Posted on 03/26/2010 5:32:30 PM PDT by Biggirl
Having sex with a minor is criminal, big difference.
That Swaggart went on to commit the very same sin was evidence of his lack of sincerity. We all know, no one is attempting to conceal it.
Compare and contrast. No public show of remorse or contrition. Continuing on with the commission of the same sin. But, this church, instead of condemning it and removing the source of unrepentant sin, hides it.
Your desire to protect your church is on some level admirable. However, there comes a point when you have to admit there is a problem. And, there is a problem.
Anything against the civil (criminal) law is criminal, by definition, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Yes, but don't assume that the penitent is necessarily the perpetrator. The victim could also be mentioning it in confession, and -- while the priest would certainly (we hope) say (a) that's horrible; (b) that's not your fault; and (c) please tell the police and the bishop -- if the victim refuses, the priest's options are somewhat limited.
(My understanding is that he could perhaps approach the bishop and tell him that he has reason to suspect from something he heard in the confessional that Fr. W is molesting children, but that's all he can say. In particular, he cannot say anything to anyone that would give away the penitent's identity.)
Of course, if the perp is attempting to confess and refuses to go to the authorities, his confession may well be invalid, but there's still nothing the confessor can do.
You wrote:
“That Swaggart went on to commit the very same sin was evidence of his lack of sincerity.”
Yet, you apparently believed him: “I’ll take a blubbering Jimmy Swaggart, on his knees and in tears, admitting his failure and sin any day, over arrogant denials and attempts to paint everyone else as being just as sinful in order to protect a particular church.”
Fake displays apparently impress you. They don’t impress me.
“We all know, no one is attempting to conceal it.”
Except that you didn’t even hint that you “know” and never mentioned his 1991 scandal.
“Compare and contrast. No public show of remorse or contrition.”
I’ve seen it. I guess you don’t watch the news or ever use google? I typed in a few words and instantaneously found this: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090927/NEWS02/90926012/Ex-priest-apologizes-for-abuse
And there’s this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_re_eu/eu_church_abuse
And there are many more. Again, you can claim you “have every idea what I’m talking about” but that just doesn’t seem to be the case.
“Continuing on with the commission of the same sin.”
Who is? Who exactly?
“But, this church, instead of condemning it and removing the source of unrepentant sin, hides it.”
No, it looks like most of the abusers were removed DECADES AGO.
“Your desire to protect your church is on some level admirable.”
I am not protecting it. I am just getting all of the facts right while you make one error after another.
“However, there comes a point when you have to admit there is a problem. And, there is a problem.”
There is a problem. I have never NOT admitted it. Another problem is that some people here keep lying by claiming we don’t admit there’s a problem. Why someone would lie like that I’m not sure - unless it was out of sheer bigotry.
You wrote:
“Having sex with a minor is criminal, big difference.”
It’s still against the CIVIL law (i.e. it is illegal under STATE law).
I don't know what source you're referencing, but the USCCB article says that, of the 398 "new allegations," 71% of the alleged incidents of abuse began between the years 1960 and 1984, with the most common time period being between 1975 and 1979.
Just wanted to make the record clear that "398 new allegations in 2009" does not mean that "398 new incidents of abuse were alleged to have occurred in 2009".
It’s becoming more obvious what’s going on: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481315/posts
Keep this in mind as you plow your way through religion threads on FR in the immediate future, vlad. I know I sure will. The matter will be revisited.
How can you allow a pedophile priest to remain a priest? To me, as someone who is suppose to dispense the grace of God, allowing someone who committed these action is just plainly wrong.
2) What grievous error did he make that he knew was a grievous error?
He knew quite well what the policy was of the Church. He also knew what type of priest was. The grievous error is that when confronted with the truth he didn't try to correct the matter.
Now I'd love how you would say that the Pope's action was justifiable.
You wrote:
“Keep this in mind as you plow your way through religion threads on FR in the immediate future, vlad. I know I sure will. The matter will be revisited.”
It will be revisited and I will still be absolutely right. And liars will still post outrageous lies claiming we don’t admit there’s a problem. I was lied about in this thread. Just another day chatting to anti-Catholics.
Dishonesty is not a good thing. Where, in this thread, were you lied about, specifically? Perhaps you should ping the RM to rectify the situation.
Just another day chatting to anti-Catholics.
If you assume that everyone who points out problems with your church is "anti-Catholic," you're going to be living a very confused life, vlad. Some see brothers and sisters in Christ falling into serious error, and endure abuse and vitriol while trying to correct that error out of love. It would certainly be easier to just let sleeping dogs lie.
You wrote:
“How can you allow a pedophile priest to remain a priest?”
Who? If you mean the case in Wisconsin, that man ceased working as a priest years before he died.
15 May 1974: Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.
12 September 1974: Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.
9 July 1980: Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.
17 July 1996: More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.
It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.
10 September 1996: Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.
24 March 1997: Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.
14 May 1997: Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.
Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.
12 January 1998: Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.
6 April 1998: Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.
13 May 1998: The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.
30 May 1998: Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.
19 August 1998: Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.
21 August 1998: Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481315/posts
Now, when exactly did the current pope allow the priest in question to remain a priest? Please keep in mind the following: Ratzinger wasn’t pope then, he wasn’t as involved in this case as some have falsely claimed; and the priest had already ceased working as a priest in 1974!
” To me, as someone who is suppose to dispense the grace of God, allowing someone who committed these action is just plainly wrong.”
And who did that? Again, all the people discussed in the case so far only became aware of it in the late 1970s, the 1980s or 1990s. Yet it was in 1974 that this man CEASED to function as a priest. I agree with you he should have been tossed out in the 1950s. I agree with you, but who do we know of yet was responsible for NOT todding him out? Even Rembert Weakland, a useless prelate if there ever was one, was apparently blameless in this case. He was not bishop when the abuse happened. The priest left the diocese and stopped functioning as a priest BEFORE he became bishop. And it was Weakland who began the process against the priest! And Ratzinger was clearly at no fault whatsoever.
“He knew quite well what the policy was of the Church.”
What policy? Again, this abusive priest was put on trial. He was on tril while Ratzinger was working as a cardinal. So, how did he fail in his duty exactly? What policy did he not enforce? Seriously, can you answer ANY of those questions? Even one?
“He also knew what type of priest was. The grievous error is that when confronted with the truth he didn’t try to correct the matter.”
When was Ratzinger confronted with the truth? What case are you even talking about? Do you even know?
“Now I’d love how you would say that the Pope’s action was justifiable.”
I would love for you to make sense first. What case are you talking about? Do you even know? What years are we talking about? What country? Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? Apparently not. You refered to not a single abusive person, or place, not even a country! And yet you think you have given me something that I have to justify? All you’re doing is proving one of my points in these threads - you have no idea of what you’re talking about. It is clear you haven’t read anything but the leftist media on this and apparently you can’t remember the name of single country or given decade from even those “news” pieces. When you know something get back to me.
Using the term civil diminishes the criminality of what was done. It sounds like it's just a question of paying for damages. We are talking about criminal acts that call for prison time.
I put those statistics up in a couple other threads. I predict there will be no acknowledgment of it by the hyper-Calvinists.
That is a lie.
I don't believe that for a minute.
The church stands in front of the cultural tide which flows in rainbows that shout that “gay is good”. The church as everything around us cannot help but reflect the culture. How many here use the correct word to describe homosexuality, which is, shockingly, “pederasty”, instead of the politically correct synonym for “happy”? Mirror, mirror on the wall. Fags are pederasts, not “gay”, dude!
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.