raping children.

You just don't read that in the press. Wonder why? Instead the press bends over backwards to protect the RCC, regardless of how much RC apologists insist otherwise.

171 posted on 04/19/2010 9:28:47 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Having read Lawler’s book, The Faithful Departed (The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture), I can highly recommend it. He has an insider's view but with rare objectivity.
172 posted on 04/19/2010 9:33:09 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

‘What gives you the idea that I am angry at you? “

Stuff like:

“I’m jumping to conclusions? You had your kids posting under your name on FR?”

That’s accusatory. As though I was ringleader of some conspiracy.

“Who is the current leader of the Lutheran Church? Shall we have a microscopic look at his background? At Lutheran pastors? At Lutheran pastor child molesters? At Lutheran pastor homosexuals? At the Lutheran COVER-UP of this reprehensible abuse? Because YOU KNOW it took place, and yet WHERE IS THE SELF EXAMINATION?”

That’s accusatory. I actually and in fact do not know of any Lutheran clergy molesting a kid. I assume, just due to sheer numbers, that there have been.

“So, has this other account been banned? “

That’s accusatory. Why would my old account have been banned? I didn’t do anything wrong.

“Oh, really? How “riled up” are “most of you” about protestant or presbyterian child sexual abuse? You KNOW it takes place as often in other churches. Why do I never see you start one of those threads, and face the problems in your own church? “

That’s accusatory. There has never been such a scandal in my church. It is small, granted. And it is always possible. There are pervs on the prowl everywhere. But I can’t get riled up about something I don’t know about.

I could keep cutting and responding but you get the drift.


173 posted on 04/19/2010 9:35:17 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Alex Murphy
It's convenient to think the pederast priest scandal is a 20th century perversion.

In fact, it is not an anomaly, but the way of things within the papacy and it always has been.

From centuries ago when Rome castrated young boys for its choirs, a hierarchy of men who shun marriage and family and children is conducive to all sorts of sexual sins.

This is not just a homosexual problem. It is a problem of a priesthood which is now and has been for centuries filled with men who consider themselves to be "another Christ."

And thus, they believe they are "entitled."

174 posted on 04/19/2010 9:55:09 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
lol. And as far as those Presbyterian -bashing threads go, one of them was truly hysterical since it was posted by a Roman Catholic and it espoused exactly the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic church.

lol. Apparently any negative title will do, even if the actual article was just as critical of Rome as it was of Presbyterians.

175 posted on 04/19/2010 10:08:19 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Origen castrated himself, a self made un-man? and Ambrose forbade married bishops conjugal relations. sort of a Platonic arrangement as it were.

No, it’s not a new scandal but easy communication and the waning deference of the secular world to religious organizations means it’s more difficult to keep the lid on.


176 posted on 04/19/2010 11:02:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Origen castrated himself, a self made un-man?

lolol.

A woe-man.

177 posted on 04/19/2010 11:22:14 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You might want to read Wikipedia, “Age of Consent” for sexual contact, and find out what is a misdemeanor and what is a felony.

Misdemeanor/felony sexual contact, and statute of limitations vary by state. Here’s an example:

What is the statute of limitations on statutory rape? The statute of limitations on statutory rape varies from state to state and depends on whether the crime is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor is considered less serious than a felony and in most states it carries a shorter statute of limitations. Whether an incident of statutory rape is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony often depends on the age difference between the two parties. For example, in California the statute of limitations on misdemeanor statutory rape is one year and is charged when the two people involved are less than three years apart in age at the time of the crime, if the two people are more than three years apart at the time of the crime the charge become a felony and the statute of limitations increases to three years. To find out more about the differences between misdemeanor and felony statutory rape, including the statutes of limitations on each, contact your state Attorney Generals Office.

Link:

http://teenadvice.about.com/od/sexuallyactive/a/statutoryrape1.htm

That is ONLY ONE example.


178 posted on 04/19/2010 11:27:29 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Alex Murphy

So are pederast priests who rape 13-year-olds committing a misdemeanor or a felony?


179 posted on 04/19/2010 11:33:38 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

And can credible accusations of child sexual abuse REALLY be made 20-50 YEARS LATER? If so, then look out: it could happen to anyone.


180 posted on 04/19/2010 11:36:43 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Depends on the state. Varies widely.


181 posted on 04/19/2010 11:37:30 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Name one, in the USA. Provide a link.


182 posted on 04/19/2010 11:39:12 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

lol. Raping a 13-year-old is a felony in EVERY state, Judith. Wake up.


183 posted on 04/19/2010 11:39:50 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Atheists, sit down.


184 posted on 04/19/2010 11:43:00 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Sure. But sexual contact isn’t.

By the way, please name a priest who raped a 13 yo in the US, and please provide a link.


185 posted on 04/19/2010 11:47:12 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

Comment #186 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Eckleburg

So, there is no priest who has raped a 13 yo, in spite of the hysterical, anti-Catholic bigoted ranting?

Yes, I read the link I posted. Do you think the statute of limitations should be abolished? Do you think 20-50 yo allegations of child sexual abuse should be given ANY credibility? If so, why?


187 posted on 04/20/2010 12:07:40 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Your question is beyond offensive.


188 posted on 04/20/2010 12:10:12 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Dr. Eckleburg; count-your-change
You might want to read Wikipedia, “Age of Consent” for sexual contact, and find out what is a misdemeanor and what is a felony.

I do not recommend consulting Wikipedia for information regarding "age of consent". I recommend consulting with a lawyer.

Post #57:

"If you call teens “children” then I guess so. Have you ever heard of ephebephilia?....I can say there are teens who don’t care who they have sex with, who exploit sick, perverted adults for power, money, and drugs, just as they exploit others younger than they are for power and sex....I absolutely do not trust most of the so-called victims.
Post #62:
"...teens do exploit adults to get what they want. Exploiting gay men for money, power, drugs, and sexual satisfaction is a common occurance. I’m not blaming VICTIMS, I’m blaming the deviant homosexual subculture.
Post #63:
"...a distinct preference for individuals in mid or late adolescence is not generally regarded by psychologists as a pathology when it does not interfere with other major areas of one's life. Ephebophilia is not listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), or the ICD-10, nor is it listed as a paraphilia."
Post #65:
It’s time to stop coddling these middle-aged homosexuals who want to exploit the Church financially, who remember that Father so and so from 20-30-years ago was gay...
Post #68:
Ephebophile priests were not victims, neither were their teen partners. Each got something they wanted. 20-30-40-50 years later, the middle aged gay men found out they could financially benefit by suing the Church and pretending to be victims.
Post #127 :
...In some cases, the “children” are old enough that the age of consent renders the case moot and there is no prosecution...
Post #129:
...you can talk of a "child" of 17 years of age? Or 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days? Don't be ridiculous. 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?
Post #165:
Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense....Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you.

189 posted on 04/20/2010 12:21:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Yes, I made those posts on this thread and anyone can read them. What is the reason for making a collection of them? Will that collection be added to the collection of threads I started since 2008? What’s the deal, here?

Am I supposed to be intimidated?

I guess that’s to cover up the fact that neither you nor Dr. E. can come up with the name of a priest who raped a 13 yo.


190 posted on 04/20/2010 12:27:03 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Alex Murphy; count-your-change
Judith, you showed your lack of knowledge in post 129 when you wrote...

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?

In none of the 50 states is the age of consent for sexual activity 15 or 14.

You are the one drawing distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies regarding pederast priests either forcing or enticing 13-year-old boys into having sex with them.

The only people I've heard arguing the way you have tonight are members of NAMBLA.

191 posted on 04/20/2010 12:27:10 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
In none of the 50 states is the age of consent for sexual activity 15 or 14.

Sure it is, in the case of marriage. I guess you still don't have the name of an American priest who raped a 13 yo. Do you have the name of an American priest who raped a 14 yo?

192 posted on 04/20/2010 12:29:00 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
The only people I've heard arguing the way you have tonight are members of NAMBLA.

Evidently, you only read the mainstream leftist media.

Incidently, are you trying to intimidate Catholics who defend their priesthood against baseless, anti-Catholic bigoted accusations, by bringing up NAMBLA? That underhanded, deviant, sick, twisted tactic won't work with me.

NAME A PRIEST WHO RAPED A 13 YO and PROVIDE A LINK.

193 posted on 04/20/2010 12:33:24 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; count-your-change; RegulatorCountry
From the quotes you offered...

"...teens do exploit adults to get what they want. Exploiting gay men for money, power, drugs, and sexual satisfaction is a common occurance."

"I absolutely do not trust most of the so-called victims."

"...a distinct preference for individuals in mid or late adolescence is not generally regarded by psychologists as a pathology when it does not interfere with other major areas of one's life. "

Oh, Lord, I missed most of those posts.

NAMBLA may be too tame for some RC apologists, judging by that sickening defense of the indefensible.

194 posted on 04/20/2010 12:35:25 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

The devious, deceitful, malicious posts of the anti-Catholic bigot brigade are getting hysterical.

Intimating that defense of Catholic priests unjustly accused of child sexual abuse equates to membership in NAMBLA is the most evil thing I have ever seen any presbyterian do.

Boo! There is a Catholic priest within 500 miles of you.


195 posted on 04/20/2010 12:36:35 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Alex Murphy

“in the case of marriage.”

lol. We’re talking about “age of consent” for sex, Judith, not for marriage. A pretty fumbling attempt at changing the topic.

As you can see from the following link, you are wrong. The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 and above in this country in every 50 states.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-consensual-sex/

RC apologists think if they repeat an error often enough it might take on a sheen of respectability.

It doesn’t.


196 posted on 04/20/2010 12:41:19 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
NAMBLA may be too tame for some RC apologists, judging by that sickening defense of the indefensible

The truth is my defense. Everything I have written is true. Ignorance does not excuse the bigoted attacks on those who defend their Church and her priests against bigotry. Stating that my defense is equivalent to membership in NAMBLA is the worst thing I have ever seen on this forum, anywhere.

197 posted on 04/20/2010 12:41:22 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

That’s sick.


198 posted on 04/20/2010 12:42:42 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
There is a Catholic priest within 500 miles of you.

There's plenty a lot closer than that -- there's a prison within 100 miles.

199 posted on 04/20/2010 12:43:16 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
As you can see from the following link, you are wrong. The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 and above in this country in every 50 states.

Except in the case of marriage.

200 posted on 04/20/2010 12:44:23 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 2,751-2,775 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson