DEAD: Catholic Church Protecting Pedophile Priests
bellesouth
religion now that the cat is out the bag. "We're NOT gonna tolerate this!"
"We're GONNA turn them in!"
Look at Alfred Hughes & Bernard Law.
Uh huh...
The foxes are still guarding the henhouse.
bellesouth
pedophile priests (whose judgments paid out to victims in lawsuits
apparently comes from the collection basket).
The best news quote on this: 'I don't expect anything to come out of this.
After all, these were the same men who allowed the problem to exist."
So much for the priest shuffle from parish to parish, as the fat asses in
the red robes looked the other way, while fully knowing.
Amen!
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
> The Vatican has summoned the Cardinals to Rome to discuss the problem of
> pedophile priests (whose judgments paid out to victims in lawsuits
> apparently comes from the collection basket).
Just why was Friar Tuck, one of Robin Hood's men, so jolly? One theory
is that it was a four month trip to the Vatican in Ye Olden Days.
Surrounded by all those boys in skin tight outfits, living in the forest,
right near Naughtyham - no wonder the friar was jolly.
Terrymelin
the media (big surprise).
1. Are any of these accusations current? It seems they all range from at least
10 years to as many as 40 years old.
2. Why isn't there more talk about homosexuality in the clergy rather than
about celibacy? It seems the church's problem (and I'm not a Roman Catholic and
wouldn't presume to tell them how to solve their problems) is not celibacy
(afterall this homosexual priests wouldn't solve their problem by marrying a
woman) but how many predatory homosexuals are in the clergy.
Terry Ellsworth
doc
Well, I am a Catholic (big surprise to the regulars, I'm sure), and I
can tell you that both points you mentioned have been noted by a great
portion of the laity. What shocks me is the timing of this "crisis".
I am an old man now, yet I can remember being warned in my youth by my
grandfather to "be careful" around certain members of the clergy.
Today's headlines are novel to the general public perhaps, but they
are hardly "news".
No doubt the current system has facilitated the development of a
sanctuary for some bad elements in the ranks of the clergy. However,
that being said, the vast majority of priests I have known in my life
are selfless, dedicated and celibate men of impeccable integrity.
And although there are some statistical surveys which support the
premise that there are no more homosexuals in the priesthood than in
the ministerial caste of other religions, that would hardly qualify as
scientific evidence in the conventional sense -- being derived from
social science databases.
The problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
St. Augustine had homosexual experiences in his youth. And Butler's
"Lives of the Saints" is heavy with histories of men and women whose
sexual adventures and experimentation before their conversions were
notorious.
The problem lies with a spiritual, psychological and moral weakness in
an individual which compels him to violate his public vows and prey on
the weak and vulnerable -- be it the widow or the orphan -- and an
administrative structure which, much like the US military, practices
an institutional policy of CYA.
JHall
One is ONE too many.
doc
Well, I can see there is a nascent groundswell for yet another
"zero-tolerance" campaign. Would that all human enterprise could be
managed so neatly...
There is, historically, some irony in that the present Roman
discipline of a celibate clergy was a reformist attempt to control the
abuse of priestly concubinage and rampant nepotism in the Western
Church.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, doc <drbo...@xprt.net> wrote:
> >One is ONE too many.
>
> Well, I can see there is a nascent groundswell for yet another
> "zero-tolerance" campaign. Would that all human enterprise could be
> managed so neatly...
"Zero-tolerance" is stupid when it applies solutions to problems to
things that aren't "problems" at all. For example, the perfectly
reasonable proscription on bringing weapons to school turns into
idiocy as soon as a kid is expelled for bringing a butter knife in his
lunch. A legitimate policy to stamp out illegal drug use in school
becomes moronic as soon as a kid is suspended for bringing an aspirin,
or giving a Midol to a classmate.
Neither of these applies to the kind of "zero-tolerance" people want
out of the Catholic Church. Just how much pedophilia do you think we
should have "tolerance" for, anyway?
How many priests have to bugger ten-year-old boys before you at least
*begin* to get outraged about it? Do you have a specific number in
mind, and why is it greater than "zero"?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
doc
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>
>How many priests have to bugger ten-year-old boys before you at least
>*begin* to get outraged about it? Do you have a specific number in
>mind, and why is it greater than "zero"?
Brilliant rhetoric, but it doesn't advance the discussion. Moreover,
the thread started with the suggestion that "homosexual" priests were
the problem. You, of course, being more interested in throwing
epithets than serious discussion, turned it into an ad hominem
indictment.
Really, don't hide that light under a bushel, and don't obfuscate. If
one didn't know you better, Baldwin, one would say your anti-Catholic.
doc
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, doc <drbo...@xprt.net> wrote:
>> >One is ONE too many.
>>
>> Well, I can see there is a nascent groundswell for yet another
>> "zero-tolerance" campaign. Would that all human enterprise could be
>> managed so neatly...
>
>"Zero-tolerance" is stupid when it applies solutions to problems to
>things that aren't "problems" at all. For example, the perfectly
>reasonable proscription on bringing weapons to school turns into
>idiocy as soon as a kid is expelled for bringing a butter knife in his
>lunch. A legitimate policy to stamp out illegal drug use in school
>becomes moronic as soon as a kid is suspended for bringing an aspirin,
>or giving a Midol to a classmate.
>
>Neither of these applies to the kind of "zero-tolerance" people want
>out of the Catholic Church. Just how much pedophilia do you think we
>should have "tolerance" for, anyway?
>
>How many priests have to bugger ten-year-old boys before you at least
>*begin* to get outraged about it? Do you have a specific number in
>mind, and why is it greater than "zero"?
>--
I will remind you also, Mr. Baldwin, that pedophilia is not confined
to ranks of the Roman clergy. There is, at present, a most notorious
case in NYC involving a prominent Rabbi. And there have been a number
of cases involving Southern Baptists over the past generation, most
notably a minister/college administrator in Oklahoma.
My "zero-tolerance" allusion was originally meant as a joke, but your
typically self-righteous jingoistic response really chaps me. I think
you'd argue with signpost, you most difficult and unpleasant man.
Terrymelin
the Roman Catholic Church as much as possible -- is missing the fact that
little of this appears to be going on currently and that 90% of it was done by
homosexuals. Of course that suits their agenda which is the point.
I don't excuse any of what happened but just as the Matthew Shepard case was
blown up out of all proportion (and how where was the media on the story of the
two homosexuals who tortured, raped, and murdered the little boy in Arkansas
that happened during the same time frame?) the facts here are as well. Very
little of this appears to be current and the both the perps and the people
covering it up appear to have homosexuality as their problem not the fact that
they are Roman Catholic.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, doc <drbo...@xprt.net> wrote:
> I will remind you also, Mr. Baldwin, that pedophilia is not confined
> to ranks of the Roman clergy. There is, at present, a most
> notorious case in NYC involving a prominent Rabbi. And there have
> been a number of cases involving Southern Baptists over the past
> generation, most notably a minister/college administrator in
> Oklahoma.
Did their respective religious organizations close ranks and conspire
to cover it all up? Did they quietly transfer the perps to new
pastoral responsibilities without mentioning the reason to the
congregations they were putting at risk?
I don't have a problem with the RC Church because some of its priests
have turned out to be child rapists. I have a problem with the Church
because it doesn't, collectively, give a shit. *That* is why they are
going to pay, and pay, and pay.
> My "zero-tolerance" allusion was originally meant as a joke, but
> your typically self-righteous jingoistic response really chaps me.
> I think you'd argue with signpost, you most difficult and unpleasant
> man.
You may wish to consult a dictionary for the definition of the word
"jingoistic."
JHall
This is what religious scholars would deem the 2 wrongs make a right
"in the realm of the church", non ?
My statement "one is one too many" does not imply "zero tolerance" any
more than it implies that homosexuality is a "disease" and thus we WILL
eradicate it in order to ENSURE that "zero tolerance" may even be
achievable.
In fact, just the THOUGHT that one exists is ONE TOO MANY.
JHall
> ...
> My "zero-tolerance" allusion was originally meant as a joke, but your
> typically self-righteous jingoistic response really chaps me. I think
> you'd argue with signpost, you most difficult and unpleasant man.
In which case may I suggest that you "beef up" the background so that one
may "realize" that you are attempting some sort of witty, if not clever,
banter.
This is NOT a joke; or is it ?
Does this help ? Is this a "joke" ?
And on and on and on and on and on and I DO NOT CARE where a pedophile
hangs out I CARE that "it" is a PEDOPHILE.
By where I mean, as a joke, any religious group, any legal firm, or any
elected office, to name a few. I do believe it is o.k. that pedophlies
"hang" out in prisons.
By the by I dislike belligerent signposts.
PirateJohn
were about religious leaders. A Roman Catholic priest from Panama City was
sentenced for drug dealing (don't even start on this one, JD ;), and somewhere
around here a Baptist minister was out on bail over accusations of tax fraud.
Well ... it's good to see that not all men of the cloth are pedophiles, right??
;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pirat...@aol.com
Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html
"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.
MadCow57
least
10 years to as many as 40 years old.
2. Why isn't there more talk about homosexuality in the clergy rather than
about celibacy? It seems the church's problem (and I'm not a Roman Catholic and
wouldn't presume to tell them how to solve their problems) is not celibacy
(afterall this homosexual priests wouldn't solve their problem by marrying a
woman) but how many predatory homosexuals are in the clergy.<< -- Terry
Ellworth
Somebody in this NG was waving the Clue Stick around recently. Please bring it
back. Terry needs a good poke you-know-where.
JHall
> In article <3cbf1835...@news.xprt.net>, drbo...@xprt.net (doc)
> wrote:
>
> > I will remind you also, Mr. Baldwin, that pedophilia is not confined
> > to ranks of the Roman clergy.
>
> True. However, it seems that the Roman Catholic church has, as its
> policy, a plan and system to protect the criminals from proscecution.
>
> We all know there are sick individuals, and you can't do much about
> that. However, the Roman Catholic Church has proven itself to be a sick
> institution, and that is going to have to change.
Within 3 years the RCC will become the world's most solvent bank; up
front.
Terrymelin
>it
>back. Terry needs a good poke you-know-where.
I suppose that's a child's contribution to a reasoned discussion.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D. Baldwin
> If one didn't know you better, Baldwin, one would say your
> anti-Catholic.
I'm definitely an anti-pedophile. If you equate that with "anti-
Catholic," then so be it.
My wife and kids (Catholics, all) disagree with you, though.
I do not apologize for having a heightened sense of outrage on this
issue. My pre-teen son is frequently in the company of Catholic
priests. I try to take a rational approach to this, because I know
the risk is vanishingly small, but knowing that if something bad
*does* happen, that the Church will close ranks against me and my
family to cover it all up does sort of raise my level of concern.
Terrymelin
>Catholic," then so be it.
I assume that would be "anti-Roman Catholic?"
>I do not apologize for having a heightened sense of outrage on this
>issue.
As well you should. But we shouldn't paint so broad a brush in condemning so
many for what apparently (since no one has yet been able to show me an
accusation that isn't less than 10 years old) is something from the past that
was dealt with badly back then but may not actually be a current problem.
This reminds me alot of the abuse witchhunts that took place in the 80s and
early 90s. Many of those people -- who had their lives ruined -- turned out to
be the victims of hysteria and were not abusers. Let's keep that in mind while
the media and others with agendas other than helping victims whip this up into
a frenzy.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>family to cover it all up does sort of raise my level of concern.
JD -- you are over simplyfying this one. I don't think the above is an accurate
description of what happens or has happened. Perhaps in a few places but not in
most. Come to Chicago -- the church here has been praised for how they've
handled these situations over the past 10 years.
Terry Ellsworth
JHall
> >I'm definitely an anti-pedophile. If you equate that with "anti-
> >Catholic," then so be it.
>
> I assume that would be "anti-Roman Catholic?"
>
> >I do not apologize for having a heightened sense of outrage on this
> >issue.
>
> As well you should. But we shouldn't paint so broad a brush in condemning so
> many for what apparently (since no one has yet been able to show me an
> accusation that isn't less than 10 years old) is something from the past that
> was dealt with badly back then but may not actually be a current
> problem.
Please explain how & WHY it is not a CURRENT problem. Please ensure you
INCLUDE the "problem" regarding how this ENTIRE fiasco has, and is, being
handled.
Friggin' americans and their perchant for compartmentalizing - the best
manner in which to ensure that human beans become more like machines as
our machines become more and more human-like.
>
> This reminds me alot of the abuse witchhunts that took place in the 80s and
> early 90s. Many of those people -- who had their lives ruined -- turned out to
> be the victims of hysteria and were not abusers. Let's keep that in mind while
> the media and others with agendas other than helping victims whip this up into
> a frenzy.
The media, of course, did not play a major role.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Terrymelin <terry...@aol.com> wrote:
> This reminds me alot of the abuse witchhunts that took place in the
> 80s and early 90s. Many of those people -- who had their lives
> ruined -- turned out to be the victims of hysteria and were not
> abusers. Let's keep that in mind while the media and others with
> agendas other than helping victims whip this up into a frenzy.
It's well to keep that in mind, and I was as shocked as anyone at the
witch-hunt mentality that dominated the child abuse "investigations"
back then. I would describe my outrage over some of those abuses as
"extreme" and I have said so many times. The current situation,
however, does not remotely resemble what happened back then.
In the 80's, with the cases of Kelly Michaels, Jim Wade, McMartin,
Dale Akiki, James Wade, Bobby Fijnje and scores of other, similar
idiocies, there was thin or nonexistent evidence against the accused
persons, combined with an irrational "believe the children / children
don't lie" mentality on the part of the witch-hunters.
That's not what's coming to light now. What we're talking about here
is cases in which there is NO DISPUTE whatsoever that certain priests
abused certain children in horrific ways, and yet the behavior was
condoned and covered up by RC Church officials at the very highest
levels. In many cases, they actually put more children at risk by
quietly transferring the perpetrators to new parishes.
That this happened is not a matter of contention -- the only open
question is just how widespread the practice was. We can't count on
the Church for straight answers on the subject -- despite their
bullshit about "openness" and their newfound willingness to get to the
bottom[1] of the problem, they are still fighting efforts to get them
to produce the records of all the times they pulled these stunts.
That is inexcusable to any degree, and the organization itself ought
to be held responsible in this kind of circumstance.
It is, at least, an amusing irony that someone would try to defend the
original witch-hunters on these particular grounds.
[1] Ha ha.
J.D. Baldwin
> an accurate description of what happens or has happened. Perhaps in
> a few places but not in most. Come to Chicago -- the church here has
> been praised for how they've handled these situations over the past
> 10 years.
I go to Chicago often.
*Who*, exactly, is heaping all this praise on the Church leadership
there?
Terrymelin
>INCLUDE the "problem" regarding how this ENTIRE fiasco has, and is, being
>handled.
First, I don't accept the terms of the above because it is false and
misleading.
Why don't you prove to me that there is abuse currently going on in large
numbers and show me the accusations?
Everyone agrees it was poorly handled IN THE PAST -- that doesn't make it a
current problem.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
Now I realize you aren't playing with a full deck. The American media, in
general, was complicit in sensationalizing alleged abuse cases from California
to Massachusetts without bothering to look at the facts.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>however, does not remotely resemble what happened back then.
Oh, no? I have two names for you -- Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and Roger
Cardinal Mahoney -- the media (ok -- mostly CNN) whipped up a firestorm
concerning the specious allegation against Cardinal Bernardin without even
calling his office for a response. Then he went before the media in Chicago and
was barraged with the most disgusting sorts of questions.
It turns out the guy was a big, fat liar. CNN didn't do much on that story.
I'm just suggesting we tread lightly -- especially with new abuse charges that
are mostly concerning 30-40 years ago. It will be a convenient time for every
scumbag to come out from under a rock and claim abuse now. Let's not let that
get in the way of real investigations into real allegations.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>is cases in which there is NO DISPUTE whatsoever that certain priests
>abused certain children in horrific ways, and yet the behavior was
>condoned and covered up by RC Church officials at the very highes
Come on J.D. that's not exactly what we are talking about. In many of these
cases there was never ANY due process or legal process. There was just a church
desperate to keep it quiet so they paid money. Many of these accused priests
have consistently denied the accusations.
I'm not saying it didn't happen but let's be vigilant that this doesn't turn
into another witchhunt.
>We can't count on
>the Church for straight answers on the subject -- despite their
>bullshit about "openness" and their newfound willingness to get to the
>bottom[1] of the problem, they are still fighting efforts to get them
>to produce the records of all the times they pulled these stunts.
I disagree with you. You act as if the "church" in the USA is one person or one
body. It isn't. That's why these cases were handled so differently in many
different places. There is no single standard. That's why there has been little
or no criticism in Chicago because they have a fair, open process that includes
a review process made of both clergy and laity. They review each and every
allegation. Contrast that with Boston where it all just winds up on the
Cardinal's desk.
There's alot more gray to this story than many are willing to admit.
>That is inexcusable to any degree, and the organization itself ought
>to be held responsible in this kind of circumstance.
I am sorry but that sounds like classic "Catholic-bashing." People who make the
above kind of statement usually have some bias against the institution. Should
the entire US government be held responsible for the actions of Bill Clinton
with Monica Lewinsky? Of course not.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>*Who*, exactly, is heaping all this praise on the Church leadership
>there?
Read the papers. Cardinal George has been upfront and open and the only
criticism coming here is from the usual liberal looneys (Greeley, Wills) who
want women priests.
Terry Ellsworth
MadCow57
(Greeley, Wills) who want women priests.<< --
Terry Ellworth
Are you saying that wanting women priests makes a person a liberal looney?
Harry Krause
> On 19 Apr 2002 20:19:44 GMT, terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote:
>
>>I am sorry but that sounds like classic "Catholic-bashing." People who make the
>>above kind of statement usually have some bias against the institution. Should
>>the entire US government be held responsible for the actions of Bill Clinton
>>with Monica Lewinsky? Of course not.
>
>
> David Carson
Should the entire country take the blame for the screw-ups of Bush, or
just the SCOTUS?
--
Harry Krause
- -
Thank God we have a system of labor where there can be a strike.
Whatever the pressure, there is a point where the working man may stop.
- Abraham Lincoln
J.D. Baldwin
> >however, does not remotely resemble what happened back then.
>
> Oh, no? I have two names for you -- Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and
> Roger Cardinal Mahoney -- the media (ok -- mostly CNN) whipped up a
> firestorm concerning the specious allegation against Cardinal
> Bernardin without even calling his office for a response. Then he
> went before the media in Chicago and was barraged with the most
> disgusting sorts of questions.
Here, I have one name for you: Bernard Law.
It's not in any real dispute (when "National Review" runs an article
slamming a major Catholic figure, all debate is OVER, believe me) that
he lied and lied and lied and covered up and that he continues to do
so. The fact that he has not been relieved of his very visible and
senior leadership position within the Church is proof that the rot
goes all the way to the top.
> I'm just suggesting we tread lightly -- especially with new abuse
> charges that are mostly concerning 30-40 years ago. It will be a
> convenient time for every scumbag to come out from under a rock and
> claim abuse now. Let's not let that get in the way of real
> investigations into real allegations.
Sure, but it's no longer in dispute that Cardinal Law is a lying fuck,
to a degree that pretty much makes him a co-conspirator.
J.D. Baldwin
> >to be held responsible in this kind of circumstance.
>
> I am sorry but that sounds like classic "Catholic-bashing." People
> who make the above kind of statement usually have some bias against
> the institution.
I draw a distinction between slamming on individuals for the beliefs
they hold, which would be "Catholic-bashing," and slamming on a church
whose most senior members have engaged in outrageous misconduct over a
period of decades with no accountability whatsoever. Yes, I'm bashing
them; they bloody well deserve it. They colluded in the sexual abuse
of young children, for Christ's sake [literally]!
> Should the entire US government be held responsible for the actions
> of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky? Of course not.
Of course not, indeed, as no moral nor legal wrong was committed by
those actions (at least against Americans in general -- I guess HRC
was wronged). What's your point?
Should the U.S. government be held accountable -- as in, required to
pay, for the actions at, say, Ruby Ridge? Government employees
committed serious crimes. Their supervisors lied and covered it up.
Yes, OF COURSE they should pay. It's an *organizational* problem.
Terrymelin
Mixing apples and oranges here I'm afraid. Please provide your evidence that
Cardinal Law has been guilty of abuse.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>to a degree that pretty much makes him a co-conspirator.
The above is evidence of some overwrought emotion that is completely out of
proportion to what is being alleged here. It means something -- but not
something that has to do with the current issue at hand.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>those actions (at least against Americans in general -- I guess HRC
>was wronged). What's your point?
>
OK. I see. Nevermind. Cardinal Law moved priests around that he knew had been
alleged to have abused some children.
Bill Clinton subverted the constitution, lied in a federal criminal proceeding,
etc. and you believe he committed "no more or legal wrong."
Yep, sound like either Clinton-loving or Catholic-bashing or both to me.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D. Baldwin
I haven't said he is. I've said he's basically an accessory after the
fact, or even a co-conspirator.
If you want the facts about this lying sonofabitch laid out for you by
a source that no sane person could possibly think has an anti-Catholic
bias, try
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-dreher022802.shtml
on for size.
J.D. Baldwin
> had been alleged to have abused some children.
No. He transferred priests he KNEW were GUILTY. These weren't
"alleg[ations]" -- they were confirmed cases.
There are probably examples of unfounded accusations that he didn't
take seriously, too. I don't know. What I do know is that he covered
up cases of confirmed abuse, and in some cases assigned known child
molestors as parish priests with no warning or supervision of any
kind.
If we had a rational justice system in this country, Law would rot in
prison for the rest of his miserable life. Instead, he'll retire into
comfort and wealth.
> Bill Clinton subverted the constitution, lied in a federal criminal
> proceeding, etc. and you believe he committed "no more or legal
> wrong."
Try getting things inside the quotation marks right, please.
I said he committed no moral or legal wrongs in the acts that
transpired between him and Monica L. I didn't say he committed no
such wrongs, ever.
> Yep, sound like either Clinton-loving or Catholic-bashing or both to
> me.
The case for each is equally strong.
Whatever our disagreements before now, I could at least say that you'd
never intentionally misrepresented something I'd said for the purpose
of building a straw man argument (unlike another poster here who makes
a hobby out of the practice). No longer.
KJWajerski
after the
fact, or even a co-conspirator.>>
KJ: Or their pimp. He sure made a whole bunch of kids available to those
sick, sick individuals.
Kathy
Sometimes God calms the storm; sometimes He calms His child and lets the storm
rage.
Bill Schenley
FROM: Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe -
-(4/9/02) -
"Enough, cardinal, enough. Enough of the brazen disregard
for the believers in your midst. Enough of the tens of thousands
of dollars you're throwing at public relations companies. Enough
of the self-centered hope that you can salvage your reputation
before you ride off to retirement in Rome.
No longer are you part of the problem. No longer have you
contributed to the problem. You are now, as one disgusting revelation
after another tumbles out, the core of the problem."
Terrymelin
>a source that no sane person could possibly think has an anti-Catholic
>bias, try
>
Once again your emotion belies your bias. This is really sad from someone who
is usually so level-headed and fair about so many issues.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>accessory after the crime.
>
>- TGS
Give me a break. You are ignoring a little bitty thing called intent. There was
none; therefore there was no crime.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>never intentionally misrepresented something I'd said for the purpose
>of building a straw man argument (unlike another poster here who makes
>a hobby out of the practice). No longer.
I'm sorry you feel that way J.D. as what I said was a totally accurate
reflection of what you said -- unless you want to engage in a Clintonesque spin
about the meaning of the word "is."
You said that Clinton committed no moral or legal wrong in what he did with
Monica Lewinsky. That's what you said. I think that is total mis-reading of the
facts of that particular case or just plain blindness.
Terry Ellsworth
J.D. Baldwin
> did with Monica Lewinsky. That's what you said. I think that is
> total mis-reading of the facts of that particular case or just plain
> blindness.
Yes, that is precisely what I said. Then you extrapolated that into a
bunch of stuff about lying and the Constitution -- all of which I
agree with you on at least the moral aspect of (and to a degree on the
legal aspects, though I never favored impeachment), but which didn't
take place directly between those two individuals.
Terrymelin
>
>Instead of calling the police, like any DECENT human being would do,
>these jokers conspired to cover up the crime and move the criminal to
>another location where he can continue to abuse more children.
I disagree completely on your interpretation of the events described.
What occurred was wrong and appalling and should be corrected. It was not,
however, a crime -- in the legal sense.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>bunch of stuff about lying and the Constitution -- all of which I
>agree with you on at least the moral aspect of (and to a degree on the
>legal aspects, though I never favored impeachment), but which didn't
>take place directly between those two individuals.
Yes, I agree with you. However, I don't think one can compartmentalize the acts
between Monica and Bill and the subsequent events that followed which flowed as
a direct result of those acts.
Terry Ellsworth
Fred Cherry
In Message-ID: <a9n8fn$qj1$1...@reader1.panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.obituaries
Subject: Re: DEAD: Catholic Church Protecting Pedophile Priests
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:57:44 +0000 (UTC)
bal...@panix.com wrote:
> In the previous article, doc <drbo...@xprt.net> wrote:
> > I will remind you also, Mr. Baldwin, that pedophilia is not confined
> > to ranks of the Roman clergy. There is, at present, a most
> > notorious case in NYC involving a prominent Rabbi. And there have
> > been a number of cases involving Southern Baptists over the past
> > generation, most notably a minister/college administrator in
> > Oklahoma.
>
> Did their respective religious organizations close ranks and conspire
> to cover it all up? Did they quietly transfer the perps to new
> pastoral responsibilities without mentioning the reason to the
> congregations they were putting at risk?
>
> I don't have a problem with the RC Church because some of its priests
> have turned out to be child rapists. I have a problem with the Church
> because it doesn't, collectively, give a shit. *That* is why they are
> going to pay, and pay, and pay.
>
> > My "zero-tolerance" allusion was originally meant as a joke, but
> > your typically self-righteous jingoistic response really chaps me.
> > I think you'd argue with signpost, you most difficult and unpleasant
> > man.
>
> You may wish to consult a dictionary for the definition of the word
> "jingoistic."
> --
> _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
> _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
> \ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
> ***~~~~--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Baldwin,
You really know how to sock it to 'em. You did a great job. I agree with
you 1,000%.
Unfortunately i must inform you that YOU are associated with an
organization that favors pedophilia. I am sure that you are unaware of
this fact. It's like this:
I am referring to your ISP, panix.com. I used to be a subscriber to
panix.com until I was kicked off for opposing pedophilia. Here are the
details.
The number one organization in the world which promotes pedophilia is the
North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This organization has
a great deal of support from various sources.
Even The New York Times supports NAMBLA. If you go to a library that has
The New York Times on microfilm and look at the issue of The Times for
1/1/83, page 5, you will see a story about NAMBLA headlined: "Group
Promoting Man-Boy Love is the Focus of Police Inquiry". Now, who can
possibly be against love? Isn't love a desirable thing? The New York Times
does that sort of thing all the time. It slants news stories in favor of
the side it favors. The story about NAMBLA, if it had been truthful,
would have called NAMBLA a group promoting man-boy SEX. There is no love
involved when an adult man sexually molests a young boy. That entire story
was so heavily slanted in favor of NAMBLA that for years the NAMBLA
contingent marching in the anual New York City "Gay Pride" parade
incorporated that entire story into its recruiting literature which it
handed out along the line of march.
Roy Radow used to be the head of the "Steering Committee" of NAMBLA, until
he was arrested for engaging in sexual relations with a young boy about
five years ago. He hasn't been heard of since that time.
Radow used to be a subscriber to panix. As a subscriber to panix, Radow
used to post messages to Usenet glorifying and exalting homosexual
child-molesting.
One time, in a discussion in the newsgroup panix.chat, I said that there
wasn't enough room on the same planet for Radow and myself. To which
Alexis Rosen, one of the two owners of panix replied that he prefers Radow
as a subscriber to panix over myself.
Another time Rod Swift, the notorious homonazi NAMBLA supporter from
Australia was posting attacks against me in the newsgroup alt.recovery.
One of Rosen's stooges on panix told me to stop posting rebutals to Swift
in that newsgroup.
Another thing that one of Rosen's stooges told me to do was to stop
posting messages in the homosexual newsgroup soc.motts. The FAQ of
soc.motss used to include a free plug for NAMBLA. By constantly harping on
that fact I believe that I am the cause of the removal of the free plug
for NAMBLA from the FAQ of soc.motss.
In 1996 I challenged the constitutionality of the Communications Decency
Act of 1996. My grounds for my challenge were that Rod Swift was using
indecent language against me. Swift, posting from Australia, was not
subject to that law, while I was. In other words, Swift was not forbidden
from using indecent language angainst me, but I was forbidden to even
quote the incecent language he was using against me.
During the course of litigation, Rosen sent one of his stooges, Clay
Shirky, to court on the side of the government's attempt to censor
the internet, alleging that I had "polluted" the newsgroup alt.christnet.
Eventually I was able to counter this, by pointing out that Rod Swift had
already "polluted" that newsgroup.
Now, before you denounce me, why don't you post something in panix.chat.
Let's see what Rosen has to say about this.
I am the most hated person on Usenet, and that is because I refuse to
knuckle down to NAMBLA. See some of my controversy with NAMBLA and its
many supporters in the newsgroup alt.gossip.royalty.
___________
| |
| POME |
|_________|
I'm entitled to do a little boasting
You've all heard of alt.support.crossposting
It was I who created that wonderful group
I'm the King of crossposters, and that's no poop!
jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)
Grand Duke of Yugoslobia
Duke of Vulgaria
Grand Muff-Diver of Jerusalem
& Elector of Homophobia
Bernard Hubbard
> In Message-ID: <a9n8fn$qj1$1...@reader1.panix.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.obituaries
> Subject: Re: DEAD: Catholic Church Protecting Pedophile Priests
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:57:44 +0000 (UTC)
> bal...@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm entitled to do a little boasting
Typo. Should read *basting* as I fry my brain
> You've all heard of alt.support.crossposting
Typo. *crosspissing* what ever the hell that means? My thoughts are
along the lines the Phreddie gets carried away when he sees a bigger
(but isn't that always) dick at the next urinal and splashes the other
guys boots
> It was I who created that wonderful group
What's so great about creating a group? Approximately 100,000 people
have done so.
> I'm the King of crossposters,
Yeah, you seem to have some pleasure in repeating that your aim ain't to
good at the urinal.
and that's no poop!
No mate, all the shit is loaded into your singler brain cell.
>
>
> jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)
>
> Grand Duke of Yugoslobia
Read, "Grand Slob of Slobovia"
> Duke of Vulgaria
Duck or Vulgaria ( seems as though Phreddie is a *Transvestite like
Donald who is in fact a *drake*)
> Grand Muff-Diver of Jerusalem
Has to dive on muffs as his equipment is absolutely minimal, though why
he only does it in Jerusalem I don't know.
> & Elector
not really as his mental condition prevents him from being able to vote.
>of Homophobia
At last Phreddie admits that he is homophobic, even though he claims to
only attack *paedophiles* from *NAMBLA*
>
--
TO EMAIL ME ADD ".au" to the REPLY TO ADDRESS.
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay and Proud
Homophobia by any other
name is still homophobia
(Homophobia= fear of, hatred for & aversion to Homosexuals)
MacQuarie Dictionary 2001
Pinkhouses1961
5/5/02
Priests linked to teen sex
Diocese never reported incidents
[excerpts]
"The public knowledge of the offenses, Gettelfinger said, "undermines
the effectiveness of the ministry."
"The Evansville Catholic Diocese acknowledges it has two priests who
had sexual contact with minors more than 20 years ago, and the
incidents were never reported to authorities.
The diocese has offered to keep the details of the alleged abuse
confidential on the condition that the alleged victims sign letters of
confidentiality.
The Evansville Courier & Press obtained documents sent by the diocese
that say two of the men as teen-agers had sexual relations with the
priests."
"Gettelfinger goes on to state in the letter that "the current
atmosphere requires that I take whatever additional steps I believe
are necessary to assure a responsible approach to these issues, both
from a societal and legal point of view." Gettelfinger then offers the
victim the option of keeping the matter confidential and states that
he will report the allegations to the Daviess County, Ind., prosecutor
if he does not receive the signed confidentiality agreement back by
May 10. Meanwhile, the diocese's attorney said the diocese would
publicly disclose details of the relationship between Prunty and
Allen, if Prunty did not sign a confidentiality agreement and return
it by May 3.
"If I do not receive the 'REQUEST TO MAINTAIN PRIVACY' signed by you,
and witnessed by another, before that deadline, the Bishop will
disclose what he knows about the matter in a public forum and to
appropriate civil authorities," wrote Miller in a letter dated April
26, 2002. Prunty, 42, instead took the agreement and letter to his
attorney, Jeff Anderson. Both Anderson and Prunty characterized the
agreement and a series of letters from diocesan attorney David Miller
as "threatening" and "intimidating."
The letter by diocesan attorney David Miller acknowledges "a
homosexual relationship" occurred between Prunty and Allen, when
Prunty was a teen-ager and calls Allen's conduct "wrong, sinful and
possibly criminal." But Miller states that if Prunty does not sign the
confidentiality agreement, the bishop will publicly disclose the
relationship. "He (Gettelfinger) knows, as you do, that will have a
devastating consequence to Father Allen, who has spent the many years
since his grave and inexcusable actions with you rehabilitating
himself and devoting his life to the service of others," the letter
from Miller states.
Prunty said he was angered by the letter, which prompted him to go
public with its contents. Prunty said the confidentiality agreements
appear to conflict with the diocese's policy, made public in late
March, which encourages the reporting of allegations of abuse to the
appropriate civil authorities. "It seems like the real policy is one
of cover-up and intimidation," said Prunty. "The whole culture of the
church is about silence and not bringing these kinds of allegations
out in the light. It's why I have to make this public."
When asked by the Courier & Press about the letters and the agreement,
Gettelfinger said Prunty misinterpreted them. Gettelfinger said the
agreement was intended to protect Prunty's privacy.
He said he did not intend to disclose details of the abuse publicly.
Gettelfinger said "public forum" meant disclosing it to the
prosecutors."
Current related news articles
5/5/02
Alleged teen victim was depressed, troubled
http://www.myinky.com/ecp/local_news/article/0,1626,ECP_745_1128391,00.html
5/6/02
Priest confesses his sin to church
http://www.myinky.com/ecp/local_news/article/0,1626,ECP_745_1129858,00.html
One accused priest absent at Sunday Mass
http://www.myinky.com/ecp/local_news/article/0,1626,ECP_745_1129862,00.html