Skip to comments.Wisconsin's Catholic child abuse anguish
Posted on 03/27/2010 3:29:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
What must it feel like to have lost 50 years of your life? For that is what 61-year old Arthur Budzinski has endured.
Five long decades of personal pain.
And he has to rely on others to speak of his anguish.
It is made worse by the fact that no-one has been held to account for the sexual abuse he says he suffered as a child while at the Roman Catholic St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin.
Arthur and around 200 other boys are said to have been sexually abused at the school by Father Lawrence Murphy, a Catholic priest.
He says he and others told members of the clergy back then that they were being watched, touched and exploited by Fr Murphy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Where, exactly, are these "Romanist pedophile camps" located?
“What’s troubling is that you would think that this would energize Romanists to reform their Church...”
The cases in question are DECADES old. Reform has already happened in the US.
“...but instead we read all kinds of deluded platitudes on how these priest scandals are somehow an attack on the Roman Church by those outside the Church, written with an ignoble ignorance to the actual problem.”
Actually there’s none of that at all. No one is saying the “priest scandals” are an attack on the Church. What is an attack is when decades old cases are worked up into scandals for no reason other than attacking the pope and the Church. Remember, people are DELIBERATELY misreporting the facts about the cases in question. You don’t think that matters? No, I guess anti-Catholics don’t care about facts to begin with.
I guess that would depend on how you define conservative. If the goal is to conserve classical liberalism then the only conservative on your list is Clarence Thomas who was not raised Catholic.
Robert George is the main author of the anti-liberty Manhattan Declaration. That too many Protestants bought into it’s false premises does not mitigate against the fact that the document is undergirded by Romanist ideals of Church authority over society.
So far you have one conservative.
Thomas was raised as a Catholic: http://www.adherents.com/people/pt/Clarence_Thomas.html
“Consider this: Remember when the Clinton thugs blew up a small compound because it’s leader was a pedophile? Now we have even more hardened Secularists in charge who would no doubt love to destroy any Christian denomination that does not ascribe to a watered down liberal pantheistic version of Christianity.
If the government used the justification that children were being harmed to attack the Branch Davidians, and I believe the same justification was used against the Mormons in Texas, then what’s stopping the government from shutting down Romanist pedophile camps...”
Precedent point well taken, but don’t through the Baby out with the bathwater.
“I’m not surprised you’re comfortable in your deluded state of mind rationalizing away the problem...”
I have never been deluded. It is not in my nature. I also NEVER, EVER, even once, rationalized “away the problem”. What you’re posting there is simply a flat out lie about my character. I defy you to show any evidence to bolster your claims.
“...as mere past tense events ignorantly content that the current state of affairs is free from these scandals.”
The two cases in question actually happened DECADES ago. Even the last detail of one case is given as happening in 1996. That’s 14 years ago. If 55, more than 30, and 14 years ago is not past tense, then what is?
“The delusion helps you hang on to your false beliefs.”
I have no delusions. I have no false beliefs. What you have is a habit of posting slanderous things against those who demand evidence from you. Time to post some evidence. Prove your claim against me. I’ll even let slide the clear violation of the board rules on your part (supposed reading of minds). Since you’re an anti-Catholic I wouldn’t expect the Mod to do anything about it anyway.
If you have any honor, you will prove your claim against me. Do you?
Thanks for posting the link. Looks like Thomas is Episcopalian instead of Romanist. Campion is back to zero.
Thomas is Catholic. He returned to the Catholic faith in 1991. He has spoken about this in the past. http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
I'm not following your point. What baby is being thrown out?
Yeesh....here we go again.
Why not just close the thread down as soon as the rabid anti Catholics come on board.
Just a lot of vitriole...over and over and over...
They really are in behaviors JUST like Libs: Screaming, angry, refuse to argue the points, repeat the same sentences over and over.......
BUSH LIED! CATHOLIC CHURCH BAD!
FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH GOOD! HALLIBURTON!
POPE BAD! DICK CHENEY BAD!! HIERARCHY BAD!
thanks all you anti Catholics...you make the Left’s job soooo much easier....
“Sinead OConner..please pick up the courtesy phone...Leftists and Anti Catholic Freepers are on the phone.”
I’ve read Thomas’ autobiography. He was raised Catholic. He even went to a seminary high school with every intention of becoming a priest. He had a bad personal experience with fellow students (the incident was racial) and he become disillusioned with religion generally.
I agree with you. I understand why EVERYONE is disgusted by priestly sexual abuse. They should be disgusted. What I don’t understand is how prejudice can so deeply motivate people as to lie about what Freepers actually believe and post. I demanded evidence from the_conscience. I have no doubt that he will utterly fail to post any evidence to bolster his false accusation against me. It’s a disturbing pattern of behavior: falsely accuse Catholic who are right on the facts of actually excusing the abuse we all decry; post complete fabrications; post distortions, etc.
Your posts are the evidence. What more evidence is needed? To believe these scandals are merely past events is clearly delusional.
Seek and ye shall find but you need to put down your verbal swords and do all in love. You are off the Way.
I didn't realize you got to define what "conservative" means.
Plenty of self-professed conservatives, including conservative Protestants, consider the men I listed to be conservatives.
That you do not demonstrates how far out of the mainstream you are.
And yes, Clarence Thomas is a Catholic.
“Your posts are the evidence. What more evidence is needed? To believe these scandals are merely past events is clearly delusional.”
This is what you accused me of:
“Im not surprised youre comfortable in your deluded state of mind rationalizing away the problem as mere past tense events ignorantly content that the current state of affairs is free from these scandals.”
Thus, you accused me of being: 1) delusional, 2) in my “mind rationalizing away the problem”, and 3) that I am just “rationalizing away the problem as mere past tense”.
Now, where, in what posts, did I show myself to be DELUSIONAL, and where did you step into my MIND, and where did I rationalize away the problem as mere past tense?
I did none of those things. You were clearly posting false accusations. You have failed to prove them and you will continue to fail. Anti-Catholics are routinely dishonest. That is once again being shown in this thread.
Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets often used the verbal sword. I guess you’ll have to explain exactly what Way you mean?
Thank you for bringing this up.
I have observed that for a long time now.
I would imagine that the lurkers have, as well.
But—they were Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets.
We who are Christian (Christ-bearers) were not given the command to bear verbal swords against one another; in fact, we are told that we must account for every word.
Yes, these are false accusations and are also personal.
lol That attitude probably best exemplifies my point. Is there some definition of conservative that I am obligated to conform to? Since I defined how conservative is meant to be defined I would think you would show me how my definition is faulty. I'm fine with being out of the mainstream but that probably just proves I'm conservative.
No more so than I am obligated to conform to yours.
How many people - who identify themselves as conservatives - would say the following people were not conervative:
John Boehner; SCOTUS justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, John Scalia, and Clarence Thomas; Robert George of Princeton; natural-law scholar J Budszizewski.
I think someone might quibble here and there, but to dismiss all of them as being NOT conservative is just bizarre.
The flipside of that is: if they aren’t conservatives, then what are they? The left certainly doesn’t accept any of them.
I think they know quite a bit. Catholics just don’t want to hear it.
Right! It’s just plain bizarre!
They know they were saved through infant baptism, you know...
Catholics hear it no matter what. The difference is we also insist on the facts being posted as well. That’s when the anti-Catholics seem to become unhinged and demand that their fantasies and false accudations against posters are reality.
But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
“But I don’t see where Scripture tells us to hide the truth so we don’t hurt someones feelings.”
Where in scripture does it say it’s okay for you to make things up against posters at FR?
Speaking of the truth, where, exactly are those "Romanist pedophile camps"?
Indeed. But I wasn't the one demanding that you conform to some mainstream definition. I clearly defined conservative as those who hold to the classical liberal principles of our founders. I have yet to hear your definition. I would suppose it to be some Romanist Natural Law principle.
Wherever priests are abusing children.
Which principles, and which founders?
Thomas Jefferson, a Deist who edited his own version of the Bible, leaving out all of that icky Christian stuff?
Thomas Paine, who called Christianity an "outrage on common sense" and said that the Bible was a "history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind"?
Or Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who was, well, a Romanist?
If you don't think the Pope is infallible on matters of religion, I don't think you ought to take "the founders" as infallible on matters of political philosophy. It's bad form.
Conservatives are people who believe in capitalism, limited government, the rule of law, and "natural rights" -- that is, that people have certain human rights by virtue of their nature as human beings, not because some external human entity decides to recognize them.
Campion, the_conscience apparently believes he can say anything (no matter how ludicrous) and that it is just fine as long as it opposes the Catholic Church. I don’t believe he cares about the truth. I don’t believe he believes lying is wrong - as long as it attacks the Catholic Church.
So if I started talking about "Presbyterian adultery camps," and you inquired what I meant, and I responded, "Wherever ministers are seducing married women from the congregation," you would consider that a satisfactory answer?
A specious, at best, conclusion germinated by a simple mind which is at a loss to explain the behavior of these deviants since he/she/it can't use the "celibacy is the reason" crutch.
By the way, Einstein, the vast majority of pedophiles are married men.
I have not once made an effort or a post to hide the truth that this thread is about. I am committed to Truth and to the truth.
As for iron sharpening iron—I’m assured that the Lord Jesus did not give that commandment to those who would follow Him. Rather He said that we were to be like Him—meek and humble of heart. It wasn’t in vain that He said that to us.
When there comes a time that iron must sharpen iron, it will be God’s handiwork and His doing.
Meanwhile, on this thread and the many like it popping up on this forum in the past few days, there have been Catholic posters who made it very clear that they were not protecting abusers or that they not failed to acknowledge the seriousness of this situation.
At the same time, many Catholic posters have expressed concerns that there’s a media juggernaut against the Pope. That has also provided fodder for those on this forum who appear to welcome any and all opportunities to discredit not only the Pope but those who stand with him in his way of the Cross.
There are many accusations and accusers, and the more there are threads like this, the more the accusers band together to denounce and accuse.
This is an injustice. It does much to contribute to ill will and vitriol and contempt and, in the end, has nothing to give that is profitable for anyone.
You hit the nail on the head. 8% of married compared to 4% for priest. Good for you to point out. Boy, the Hate really is trying to flow. And who is the master of hate! Hmmm The old serpent perhaps? And when we have hate in our hearts Christ says we commit murder. But then when your guranteed to be saved and dont have to answer to no one- let the hate flow?
More evidence that your doctorate was obtained via a mail order diploma mill advertising in Popular Science.
You are not telling the truth.
Armed and ready! Bring it on!!
By not reporting the CRIME aren't you aiding and abetting?
The Pope was following the confidential orders of the Crimen Sollicitationis to hide the facts, support the priest and deny. The Vatican is still doing that.
oh please, get a life
2) One of the main reasons for this supposed time lapse is that under threat of excommunication, the victim must wait 10 years after he reaches the age of 18 to even speak about the crime with anyone other than a priest
who on earth told you that piece of nonsense?????any child who is molested should tell everyone he knows about it, his or her parents, teachers, trusted adult friend....anyone.....and they will not be excommunicated.....sheesh
think they know quite a bit. Catholics just dont want to hear it.
again, welcome back, and again, you still have no idea of what you are talking about. For some, it is better just to listen and learn from those who do indeed, have some idea of what’s happening.....and your next post concerning infant baptism was just as uninformed as was this one....
The canonical process to formally remove Murphy from the priesthood was underway until 2 days before his death, and was never halted nor impeded by Rome.
Abp. Weakland sat on the case for 19 years before telling Rome about it. Canon law authorized him to act without Rome's approval during this entire period. He did nothing.