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 ...
The point is, is that percentage number of priests who actually commited sexual abuse is pitfully small when compared with the public schools and I day say it’s worse in other Christian denominations.
Benefit of the doubt? OK, YOU hire a pedophile who's been through pschotherapy to babysit your little boys. Judge not, ya know.!
I’m not sure what your point is here.
The most probable pedophiles in order are:
Priests are way down on the list.
So if a Father is a teacher of mid-high history, coaches the girls basketball team and is a youth minister at his church on weekends/Sundays watch out! He would be much more prone to pedophilia that any priest.
The reason for the sex abuse scandal is Catholic Unorthodoxy.
How about one offense with teachers?
Does that make ALL the teachers offenders?
Thank you salvation!
The point is, one child is too many.
The point is, the Catholic Church as an organization has protected and allowed this.
The point is not that Rabbis and Baptists have molested. The point is the protection afforded molesters by the RC Church.
Did I mention that one child is too many?
Are you a Catholic?
If there was a world-wide central authority that protected the teacher, kept the incident a secret and then reassigned the teacher to another school in another town, then you could compare.
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.