Skip to comments.NEW YORK TIMES TARGETS THE POPE AGAIN
Posted on 03/16/2010 7:25:56 AM PDT by Pope Pius XII
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attack on the pope by the New York Times:
Once upon a time there was a homosexual priest who was accused of molesting boys in Germany. That was 30 years ago. At the approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope), he was sent away for therapy and was later reinstated; years later, under a new archbishop, there was another incident and more therapy.
We know this because the New York Times (which does not like to report on molesting rabbis in 2010), told us about this on Saturday in a front-page article. Today, it ran a front-page article on the same story. Was there any difference? Yes. On Saturday, the Times was only able to identify the priest as bearing the initial "H." Today, it has real news: his name is Hullermann. And now "H" has been suspended.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
Because, back in the timeframe involved - some 30 years ago - that was the course of action that the "experts" were recommending. The Church tended to believe the experts and their belief - naively, as it turns out - that therapy could work sufficiently well that laicization of the offenders wasn't automatically necessary. Do we know this to be incorrect today? Certainly. But such was not the case back then. It is unfair to project current clinical opinion onto the honest - if incorrect - "professional opinions" of former days, in order to paint a picture of deliberate malfeasance on the part of either the Church or the psychiatric community.
And my point is that the media, Protestants and whoever, love to use the sex abuse scandal as a way to say that priests should be married.
The preponderance of medical evidence speaks against that. It is possible, though not common.
I don't know what that means.
But the REAL reson for the Catholic sex abuse scandal was that there was abuse, it was covered up, and then it was found out.
Oh, so now you’re protecting pedophiles!?
There is also not a world-wide, central authority for fathers and step-fathers. One that would discover abuse, hide it, fail to report the crime, and then reassign the fathers and stepfathers to another family in another town with new children.
And you don’t think the NEA hushes up media on teacher offenses? LOL!
I doubt it.
I had never heard this or remembered reading it in the canon so I just did a quick word search. It isn't there. In fact neither the words murder and kill are contained in the canon law.
No, you're not the only one who knows that. I know it, and a lot of other people who are interested in the truth know it.
People who blather about this topic, and are unaware of the facts you mentioned, tell us a lot about themselves. None of it is good.
Do you? Are you ok with that? Are you claiming the NEA is a world power?
Dealing with sexual abuse is a responsibility that belongs to the Bishops, not the Vatican.
I stand with you my FRiend, and never back down from this cr@p. It’s disgusting.
And the Vatican never knows, is that your story?
I think it was words spilling blood.
The only thing worse than a pedophile is a sytem that knows a man is one, and then gives him access to more children.
I don't get your point. Bishops are part of the mega-organization that is the Catholic Church. The internal rot was widespread.
But that's the point: NOW we know they cannot be cured. At least not through psychiatric treatment. Then, however, when they were being shuffled from parish to parish, the prevailing theory was that with the proper treatment, they could be cured.
This fact puts a whole new light on the popular notion of a "conspiracy" in the Church to "protect pedophiles".
Believe and/or disagree all you wish, but it's simply uncharitable to ascribe evil intentions to the bishops involved. It would be like saying, 20 years from now, if we ever discovered that playing card games somehow encouraged anti-social behavior, that all the bishops who reassigned priests who were obsessive card players, were involved in a massive "conspiracy to protect priests".
Which is more reasonable to believe: ( assuming one does not have an agenda against the Church in the first place) That the Church leadership was involved in an active conspiracy to protect their own at the expense of the laity, or that at the time, in a misguided and misinformed desire to help the priests, they referred them for psychiatric care, because AT THE TIME they thought such treatment would be effective?
I submit any reasonable person with no axe to grind against the Church would, and should, answer the latter.
You know, in this case, the cover-up is almost more vile than the crime considering who is facilitating the cover-up.
I have many family and friends who are Catholic. I don’t hate them or their faith. I do hate those who abused children and covered it up.
Personally, if I felt the way some of these folks do I would keep it to myself because aside from being wrong, it’s creepy.
Nope. The word "blood" appears eight times in the canon law. Six times in the context of blood relatives and twice in the context of the blood of Christ.
What in incredible pile of steaming excrement. We're condemning the Catholic Church for practicing the concealment of crimes and allowing countless children and young men to having their lives ruined. Or is that your idea of "practicing this faith"
You know, if it were just a few guys, just a few times, I could almost buy into this. But we know now that it was widespread, and there were many who recommitted and recommitted.
(a)The NYT is anti-catholic. Rocket science, nor scientific literary analysis necessary. Ipso frickin'facto. res ipsa frickin' loquitur, etc. et frickin' cetera.
(b) The Holy Roman Catholic Church, the most visible multi-national, religious body in the Western World, is unfortunately infested with a large number of deviates, mostly of the homosexual, paedophilic variety. Ipso frickin' facto. res ipsa frickin'loquitur, etc. et frickin' cetera.
(c) The present Pope, is a splendid fellow. But, like every other pastor, bishop, archbishop, and cardinal in the outfit, he screwed up, probably more than once. For centuries now, the HRCC has been hushing this sort of thing up, shuffling the perverts around, putting them through penance, therapy, torture, imprisonment, sequestration in monasteries, death, etc. They have tried everything. Probably never did any good, except keeping it out of the papers, which in the olden days, no one could read anyway.
(d) Last hundred years or so, almost everybody can read. And, begininning in the 50s, due to a dearth of "vocations," the Holy Roman Catholic Church started admitting queers to the seminaries in ever greater numbers. Previously, a hint of lightness in the loafer was enough to send many a sweet boy packing. The new theory was, "What the Hell, they have to be celibate anyway, what's he difference if they are celibate queerly or heterosexually?"
Well, it's a bad theory, as pointed out by Tough Tony Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philly. Unfortunately, The Holy Roman Catholic Church is paying for it now, bigtime. Guilty as charged, baby. Maybe that feel-good rabbi's next book should be, "When Bad Things Happen To A Good Church?"
In regard to Jewish perverts. Of course many a rabbi is a molester. But (a) there are fewer rabbis than priests and (b) last I checked, the Jews have no Pope, no Ruling Legal Authority. (c) No big time highly visible multi-national organization that's easy pickins for a nosy reporter. So, your Jews are less apt to make it to page 1 above the fold of the anti-catholic NYT than priests. If a rabbi-molester makes that paper at all, it's going to be in the classifieds, after "Livestock."
Did I mention that the NYT is anti-catholic? Always has been.
But this IS a Catholic problem. Now for the solution. This is a secular police matter. Call the cops. Arrest the pervert priests. Defrock'em immediately, Tie'm to stakes in front of the cathedrals and burn them. And the reporters of the NYT.
Oh baloney. Out here in the real world, people know that a pedophile is completely different than a horny straight guy.
I'm sorry, but that is the lamest analogy I have ever heard.
The Archdiocese of Boston secretly settled child sexual abuse claims against at least 70 priests from 1992 to 2002.
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, it's hard to understand how deep and strong the indoctrination is. It's beyond reason.
In November 2009, the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse reported its findings in which it concluded that:
“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State”.
You know it’s not a world power — but it’s a big dimocrat power. My money is on the fact that they DO hush up teacher offense stories if they can.
Big supporters of Obama, obamacare and abortion.
Besides, the Catholic Church was fully aware that the activity was a crime. They concealed crimes. That’s a...crime. Last I looked, card-playing is still legal. Even for Baptists.
True. On a related note, 53% of Catholics voted for Obama.
**It would not shock me to see some of these folks look an abused child in the eye and tell them to “shut up” as they have here. **
Good grief, man. I operated a child care center at one time. I NEVER told anyone to “shut up” about any child abuse.
Please don’t accuse ALL Catholics based on your own experience — whatever that was.
What are your facts?
The Church is not perfect, only God is perfect. If you were hurt by individuals within the Church the Church too was hurt.
Christ taught up to offer seven petitions when we pray. One of these is the forgiveness of sins (forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.) As difficult as this might be you are called to it.
The secular and sacred worlds have become intertwined..like a serpent.
Psychiatrists can muck up the secular world all they want but the sacred world needs to get those perverted men (or women) out of the holiness of the faith once and for all...and they can then pray and be redeemed within their own relationship with the Lord.
He’s referencing THE FACT that on an earlier post, a Catholic defender of pedophiles told him to “shut up”.
But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking, we can reasonably ask: How many of them practice their faith on a regular basis? And when we do that, we learn that most practicing Catholics actually voted for Senator McCain. Of course, that doesn't really tell us whether anyone voted for either candidate for the right reasons. Nobody can do a survey of the secret places of the human heart. But it does tell us that numbers can be used to prove just about anything. We won't be judged on our knowledge of poll data. We'll be judged on whether we proved it by our actions when we said "I am a Catholic, and Jesus Christ is Lord."
- Archbishop Charles Chaput
after the pedophiles have been exposed, brought to civil justice for their CRIMES, removed from the clergy, confessed and repented, then we’ll talk about forgiveness.
You expect people to forgive an offender who is continuing to offend?
These are grown men who knew exactly what they were doing. Let’s not forget that. if they were truly sorry, they would turn themselves in to the police, resign their office and seek help.
To be convincing here, you must show that the cases of abuse occured in the time when we knew, as we know now, that pedophilia cannot be cured. IOW, show that the actual abuse occured within at least 20 years, if not preferably 15 years.
Not the reporting of the abuse to civil authorites, but the actual incidents. That’s the only way that a theory of “conspiracy” would he more reasonable.
That wasn’t the point. As far as the inaction of archbishops go, that’s inexcusable. My point is that the assault on my Church is intended to wear us Catholics down.
I'm thinking that men who delight in touching the genitals of little boys and use their position of authority given to them by the Catholic Church to continue to do so, even after being discovered, are not "practicing their faith"
I DO NOT DEFEND PEDOPHILES! I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE I DEFENDED PEDOPHILES!
Well actually, I think it is intended to bring to light the fact that crimes against children were committed and concealed. But if you want to take it personally, go ahead.
You are the master of your own soul, but have we not all been taught that when someone strikes you on your left cheek to turn and offer them your right?
Hey, you're the one who told a condemner of pedophiles to shut up.
Indeed the bishops did cover up for pedophiles. The media however and others included use it to as a way to say that celibacy caused the sex abuse scandal. It didn’t.