Re: Euthanizing gay dogs

[W.T.S.]

In article <f73pg8ped1n5itesr...@4ax.com>, Jerk-
Li...@Lies.com says...
>
> Bill Donohue comments on a couple of interesting ironies:
And we're interested in what this hateful bigot has to say, why again?
>
<snip> Usual Donohue bull shit, why repost? </snip>
>
> Jerk Young
> Jerk...@Lies.com
>

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x

[IBen Getiner]

On Feb 2, 12:47 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <f73pg8ped1n5itesrog180qq9cj5ff4...@4ax.com>, Jerk-
> L...@Lies.com says...

>
> > Bill Donohue comments on a couple of interesting ironies:
>
> And we're interested in what this hateful bigot has to say, why again?
>
> <snip> Usual Donohue bull shit, why repost? </snip>
>
>
>
> > Jerk Young

> > Jerk-L...@Lies.com

>
> Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
> women and men alike!
>
> http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
> http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
> http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
> http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
> Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
> Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
> complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
> have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
> abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
> expense.
>
> http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
> http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
> http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x

All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?

[W.T.S.]

In article <2e481237-9c59-4c27-b21f-977b8130be66@
4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, LloydsE...@AOL.com says...

>
>
> All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
> already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?

Really? Then your kind won't be around much longer.

[Syd M.]

Oh, good. Yet another bigoted asshole.

PDW

[Ben Kaufman]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:52:20 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsE...@AOL.com>
wrote:

Like priests and nuns?

[IBen Getiner]

Spare me your hate-filled normalphobic slurs.... is what I said true
or not...? By their own choice the Fags enter into a same-sex
lifestyle that guarantees them a dead-end future as far as breeding
goes. Whether we should euthanize them or not strictly depends on how
soon the next Adolph Hitler gets here.

[IBen Getiner]

On Feb 2, 4:26 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:52:20 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsEelAa...@AOL.com>

No. They're doing God's work. The ones who aren't already infected
with gayizm, that is....

[IBen Getiner]

On Feb 2, 6:16 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <2e481237-9c59-4c27-b21f-977b8130be66@

> 4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, LloydsEelAa...@AOL.com says...

>
> > All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
> > already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
>
> Really?  Then your kind won't be around much longer.
>
>

Hey.... No matter how many laws they twist or how many perverted
lawmakers they get on their side, gays know what they are. You can't
wrap yourself in something that unnatural and disgustingly vile and
not know what you are.
Besides, a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it. And the
truth is still the truth even if NOBODY believes it. Remember that the
next time you're choking on a big one. And remember this….. IT
SHOULDN’T BE THERE. It’s unnatural and abnormal. What else can I
say…?

Don’t feel you have to answer that…. I know your mouth’s full.

>
> Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
> women and men alike!
>

Yes...!! And I'm sure you're all for the welfare of children, too.
Just as long as the umbilical cord is not attached.

>
> Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>

How about Breed like normal people, live like normal people and die
like God's creations who already know where they're going when it
happens?

> Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
> complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
> have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
> abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
> expense.
>

Getting the abortion is an evil choice made by an individual who will
one day have to answer for their sins. What we demand is personal
accountability so it won't come to that point to begin with. But alas,
taking personal responsibility for one's actions was never you
liberal's strong suite, now has it!

Here... I got some links of my own for you to glut your wicked soul
over.... You made it… You EAT IT..


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m135.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m115.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m114.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m113.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m112.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m111.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m110.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m109.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m108.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m107.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m72.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m70.jpg


http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m78.jpg


For old tyme's sake, you know... Couldn't help it. : )


IBen Getiner

[duke]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
>>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?

>Like priests and nuns?

They's not gay.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[W.T.S.]

In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9b...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

>
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?

All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce. They
can't even raise children.

>
> >Like priests and nuns?
>
> They's not gay.

That has nothing to do with it. They don't reproduce. They don't raise
children, but gay persons can. That makes gay persons several orders of
magnitude above priests and nuns.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:08:17 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsE...@AOL.com>
wrote:

God never said that people serving him couldn't have children, so no dice.

[IBen Getiner]

On Feb 3, 6:40 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:08:17 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsEelAa...@AOL.com>

LOL…!! I never said that gays should be euthanized because they’ve
chosen a lifestyle that guarantees them no offspring… I said that they
shouldn’t care, since they’re on the way out anyway. The priests and
nuns can do what they want. Doesn’t matter to me. Just choosing to be
childless is not a sin. But the ones who ARE queer fit into the same
mold as their secular queer brothers, and they shouldn’t care either.
The straight ones can still feel good about their sacrifice, since
most are probably true pilgrims of the faith.

You comprende now, or do 'snake-eyes' get you running for your slide-
rule every time….??



IBen Getiner

[duke]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9b...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
>> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?

>All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.

Prepare thyself. You're the one that hates children.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 03:24:57 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsE...@AOL.com>
wrote:

<SNIP>

Except for the fact that you said "bred out."

[IBen Getiner]

On Feb 4, 10:03 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 03:24:57 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsEelAa...@AOL.com>

The priests and nuns can do what they want. Doesn’t matter to me. Just
choosing to be childless is not a sin. But the ones who ARE queer fit
into the same
mold as their secular queer brothers, and they shouldn’t care either.
The straight ones can still feel good about their sacrifice, since
most are probably true pilgrims of the faith.

See.... You're the one who wanted to mix apples with oranges....



IBen Getiner

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:07:55 -0800 (PST), IBen Getiner <LloydsE...@AOL.com>
wrote:

Except for the fact that you said "bred out." Dance as much as you want.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32

> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>
> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.

I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.

[duke]

Why would you think that? Experience?

The dukester, American - American

********************************************

Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 17, 11:07 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:53 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
> >> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
> >> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
> >> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>
> >> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.
>
> >I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
> >less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.
>
> Why would you think that?

Have you got a better explanation? Why is there such a dearth of
genuine remorse within the RCC hierarchy WRT the suffering caused to
those many thousands of child victims?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<fe89deb9-d351-46ef...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,

Has anybody else seen HBO's powerful "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in The
House of God"?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Patrick]

I saw the "DaVinci Code."
That sure was REAL....

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 19, 10:36 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:11:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><fe89deb9-d351-46ef-8e3b-9dfeb8311...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,

> > alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 17, 11:07 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:53 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> > >On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> > >> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> > >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
> >> > >> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since
> >> > >> >> >>they're
> >> > >> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
> >> > >> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>
> >> > >> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.
>
> >> > >I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
> >> > >less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.
>
> >> > Why would you think that?
>
> >> Have you got a better explanation? Why is there such a dearth of
> >> genuine remorse within the RCC hierarchy WRT the suffering caused to
> >> those many thousands of child victims?
>
> >Has anybody else seen HBO's powerful "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in The
> >House of God"?
>
> I saw the "DaVinci Code."
> That sure was REAL....

Patrick, you still in denial about the thousands of traumatized
victims of your priesthood-gone-crazy-evil?

That is and was horribly real. That despite your continual efforts to
portray it as merely a horrible fantasy, or worse, as a joke.

[duke]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:45:42 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Feb 17, 11:07 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:53 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >> >@cox.net says...
>>
>> >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>> >> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
>> >> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
>> >> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>>
>> >> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.
>>
>> >I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
>> >less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.
>>
>> Why would you think that?

>Have you got a better explanation?

Of course I do. All mankind are sinners except Jesus, and so even some priests
turn out bad. We can say for certainty that there are thousands of good priests
for every bad one.

>< Why is there such a dearth of
>genuine remorse within the RCC hierarchy WRT the suffering caused to
>those many thousands of child victims?

That statement in light of the massive cleaning of the pedo priest house means
you dont' have a clue as to what's been done.

[duke]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:11:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

Yep, I have. Interesting documentary which was completely one sided. Started
off with a case of a priest at a deft school in Wisconsin for the first half,
and then moved on to the bigger issue of the vatican, but never once even coming
close to acknowledging all the work that then Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope
Benedict had done to, not only stop the abuse, but to pay off many even without
cause, and to then to put in place very strict rules regarding how to stop and
ensure no more cases in the future.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>Patrick, you still in denial about the thousands of traumatized
>victims of your priesthood-gone-crazy-evil?

Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
and sexually abused children.
Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
forward
40 years after the fact.

Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
business, not the punishment business, they again made more
mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.

The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.

You don't want to let this go, because you have another agenda
against the RCC. You feel you were wronged by the RCC in some
way - perhaps because they informed you that YOU are totally
responsible for your bad decisions and your actions. You have
some sort of sin that you feel should be accepted by the church.
And you are pissed because the RCC refuses to let you off the hook.
What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
What is it?



Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.
And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.
Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
and they found out that there aren't any.
Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
never be made again.
Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <sds6i8pjku1ehcb8v...@4ax.com>,

Oh, dear, Patrick doesn't understand the difference between fiction and
non-fiction.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 20, 3:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:45:42 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 11:07 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:53 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> >> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
> >> >> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
> >> >> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
> >> >> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>
> >> >> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.
>
> >> >I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
> >> >less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.
>
> >> Why would you think that?
> >Have you got a better explanation?
>

> Of course I do.  All mankind are sinners except Jesus, <snip babble>

Nonsense. Any reasonable person will tell you that someone who becomes
aware of, and then covers up, a heinous crime is just as bad as the
person who actually committed that crime.

Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
silent about these crimes.

>
> >< Why is there such a dearth of
> >genuine remorse within the RCC hierarchy WRT the suffering caused to
> >those many thousands of child victims?
>
> That statement in light of the massive cleaning of the pedo priest house means
> you dont' have a clue as to what's been done.

Rubbish. Only a tiny minority of priests spoke out against the crimes
that were happening, and these few honest men were quickly silenced
and sidelined by the rest.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:18 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

Have you ever watched any Oliver Stone movies?
Tell me that people don't make observations and beliefs on what they
see. When I saw "10 Commandments" and other Cecil B DeMille movies, I
would swear they were all history based.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
>silent about these crimes.

40 years ago.
Times have changed.
Get over it.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 20, 4:25 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>  alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >Patrick, you still in denial about the thousands of traumatized
> >victims of your priesthood-gone-crazy-evil?
>
> Of course

Stop right there.

You admitted nothing till you were forced to. Then you (just like the
RCC) switched to (rather ineffectual, as it turned out) Damage Control
and various "Blaming the Victim" strategies. It's not working.

> Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
> they should do.

They knew exactly what to do. Cover up each crime for 40 years so as
the perps were too old and unfit to stand trial.

>Since most victims and families wanted to keep
> the abuse quiet,

No. The RCC wanted to keep it quiet.

> 40 years after the fact.

Again you brag about the fact that the RCC was able to suppress the
truth for periods of up to 40 years. You have no shame.

> Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
> business, not the punishment business,

Took 'em a while to "forgive" Galileo, but no time at all to forgive
pedophile rapists.

What's wrong with this picture? Tell me again about "Moral
Relativism".

> I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

Ya think?

Evil, you mean. The people responsible for the coverups were, and are,
evil. The people responsible for the Damage Control and various
"Blaming the Victim" strategies are evil too.

> This is all fact.  Of course I admit it.

Yep.

Too late though. Could have saved some victims instead of lying and
denying.

> You don't want to let this go,

No decent person wants to sweep this under the carpet.

>  The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
> and they found out that there aren't any.

To your, and their, great disappointment. Truth always comes out, and
when it does, people like you and they are exposed like the societal
gangrene that you and they are.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 20, 11:46 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
> >silent about these crimes.
>
> 40 years ago.

Liar. Much more recent than 40 years ago.

You lie, then go to confession to get forgiven.

But ponder this, Patrick: even if there is a god (which I doubt), and
even if this god forgives lies immediately when that liar demands
forgiveness (which I double-doubt), technically, you are still a liar.

Same goes for child-rapists and thieves who go to confession, too.
Think about it. They may feel that they are "forgiven", but in
reality, nothing has changed.

> Times have changed.

Only in that pedophiles are more reviled today than they were 40, or
400, years ago. See, most ordinary folks are more civilized now, and
have more empathy than they did in centuries past. Church leaders,
politicians, religious fanatics etc haven't progressed though.

> Get over it.

Tell that to the thousands of helpless children abused and preyed upon
by your evil cult of perversion and death.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 20, 3:43 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:11:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><fe89deb9-d351-46ef-8e3b-9dfeb8311...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,

> > alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 17, 11:07 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:53 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> > >On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> > >> >@cox.net says...
>
> >> > >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
> >> > >> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since
> >> > >> >> >>they're
> >> > >> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
> >> > >> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>
> >> > >> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.
>
> >> > >I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
> >> > >less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.
>
> >> > Why would you think that?
>
> >> Have you got a better explanation? Why is there such a dearth of
> >> genuine remorse within the RCC hierarchy WRT the suffering caused to
> >> those many thousands of child victims?
>
> >Has anybody else seen HBO's powerful "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in The
> >House of God"?
>
> Yep, I have.  Interesting documentary which was completely one sided.

Because they portrayed pedophile priests in a negative way?

Wake up, Duke. All decent people hate child rapists. Get over it.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 20, 11:45 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:18 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <sds6i8pjku1ehcb8v9b12scno328n9d...@4ax.com>,

> > Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:11:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

> >> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >In article
> >> ><fe89deb9-d351-46ef-8e3b-9dfeb8311...@q11g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>,

Yeah, gullible people swallow that shite whole.

Some gullible fools believe the bible is objective unbiased historical
truth too. Some stupidly believe without question the doctrines and
dogmas peddled by their favorite religious denomination or cult.

The wrestling on TV is more sensible and logical and believable and
more moral than the wholly babble.

Still, it's hard to understand why some people swallow that too.

Yes, one born every minute eh?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5ha8i8t0a12o0e8p7...@4ax.com>,

I'm not responsible for credulous idiots.

> When I saw "10 Commandments" and other Cecil B DeMille movies, I
> would swear they were all history based.

Ahhh, there's that credulousness.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<b5406082-f1d0-49c0...@w2g2000pbw.googlegroups.com>,

What made the case in the documentary even more evil was that many of
the deaf children who were raped had parents who didn't know proper sign
language and who, therefore, couldn't really communicate with their
children. And the priest would actually tell the boys that their
parents didn't love them and didn't want them.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>O Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>> >Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
>> >silent about these crimes.
>>
>> 40 years ago.
>
>Liar. Much more recent than 40 years ago.

Prove it.

>You lie, then go to confession to get forgiven.

I have facts and figures.
You merely have a pie hole that spews bull shit.

>But ponder this, Patrick: even if there is a god (which I doubt),

Who cares what you think?

>and
>even if this god forgives lies immediately when that liar demands
>forgiveness (which I double-doubt), technically, you are still a liar.

I have facts and figures.
You merely have a pie hole that spews bull shit.

>Same goes for child-rapists and thieves who go to confession, too.
>Think about it. They may feel that they are "forgiven", but in
>reality, nothing has changed.

Really?
Are you saying that they can't change history?
WOW....
You are soooooooooo smart.

>> Get over it.
>
>Tell that to the thousands of helpless children abused and preyed upon
>by your evil cult of perversion and death.

Those children have grown up.
It is time for you to do the same.

[Patrick]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>What made the case in the documentary even more evil was that many of
>the deaf children who were raped had parents who didn't know proper sign
>language and who, therefore, couldn't really communicate with their
>children. And the priest would actually tell the boys that their
>parents didn't love them and didn't want them.

You need to get a clue bag to collect clues in.
You have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking.
Any parent who can't communicate with his/her deaf child isn't worth
shit. Trust me on this one.

[Patrick]

Especially Catholics.

Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
and sexually abused children.

Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what

they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
forward

40 years after the fact.

Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
business, not the punishment business, they again made more
mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.

I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

This is all fact. Of course I admit it.

victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,

and they found out that there aren't any.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <m8e9i856cc2h01hv5...@4ax.com>,

We're talking the 40s through the 60s. Resources weren't as available
back then for even these simple things.

Your arrogance is really misplaced since it's obvious you don't know
what you're talking about.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> �alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >Patrick, you still in denial about the thousands of traumatized
>> >victims of your priesthood-gone-crazy-evil?
>>
>> Of course
>
>Stop right there.
>You admitted nothing till you were forced to.

As opposed to you who still won't admit that the RCC has recognized
its mistakes and has done something about it?
When will you admit this?
That is the question here.

>Then you (just like the
>RCC) switched to (rather ineffectual, as it turned out) Damage Control
>and various "Blaming the Victim" strategies. It's not working.

The only time I BLAME the victim is when he refuses to go to the civil
authorities and stop that offender in his tracks. By being quiet, the
offender was able to abuse hundreds more children. Yes, I blame the
first victim in this place, as well as the parents.

>> Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
>> they should do.
>
>They knew exactly what to do. Cover up each crime for 40 years so as
>the perps were too old and unfit to stand trial.

Is that why they consulted the leading shrinks of the day, paid for
dozens of clinics to be set up, sent offender priests there to be
"cured?"

>
>>Since most victims and families wanted to keep
>> the abuse quiet,
>
>No. The RCC wanted to keep it quiet.

The RCC didn't stop any victim from going to the civil authorities.

>> 40 years after the fact.
>
>Again you brag about the fact that the RCC was able to suppress the
>truth for periods of up to 40 years. You have no shame.

Noooooooo. I claim the RCC worked on a solution for 40 years before
they finally determined the fag shrinks had lied to them about the
ability to cure fag evil priests.
We no longer accept you or your fag buddies into the church.




>>�Since the RCC is in the forgiveness

>> business, not the punishment business,
>
>Took 'em a while to "forgive" Galileo, but no time at all to forgive
>pedophile rapists.

Galileo lived in luxury during his punishment phase.
And, you need to learn about how confession works.

>What's wrong with this picture? Tell me again about "Moral
>Relativism".

You'll have to tell me.
You make the claim, not me.

>> I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops
>
>Ya think?
>Evil, you mean. The people responsible for the coverups were, and are,
>evil.

Does that include the victim and the victim's family who refused to go
to the authorities?

>The people responsible for the Damage Control and various
>"Blaming the Victim" strategies are evil too.

Of course they are. They were lawyers defending the fags.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>O, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:18 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

>

>> >> >Has anybody else seen HBO's powerful "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in The
>> >> >House of God"?
>>
>> >> I saw the "DaVinci Code."
>> >> That sure was REAL....
>>
>> >Oh, dear, Patrick doesn't understand the difference between fiction and
>> >non-fiction.
>>
>> Have you ever watched any Oliver Stone movies?
>> Tell me that people don't make observations and beliefs on what they
>> see. �When I saw "10 Commandments" and other Cecil B DeMille movies, I
>> would swear they were all history based.
>
>Yeah, gullible people swallow that shite whole.

>The wrestling on TV is more sensible and logical and believable and
>more moral than the wholly babble.
>Still, it's hard to understand why some people swallow that too.
>Yes, one born every minute eh?

Ahhhh.
You have proven my point.
"Mea Maxima Culpa" was just another bull shit movie meant to scare,
insult, and move people -- just like the shit that Mikey Moore and
Oliver Stone produced.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:32:17 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

Yet.... you believe the crap displayed on "Mea Maxima Culpa?"
What an idiot.
And you don't even recognize this.

[Patrick]

Were you raised in a household (in the 40's to 60's where one child
was deaf? I WAS. My brother - Michael - Michael Barker - attended
the Deaf and Blind School in Great Falls Montana, and graduated from
there in 1965. As I said above,

[Ben Kaufman]

Ah, if you really believe what you say, then why are you blindly following
ancient dogma ?

Ben

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:19:42 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

No, because they never even came close to revealing all the good things coming
out of the scandal.

>Wake up, Duke. All decent people hate child rapists. Get over it.

Should I hate you?

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:28:23 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Feb 20, 3:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:45:42 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 11:07 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:53 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 4, 10:52 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:36:44 -0600, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >In article <e3msg8p35gjagrb9br2limj2c2kv0fc...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >> >> >@cox.net says...
>>
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:26:59 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>> >> >> >> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>All gay things should be euthanized. What do they, care since they're
>> >> >> >> >>already into the concept of being 'bred out' anyway....?
>> >> >> >All old persons should be euthanized as they don't reproduce.
>>
>> >> >> Prepare thyself.  You're the one that hates children.
>>
>> >> >I guess that RC priests, having no children of their own, will feel
>> >> >less guilty about sexually abusing other people's children.
>>
>> >> Why would you think that?
>> >Have you got a better explanation?
>>
>> Of course I do.  All mankind are sinners except Jesus, <snip babble>
>
>Nonsense. Any reasonable person will tell you that someone who becomes
>aware of, and then covers up, a heinous crime is just as bad as the
>person who actually committed that crime.

You idiot, what did I just say?

>Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
>silent about these crimes.

Not a chance. First of all, few priests were involved in pedophilia. And even
fewer priests participated in a coverup.

>
>> >< Why is there such a dearth of
>> >genuine remorse within the RCC hierarchy WRT the suffering caused to
>> >those many thousands of child victims?

>> That statement in light of the massive cleaning of the pedo priest house means
>> you dont' have a clue as to what's been done.

>Rubbish. Only a tiny minority of priests spoke out against the crimes
>that were happening, and these few honest men were quickly silenced
>and sidelined by the rest.

Rubbish my ass. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:14:12 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Feb 20, 11:46 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
>> >silent about these crimes.

>> 40 years ago.

>Liar. Much more recent than 40 years ago.

The pedo issue appeared in the 1950s and 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, dropped off
scale in the 1980s and ended in the 1990s. The issue was closed by 2002 when
the scandal broke.

>You lie, then go to confession to get forgiven.

>But ponder this, Patrick: even if there is a god (which I doubt), and
>even if this god forgives lies immediately when that liar demands
>forgiveness (which I double-doubt), technically, you are still a liar.

Not is God says no.

>Same goes for child-rapists and thieves who go to confession, too.
>Think about it. They may feel that they are "forgiven", but in
>reality, nothing has changed.

God alone knows the impact.

>> Times have changed.

>Only in that pedophiles are more reviled today than they were 40, or
>400, years ago. See, most ordinary folks are more civilized now,

You are in bad need of checking your dates.

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:37:05 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

You mean that one priest?

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:57:41 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <m8e9i856cc2h01hv5...@4ax.com>,
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >What made the case in the documentary even more evil was that many of
>> >the deaf children who were raped had parents who didn't know proper sign
>> >language and who, therefore, couldn't really communicate with their
>> >children. And the priest would actually tell the boys that their
>> >parents didn't love them and didn't want them.
>>
>> You need to get a clue bag to collect clues in.
>> You have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking.
>> Any parent who can't communicate with his/her deaf child isn't worth
>> shit. Trust me on this one.
>
>We're talking the 40s through the 60s. Resources weren't as available
>back then for even these simple things.

Jdyke don't know shit. She'll say anything.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <hff9i85gravhnc0mn...@4ax.com>,

Yes, I believe evidence.

What a concept!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g8f9i81t9n4ablr0q...@4ax.com>,

Please provide a list of the incorrect facts in the movie.

[Patrick]

What are you............ stupid?

[Patrick]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>> >> >> >Has anybody else seen HBO's powerful "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in The
>> >> >> >House of God"?

>> Ahhhh.
>> You have proven my point.
>> "Mea Maxima Culpa" was just another bull shit movie meant to scare,
>> insult, and move people -- just like the shit that Mikey Moore and
>> Oliver Stone produced.
>
>Please provide a list of the incorrect facts in the movie.

Director Alex Gibney wants us to believe he has proven a �direct
connection of the Vatican� to the homosexual scandal, though his
effort fails miserably.

As one review of the movie said, �All the reports of sex abuse in the
church since the 1960s went directly to the current pope, Benedict
XVI, to the time when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.� Wrong. There
was no central command center until 2001 when Ratzinger took over. And
that�s when things really began to change�just the opposite of what
Gibney would have us believe.

Much of the movie focuses on Father Lawrence Murphy, a serial abuser
from Wisconsin. Here are some facts that undercut Gibney�s propaganda:
the crimes against Murphy extend to the 1950s; the civil authorities
were not asked to investigate until the mid-1970s; following the
probe, the case was dropped; the Vatican wasn�t notified until 1996
(it could have ignored the case because the statute of limitations had
expired); a trial was ordered; the priest who presided over the case
between 1996-1998 has said that in all the meetings he had in the U.S.
and in Rome, �at no time�was Cardinal Ratzinger�s name ever
mentioned.�

Gibney touts Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland for trying �as no
other cleric did�to push for the canonical trial� of Murphy in 1996.
But we have proof that Gibney�s hero�who had to resign after his male
lover revealed that the archbishop paid him $450,000 to settle a
sexual assault lawsuit�knew about Murphy�s crimes at least as early as
1980. So why did it take Weakland 16 years to contact the Vatican?

At the New York showing today, Assemblywoman Margaret Markey will push
her sex abuse reform law. She�s a perfect fit with all the other
frauds�her bill doesn�t apply to the public schools.

[Patrick]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yet.... you believe the crap displayed on "Mea Maxima Culpa?"
>> What an idiot.
>> And you don't even recognize this.
>
>Yes, I believe evidence.

It is just another Catholic Bashing piece-o-shit.

[Ben Kaufman]

On the one hand, you dismiss what happened 40 years ago in the Church because
"times have changed" yet you are apparently not bright enough to understand
that the same applies to the patriarchal mysogenistic and anti-gay bigotry that
originated a long time ago when people quite clearly lived in different times.

[Patrick]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:06 -0500, Ben Kaufman

<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:06:51 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:55:39 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:46:37 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
>>>>>silent about these crimes.
>>>>
>>>>40 years ago.
>>>>Times have changed.
>>>>Get over it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, if you really believe what you say, then why are you blindly following
>>>ancient dogma ?
>>
>>What are you............ stupid?
>
>On the one hand, you dismiss what happened 40 years ago in the Church because
>"times have changed" yet you are apparently not bright enough to understand
>that the same applies to the patriarchal mysogenistic and anti-gay bigotry that
>originated a long time ago when people quite clearly lived in different times.

I have never dismissed the priest-abuse crisis.
I merely tell you that the RCC had solved this problem.
We kicked all you fags out.
And now, you are angry that we have kicked you and yer buddies out?
Hey.... what do you want?
More fag problems and child abuse?
I suppose that would make you happy again?

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:06 -0500, Ben Kaufman

<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:06:51 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:55:39 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:46:37 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Almost without exception, catholic priests covered up and remained
>>>>>silent about these crimes.
>>>>
>>>>40 years ago.
>>>>Times have changed.
>>>>Get over it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, if you really believe what you say, then why are you blindly following
>>>ancient dogma ?
>>
>>What are you............ stupid?
>
>On the one hand, you dismiss what happened 40 years ago in the Church because
>"times have changed" yet you are apparently not bright enough to understand
>that the same applies to the patriarchal mysogenistic and anti-gay bigotry that
>originated a long time ago when people quite clearly lived in different times.

Queers and woe_men are out today as much as ever.

[Ben Kaufman]

Your hateful, derogatory way of referring to gays is an obvious endorsement of
the most vile and inhumane aspects of orthodox religion's attempt to create
scapegoats for their morally corrupt ways. Your defense of Church related
pedophilia is quite transparent. The only factual thing in recent times that has
curtailed pedophile priest coverups is the expense of lawsuits and paying
victims to be quiet has become too much and lifted the veil of secrecy. To not
see the black and white moral dilemma of transferring a known pedophile to
another parish is unbelievable.

Your "fag this, fag that" is an overwhelming indication of your profound
ignorance. Even an intelligent bigot knows what not to say in public.

Ben

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman wrote:

>Your hateful, derogatory way of referring to gays is an obvious endorsement of
>the most vile and inhumane aspects of orthodox religion's attempt to create
>scapegoats for their morally corrupt ways.

Look at the evidence.
In the 1960's, the RCC accepted "gay" men into the priest ministry.
All of a sudden, the RCC had a problem with child abuse problems.
A massive problem with evil, child abusing priests.
In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
Problems dropped to near zero.
From 4000 cases of abuse down to less than a dozen the first year.
Seems like we fixed this problem.

> Your defense of Church related
>pedophilia is quite transparent.

I do not defend the RCC.
The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.

>The only factual thing in recent times that has
>curtailed pedophile priest coverups is the expense of lawsuits and paying
>victims to be quiet has become too much and lifted the veil of secrecy. To not
>see the black and white moral dilemma of transferring a known pedophile to
>another parish is unbelievable.

I do not defend the RCC.
The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.

>Your "fag this, fag that" is an overwhelming indication of your profound
>ignorance. Even an intelligent bigot knows what not to say in public.

You can pretend to be politically correct - all you want.
I only use the derogatory term in order to show "you fags" that the
RCC is not the culprit here. The evil offending priests were the
problem. Once those evil priests were removed, the problem went away.
I do not defend the RCC.
The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.

Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
and sexually abused children.

Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what

they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
forward

40 years after the fact.

Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
business, not the punishment business, they again made more
mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.

I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.

The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:02:16 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Kaufman wrote:
>
>>Your hateful, derogatory way of referring to gays is an obvious endorsement of
>>the most vile and inhumane aspects of orthodox religion's attempt to create
>>scapegoats for their morally corrupt ways.
>
>Look at the evidence.
>In the 1960's, the RCC accepted "gay" men into the priest ministry.
>All of a sudden, the RCC had a problem with child abuse problems.
>A massive problem with evil, child abusing priests.

You are clearly not looking at the evidence.

44% of the accused priests were ordained prior to 1960 (John Jay Report), and

"... in the 1950s, Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of a religious order that
treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children, concluded "(such) offenders
were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry," and this was
discussed with Pope Paul VI (1897 � 1978) and "in correspondence with several
bishops."[6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

So clearly, this was a problem well before the 1960's and your attempt to slur
gays is shot down.

>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>Problems dropped to near zero.
>From 4000 cases of abuse down to less than a dozen the first year.
>Seems like we fixed this problem.

Not so. The "John Jay Report" found 6,700 substantiated accusations against
4,392 priests from 1950 through 2002, and the abuse reached a peak in 1970. So
it didn't just drop from 4000 cases to 12.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf


In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
accused of abusing children.

"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
than harm one of my priests."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm

Problem NOT FIXED.

>
>
>
>
>> Your defense of Church related
>>pedophilia is quite transparent.
>
>I do not defend the RCC.
>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>
>
>
>>The only factual thing in recent times that has
>>curtailed pedophile priest coverups is the expense of lawsuits and paying
>>victims to be quiet has become too much and lifted the veil of secrecy. To not
>>see the black and white moral dilemma of transferring a known pedophile to
>>another parish is unbelievable.
>
>I do not defend the RCC.
>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>

But you are defending them in stating misinformation to make it appear that
their alleged more tolerant view of gays is what caused this problem, when in
fact it is not.

>
>>Your "fag this, fag that" is an overwhelming indication of your profound
>>ignorance. Even an intelligent bigot knows what not to say in public.
>
>You can pretend to be politically correct - all you want.

You are clueless. This is decency to fellow human beings.

>I only use the derogatory term in order to show "you fags" that the
>RCC is not the culprit here. The evil offending priests were the
>problem. Once those evil priests were removed, the problem went away.

I have already shown (above) that you uncited claims are without merit.

>I do not defend the RCC.
>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>

Try again. They were caught in the act in 2004 (above) moving accused priests
around.

>Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
>and sexually abused children.

20% of these children were girls.

>Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
>they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
>the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
>advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
>stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
>has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
>forward
>40 years after the fact.

Seriously, it sounds like you making this stuff up as you go. No psychiatrist
would ever recommend supplying fresh children to a pedophile.

>
>Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
>centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
>business, not the punishment business, they again made more
>mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
>his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
>I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

It's time to admit you're wrong and ashamed.

"..The records show that Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony, who is now
retired, and his top adviser on child sex abuse cases, Monsignor Thomas Curry,
worked with other Church officials in 1987 to send priests accused of abuse out
of state to avoid prosecution, the newspaper said...."

"..."We are embarrassed and at times ashamed by parts of the past," Hennigan
said."

http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-catholic-officials-shielded-pedophile-priests-report-053314646.html

>
>This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
>The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
>The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.
>

You don't admit it. The bishops were not stupid, they were covering up.

"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
than harm one of my priests."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm

>The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
>made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
>and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
>ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
>As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
>removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
>to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.
>

You refuse to accept that this crap went on because the Church looked the other
way and tried to avoid embarrasment. It was only after they could no longer
afford to pay hush money that things unraveled. You seem to be fixated on
homosexuals when, in fact, 20% of the victims were girls.

>Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
>They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
>There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
>problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
>priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.

I agree to this point.

>And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.

No they weren't... This problem was brought to the Pope's attention at least as
far back as the 1950s.

"... in the 1950s, Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of a religious order that
treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children, concluded "(such) offenders
were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry," and this was
discussed with Pope Paul VI (1897 � 1978) and "in correspondence with several
bishops."[6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

>Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
>made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
>victims and accused.

What's that, did you actaully admit the Church was doing some hushing?

>The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
>and they found out that there aren't any.
>Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
>never be made again.
>Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
>The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.

It takes a guy coming here going "fag this, fag that" and spouting
misinformation that gets the bonfires going.


And as for you magical thinking that gays were kicked out of the priesthood...

"An upcoming church document does not decree a sweeping ban on gays in
seminaries, allowing those who have lived chastely for at least three years to
become priests, a senior Vatican official said Friday.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171584,00.html#ixzz2LbuG6zpM

[Patrick]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 02:24:09 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:02:16 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>
>>>Your hateful, derogatory way of referring to gays is an obvious endorsement of
>>>the most vile and inhumane aspects of orthodox religion's attempt to create
>>>scapegoats for their morally corrupt ways.
>>
>>Look at the evidence.
>>In the 1960's, the RCC accepted "gay" men into the priest ministry.
>>All of a sudden, the RCC had a problem with child abuse problems.
>>A massive problem with evil, child abusing priests.
>
>You are clearly not looking at the evidence.
>
>44% of the accused priests were ordained prior to 1960 (John Jay Report), and
>
>"... in the 1950s, Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of a religious order that
>treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children, concluded "(such) offenders
>were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry," and this was
>discussed with Pope Paul VI (1897 � 1978) and "in correspondence with several
>bishops."[6
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>So clearly, this was a problem well before the 1960's and your attempt to slur
>gays is shot down.

OK then.
Let us look at your evidence....
Your ref states: "In 2001, sex abuse cases were first required to be
reported to Rome." Up to that time, each bishop attempted to solve
his own problem. Looking at well over 200 dioceses, and short lived
bishops, it doesn't appear that many bishops had an extensive
knowledge of what to do.
You selected one shrink who felt offenders could not be sent back to
the ministry. However, why do you think so many other shrinks
disagreed with him. Up to 1974, pedophilia was considered a disease
(by the American Psychiatric Association) that could be cured. As a
matter of fact, dozens of counseling centers were set up to "cure"
these offenders. A small list of these centers:

Johns Hopkins University Sexual Disorders Clinic

Institute of Living, Hartford Connecticut

Seton Psychiatric Institute, Baltimore, Maryland

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins
University School of Medicine

Clinic and Polyclinic for Child and Youth Psychiatry/Psychotherapy at
the University of Ulm, Germany

Paraclete Center

Philip Jenkins, Pennsylvania State University, has studied sexual
abuse in the priesthood.

Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital in Chicago

Money-Berlin sex clinic,"

Menninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas

Carelink, St Vincents Hospital, Melbourne

Ballarat.

pastoral psychology at Loyola College in Baltimore

Jemez Springs, New Mexico

Royal Ottawa Hospital

McLean Hospital in Belmont,

Arizona treatment center

Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA

Institute for Forensic Psychiatry, Free University of Berlin, Germany

Queen's University, Ontario, Canada

Forensic Psychotherapy at the University of Ulm,

Psychosomatic illness and Psychotherapy, University of Gie?en,
Germany.

Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons in
Bridgewater

St. Luke Institute - is inconspicuous to passersby on the street.
Keeping a low profile is important, because most of the 70 residents
are troubled Roman Catholic priests, a quarter of them accused of
molesting children.
Founded in 1981 by a priest-psychiatrist who later died of AIDS; St.
Luke is one of a handful of church-sponsored treatment programs across
the country that U.S. bishops have turned to for assistance in dealing
with priests who abuse children. In some instances, court records have
revealed, priests accused of abuse were sent periodically to these
treatment centers and then returned to ministry.

Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana

Berlin/Money Sexual Disorders Clinic s

Trinity House, an outpatient clinic in Chicago


Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality,

Rosenberg Clinic in Galveston ... Active treatment, especially
chemical treatment,

Tulane School of Social Work. Tulane's multidisciplinary approach is a
welcome addition to existing civil defenders such the New Orleans
Legal Aid Corp. and the Pro Bono project.


Still, in the admissions protocol for their program, Berlin and Money
guarantee those engaged in past, present or future child sexual abuse,
"We will not, however, report to your Probation Officer information
you tell us as a part of the normal doctor-patient privileged
relationship." By 1988 "at least eight men [were] convicted of
sexually abusing Maryland children while under treatment" at the Johns
Hopkins clinic." supporting the Maryland Attorney General's rejection
of Dr. Berlin's effort to cover-up ongoing child abuse. Moreover, Dr.
Paul McHugh, as former Johns Hopkins director of psychiatry and a
member of the Baltimore Archdiocese's Independent Review Board on
Child Sexual Matters was fully supportive of Berlin's efforts to
protect even active pedophiles in treatment at Johns Hopkins.

As you may know, St Luke's is one of the primary Catholic treatment
centers for priests battling personal sexuality issues. It is
disturbing, to say the least, that the founder of the institution has
such high praise and regard for men such as Drs. Money and Berlin. In
short, our Lord long ago warned of wolves in sheep's clothing and, as
detailed above, Kinseyan wolves have provided guidance to the Church
in therapeutically managing homosexual priests. Since the 50s, the
criminal justice system has adopted the same Kinseyan view of sex
offenders and therapeutic management as has the Church, with the same
disappointing and destructive results.

http://www.szasz.com/washtimesaccomplice.html

THE PSYCHIATRIST AS ACCOMPLICE
by
Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
In the long history of priests sexually abusing children, perpetrators
and victims play the principal parts. However, there are two other
important players in this drama, only one of which - the priests'
superiors, who ignored and indeed facilitated the crimes of their
subordinates - have received attention.
But the identity, the very existence, of the other accomplices - the
psychiatrists and psychiatric institutions that "diagnose" and "treat"
priests who, in fact, are criminals - has been overlooked. Why?
Because they are an integral part of our love affair with medicalizing
life and replacing responsibility with "therapy."
The tragedy of pedophilia begins, as do many modern tragedies, by
people stupefying themselves by confusing their own tongue,
re-enacting God's punishment of mankind at Babel. An adult who uses a
child for his sexual gratification is a kind of rapist: He is guilty
of the crime of assault. Such a person is a criminal, not a patient.
How does medicine - talking about diseases and treatments - enter into
this affair? The same way it enters into our belief that other
(mis)behaviors are diseases, amenable to treatment - through
psychiatry. It's a long story that can be condensed into a few
sentences. For millennia, masturbation, homosexuality, and the many
other non-heterosexual, non-procreative uses of the genital organs
were considered to be grievous sins and were prevented and punished
accordingly.
Toward the end of the 19th century, they started becoming "mental"
diseases. This process played an important part in the transformation
of mad-doctoring as quackery into modern psychiatry as a bona fide
branch of medicine.

========================================

>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>>From 4000 cases of abuse down to less than a dozen the first year.
>>Seems like we fixed this problem.
>
>Not so. The "John Jay Report" found 6,700 substantiated accusations against
>4,392 priests from 1950 through 2002, and the abuse reached a peak in 1970. So
>it didn't just drop from 4000 cases to 12.

I didn't say it did.
The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.

In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
Problems dropped to near zero.

>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>accused of abusing children.

I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
works.

>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>than harm one of my priests."
>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>Problem NOT FIXED.
>

Honduras.
Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?

>>I do not defend the RCC.
>>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>>
>
>But you are defending them in stating misinformation to make it appear that
>their alleged more tolerant view of gays is what caused this problem, when in
>fact it is not.

Of course it was not.
The biggest crime was that the bishops did NOT remove the offending
evil priests immediately and throw them out. I understand that this
was a distasteful decision - especially if "expert shrinks" told them
that the offenders could be cured.
As a matter of fact, most of the one-time offenders who received
counseling and therapy - never offended again.
Less than 200 offenders went through treatment, were reinstated, and
then offended again.
Now, the American Bishops have a rule: One strike and you're OUT.

>>>Your "fag this, fag that" is an overwhelming indication of your profound
>>>ignorance. Even an intelligent bigot knows what not to say in public.
>>
>>You can pretend to be politically correct - all you want.
>
>You are clueless. This is decency to fellow human beings.

You wish to paint the entire church as a black unholy alliance.
Go back to your own reference - the John Jay Report that stated the
vast majority of all Catholic priests are wonderful, holy, decent men
who are following the steps of Christ.

Since you blast the entire Catholic Church, why can't I blast all the
fags. Tit for Tat..... Nothing more here.

>>I only use the derogatory term in order to show "you fags" that the
>>RCC is not the culprit here. The evil offending priests were the
>>problem. Once those evil priests were removed, the problem went away.
>
>I have already shown (above) that you uncited claims are without merit.

No, you have not.
Fags were all removed in 2002.
No more child abuse problems within the priest ranks.
There must be some sort of validation here.

>>I do not defend the RCC.
>>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>>
>
>Try again. They were caught in the act in 2004 (above) moving accused priests
>around.

No, they were not.
Provide a name and date.
Or,.... continue to bring up cases in the 70's and 80's.
I'm waiting....
You can twist it any way you want.
ANy story about something that happened years ago is not new news.

>>Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
>>and sexually abused children.
>
>20% of these children were girls.

Prove it.
Now, you are just making up crap.

>>Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
>>they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
>>the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
>>advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
>>stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
>>has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
>>forward
>>40 years after the fact.
>
>Seriously, it sounds like you making this stuff up as you go. No psychiatrist
>would ever recommend supplying fresh children to a pedophile.

I have a story from 2004:
LAW STILL TAKNG BAD ADVICE
The Reisman, et. al. report to the bishops also points out (as does
the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) that
Dr. Fred Berlin is still advising Cardinal Bernard Law and the U.S.
bishops.
Indeed, Berlin was scheduled to address reporters during the bishops'
Dallas meeting.
"In 1994," the report states, "Dr. Berlin was Course Director for a
training program offered to judges, 'health professionals,' lawyers,
legislators, police officers and child advocacy workers teaching,
among other things, that 'pedophilia....can be effectively controlled
with appropriate psychiatric intervention.'
"Dr. Berlin and John Money, Ph.D., co-founded a celebrated sexual
training and treatment center, The Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders
Clinic. Dr. Berlin described Dr. Money as 'one of his most important
mentors.' Dr. Money, as it turns out, was a dedicated Kinsey disciple,
the mentor for June Reinisch (the third Kinsey Institute director) and
on the advisory board of the Kinsey Institute. Additionally, in an
interview with the pedophile periodical, The Journal of Paedeophilia,
John Money offered his professional counsel that adult sex with
children is normal and often beneficial.
"Dr. Money went on to say in the pedophile interview that the
Berlin/Money Sexual Disorders Clinic was designed to offer 'leeway to
judges' to free child abusers. For Money, 'decided regarding
paedohilia [sic] that I would never report anybody'....In addition to
Cardinal Law's reported reliance on Dr. Berlin, the problem is
compounded in that the founder of St. Luke's Institute, Rev. Michael
R. Peterson, M.D. (who later died of AIDS), urges the Church to rely
on Berlin, and Money in a 1985 paper, after warning the clergy that:
[M]alpractice cases involve situations where clerics give advice which
is considered by the civil courts to be beyond their sphere of
expertise or competence. This advice allegedly causes catastrophic
consequences (divorce, suicide) resulting in civil suits.....[Money
and Berlin,] the two mental health professionals are considered by me
and most people in the field as the two U.S. experts and ones who have
had good success in treatment of the paraphilic disorders in the past
fifteen years (circa 1970) at their Clinic."
"Church advisers like Peterson, Money, Berlin and their institutional
sponsors such as Johns Hopkins University, The Kinsey Institute at
Indiana University, the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human
Sexuality, etc.," the report continues, "are possibly subject to civil
liability for medical malpractice, fraud, negligence and other claims.
"Several articles from Maryland papers are attached identifying
Berlin's efforts to 'exempt specialists from reporting pedophiles even
when their crimes continue during treatment.'
"Berlin's claims of success would mislead Church officials regarding
the safety of returning 'treated' pederasts and pedophiles to work.
Indeed, the Government Accounting Office's 1996 report on sex
offenders -- spanning 50 years and 500 therapeutic programs -- found
no form of psychotherapy that actually stopped sexual predators."
"Still, in the admissions protocol for their program, Berlin and Money
guarantee those engaged in past, present or future child sexual abuse,
'We will not, however, report to your Probation Officer information
you tell us as a part of the normal doctor-patient privileged
relationship.'
"By 1988 'at least eight men [were] convicted of sexually abusing
Maryland children while under treatment' at the Johns Hopkins clinic,'
supporting the Maryland Attorney General's rejection of Dr. Berlin's
effort to cover-up ongoing child abuse.

the Roman Catholic bishops taking advice from people who had covered
up criminal sex abuse of children, was full of name-calling and
irrelevant, inaccurate arguments ("Column is 'sexual McCarthyism at
its worst,'" Letters, Monday). Yet, nowhere did he deny the essential
facts we presented: that Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Fred Berlin had
knowingly concealed multiple incidents of child rape and assault from
authorities, despite a Maryland law requiring them to report the
crimes.
Mr. Fishman (and the bishops) should consult the March 4, 1990,
edition of the Baltimore Sun, which reported Dr. Berlin's actions as
head of Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic ("Doctor skirts
reporting law on sex crimes"). According to this article, "Dr. Berlin
acknowledged in two interviews last week that he understood the
legislature's intent but had deliberately skirted the reporting
requirements." The article said he had "vehemently opposed" the new
law before the General Assembly.
Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. retorted that "the language of
the law could not be clearer" and that Dr. Berlin, a mental health
provider, was not exempt from it. Maryland state Sen. Thomas M.
Yeager, a member of the Governor's Council on Child Abuse and Neglect,
declared, "The attorney general should come down on him. He's in
violation of the law -- it's that simple."
"Dr. Berlin's boss, Dr. Paul R. McHugh," the article continued, said
the hospital "did agree with the Sexual Disorders Clinic's
interpretation" of the law. "We did what we thought was appropriate,"
Dr. McHugh stated. Dr. Berlin acted with "the blessing of his
superiors," the article said.

-------------------

>>Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
>>centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
>>business, not the punishment business, they again made more
>>mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
>>his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
>>I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops
>
>It's time to admit you're wrong and ashamed.

Me? Do you blame me?
I do not defend or admit that I did any wrongdoing.
Pope says sorry for sins of church
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

--------------------

>
>"..The records show that Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony, who is now
>retired, and his top adviser on child sex abuse cases, Monsignor Thomas Curry,
>worked with other Church officials in 1987 to send priests accused of abuse out
>of state to avoid prosecution, the newspaper said...."
>
>"..."We are embarrassed and at times ashamed by parts of the past," Hennigan
>said."
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-catholic-officials-shielded-pedophile-priests-report-053314646.html

+ And you want more apologies?
----------

>>This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
>>The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
>>The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.
>>
>
>You don't admit it. The bishops were not stupid, they were covering up.
>
>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>than harm one of my priests."
>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm

Don't take a Honduran bishop and compare him to any American bishop.
That is terribly dishonest.
Tell you what.....
Tell me what you do for a living...
Or tell me what organization you belong to.
Or tell me what church you ever attended.
And......... I will find something wrong about it and accuse you of
defending like actions. Lets play your game.

>>The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
>>made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
>>and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
>>ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
>>As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
>>removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
>>to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.
>>
>You refuse to accept that this crap went on because the Church looked the other
>way and tried to avoid embarrasment.

Huh?
You really are stupid, aren't you?

> You seem to be fixated on
>homosexuals when, in fact, 20% of the victims were girls.

Prove it.
I am waiting.

>
>
>>Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
>>They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
>>There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
>>problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
>>priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.
>I agree to this point.
>
>>And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.
>
>No they weren't... This problem was brought to the Pope's attention at least as
>far back as the 1950s.

Do you actually think the priests have conversations with the pope?
Most have never met - or even seen the pope.
Any bishop who gets more than 15 minutes A YEAR with the pope is
lucky. You forget that there are a billion Catholics, and 100,000
priests today. Do you actually think we have secret meetings?
Talk about confused...
You need to grow up.

>What's that, did you actaully admit the Church was doing some hushing?

I admit that most families and most victims did not go to the proper
authorities in order to ensure punishment was inflicted on the evil
fag priest who cause injury.

>>The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
>>and they found out that there aren't any.
>>Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
>>never be made again.
>>Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
>>The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.
>
>
>It takes a guy coming here going "fag this, fag that" and spouting
>misinformation that gets the bonfires going.

Only after you refuse to admit that the RCC American bishops have
attacked this problem, and has solved it for good
------

>And as for you magical thinking that gays were kicked out of the priesthood...
>
>"An upcoming church document does not decree a sweeping ban on gays in
>seminaries, allowing those who have lived chastely for at least three years to
>become priests, a senior Vatican official said Friday.
>Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171584,00.html#ixzz2LbuG6zpM

That was for your benefit.
You fags would squeal too loudly.....

[Ben Kaufman]

Rome knew what was going on since the 1950s (from my cite). Why do you suppose
they chose to do nothing about the problem?

First and foremost, they took the law into their own hands. Regardless of
whether there was an effective treatment or not, these priests were
intentionally shielded from the criminal justice system. Let me remind you, the
justice system deals with the criminally insane.

Second, there is a whole world of difference between a celibate priest seeking
help for worrisome thoughts and desires versus one who has already done terrible
things to children.

>========================================
>
>
>>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>>>From 4000 cases of abuse down to less than a dozen the first year.
>>>Seems like we fixed this problem.
>>
>>Not so. The "John Jay Report" found 6,700 substantiated accusations against
>>4,392 priests from 1950 through 2002, and the abuse reached a peak in 1970. So
>>it didn't just drop from 4000 cases to 12.
>
>I didn't say it did.
>The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.
>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>Problems dropped to near zero.
>

Citation?

>
>>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>>accused of abusing children.
>
>I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
>And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
>I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
>works.
>

The solution was, in fact, to stop covering up because the cat was out of the
bag!

>
>
>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>than harm one of my priests."
>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>>Problem NOT FIXED.
>>
>Honduras.
>Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?
>

You seem to be saying that Catholic clergy in other countries are less moral?
Even if the man was mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II?

>
>
>>>I do not defend the RCC.
>>>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>>>
>>
>>But you are defending them in stating misinformation to make it appear that
>>their alleged more tolerant view of gays is what caused this problem, when in
>>fact it is not.
>
>Of course it was not.
>The biggest crime was that the bishops did NOT remove the offending
>evil priests immediately and throw them out. I understand that this
>was a distasteful decision - especially if "expert shrinks" told them
>that the offenders could be cured.

If a priest gets caught doing some embarrassing, but a victimless vice, sure
give him another chance, get him some help. But when he's raping children, it's
a no brainer what has to be done if you actually give a shit about the people in
your parish. Don't swallow this bull crap implying that the psychiatric
community was recommending that child rapists should not be turned over to the
police.

>As a matter of fact, most of the one-time offenders who received
>counseling and therapy - never offended again.
>Less than 200 offenders went through treatment, were reinstated, and
>then offended again.
>Now, the American Bishops have a rule: One strike and you're OUT.

For all of the people the Church paid to be silent, I would not be so sure how
many of those offenders never molested another child.

>
>
>
>>>>Your "fag this, fag that" is an overwhelming indication of your profound
>>>>ignorance. Even an intelligent bigot knows what not to say in public.
>>>
>>>You can pretend to be politically correct - all you want.
>>
>>You are clueless. This is decency to fellow human beings.
>
>You wish to paint the entire church as a black unholy alliance.

No, just your trying to scapegoat gays as the reason for this debacle.
You made some claims why you thought a coincidence was in fact a causation and,
through citations, I showed that there was not even a coincidence. 44% of the
accused priests were ordained prior to 1950.

>Go back to your own reference - the John Jay Report that stated the
>vast majority of all Catholic priests are wonderful, holy, decent men
>who are following the steps of Christ.
>
>Since you blast the entire Catholic Church, why can't I blast all the
>fags. Tit for Tat..... Nothing more here.
>

Except for the fact that you were already blasting gays, and have had a bigoted
mean streak against gays long before this particular debate got started.

>
>
>>>I only use the derogatory term in order to show "you fags" that the
>>>RCC is not the culprit here. The evil offending priests were the
>>>problem. Once those evil priests were removed, the problem went away.
>>
>>I have already shown (above) that you uncited claims are without merit.
>
>No, you have not.
>Fags were all removed in 2002.
>No more child abuse problems within the priest ranks.
>There must be some sort of validation here.
>

You are contradicting yourself.. You had previously said a dozen cases. When
does a dozen equal none?

>
>
>>>I do not defend the RCC.
>>>The hierarchy made bad decisions up to 2002.
>>>
>>
>>Try again. They were caught in the act in 2004 (above) moving accused priests
>>around.
>
>No, they were not.
>Provide a name and date.

I provided a citation. Here it is again.

"DALLAS (AP) � An international movement of Roman Catholic priests out of
countries where they have been accused of abusing children has continued even
after the abuse scandal that swept the U.S. church in 2002, The Dallas Morning
News found in a yearlong investigation....."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm

>Or,.... continue to bring up cases in the 70's and 80's.
>I'm waiting....
>You can twist it any way you want.
>ANy story about something that happened years ago is not new news.
>
>
>
>>>Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
>>>and sexually abused children.
>>
>>20% of these children were girls.
>
>Prove it.
>Now, you are just making up crap.
>

This one states 19%, I hope that's close enough for you.

"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

So, do you think I am still making it up?

Completely moot. They raped children, it's up to a judge to decide what is to
be done.

>-------------------
>
>
>>>Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
>>>centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
>>>business, not the punishment business, they again made more
>>>mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
>>>his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
>>>I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops
>>
>>It's time to admit you're wrong and ashamed.
>
>Me? Do you blame me?
>I do not defend or admit that I did any wrongdoing.
>Pope says sorry for sins of church
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion
>

One major difference between you and that Pope is that he is not making excuses.
He says, WE screwed up and WE'RE sorry. You, on the other hand, are using
scapegoats, "fags" and erroneous psychiatry.

>--------------------
>
>>
>>"..The records show that Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony, who is now
>>retired, and his top adviser on child sex abuse cases, Monsignor Thomas Curry,
>>worked with other Church officials in 1987 to send priests accused of abuse out
>>of state to avoid prosecution, the newspaper said...."
>>
>>"..."We are embarrassed and at times ashamed by parts of the past," Hennigan
>>said."
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-catholic-officials-shielded-pedophile-priests-report-053314646.html
>
>+ And you want more apologies?
>----------
>
>
>>>This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
>>>The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
>>>The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.
>>>
>>
>>You don't admit it. The bishops were not stupid, they were covering up.
>>
>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>than harm one of my priests."
>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>
>Don't take a Honduran bishop and compare him to any American bishop.
>That is terribly dishonest.

That is terribly bigoted of you. This man was mentioned as a possibility for
Pope.

>Tell you what.....
>Tell me what you do for a living...
>Or tell me what organization you belong to.
>Or tell me what church you ever attended.
>And......... I will find something wrong about it and accuse you of
>defending like actions. Lets play your game.
>
>
>
>>>The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
>>>made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
>>>and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
>>>ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
>>>As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
>>>removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
>>>to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.
>>>
>>You refuse to accept that this crap went on because the Church looked the other
>>way and tried to avoid embarrasment.
>
>Huh?
>You really are stupid, aren't you?
>
>
>> You seem to be fixated on
>>homosexuals when, in fact, 20% of the victims were girls.
>
>Prove it.
>I am waiting.

Here ya go (again)

"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

So, are you doing to accept this or go into denial?

Since we are not having an interactive discussion and you could have easily
looked this up and found out, what's going on here? Did you actually try to
find it or do you have such blind faith you are convinced everyone who says
something you don't like is lying?

Still trying to broadcast your ignorance with your "fags" insults.

Ben

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman <

>Rome knew what was going on since the 1950s (from my cite). Why do you suppose
>they chose to do nothing about the problem?

Your cite is looking for "The Enquirer" Award.

Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
prayer". However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
back into ministry. This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction,
such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be
treated and restrained.
In 1962, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as
the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, the Holy Office laid down
procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or
bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the
sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. In
addition, it reiterated the seriousness and gravity of ever breaking
the seal of confession.
In 1983, the Vatican promulgated a revised Code of Canon Law which
included a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly named sex with a minor by
clerics as a canonical crime.
The burgeoning number of scandals evoked deep concern among some
Catholic observers, and in 1985 a confidential report entitled "The
Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the
Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Matter" was submitted to
the Catholic hierarchy. The authors included Gauthe's attorney, F. Ray
Mouton, and two clerics [priests], Thomas P. Doyle and Michael
Peterson.... The group warned of the need to take urgent action in the
face of scandals, to react swiftly to complaints, and also to avoid
charges of secretive proceedings or cover-ups. (p. 37) Tragically,
either this advice was not followed, or not followed often enough.
This approach continued to be practiced by the bishops well into the
mid-1980s, a period which characterizes as the "tipping point in the
understanding of the problem within the church and in society".
Pope John Paul II took a number of steps to address the problem of
priestly formation. On March 25, 1992, he completed the apostolic
exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis ("I Shall Give You Shepherds"), one of
the longest papal documents in history. This explored the crisis of
priestly identity, the renewal of priestly life and the reform of
seminaries in detail. Some have attributed the scant number of abuse
allegations from the 1990s as evidence that the late Pope's reform
efforts were fruitful.
In April 2001, Pope John Paul II issued Sacramentorum sanctitatis
tutela (Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments). This replaced
the Crimen sollicitationis. All priestly sex crimes cases were to be
placed under the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
which, in most cases, would authorize the bishops to conduct trials
themselves. In May 2001, a letter from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the
1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was sent to the Catholic
bishops.
Pope John Paul II declared in 2003 that "there is no place in the
priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".
With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the
United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including
requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers and,
noting the preponderance of adolescent males (teenage boys) amongst
victims of abuse, warned that a more searching inquiry is necessary
for a homosexually oriented man; and the worldwide Church also
prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual
tendencies."
Early in 2010 Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the head of the Congregation
for Clergy, said that instances of sexual abuse by priests were
"criminal facts" as well as serious sins and required co-operation
with the civil justice system
The Pope took the extraordinary steps of ordering the retirement of
Cardinal Bernard Law Archbishop John Aloysius Ward, the most senior
member of the Roman Catholic Church in Wales, in the wake of a
paedophile scandal which rocked their dioceses to its foundations. The
72-year-old archbishop Ward, who had been under severe criticism from
clergy and congregations following the convictions of two priests for
child sexual abuse offences, was forced to resign despite making clear
his determination to stay in office. He had been accused of repeatedly
ignoring warnings about the two priests' conduct.

[Patrick]

No, they did not.
In order for there to be a child abuse crime, you must have a victim.
If no victim comes forward to the criminal justice system, then there
is no crime to punish.

Oh, and who is "they?"

> Regardless of
>whether there was an effective treatment or not, these priests were
>intentionally shielded from the criminal justice system. Let me remind you, the
>justice system deals with the criminally insane.

Do you really want to go there?

>Second, there is a whole world of difference between a celibate priest seeking
>help for worrisome thoughts and desires versus one who has already done terrible
>things to children.

Really? Tell me more, Mr wizard.

.
>>The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.
>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>
>Citation?

Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

-------

>>>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>>>accused of abusing children.
>>
>>I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
>>And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
>>I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
>>works.
>
>The solution was, in fact, to stop covering up because the cat was out of the
>bag!

That was not the solution to the fags abusing children.
That was not the solution to the parents and victims not reporting the
abuse to the criminal justice system.

>>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>>than harm one of my priests."
>>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>>>Problem NOT FIXED.
>>>
>>Honduras.
>>Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?
>>
>
>You seem to be saying that Catholic clergy in other countries are less moral?
>Even if the man was mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II?

I don't care if he is the successor to the Postmaster General.
Yes, I am saying that clergy in countries (other than the USA) have
not quite grasped the gravity of child abuse yet.
Look at the evidence.
The USA bishops kicked the fags out in 2002.
The USA bishops remove any priest from the ministry immediately after
an allegation, and they work with civil authorities.
The Irish Bishops had to learn this lesson shortly after.
Then the German Bishops, and now the only cases making the news
recently are child abusing priests in Africa.

[Patrick]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:19:50 -0500, Ben Kaufman

>If a priest gets caught doing some embarrassing, but a victimless vice, sure
>give him another chance, get him some help. But when he's raping children, it's
>a no brainer what has to be done if you actually give a shit about the people in
>your parish. Don't swallow this bull crap implying that the psychiatric
>community was recommending that child rapists should not be turned over to the
>police.

If you think you can change history, go for it.
There are new protocols in place - since 2002.
Any priest accused of child abuse (in the USA) is immediately removed
from the ministry, and the bishop assists the civil authorities.
Haven't you been paying attention?

>>As a matter of fact, most of the one-time offenders who received
>>counseling and therapy - never offended again.
>>Less than 200 offenders went through treatment, were reinstated, and
>>then offended again.
>>Now, the American Bishops have a rule: One strike and you're OUT.
>
>For all of the people the Church paid to be silent, I would not be so sure how
>many of those offenders never molested another child.

That is because you are a Catholic basher, looking for fault.
This is not my problem.
It is yours.

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman wrote:

>No, just your trying to scapegoat gays as the reason for this debacle.

Ahhh...
Here it comes.
You have no problem accusing the entire Catholic Church for child
abuse.
But, when someone accuses the entire gay community, you get all hot
and bothered. I wonder about your motives.....

>You made some claims why you thought a coincidence was in fact a causation and,
>through citations, I showed that there was not even a coincidence. 44% of the
>accused priests were ordained prior to 1950.

I would have to see your reference.
I have no intention of reading an entire report, looking for some
vague reference, and not finding it. Many Catholic bashers attempt to
do this all the time. I'm not buying it. It is up to you to pull up
your cite, give me a page and para number, and then I will explain to
you exactly what the author was saying.

I am sure that 44 percent of all accused priests in 1960 were ordained
prior to 1950. I am sure there were very few priests accused of child
abuse prior to 1960.

Give me a fact I can use.
Then give me the cite.
Then we can discuss it.
You remind me of the whiners who claim the USA will fall apart on
March 1st because the "REPUBLICANS" won't cough up more revenues.

------------

>>Go back to your own reference - the John Jay Report that stated the
>>vast majority of all Catholic priests are wonderful, holy, decent men
>>who are following the steps of Christ.
>>
>>Since you blast the entire Catholic Church, why can't I blast all the
>>fags. Tit for Tat..... Nothing more here.
>>
>
>Except for the fact that you were already blasting gays, and have had a bigoted
>mean streak against gays long before this particular debate got started.

Do you actually think that you started this debate recently?
I'v been listening to you and yer catholic basher fags sing this song
for over 13 years. You are a late-comer.
And, I have lost patience with you Catholic bashers.
I am merely playing the game that was established a long time ago.
-----------

>>>>I only use the derogatory term in order to show "you fags" that the
>>>>RCC is not the culprit here. The evil offending priests were the
>>>>problem. Once those evil priests were removed, the problem went away.
>>>
>>>I have already shown (above) that you uncited claims are without merit.
>>
>>No, you have not.
>>Fags were all removed in 2002.
>>No more child abuse problems within the priest ranks.
>>There must be some sort of validation here.
>>
>
>You are contradicting yourself.. You had previously said a dozen cases. When
>does a dozen equal none?

It depends.
Most Catholic bashers post any shit they find here on this web site.
Since there are 40,000 priests in the USA, of course you will find
that one or two of them might show their human side and be caught
doing something that they should not.
Bring up a case, any case... and we will discuss it.
-------------

>I provided a citation. Here it is again.
>"DALLAS (AP) � An international movement of Roman Catholic priests out of
>countries where they have been accused of abusing children has continued even
>after the abuse scandal that swept the U.S. church in 2002, The Dallas Morning
>News found in a yearlong investigation....."
>
>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm

I'll respond to this next post.
I am old and need a rest and breakfast.

[Patrick]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:19:50 -0500, Ben Kaufman

>>>Try again. They were caught in the act in 2004 (above) moving accused priests
>>>around.
>>
>>No, they were not.
>>Provide a name and date.
>
>I provided a citation. Here it is again.
>
>"DALLAS (AP) � An international movement of Roman Catholic priests out of
>countries where they have been accused of abusing children has continued even
>after the abuse scandal that swept the U.S. church in 2002, The Dallas Morning
>News found in a yearlong investigation....."
>
>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm

From your reference:
In one case, the Rev. Frank Klep, a convicted child molester who has
admitted abusing one boy and is wanted on more charges in Australia,
was placed in Apia, Samoa, in the South Pacific. Australia has no
extradition treaty with Samoa.

+ I am specifically speaking about American Bishops. American priests,
American dioceses, and American solutions.
+ The rest of the world has not been paying attention.

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman

>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>So, do you think I am still making it up?

Nope.
I appreciate the page number.

>>"Dr. Berlin's boss, Dr. Paul R. McHugh," the article continued, said
>>the hospital "did agree with the Sexual Disorders Clinic's
>>interpretation" of the law. "We did what we thought was appropriate,"
>>Dr. McHugh stated. Dr. Berlin acted with "the blessing of his
>>superiors," the article said.
>>
>
>Completely moot. They raped children, it's up to a judge to decide what is to
>be done.

I agree.
I am merely quoting what the "expert" shrinks advised.

>>-------------------

>>Me? Do you blame me?
>>I do not defend or admit that I did any wrongdoing.
>>Pope says sorry for sins of church
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion
>>
>
>One major difference between you and that Pope is that he is not making excuses.
>He says, WE screwed up and WE'RE sorry. You, on the other hand, are using
>scapegoats, "fags" and erroneous psychiatry.

Perhaps you are too ignorant to glean what I have been saying.
I am NOT the Church.
Therefore, I do not speak for THE Church.
I speak for myself.
You claim something that is incorrect.
I correct you.
You get pissed.
So you blame all catholics.
Since you blame all catholics, I blame all fags.
It is a game, you see.
You started it.
>>--------------------

>>Don't take a Honduran bishop and compare him to any American bishop.
>>That is terribly dishonest.
>
>That is terribly bigoted of you. This man was mentioned as a possibility for
>Pope.

I am also a possibility.

>>Tell you what.....
>>Tell me what you do for a living...
>>Or tell me what organization you belong to.
>>Or tell me what church you ever attended.
>>And......... I will find something wrong about it and accuse you of
>>defending like actions. Lets play your game.

I am waiting.
Don't you wanna play your own game?

>
>>That was for your benefit.
>>You fags would squeal too loudly.....
>
>Still trying to broadcast your ignorance with your "fags" insults.

Just playing your game.

[Tom Keske]

This is the kind of crap found all the time on Catholic blogs
and newsgroups, dehumanizing to the nth degree.

What one might expect in a world so far gone that a Pope
can have been in both Hitler Youth and Luftwaffe without
anyone in mainstream media daring to comment that this
is inappropriate for the very appearance of a supposedly
moral leader, who should be above suspicion, if nothing else.

Suspicion ought to be even deeper when that same German Pope
starts talking about gays as if they were problem to "solve"
and save the world from them, likening to "saving rainforests".
Still not a comment dared.

Probably the Vatican will pick a Third World, rabidly anti-gay Pope,
and the media would fawn over what wonderful "progress" it is.

The Church is so smugly pompous in its ignorant, ugly "teachings",
yet you would think that it were all so noble, uplifting and
high-minded that you were witnessing the signing of the Magna Carta.

Homosexuals are not homosexuals because they lack your wonderful
philosophical wisdom or moral character. It is a happenstance
like a married man discovering that he has a low sperm count.
It is not a joke. It is not a personal failing. It is not a punishment
from God.

Catholic Church is a good example of superstition-based morality
and simple-mindedness parading as if it were profoundly wise.

In that case, eventually there will be blood, blood, blood.
America, Rome, Africa, the Catholic Church and the human race
will have fully brought that upon themselves.

Tom Keske

[Mitchell Holman]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:b0hhi8htqrtecd955...@4ax.com:

Actually he was just blaming the Pope.

> Since you blame all catholics, I blame all fags.

Gays do not have a pope. Or any
official spokesman for them at all.

Therefore your rant just homophobia.

[Patrick]

"Tom Keske" <ptk...@comcast.net> wrote:

>This is the kind of crap found all the time on Catholic blogs
>and newsgroups, dehumanizing to the nth degree.
>
>What one might expect in a world so far gone that a Pope
>can have been in both Hitler Youth and Luftwaffe without
>anyone in mainstream media daring to comment that this
>is inappropriate for the very appearance of a supposedly
>moral leader, who should be above suspicion, if nothing else.

This is the kind of crap found all the time on Catholic basher

[Patrick]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

>> Perhaps you are too ignorant to glean what I have been saying.
>> I am NOT the Church.
>> Therefore, I do not speak for THE Church.
>> I speak for myself.
>> You claim something that is incorrect.
>> I correct you.
>> You get pissed.
>> So you blame all catholics.
>
>
> Actually he was just blaming the Pope.

Was he?

>> Since you blame all catholics, I blame all fags.
>
>
> Gays do not have a pope. Or any
>official spokesman for them at all.

That is not my problem.
Do you wish to step forward?

[Mitchell Holman]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:baaii81hdcp9floca...@4ax.com:

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:


Deleted portion restored, below

>>>One major difference between you and that Pope is that he is not
>>>making excuses. He says, WE screwed up and WE'RE sorry. You, on the
>>>other hand, are using scapegoats, "fags" and erroneous psychiatry.
>

>>> Perhaps you are too ignorant to glean what I have been saying.
>>> I am NOT the Church.
>>> Therefore, I do not speak for THE Church.
>>> I speak for myself.
>>> You claim something that is incorrect.
>>> I correct you.
>>> You get pissed.
>>> So you blame all catholics.
>>
>>
>> Actually he was just blaming the Pope.
>
> Was he?

Yes.

That is why you deleted what he said,
and why I had to put it back in the notestream,
above.

Why are you so dishonest?

>
>
>>> Since you blame all catholics, I blame all fags.
>>
>>
>> Gays do not have a pope. Or any
>>official spokesman for them at all.
>
> That is not my problem.

No, your problem is you delete portions
of the notestream and then insinuate they are
not there.

Why are you so dishonest?

[Patrick]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> Why are you so dishonest?

I pick and choose the questions I wish to address.
The remaining questions aren't worth noting.

[U Tyler]

Mitchel is a far-left liar, but usually runs away after a few days of
being slapped around. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"


On Sat, 09 May 2009 14:43:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>nied...@gmail.com wrote in news:9049be30-3e14-4f5a-bc35-
>f246c2...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
>> Time to end all immigration to America. (America must love muslims, 9
>> million now is USA)
> Last time I look the majority of US muslims were
>Americans who converted to it.

Cite?

Don't bother... We KNOW you'll just LIE...

"Once very small, the Muslim population of the US increased greatly in
the twentieth century, with much of the growth driven by rising
immigration and widespread conversion. [...] Up to one-third of
American Muslims are African Americans who have converted to Islam
during the last seventy years. [...] The 2007 Pew survey of Muslim
Americans finds two-thirds of the Muslim Americans are foreign-born.
Among the foreign-born, most have immigrated since 1990. Of the
roughly one-third of Muslim Americans who are native-born, the
majority are converts and African American.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

In case you need help, one-third DOES NOT constitute a majority by ANY
definition.

Are you EVER gonna stop lying?

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/

[Miranda Harden]

Mitchel is a far-left liar, but usually runs away after a few days of
being slapped around. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:57:49 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in
>news:n6q1d5568v0u2l98l...@4ax.com:
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:56:35 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in
>>>news:ktnrc55v6oc158hn4...@4ax.com:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:03:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>"r wiley" <raw...@southslope.net> wrote in news:haj1f4"hpl"1
>>>>>@news.netins.net:
>>>>>> Don't you remember? Sex between consenting adults is nobody
>>>>>> else's business. You won this argument in 1999 when you
>>>>>> acquitted Bill Clinton.
>>>>> Clinton was aquitted by a majority-GOP Senate.
>>>> Yet he was and is and forever will be IMPEACHED by the House...
>>> Big deal.
>> Yep, it is.
>>> He was acquitted.
>> No, he was acquited in the Senate.
>> He was CONVICTED and IMPEACHED in the House.
> Impeachment is an accusation, not a conviction.

As ALWAYS, once you corner a DemocRAT they either run away or they
LIE.

YOU LIED.

"Impeachment" is NOT an accusation. Impeachment is a CONVICTION.

Clinton was charged with perjury to a Grand Jury and CONVICTED,
228-206 vote.

Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and CONVICTED, 221-212
vote.

Those CONVICTIONS led to the NEXT STEP, House Resolution H. Res. 611,
IMPEACHMENT.

"Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors..."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.RES.611:

> The trial is in the Senate - which acquitted him.

As ALWAYS, once you corner a DemocRAT they either run away or they
LIE.

YOU LIED.

The TRIAL to IMPEACH is ALWAYS in the House.

Clinton was CONVICTED and IMPEACHED.

The Trial to REMOVE FROM OFFICE is ALWAYS in the Senate.

Clinton was not removed from office but his IMPEACHMENT and those
CONVICTIONS stand - Forever...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Impeachment_by_the_House_of_Representatives

>>>Bush remains the only president to also be a convicted criminal.
>> No cite = LIE.
>Bush pleaded guilty in 1976 to DUI
>WEST ALLIS, Wis. (AP) — Texas Gov. George W. Bush
>said Thursday he was arrested and pleaded guilty
>nearly 25 years ago to driving while under the
>influence of alcohol. "I'm not proud of that,"
>he said."
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e3150.htm

Bush plead guilty, NEVER LIED ABOUT IT.

Clinton LIED, and will FOREVER be CONVICTED for LYING...

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:16:35 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Kaufman <
>
>>Rome knew what was going on since the 1950s (from my cite). Why do you suppose
>>they chose to do nothing about the problem?
>
>Your cite is looking for "The Enquirer" Award.
>
>Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>
>Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
>as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
>prayer". However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
>an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
>recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
>sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
>treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
>back into ministry. This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction,
>such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be
>treated and restrained.

Earth to Patrick... You are quoting the "Diocesan responses", this what they
want you to believe. It is not an independent report. They broke the law. They
favored a child rapist over the victim.

>In 1962, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred
>Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as
>the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, the Holy Office laid down
>procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or
>bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the
>sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. In
>addition, it reiterated the seriousness and gravity of ever breaking
>the seal of confession.

In other words, to bead for the parishioners' raped children, we can't let this
leak out.

>In 1983, the Vatican promulgated a revised Code of Canon Law which
>included a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly named sex with a minor by
>clerics as a canonical crime.
>The burgeoning number of scandals evoked deep concern among some
>Catholic observers, and in 1985 a confidential report entitled "The
>Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the
>Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Matter" was submitted to
>the Catholic hierarchy.

Attention Patrick, this states a burgeoning number of "scandals" in 1983. Note:
scandals, not number of actual incidents, which had peaked in 1970.
Scandal = exposure.

>The authors included Gauthe's attorney, F. Ray
>Mouton, and two clerics [priests], Thomas P. Doyle and Michael
>Peterson.... The group warned of the need to take urgent action in the
>face of scandals, to react swiftly to complaints, and also to avoid
>charges of secretive proceedings or cover-ups. (p. 37) Tragically,
>either this advice was not followed, or not followed often enough.

Ah, you see, they KNEW what the right thing to do was and they chose NOT to do
it.

[Ben Kaufman]

Gee, did you happen to note the 4000+ incidents stated in the John Jay Report?

>
>
>> Regardless of
>>whether there was an effective treatment or not, these priests were
>>intentionally shielded from the criminal justice system. Let me remind you, the
>>justice system deals with the criminally insane.
>
>Do you really want to go there?
>

You have no where to go other than transparent excuses.

>
>
>>Second, there is a whole world of difference between a celibate priest seeking
>>help for worrisome thoughts and desires versus one who has already done terrible
>>things to children.
>
>Really? Tell me more, Mr wizard.
>

You seem to believe there's an acceptable excuse for not sending a child rapist
to the police, so clearly, you do need to be told.

>.
>>>The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.
>>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>>
>>Citation?
>
>Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>

A citation is a quote, with verifiable reference to the quote. In other cases
you cut and paste needless paragraphs from this very same link. Here, you don't
furnish a single clue as to what you see supporting your statement.

>-------
>
>
>>>>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>>>>accused of abusing children.
>>>
>>>I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
>>>And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
>>>I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
>>>works.
>>
>>The solution was, in fact, to stop covering up because the cat was out of the
>>bag!
>
>That was not the solution to the fags abusing children.
>That was not the solution to the parents and victims not reporting the
>abuse to the criminal justice system.
>

Because the solutions are centered around solving the Church's problem, the
disgrace and hemorrhaging of money.

>
>
>>>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>>>than harm one of my priests."
>>>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>>>>Problem NOT FIXED.
>>>>
>>>Honduras.
>>>Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?
>>>
>>
>>You seem to be saying that Catholic clergy in other countries are less moral?
>>Even if the man was mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II?
>
>I don't care if he is the successor to the Postmaster General.
>Yes, I am saying that clergy in countries (other than the USA) have
>not quite grasped the gravity of child abuse yet.
>Look at the evidence.
>The USA bishops kicked the fags out in 2002.

Nonsense. And your bigoted references aside (that continue to substantiate your
ignorance and biased hatred) , you could not support this when asked for a
citation.

What do you have to say about this, Patrick; now, that what seemed unbelievable
to you is indeed a fact?

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:32:41 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:19:50 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>
>>If a priest gets caught doing some embarrassing, but a victimless vice, sure
>>give him another chance, get him some help. But when he's raping children, it's
>>a no brainer what has to be done if you actually give a shit about the people in
>>your parish. Don't swallow this bull crap implying that the psychiatric
>>community was recommending that child rapists should not be turned over to the
>>police.
>
>If you think you can change history, go for it.
>There are new protocols in place - since 2002.
>Any priest accused of child abuse (in the USA) is immediately removed
>from the ministry, and the bishop assists the civil authorities.
>Haven't you been paying attention?
>

Yes, Patrick, I've been paying attention, but you haven't. The issue is your
excuses for what had gone on in the past.

>
>>>As a matter of fact, most of the one-time offenders who received
>>>counseling and therapy - never offended again.
>>>Less than 200 offenders went through treatment, were reinstated, and
>>>then offended again.
>>>Now, the American Bishops have a rule: One strike and you're OUT.
>>
>>For all of the people the Church paid to be silent, I would not be so sure how
>>many of those offenders never molested another child.
>
>That is because you are a Catholic basher, looking for fault.
>This is not my problem.
>It is yours.
>

Nonsense. I am taking issue with your attempt to scapegoat gays and the medical
profession for what there is no excuse, especially when you're excuses are
claims that have been refuted. Such as your claim that the problem started in
the 1960's when allegedly gay priests were accepted, when in fact, almost half
of the abusers were ordained prior to 1950 (John Jay report), or that 19% of the
children were girls, which takes the bit out of your "fag" attack. ... starting
to understand?

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:45:56 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Ben Kaufman wrote:
>
>>No, just your trying to scapegoat gays as the reason for this debacle.
>
>Ahhh...
>Here it comes.
>You have no problem accusing the entire Catholic Church for child
>abuse.
>But, when someone accuses the entire gay community, you get all hot
>and bothered. I wonder about your motives.....
>

Try sticking to the facts, not your Catholic bashing fantasies. There are
unquestionably many good people associated with the Catholic Church. Some of
them even stuck their neck out to say that the pedo priests should be turned
over to the law, but obviously, that didn't happen because they were not the
ones with power.

>
>
>>You made some claims why you thought a coincidence was in fact a causation and,
>>through citations, I showed that there was not even a coincidence. 44% of the
>>accused priests were ordained prior to 1950.
>
>I would have to see your reference.

My mistake, I meant 1960, as I had originally said at the top of my message.


Patrick:

>>>Look at the evidence.
>>>In the 1960's, the RCC accepted "gay" men into the priest ministry.
>>>All of a sudden, the RCC had a problem with child abuse problems.
>>>A massive problem with evil, child abusing priests.
>>

Ben:

>>You are clearly not looking at the evidence.
>>
>>44% of the accused priests were ordained prior to 1960 (John Jay Report), and
>>
>>"... in the 1950s, Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of a religious order that
>>treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children, concluded "(such) offenders
>>were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry," and this was
>>discussed with Pope Paul VI (1897 – 1978) and "in correspondence with several
>>bishops."[6
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>So clearly, this was a problem well before the 1960's and your attempt to slur
>>gays is shot down.

and here's the citation from the John Jay Report.

Table 3.3.2 DECADE OF ORDINATION
Decade Count Percent Cumulative
1890 - 1919 33 .8% .8%
1920 - 1929 79 2.0% 2.8%
1930 - 1939 245 6.1% 8.8%
1940 - 1949 501 12.4% 21.3%
1950 - 1959 931 23.1% 44.3%
1960 - 1969 1,021 25.3% 69.7%
1970 - 1979 791 19.6% 89.3%
1980 - 1989 339 8.4% 97.7%
1990 - 2002 94 2.3% 100.0%
Total 4,034 100.0%

(page 41 incase formatting does not work out)

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

>I have no intention of reading an entire report, looking for some
>vague reference, and not finding it. Many Catholic bashers attempt to
>do this all the time. I'm not buying it. It is up to you to pull up
>your cite, give me a page and para number, and then I will explain to
>you exactly what the author was saying.
>



>I am sure that 44 percent of all accused priests in 1960 were ordained
>prior to 1950. I am sure there were very few priests accused of child
>abuse prior to 1960.
>
>Give me a fact I can use.
>Then give me the cite.
>Then we can discuss it.
>You remind me of the whiners who claim the USA will fall apart on
>March 1st because the "REPUBLICANS" won't cough up more revenues.
>

Here it is again -

Patick says:
>>>In the 1960's, the RCC accepted "gay" men into the priest ministry.
>>>All of a sudden, the RCC had a problem with child abuse problems.
>>>A massive problem with evil, child abusing priests.

Fact 1. 44% of the abusers were accepted prior to 1960
This refutes your claim that an alleged change in the 1960s started this
problem.

Fact 2. 19% of the children were female. (to your disbelief)
This refutes your blaming this entirely upon gays.

>------------
>
>
>>>Go back to your own reference - the John Jay Report that stated the
>>>vast majority of all Catholic priests are wonderful, holy, decent men
>>>who are following the steps of Christ.
>>>
>>>Since you blast the entire Catholic Church, why can't I blast all the
>>>fags. Tit for Tat..... Nothing more here.
>>>

That's a false equivocation. For example, if Democrats got something into law
regarding policy X, we can say that the United States has adopted policy X, but
does that mean everyone, or even a majority in the "entire" United States
endorses that policy? Of course not. And the same is true when one speaks of
"the Church."

>>
>>Except for the fact that you were already blasting gays, and have had a bigoted
>>mean streak against gays long before this particular debate got started.
>
>Do you actually think that you started this debate recently?
>I'v been listening to you and yer catholic basher fags sing this song
>for over 13 years. You are a late-comer.
>And, I have lost patience with you Catholic bashers.
>I am merely playing the game that was established a long time ago.
>-----------

Are the members of "Catholics for Choice" Catholic bashers?

>
>>>>>I only use the derogatory term in order to show "you fags" that the
>>>>>RCC is not the culprit here. The evil offending priests were the
>>>>>problem. Once those evil priests were removed, the problem went away.
>>>>
>>>>I have already shown (above) that you uncited claims are without merit.
>>>
>>>No, you have not.
>>>Fags were all removed in 2002.
>>>No more child abuse problems within the priest ranks.
>>>There must be some sort of validation here.
>>>
>>
>>You are contradicting yourself.. You had previously said a dozen cases. When
>>does a dozen equal none?
>
>It depends.
>Most Catholic bashers post any shit they find here on this web site.
>Since there are 40,000 priests in the USA, of course you will find
>that one or two of them might show their human side and be caught
>doing something that they should not.

This "Catholic bashing" is an invention to detract any criticism from the
Catholic church, because if you can dismiss someone's motives as just hating
Catholics, then you can dismiss their agruments.

You are also trying to build a strawman. You know very well this is not about
the character of the vast majority of individual priests, it's about the coverup
of the bad ones who rape children.

>Bring up a case, any case... and we will discuss it.

We are discussing your erroneous excuses for why this happened.. Forgot that?

[Ben Kaufman]

So this would include the Vatican, or would you like an opportunity to rethink
that?


Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:39:08 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Kaufman
>
>>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>>So, do you think I am still making it up?
>
>Nope.
>I appreciate the page number.
>

Has this changed your opinion at all, in particular, how the problem was
allegedly solved by getting rid of the gays?

>
>
>>>"Dr. Berlin's boss, Dr. Paul R. McHugh," the article continued, said
>>>the hospital "did agree with the Sexual Disorders Clinic's
>>>interpretation" of the law. "We did what we thought was appropriate,"
>>>Dr. McHugh stated. Dr. Berlin acted with "the blessing of his
>>>superiors," the article said.
>>>
>>
>>Completely moot. They raped children, it's up to a judge to decide what is to
>>be done.
>
>I agree.
>I am merely quoting what the "expert" shrinks advised.
>

Let's take that in context shall we? The person who runs a huge treatment
center for mentally ill priests might be just a tad biased with loosing all or
most of his Church funding if the patients are sent to prison.

>>>-------------------
>
>>>Me? Do you blame me?
>>>I do not defend or admit that I did any wrongdoing.
>>>Pope says sorry for sins of church
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion
>>>
>>
>>One major difference between you and that Pope is that he is not making excuses.
>>He says, WE screwed up and WE'RE sorry. You, on the other hand, are using
>>scapegoats, "fags" and erroneous psychiatry.
>
>Perhaps you are too ignorant to glean what I have been saying.
>I am NOT the Church.
>Therefore, I do not speak for THE Church.
>I speak for myself.
>You claim something that is incorrect.
>I correct you.
>You get pissed.
>So you blame all catholics.
>Since you blame all catholics, I blame all fags.
>It is a game, you see.
>You started it.

I have had to remind you several times as you tried to move the goal posts, and
this is getting tedious, I am taking issue with the correctness of YOUR
statements.

>>>--------------------
>
>
>>>Don't take a Honduran bishop and compare him to any American bishop.
>>>That is terribly dishonest.
>>
>>That is terribly bigoted of you. This man was mentioned as a possibility for
>>Pope.
>
>I am also a possibility.
>
>
>>>Tell you what.....
>>>Tell me what you do for a living...
>>>Or tell me what organization you belong to.
>>>Or tell me what church you ever attended.
>>>And......... I will find something wrong about it and accuse you of
>>>defending like actions. Lets play your game.
>
>I am waiting.
>Don't you wanna play your own game?
>

Your attempt to get off the subject at hand it duly noted.

>
>
>>
>>>That was for your benefit.
>>>You fags would squeal too loudly.....
>>
>>Still trying to broadcast your ignorance with your "fags" insults.
>
>Just playing your game.

If you have an issue of debate about something, you deal with it objectively.
Saying "whack" is not an effective rebuttal, and when you then cling to it, it
just reflects very poorly upon you. Of course, you don't post with your full
real name, so nothing you say can really ever stick.

My issue of debate with you is over your claims about gay priests. I have
pointed out facts and figures that invalidate your claims.

Ben

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:16:35 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
>>as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
>>prayer". However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
>>an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
>>recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
>>sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
>>treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
>>back into ministry. This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction,
>>such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be
>>treated and restrained.
>
>Earth to Patrick... You are quoting the "Diocesan responses", this what they
>want you to believe. It is not an independent report. They broke the law. They
>favored a child rapist over the victim.

You are merely quoting what some other Catholic basher said 10 years
ago. Can't you come up with a new rant?

>>In 1962, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred
>>Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as
>>the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, the Holy Office laid down
>>procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or
>>bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the
>>sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. In
>>addition, it reiterated the seriousness and gravity of ever breaking
>>the seal of confession.
>
>In other words, to bead for the parishioners' raped children, we can't let this
>leak out.

Not in other words.
You are whining again what hundreds have whined before.
Do you actually think you are clever enough to have discovered some
new problem in the RCC. Get in line, ass-wipe.

>>In 1983, the Vatican promulgated a revised Code of Canon Law which
>>included a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly named sex with a minor by
>>clerics as a canonical crime.
>>The burgeoning number of scandals evoked deep concern among some
>>Catholic observers, and in 1985 a confidential report entitled "The
>>Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the
>>Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Matter" was submitted to
>>the Catholic hierarchy.
>
>Attention Patrick, this states a burgeoning number of "scandals" in 1983. Note:
>scandals, not number of actual incidents, which had peaked in 1970.
>Scandal = exposure.

Was there a question or comment here?

>>The authors included Gauthe's attorney, F. Ray
>>Mouton, and two clerics [priests], Thomas P. Doyle and Michael
>>Peterson.... The group warned of the need to take urgent action in the
>>face of scandals, to react swiftly to complaints, and also to avoid
>>charges of secretive proceedings or cover-ups. (p. 37) Tragically,
>>either this advice was not followed, or not followed often enough.
>
>Ah, you see, they KNEW what the right thing to do was and they chose NOT to do
>it.

Talk to the victims.
If they don't go forward to the civil authorities, then the perp will
never get included within the criminal justics system.
Don't whine to me.
People knew HOW to get someone punished.
They decided to accept conseling "MONEY" instead.

[Patrick]

The victims?
Did they take the law into their own hands when they refused to go
forward and report a crime?

>Gee, did you happen to note the 4000+ incidents stated in the John Jay Report?

Yup.
Them victims should have come forward.
Gotcha.

>>> Regardless of
>>>whether there was an effective treatment or not, these priests were
>>>intentionally shielded from the criminal justice system. Let me remind you, the
>>>justice system deals with the criminally insane.
>>
>>Do you really want to go there?
>>
>
>You have no where to go other than transparent excuses.

What is the criminal justice system doing for you?

>>>Second, there is a whole world of difference between a celibate priest seeking
>>>help for worrisome thoughts and desires versus one who has already done terrible
>>>things to children.
>>
>>Really? Tell me more, Mr wizard.
>
>You seem to believe there's an acceptable excuse for not sending a child rapist
>to the police, so clearly, you do need to be told.

The victim should go forward.
Not the employer.

>>>>The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.
>>>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>>>
>>>Citation?
>>
>>Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>
>
>A citation is a quote, with verifiable reference to the quote.

You know, I've said this many times when you catholic bashers tell me
to read the bible to find something out.
I'm glad you believe that there should be a quote first.
However, if you noticed, this post is WAYYY too long as it is.

>In other cases
>you cut and paste needless paragraphs from this very same link. Here, you don't
>furnish a single clue as to what you see supporting your statement.

This isn't my first rodeo.
I have answered every one of your questions a hundred times over the
past 15 years. I even have the items in my "arcer-junk folder."
If you really want a specific quote, ask again.
Nicely.

>>>>>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>>>>>accused of abusing children.
>>>>
>>>>I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
>>>>And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
>>>>I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
>>>>works.
>>>
>>>The solution was, in fact, to stop covering up because the cat was out of the
>>>bag!
>>
>>That was not the solution to the fags abusing children.
>>That was not the solution to the parents and victims not reporting the
>>abuse to the criminal justice system.
>>
>
>Because the solutions are centered around solving the Church's problem, the
>disgrace and hemorrhaging of money.

You are worrying about the church and money?
Don't worry, we'll get more.
Your mom will send us a check.
We just bought the "Crystal Cathedral" in Orange County because the
Robert Shuller organization is falling apart.
The Catholics are doing well.
Thank you for worrying about us.

>>>>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>>>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>>>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>>>>than harm one of my priests."
>>>>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>>>>>Problem NOT FIXED.
>>>>>
>>>>Honduras.
>>>>Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You seem to be saying that Catholic clergy in other countries are less moral?
>>>Even if the man was mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II?
>>
>>I don't care if he is the successor to the Postmaster General.
>>Yes, I am saying that clergy in countries (other than the USA) have
>>not quite grasped the gravity of child abuse yet.
>>Look at the evidence.
>>The USA bishops kicked the fags out in 2002.
>
>Nonsense. And your bigoted references aside (that continue to substantiate your
>ignorance and biased hatred) , you could not support this when asked for a
>citation.

What are you looking for?
A citation that states that the RCC has a very tough screening process
for those men who wish to become priests? You want to see how
seminaries throw the fags out before they even get started?

>>>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>>>
>>>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>>>
>>>So, do you think I am still making it up?
>What do you have to say about this, Patrick; now, that what seemed unbelievable
>to you is indeed a fact?

I see your reference and the quote on page six.
And, I am impressed that you found this.

I just have a tough time trying to figure out how they came up with
that number. We has NO altar girls until just recently. Therefore, I
don't know how or where these numbers can be valid.
However, I will not debate you.
You found a good number in the report.
Some day when I have time, I will research this more.
For this reason, I must thank you for providing the quote.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 08:43:39 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:32:41 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:19:50 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>>
>>>If a priest gets caught doing some embarrassing, but a victimless vice, sure
>>>give him another chance, get him some help. But when he's raping children, it's
>>>a no brainer what has to be done if you actually give a shit about the people in
>>>your parish. Don't swallow this bull crap implying that the psychiatric
>>>community was recommending that child rapists should not be turned over to the
>>>police.
>>
>>If you think you can change history, go for it.
>>There are new protocols in place - since 2002.
>>Any priest accused of child abuse (in the USA) is immediately removed
>>from the ministry, and the bishop assists the civil authorities.
>>Haven't you been paying attention?
>>
>
>Yes, Patrick, I've been paying attention, but you haven't. The issue is your
>excuses for what had gone on in the past.

I have no excuses.
Bishops made terrible choices.
And they kept making them.
And Catholics today are very disappointed about this.
However, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
At least, I don't.

>>>>As a matter of fact, most of the one-time offenders who received
>>>>counseling and therapy - never offended again.
>>>>Less than 200 offenders went through treatment, were reinstated, and
>>>>then offended again.
>>>>Now, the American Bishops have a rule: One strike and you're OUT.
>>>
>>>For all of the people the Church paid to be silent, I would not be so sure how
>>>many of those offenders never molested another child.
>>
>>That is because you are a Catholic basher, looking for fault.
>>This is not my problem.
>>It is yours.
>>
>
>Nonsense. I am taking issue with your attempt to scapegoat gays and the medical
>profession for what there is no excuse, especially when you're excuses are
>claims that have been refuted.

You are just pissed because I blame you fags.
However, you can't comprehend that I got pissed a long time ago when
you and your fellow catholic bashers whined about the problem,
declared that all catholics are bad, that the pope is bad, that all
the priests are bad, and that everyone should leave the church.
Bad decisions were made.
Now what?
What do you want?
That is the question....

> Such as your claim that the problem started in
>the 1960's when allegedly gay priests were accepted, when in fact, almost half
>of the abusers were ordained prior to 1950 (John Jay report), or that 19% of the
>children were girls, which takes the bit out of your "fag" attack. ... starting
>to understand?

I understand you have a NEED to find fault.
And it seems you relish in the fact that you feel you are more clever
than I am. If that is what you NEED to feel, go for it.
Now, what do you want?
Why are you here?
How much money do you want me to send to you?

[Patrick]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:57:24 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:45:56 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>
>>>No, just your trying to scapegoat gays as the reason for this debacle.
>>
>>Ahhh...
>>Here it comes.
>>You have no problem accusing the entire Catholic Church for child
>>abuse.
>>But, when someone accuses the entire gay community, you get all hot
>>and bothered. I wonder about your motives.....
>>
>
>Try sticking to the facts, not your Catholic bashing fantasies. There are
>unquestionably many good people associated with the Catholic Church.

HELLO!
ALLELUJIA.
ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.

> Some of
>them even stuck their neck out to say that the pedo priests should be turned
>over to the law, but obviously, that didn't happen because they were not the
>ones with power.

The ones with POWER were the victims who should have gone forward.
Stop blaming the bishops who had no clue, or wanted to follow the
wishes of the victims and families.

>>>You made some claims why you thought a coincidence was in fact a causation and,
>>>through citations, I showed that there was not even a coincidence. 44% of the
>>>accused priests were ordained prior to 1950.

I will accept this fact when discussing those cases discovered in the
1950's and 1960s. It makes sense.

>and here's the citation from the John Jay Report.
>
>Table 3.3.2 DECADE OF ORDINATION
>Decade Count Percent Cumulative
>1890 - 1919 33 .8% .8%
>1920 - 1929 79 2.0% 2.8%
>1930 - 1939 245 6.1% 8.8%
>1940 - 1949 501 12.4% 21.3%
>1950 - 1959 931 23.1% 44.3%
>1960 - 1969 1,021 25.3% 69.7%
>1970 - 1979 791 19.6% 89.3%
>1980 - 1989 339 8.4% 97.7%
>1990 - 2002 94 2.3% 100.0%
>Total 4,034 100.0%
>(page 41 incase formatting does not work out)

Another quote: Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of
minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by
several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. There was, for
example, a more than six fold increase in the number of reported acts
of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. After
peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents in the report decreased
through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate
had increased in the 1960s and 1970s.

>Are the members of "Catholics for Choice" Catholic bashers?

Yes.
And I am aware of log cabin republicans.
and sociopath's, manson wannabe's, etc.

>This "Catholic bashing" is an invention to detract any criticism from the
>Catholic church, because if you can dismiss someone's motives as just hating
>Catholics, then you can dismiss their agruments.

If your criticism was something new, or even warm, I might agree to
address your concerns. However, you are just one in a long line of
whiners who can't understand that we did have problems.... We finally
addressed those problems.... and we feel the problem is over - at
least here in the USA.
I really don't care if you believe this or not, but if you think I
will not get tired of your whining, you have lost your mind.

>You are also trying to build a strawman. You know very well this is not about
>the character of the vast majority of individual priests, it's about the coverup
>of the bad ones who rape children.

It WAS about the coverup.
When you see this happening in this millennium, speak up.
If you just plan to rehash old shit, find another venue.

>>Bring up a case, any case... and we will discuss it.
>
>We are discussing your erroneous excuses for why this happened.. Forgot that?

If you don't like the reasons, come up with some of your own. Then
come up with your own solution. Then spew your crap again.
Until then, your constant whining about the Inquisition and the
Crusades is getting real old.

[Patrick]

I don't speak for the Vatican.
I don't even speak for the Catholic Church within the USA.
I merely speak for myself, and what I know.
If you wish to blast the Vatican, get in line.
I just laugh at all you jerks who think they know anything.

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>Ben Kaufman
>>
>>>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>>>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>>>So, do you think I am still making it up?
>>
>>Nope.
>>I appreciate the page number.
>>
>
>Has this changed your opinion at all, in particular, how the problem was
>allegedly solved by getting rid of the gays?

That particular "fix" is merely for all you fags who can't get over
the fact that the Catholic Church kicked you all out. That answer
entertains me when all the fags get in line and try to defend their
actions. I have never really believed that as the one and only answer,
but I'll never admit it. Why should I? When you leave, another
catholic basher will bring up the same problem over and over again.
When I spout the "fag" answer, it pisses them off, and we are off to
the races. And I get entertained again by one more catholic basher.

>>>>"Dr. Berlin's boss, Dr. Paul R. McHugh," the article continued, said
>>>>the hospital "did agree with the Sexual Disorders Clinic's
>>>>interpretation" of the law. "We did what we thought was appropriate,"
>>>>Dr. McHugh stated. Dr. Berlin acted with "the blessing of his
>>>>superiors," the article said.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Completely moot. They raped children, it's up to a judge to decide what is to
>>>be done.
>>
>>I agree.
>>I am merely quoting what the "expert" shrinks advised.
>>
>
>Let's take that in context shall we? The person who runs a huge treatment
>center for mentally ill priests might be just a tad biased with loosing all or
>most of his Church funding if the patients are sent to prison.

Gosh.... ya think?
The same goes for the bishop.
If a bishop sent 10 priests off to a counseling center, and 7-8 of
them never offend again, they might consider that a "fix" has been
found. And when the "EXPERT" claims that he has discovered a "cure,"
this is really a "good" thing, isn't it?

>>>>-------------------

>I have had to remind you several times as you tried to move the goal posts, and
>this is getting tedious, I am taking issue with the correctness of YOUR
>statements.

Tough.
Stop trying to wear me out with exceptionally long whines.
I'm old, and I get cranky.

>>>>--------------------

>>>>Tell you what.....
>>>>Tell me what you do for a living...
>>>>Or tell me what organization you belong to.
>>>>Or tell me what church you ever attended.
>>>>And......... I will find something wrong about it and accuse you of
>>>>defending like actions. Lets play your game.
>>
>>I am waiting.
>>Don't you wanna play your own game?
>
>Your attempt to get off the subject at hand it duly noted.

Since you consider this a game, I want to play.
You know that I am right. If you claim to be a postal employee, I can
bring up dozens of cases. You claim to be a teacher, I can come up
with THOUSANDS of cases. If you are a union member, I can come up
with hundreds of cases. Do you want to play?

>>>>You fags would squeal too loudly.....
>>>
>>>Still trying to broadcast your ignorance with your "fags" insults.
>>
>>Just playing your game.
>
>If you have an issue of debate about something, you deal with it objectively.

I follow your lead.
Your whine is old.
It has been tried before.
And there still is no acceptable answer as to why the RCC made
horrible decisions and many children were hurt.
You can scream it again and again and again.
When will you come up with a solution?

I used to hate it when one of my folks would come into my office with
a monkey on their back. They would attempt to unload it and walk off.
Stop it. If you have a problem, then you should have some idea of a
solution. If you don't I surely will make a decision. However, you
probably won't like MY solution.

>Saying "whack" is not an effective rebuttal, and when you then cling to it, it
>just reflects very poorly upon you. Of course, you don't post with your full
>real name, so nothing you say can really ever stick.
>My issue of debate with you is over your claims about gay priests. I have
>pointed out facts and figures that invalidate your claims.

And since you seem to want to beat a dead horse, I will continue to
entertain myself with answers that piss you off.
If you don't like the answers, come up with one of your own.
AND THEN< DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Stop whining to me.
I have already accepted the fact that the RCC made bad decisions.

Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
and sexually abused children.

Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
forward 40 years after the fact.

Those bishops sent those offending evil priests to treatment

centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
business, not the punishment business, they again made more

mistakes by believing the repentant evil (fag) priest was sorry for

his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

This is all fact. Of course I admit it.

The evil priests were bad. Of course I admit it.

The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.

The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from

ever happening again. No gay priest is now allowed in the ministry.

As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.

You don't want to let this go, because you have another agenda
against the RCC. You feel you were wronged by the RCC in some
way - perhaps because they informed you that YOU are totally
responsible for your bad decisions and your actions. You have
some sort of sin that you feel should be accepted by the church.
And you are pissed because the RCC refuses to let you off the hook.
What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
What is it?

Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.

And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.

Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,

and they found out that there aren't any.
Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
never be made again.
Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.

Is that your agenda?
If not, what is your agenda?

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:50:07 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:16:35 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>>Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
>>>as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
>>>prayer". However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
>>>an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
>>>recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
>>>sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
>>>treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
>>>back into ministry. This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction,
>>>such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be
>>>treated and restrained.
>>
>>Earth to Patrick... You are quoting the "Diocesan responses", this what they
>>want you to believe. It is not an independent report. They broke the law. They
>>favored a child rapist over the victim.
>
>You are merely quoting what some other Catholic basher said 10 years
>ago. Can't you come up with a new rant?

How's about addressing my point... you are not providing objective evidence
(such as the John Jay Report).,

>
>
>>>In 1962, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred
>>>Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as
>>>the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, the Holy Office laid down
>>>procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or
>>>bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the
>>>sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. In
>>>addition, it reiterated the seriousness and gravity of ever breaking
>>>the seal of confession.
>>
>>In other words, to bead for the parishioners' raped children, we can't let this
>>leak out.
>
>Not in other words.
>You are whining again what hundreds have whined before.
>Do you actually think you are clever enough to have discovered some
>new problem in the RCC. Get in line, ass-wipe.

Hmmm... again you avoid answering the question. I guess it's tough when you
align youself with an indefensible position.

Thank you for admitting the Church bribed people to remain silent.

[Ben Kaufman]

They did come forward. How do you think the John Jay Report got its
information, from psychics?

>
>
>>>> Regardless of
>>>>whether there was an effective treatment or not, these priests were
>>>>intentionally shielded from the criminal justice system. Let me remind you, the
>>>>justice system deals with the criminally insane.
>>>
>>>Do you really want to go there?
>>>
>>
>>You have no where to go other than transparent excuses.
>
>What is the criminal justice system doing for you?
>

Again, you want to avoid the fact that these pedophiles should have been turned
over to the police, no if ands or buts.

>
>
>>>>Second, there is a whole world of difference between a celibate priest seeking
>>>>help for worrisome thoughts and desires versus one who has already done terrible
>>>>things to children.
>>>
>>>Really? Tell me more, Mr wizard.
>>
>>You seem to believe there's an acceptable excuse for not sending a child rapist
>>to the police, so clearly, you do need to be told.
>
>The victim should go forward.
>Not the employer.

They did go forward, to whom they thought were the most trusted people on
earth..

>
>
>>>>>The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.
>>>>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>>>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>>>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>>>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>>>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>>>>
>>>>Citation?
>>>
>>>Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>>
>>
>>A citation is a quote, with verifiable reference to the quote.
>
>You know, I've said this many times when you catholic bashers tell me
>to read the bible to find something out.
>I'm glad you believe that there should be a quote first.
>However, if you noticed, this post is WAYYY too long as it is.

I;m not playing your games, upon request you refused to provide the quote,
therefore your claim is false.

>
>
>>In other cases
>>you cut and paste needless paragraphs from this very same link. Here, you don't
>>furnish a single clue as to what you see supporting your statement.
>
>This isn't my first rodeo.
>I have answered every one of your questions a hundred times over the
>past 15 years. I even have the items in my "arcer-junk folder."
>If you really want a specific quote, ask again.
>Nicely.
>

I think you need another "breakfast"

>
>
>>>>>>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>>>>>>accused of abusing children.
>>>>>
>>>>>I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
>>>>>And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
>>>>>I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
>>>>>works.
>>>>
>>>>The solution was, in fact, to stop covering up because the cat was out of the
>>>>bag!
>>>
>>>That was not the solution to the fags abusing children.
>>>That was not the solution to the parents and victims not reporting the
>>>abuse to the criminal justice system.
>>>
>>
>>Because the solutions are centered around solving the Church's problem, the
>>disgrace and hemorrhaging of money.
>
>You are worrying about the church and money?
>Don't worry, we'll get more.
>Your mom will send us a check.
>We just bought the "Crystal Cathedral" in Orange County because the
>Robert Shuller organization is falling apart.
>The Catholics are doing well.
>Thank you for worrying about us.

You're the one who appears to be worrying, for someone who claim's he's not
defending the pedophile protectors.

>
>
>>>>>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>>>>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>>>>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>>>>>than harm one of my priests."
>>>>>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>>>>>>Problem NOT FIXED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Honduras.
>>>>>Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be saying that Catholic clergy in other countries are less moral?
>>>>Even if the man was mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II?
>>>
>>>I don't care if he is the successor to the Postmaster General.
>>>Yes, I am saying that clergy in countries (other than the USA) have
>>>not quite grasped the gravity of child abuse yet.
>>>Look at the evidence.
>>>The USA bishops kicked the fags out in 2002.
>>
>>Nonsense. And your bigoted references aside (that continue to substantiate your
>>ignorance and biased hatred) , you could not support this when asked for a
>>citation.
>
>What are you looking for?
>A citation that states that the RCC has a very tough screening process
>for those men who wish to become priests? You want to see how
>seminaries throw the fags out before they even get started?
>

So you are saying that you cannot provide a single citation to support your
statement that the USA bishops kicked the gays out in 2002?

>
>
>>>>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>>>>
>>>>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>>>>
>>>>So, do you think I am still making it up?
>>What do you have to say about this, Patrick; now, that what seemed unbelievable
>>to you is indeed a fact?
>
>I see your reference and the quote on page six.
>And, I am impressed that you found this.
>
>I just have a tough time trying to figure out how they came up with
>that number. We has NO altar girls until just recently. Therefore, I
>don't know how or where these numbers can be valid.
>However, I will not debate you.
>You found a good number in the report.
>Some day when I have time, I will research this more.
>For this reason, I must thank you for providing the quote.

Great. I hope that this will in some way moderate your thinking about "fag
priests".



Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:10:03 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 08:43:39 -0500, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:32:41 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:19:50 -0500, Ben Kaufman
>>>
>>>>If a priest gets caught doing some embarrassing, but a victimless vice, sure
>>>>give him another chance, get him some help. But when he's raping children, it's
>>>>a no brainer what has to be done if you actually give a shit about the people in
>>>>your parish. Don't swallow this bull crap implying that the psychiatric
>>>>community was recommending that child rapists should not be turned over to the
>>>>police.
>>>
>>>If you think you can change history, go for it.
>>>There are new protocols in place - since 2002.
>>>Any priest accused of child abuse (in the USA) is immediately removed
>>>from the ministry, and the bishop assists the civil authorities.
>>>Haven't you been paying attention?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, Patrick, I've been paying attention, but you haven't. The issue is your
>>excuses for what had gone on in the past.
>
>I have no excuses.
>Bishops made terrible choices.
>And they kept making them.
>And Catholics today are very disappointed about this.
>However, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
>At least, I don't.
>

If you say that you have no excuses, then why have you been giving excuses?
What I hear you saying is, they were wrong, BUT here's the reason ...

Now, an important point here is that I am not picking this bone over your
offering excuses, per se, it is that these reasons don't exist and they are
bigotry towards gays. For example when you claim that the problem started in
the 60s because that's when they allegedly started allowing gays in. But, as I
have already pointed out (with citations), that 44% of the accused priests were
ordained prior to 1960, and 19% of the victims were female, that this should
have been enough to make you realize that your previous sources of information
were wrong (I know that you now have been digesting the fact that 19% of the
victims were female).

>
>
>>>>>As a matter of fact, most of the one-time offenders who received
>>>>>counseling and therapy - never offended again.
>>>>>Less than 200 offenders went through treatment, were reinstated, and
>>>>>then offended again.
>>>>>Now, the American Bishops have a rule: One strike and you're OUT.
>>>>
>>>>For all of the people the Church paid to be silent, I would not be so sure how
>>>>many of those offenders never molested another child.
>>>
>>>That is because you are a Catholic basher, looking for fault.
>>>This is not my problem.
>>>It is yours.
>>>
>>
>>Nonsense. I am taking issue with your attempt to scapegoat gays and the medical
>>profession for what there is no excuse, especially when you're excuses are
>>claims that have been refuted.
>
>You are just pissed because I blame you fags.

Just something else you are wrong about, but, obviously, you have no interest in
facts.

>However, you can't comprehend that I got pissed a long time ago when
>you and your fellow catholic bashers whined about the problem,
>declared that all catholics are bad, that the pope is bad, that all
>the priests are bad, and that everyone should leave the church.
>Bad decisions were made.
>Now what?
>What do you want?
>That is the question....

It's nice of you to clump everyone together. I have never said that all
Catholics are bad, in fact, I think that "Catholics for Choice" are cool
people!

>
>
>
>> Such as your claim that the problem started in
>>the 1960's when allegedly gay priests were accepted, when in fact, almost half
>>of the abusers were ordained prior to 1950 (John Jay report), or that 19% of the
>>children were girls, which takes the bit out of your "fag" attack. ... starting
>>to understand?
>
>I understand you have a NEED to find fault.

Standing up against bigotry requires separating the facts from fiction.

>And it seems you relish in the fact that you feel you are more clever
>than I am. If that is what you NEED to feel, go for it.

I have been relying on facts, primarily from the John Jay report, not
cleverness, to discuss these issues.

>Now, what do you want?

My first response at the top of this message answers this.

>Why are you here?

This is alt.atheism, although this is cross posted to other groups, you are a
regular on alt.atheism too, so why are you here?

>How much money do you want me to send to you?

How much you got? ;-)

Ben

[Patrick]

Ben Kaufman wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:50:07 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:16:35 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>>>Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
>>>>as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
>>>>prayer". However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
>>>>an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
>>>>recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
>>>>sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
>>>>treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
>>>>back into ministry. This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction,
>>>>such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be
>>>>treated and restrained.
>>>
>>>Earth to Patrick... You are quoting the "Diocesan responses", this what they
>>>want you to believe. It is not an independent report. They broke the law. They
>>>favored a child rapist over the victim.
>>
>>You are merely quoting what some other Catholic basher said 10 years
>>ago. Can't you come up with a new rant?
>
>How's about addressing my point... you are not providing objective evidence
>(such as the John Jay Report).,

Exactly what is your question again?

>>>>In 1962, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred
>>>>Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as
>>>>the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, the Holy Office laid down
>>>>procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or
>>>>bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the
>>>>sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. In
>>>>addition, it reiterated the seriousness and gravity of ever breaking
>>>>the seal of confession.
>>>
>>>In other words, to bead for the parishioners' raped children, we can't let this
>>>leak out.
>>
>>Not in other words.
>>You are whining again what hundreds have whined before.
>>Do you actually think you are clever enough to have discovered some
>>new problem in the RCC. Get in line, ass-wipe.
>
>Hmmm... again you avoid answering the question. I guess it's tough when you
>align youself with an indefensible position.

I have no idea what question you are referring to.
I hear you whining.
But, I don't know why.

>>>>In 1983, the Vatican promulgated a revised Code of Canon Law which
>>>>included a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly named sex with a minor by
>>>>clerics as a canonical crime.
>>>>The burgeoning number of scandals evoked deep concern among some
>>>>Catholic observers, and in 1985 a confidential report entitled "The
>>>>Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the
>>>>Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Matter" was submitted to
>>>>the Catholic hierarchy.
>>>
>>>Attention Patrick, this states a burgeoning number of "scandals" in 1983. Note:
>>>scandals, not number of actual incidents, which had peaked in 1970.
>>>Scandal = exposure.
>>
>>Was there a question or comment here?

I still don't know what your question is.

>>>>The authors included Gauthe's attorney, F. Ray
>>>>Mouton, and two clerics [priests], Thomas P. Doyle and Michael
>>>>Peterson.... The group warned of the need to take urgent action in the
>>>>face of scandals, to react swiftly to complaints, and also to avoid
>>>>charges of secretive proceedings or cover-ups. (p. 37) Tragically,
>>>>either this advice was not followed, or not followed often enough.
>>>
>>>Ah, you see, they KNEW what the right thing to do was and they chose NOT to do
>>>it.
>>
>>Talk to the victims.
>>If they don't go forward to the civil authorities, then the perp will
>>never get included within the criminal justics system.
>>Don't whine to me.
>>People knew HOW to get someone punished.
>>They decided to accept conseling "MONEY" instead.
>
>Thank you for admitting the Church bribed people to remain silent.

The church merely accepted that one of its fag priests had perhaps
abused a child, and that the victim and family did NOT wish to go to
the authorities. Without a victim coming forward, the police cannot
investigate any alleged crime.

[Patrick]

>information, from psychics?\

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by
Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as
the John Jay Report, is a 2004 report by the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in
the United States.
The National Review Board engaged the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice of the City University of New York to conduct a study
analyzing allegations of sexual abuse in Catholic dioceses in United
States. The time period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950
and ended in 2002.
The John Jay study analyzed allegations of sexual abuse gathered via
survey of Catholic dioceses.

>>>>> Regardless of
>>>>>whether there was an effective treatment or not, these priests were
>>>>>intentionally shielded from the criminal justice system. Let me remind you, the
>>>>>justice system deals with the criminally insane.
>>>>
>>>>Do you really want to go there?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have no where to go other than transparent excuses.
>>
>>What is the criminal justice system doing for you?
>>
>
>Again, you want to avoid the fact that these pedophiles should have been turned
>over to the police, no if ands or buts.

And the only people who had the ability, the crime knowledge and
specifics were the victims and their families. What good would it do
for me to report you to the police for being an ass-wipe?

>>>>>Second, there is a whole world of difference between a celibate priest seeking
>>>>>help for worrisome thoughts and desires versus one who has already done terrible
>>>>>things to children.
>>>>
>>>>Really? Tell me more, Mr wizard.
>>>
>>>You seem to believe there's an acceptable excuse for not sending a child rapist
>>>to the police, so clearly, you do need to be told.
>>
>>The victim should go forward.
>>Not the employer.
>
>They did go forward, to whom they thought were the most trusted people on
>earth..

What did they expect?
Do you actually think the RCC has a prison, a punishment system, a
means to bring satisfaction to the victim? The ONLY thing that the
RCC can do is provide the 30 pieces of silver for counseling.

>>>>>>The abuse cases peaked in the 1970's.
>>>>>>In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
>>>>>>men who wanted to become priests. Immediately, the number of child
>>>>>>abuse reports began to wain. In 2002, the RCC made a policy of
>>>>>>removing all "gay" priests and all alleged offenders.
>>>>>>Problems dropped to near zero.
>>>>>
>>>>>Citation?
>>>>
>>>>Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis�..
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>>>>
>>>
>>>A citation is a quote, with verifiable reference to the quote.
>>
>>You know, I've said this many times when you catholic bashers tell me
>>to read the bible to find something out.
>>I'm glad you believe that there should be a quote first.
>>However, if you noticed, this post is WAYYY too long as it is.
>
>I;m not playing your games, upon request you refused to provide the quote,
>therefore your claim is false.

I don't believe the citation is sooo long that you can't easily find
what you are searching. I gave you a number of actions that the
vatican accomplished, and I gave you the reference where I pulled the
data. Exactly which data do you dispute? Hey, lets go over each
statement:

In 1982, the RCC started to be more selective in their accepting of
men who wanted to become priests.

Pope John Paul II declared in 2003 that "there is no place in the
priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".
With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the
United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including
requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers and,
noting the preponderance of adolescent males (teenage boys) amongst
victims of abuse, warned that a more searching inquiry is necessary
for a homosexually oriented man; and the worldwide Church also
prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual
tendencies."

prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual

tendencies."prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated
homosexual tendencies."prohibited the ordination of men with
"deep-seated homosexual tendencies."prohibited the ordination of men
with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."prohibited the ordination of
men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."prohibited the ordination
of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."prohibited the

ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

>>This isn't my first rodeo.
>>I have answered every one of your questions a hundred times over the
>>past 15 years. I even have the items in my "arcer-junk folder."
>>If you really want a specific quote, ask again.
>>Nicely.
>>
>
>I think you need another "breakfast"

You need a new song and dance.
The one you are using is pretty old and... creepy.

>>>>>>>In 2004 priests were still being suffled out of countries where they had been
>>>>>>>accused of abusing children.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I cannot and will not defend any abuser.
>>>>>>And, I cannot address what happened in other countries.
>>>>>>I will state that the bishops in the USA came up with a solution that
>>>>>>works.
>>>>>
>>>>>The solution was, in fact, to stop covering up because the cat was out of the
>>>>>bag!
>>>>
>>>>That was not the solution to the fags abusing children.
>>>>That was not the solution to the parents and victims not reporting the
>>>>abuse to the criminal justice system.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because the solutions are centered around solving the Church's problem, the
>>>disgrace and hemorrhaging of money.
>>
>>You are worrying about the church and money?
>>Don't worry, we'll get more.
>>Your mom will send us a check.
>>We just bought the "Crystal Cathedral" in Orange County because the
>>Robert Shuller organization is falling apart.
>>The Catholics are doing well.
>>Thank you for worrying about us.
>
>You're the one who appears to be worrying, for someone who claim's he's not
>defending the pedophile protectors.

Again, you fall back on the old like: defending pedophiles.
This is where I jump back with my line that I don't defend you or any
of your fag buddies.

>>>>>>>"For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop,"
>>>>>>>said Salesian Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras, who has been mentioned as a
>>>>>>>possible successor to Pope John Paul II. "I'd be prepared to go to jail rather
>>>>>>>than harm one of my priests."
>>>>>>>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-06-19-church-abuse_x.htm
>>>>>>>Problem NOT FIXED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Honduras.
>>>>>>Why not pick an Afrikan where there morals are worse?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be saying that Catholic clergy in other countries are less moral?
>>>>>Even if the man was mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II?
>>>>
>>>>I don't care if he is the successor to the Postmaster General.
>>>>Yes, I am saying that clergy in countries (other than the USA) have
>>>>not quite grasped the gravity of child abuse yet.
>>>>Look at the evidence.
>>>>The USA bishops kicked the fags out in 2002.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. And your bigoted references aside (that continue to substantiate your
>>>ignorance and biased hatred) , you could not support this when asked for a
>>>citation.
>>
>>What are you looking for?
>>A citation that states that the RCC has a very tough screening process
>>for those men who wish to become priests? You want to see how
>>seminaries throw the fags out before they even get started?
>>
>
>So you are saying that you cannot provide a single citation to support your
>statement that the USA bishops kicked the gays out in 2002?

Ah, finally....

Pope John Paul II took a number of steps to address the problem of
priestly formation. On March 25, 1992, he completed the apostolic
exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis ("I Shall Give You Shepherds"), one of
the longest papal documents in history. This explored the crisis of
priestly identity, the renewal of priestly life and the reform of
seminaries in detail. Some have attributed the scant number of abuse
allegations from the 1990s as evidence that the late Pope's reform
efforts were fruitful.

One of the direct quotes (I believe) was: "Kick all the evil fags
out."

prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual
tendencies."

Time and again in his papacy, Pope Benedict XVI spoke out against the
scourge of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests, using words
that would have been scarcely imaginable by his predecessors.

It was, he said, "evil," "gravely immoral," "a terrifying sign of the
times." He spoke of the "deep shame" and "humiliation" the scandal had
brought on the Catholic Church. He apologized to victims.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/11/world/la-fg-pope-sex-abuse-20130212

>>>>>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>So, do you think I am still making it up?
>>>What do you have to say about this, Patrick; now, that what seemed unbelievable
>>>to you is indeed a fact?
>>
>>I see your reference and the quote on page six.
>>And, I am impressed that you found this.
>>
>>I just have a tough time trying to figure out how they came up with
>>that number. We has NO altar girls until just recently. Therefore, I
>>don't know how or where these numbers can be valid.
>>However, I will not debate you.
>>You found a good number in the report.
>>Some day when I have time, I will research this more.
>>For this reason, I must thank you for providing the quote.
>
>Great. I hope that this will in some way moderate your thinking about "fag
>priests".

When the fags left, ALL abuse stopped.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:29:44 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:57:24 -0500, Ben Kaufman
><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:45:56 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, just your trying to scapegoat gays as the reason for this debacle.
>>>
>>>Ahhh...
>>>Here it comes.
>>>You have no problem accusing the entire Catholic Church for child
>>>abuse.
>>>But, when someone accuses the entire gay community, you get all hot
>>>and bothered. I wonder about your motives.....
>>>
>>
>>Try sticking to the facts, not your Catholic bashing fantasies. There are
>>unquestionably many good people associated with the Catholic Church.
>
>HELLO!
>ALLELUJIA.
>ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.ALLELUJIA.
>
>
>
>> Some of
>>them even stuck their neck out to say that the pedo priests should be turned
>>over to the law, but obviously, that didn't happen because they were not the
>>ones with power.
>
>The ones with POWER were the victims who should have gone forward.
>Stop blaming the bishops who had no clue, or wanted to follow the
>wishes of the victims and families.
>

Blaming the victims? Seriously, Patrick. You have some nerve to accuse anyone
of Catholic bashing when you lead the bull right into the china shop.

Do you really believe this bishop had no clue?

"... Finn is the leader of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph and �an
outspoken conservative in the American hierarchy,� according to USA Today. Not
so outspoken, however, that he would turn one of his own priests over to
authorities even after discovering that the Reverand Shawn Ratigan had taken
hundreds of lewd images of children in Catholic schools and parishes...."

"Amazingly," a lowly priest had a clue.

"While the crimes were discovered by Finn in December of 2010, authorities were
not notified until another priest notified went over the bishop�s head to notify
police in May 2011..."

http://www.inquisitr.com/422750/bishop-serving-probation-for-involvement-in-pedophile-case-some-call-for-stronger-apology/#3DCGFFBa2ZpEeWxm.99

or
http://tinyurl.com/aoetxnn

But you will still agree, that if 44% of the accused priests had been ordained
before 1960, that this problem was not caused by who was ordained in the 1960's.
Right?

>
>
>>Are the members of "Catholics for Choice" Catholic bashers?
>
>Yes.

That's a collective load off of everyone at alt.atheism's shoulders.

>And I am aware of log cabin republicans.
>and sociopath's, manson wannabe's, etc.
>
>
>
>
>>This "Catholic bashing" is an invention to detract any criticism from the
>>Catholic church, because if you can dismiss someone's motives as just hating
>>Catholics, then you can dismiss their agruments.
>
>If your criticism was something new, or even warm, I might agree to
>address your concerns. However, you are just one in a long line of
>whiners who can't understand that we did have problems.... We finally
>addressed those problems.... and we feel the problem is over - at
>least here in the USA.
>I really don't care if you believe this or not, but if you think I
>will not get tired of your whining, you have lost your mind.
>

I am not criticizing the Church, I am addressing your false claims. You are
dragging the Church into this a lot more than is necessary. My main contention
was the dates that things occurred and that there was an appreciable number of
female victims to debunk your claims. You brought in other things for me to
challenge, like claiming the bishops were clueless to what was going on.

>
>
>>You are also trying to build a strawman. You know very well this is not about
>>the character of the vast majority of individual priests, it's about the coverup
>>of the bad ones who rape children.
>
>It WAS about the coverup.

No, not with me, it was your claim about alleged acceptance of ordaining gays
in the 1960s that started the whole issue with me.

>When you see this happening in this millennium, speak up.
>If you just plan to rehash old shit, find another venue.
>

I came into this mid-thread to refute some statements YOU made, not the Church.

>
>>>Bring up a case, any case... and we will discuss it.
>>
>>We are discussing your erroneous excuses for why this happened.. Forgot that?
>
>If you don't like the reasons, come up with some of your own. Then
>come up with your own solution. Then spew your crap again.
>Until then, your constant whining about the Inquisition and the
>Crusades is getting real old.

I am refuting your reasons, the Church didn't make this stuff up, you did.

Ben

[Patrick]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:53:38 -0500, Ben Kaufman

Perhaps you are unable to read and comprehend.
See above...

I have no excuses.
Bishops made terrible choices.
I have no excuses.
Bishops made terrible choices.
I have no excuses.
Bishops made terrible choices.

>What I hear you saying is, they were wrong, BUT here's the reason ...

I am merely telling you "the rest of the story."\
You seem to want to claim the RCC is bad, very bad.... all bad.
I am saying I understand why you might wish to think this.
However, just because you made a bad decision doesn't make you ALL
bad.

>Now, an important point here is that I am not picking this bone over your
>offering excuses, per se, it is that these reasons don't exist and they are
>bigotry towards gays.

And as I have said in the past. once you accept the fact that the
entire RCC is not an evil organization, I will admit that we had a few
bad apples and they have been removed. If you keep whining, I will
find an excuse to irritate the shit out of you.
If you don't proclaim that the entire RCC is evil,
I won't proclaim it is all the "fags' faults.

Since you sound like hundreds of other bashers, I will answer you the
way I answer them all. Stop being a fag, stop abusing our children,
and maybe we'll let you back in.

That pisses you off just as much as my "fag" statements pisses you
off. How do you like it?

>For example when you claim that the problem started in
>the 60s because that's when they allegedly started allowing gays in. But, as I
>have already pointed out (with citations), that 44% of the accused priests were
>ordained prior to 1960, and 19% of the victims were female, that this should
>have been enough to make you realize that your previous sources of information
>were wrong (I know that you now have been digesting the fact that 19% of the
>victims were female).

Well then...
I will accept the fact that fags were not the entire problem if you
will acknowledge that 96 percent of all priests are honorable, decent
men who are trying to be like Christ.
Do we have a deal?

>>However, you can't comprehend that I got pissed a long time ago when
>>you and your fellow catholic bashers whined about the problem,
>>declared that all catholics are bad, that the pope is bad, that all
>>the priests are bad, and that everyone should leave the church.
>>Bad decisions were made.
>>Now what?
>>What do you want?
>>That is the question....
>
>It's nice of you to clump everyone together. I have never said that all
>Catholics are bad, in fact, I think that "Catholics for Choice" are cool
>people!

What about the rest of us who believe that Abortion should never be a
choice? How about all the Christians who feel that human life is
sacred?

>>> Such as your claim that the problem started in
>>>the 1960's when allegedly gay priests were accepted, when in fact, almost half
>>>of the abusers were ordained prior to 1950 (John Jay report), or that 19% of the
>>>children were girls, which takes the bit out of your "fag" attack. ... starting
>>>to understand?
>>
>>I understand you have a NEED to find fault.
>
>Standing up against bigotry requires separating the facts from fiction.

Yes.
And the Civil War sucked also.
You won't find me digging up graves to beat a dead body.

>
>>And it seems you relish in the fact that you feel you are more clever
>>than I am. If that is what you NEED to feel, go for it.
>
>I have been relying on facts, primarily from the John Jay report, not
>cleverness, to discuss these issues.

You arrange your facts in the rows you like.
I will interpret them the way I like.

>>Now, what do you want?
>
>My first response at the top of this message answers this.
>
>>Why are you here?
>
>This is alt.atheism, although this is cross posted to other groups, you are a
>regular on alt.atheism too, so why are you here?

I have never posted to atheism. I merely answer the mail on the
catholic newsgroups.

>
>>How much money do you want me to send to you?
>
>How much you got? ;-)

Enough.

[Ben Kaufman]

Right Patrick, I know you don't speak for the Vatican, you speak for yourself.
And I am asking you, speaking for yourself, if in your mind, when you referred
to non-American Church hierarchy, if you were including the Vatican?

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:50:10 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Ben Kaufman
>>>
>>>>"... Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female." (page 6)
>>>>http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
>>>>So, do you think I am still making it up?
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>I appreciate the page number.
>>>
>>
>>Has this changed your opinion at all, in particular, how the problem was
>>allegedly solved by getting rid of the gays?
>
>That particular "fix" is merely for all you fags who can't get over
>the fact that the Catholic Church kicked you all out. That answer
>entertains me when all the fags get in line and try to defend their
>actions. I have never really believed that as the one and only answer,
>but I'll never admit it. Why should I? When you leave, another
>catholic basher will bring up the same problem over and over again.
>When I spout the "fag" answer, it pisses them off, and we are off to
>the races. And I get entertained again by one more catholic basher.
>

Sure Patrick, you can make stuff up and anyone who calls you on it is a Catholic

basher.

>
>
>>>>>"Dr. Berlin's boss, Dr. Paul R. McHugh," the article continued, said
>>>>>the hospital "did agree with the Sexual Disorders Clinic's
>>>>>interpretation" of the law. "We did what we thought was appropriate,"
>>>>>Dr. McHugh stated. Dr. Berlin acted with "the blessing of his
>>>>>superiors," the article said.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Completely moot. They raped children, it's up to a judge to decide what is to
>>>>be done.
>>>
>>>I agree.
>>>I am merely quoting what the "expert" shrinks advised.
>>>
>>
>>Let's take that in context shall we? The person who runs a huge treatment
>>center for mentally ill priests might be just a tad biased with loosing all or
>>most of his Church funding if the patients are sent to prison.
>
>Gosh.... ya think?
>The same goes for the bishop.
>If a bishop sent 10 priests off to a counseling center, and 7-8 of
>them never offend again, they might consider that a "fix" has been
>found. And when the "EXPERT" claims that he has discovered a "cure,"
>this is really a "good" thing, isn't it?
>

And that's worth the other 3 priests who go on to abuse more children? C'mon.

>>>>>-------------------
>
>>I have had to remind you several times as you tried to move the goal posts, and
>>this is getting tedious, I am taking issue with the correctness of YOUR
>>statements.
>
>Tough.
>Stop trying to wear me out with exceptionally long whines.
>I'm old, and I get cranky.
>

LOL.. Stop leading the bull into the china shop and you will have a lot less
damage to deal with.

>>>>>--------------------
>
>>>>>Tell you what.....
>>>>>Tell me what you do for a living...
>>>>>Or tell me what organization you belong to.
>>>>>Or tell me what church you ever attended.
>>>>>And......... I will find something wrong about it and accuse you of
>>>>>defending like actions. Lets play your game.
>>>
>>>I am waiting.
>>>Don't you wanna play your own game?
>>
>>Your attempt to get off the subject at hand it duly noted.
>
>Since you consider this a game, I want to play.
>You know that I am right. If you claim to be a postal employee, I can
>bring up dozens of cases. You claim to be a teacher, I can come up
>with THOUSANDS of cases. If you are a union member, I can come up
>with hundreds of cases. Do you want to play?
>

And just above you accused me of trying to wear you out.

>
>
>>>>>You fags would squeal too loudly.....
>>>>
>>>>Still trying to broadcast your ignorance with your "fags" insults.
>>>
>>>Just playing your game.
>>
>>If you have an issue of debate about something, you deal with it objectively.
>
>I follow your lead.
>Your whine is old.
>It has been tried before.
>And there still is no acceptable answer as to why the RCC made
>horrible decisions and many children were hurt.
>You can scream it again and again and again.
>When will you come up with a solution?
>

Earth to Patrick, I have taken issue with specific claims you made, not the
Church.

I have already stated my reason several times... Cutting and pasting it from my
last msg:

If you say that you have no excuses, then why have you been giving excuses?

What I hear you saying is, they were wrong, BUT here's the reason ...

Now, an important point here is that I am not picking this bone over your
offering excuses, per se, it is that these reasons don't exist and they are

bigotry towards gays. For example when you claim that the problem started in

the 60s because that's when they allegedly started allowing gays in. But, as I
have already pointed out (with citations), that 44% of the accused priests were
ordained prior to 1960, and 19% of the victims were female, that this should
have been enough to make you realize that your previous sources of information
were wrong (I know that you now have been digesting the fact that 19% of the
victims were female).

Ben

[Tom Keske]

< This is the kind of crap found all the time on Catholic basher
< newsgroups, dehumanizing to the nth degree.

Maybe they are bashed having to do not with prejudice but
with a lengthy, ugly history of Inquisitions, Holy Wars,
demolishing Mayan temples, making a "concordat" with Hitler,
spawning dictators like Diem, Franco, Mussolini, not to mention
the pedophilia scandals, the Vatican banking scandals.

Catholics remain Catholics because of habit, upbringing, identity,
authority figures, brainwashing, lots of reasons, but not because
of any honest evaluation of the Church's past or present.

The main reason that the Catholic Church never learns is
that it is too busy "teaching".

Your world of saints, miracles, virgin birth, etc, might as
be volcano gods. It is a pathetic statement on the irrationality
and capacity for delusion in the human race.

I don't might what silliness that you enjoy, but get off of the
backs of people who don't want your constipated beliefs forced
on them, before we throw you off our backs. Enough with
your condescending snot.

Tom Keske

[Patrick]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:59:04 -0500, Ben Kaufman

I am merely following the bull.
You need to learn to tell the difference.

>
>Do you really believe this bishop had no clue?

Yes.
Bishops are not experts in the criminally insane.
That is why they sought advice from shrinks.
Their problem is that they believed these "experts."

>"... Finn is the leader of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph and �an
>outspoken conservative in the American hierarchy,� according to USA Today. Not
>so outspoken, however, that he would turn one of his own priests over to
>authorities even after discovering that the Reverand Shawn Ratigan had taken
>hundreds of lewd images of children in Catholic schools and parishes...."

Was this prior to 2002?
That is the rime that the American Bishops changed protocols.
That is when they decided that the shrinks had been wrong all along.
That is when they came up with the idea of "One strike and yer out."

>"Amazingly," a lowly priest had a clue.

Was he an expert?
Or.... was he paying attention to the new protocols from 2002?

>"While the crimes were discovered by Finn in December of 2010,

2010?
isn't THAT after 2002?
just WONDERING.

>uthorities were
>not notified until another priest notified went over the bishop�s head to notify
>police in May 2011..."

And.... this was 6 months later....
And Ratigan had already been removed from the ministry.
And an investigation was going on.
And, Ratigan was eventually turned over to the authorities.
And the Diocese cooperated with the authorities.
Just like the pope wanted.

If this fact is correct.
I am not convinced of these exact numbers, or to what they were
compared. I certainly believe that every case reported in 1960 was
allegedly done by someone ordained prior to 1960. But, I am not
convinced this is true for all the cases discovered in 2000. However,
I will not dispute the report. I am convinced the report was compiled
with a lot of work and facts.

>>>Are the members of "Catholics for Choice" Catholic bashers?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>That's a collective load off of everyone at alt.atheism's shoulders.

I am glad that this pleases you.

>>And I am aware of log cabin republicans.
>>and sociopath's, manson wannabe's, etc.

>>
>>>This "Catholic bashing" is an invention to detract any criticism from the
>>>Catholic church, because if you can dismiss someone's motives as just hating
>>>Catholics, then you can dismiss their agruments.
>>
>>If your criticism was something new, or even warm, I might agree to
>>address your concerns. However, you are just one in a long line of
>>whiners who can't understand that we did have problems.... We finally
>>addressed those problems.... and we feel the problem is over - at
>>least here in the USA.
>>I really don't care if you believe this or not, but if you think I
>>will not get tired of your whining, you have lost your mind.
>>
>
>I am not criticizing the Church, I am addressing your false claims.

As I address your false claims.
I just don't wait until you have finished a paragraph. When I see
something I feel a need to address, I am off to the races.

>You are
>dragging the Church into this a lot more than is necessary. My main contention
>was the dates that things occurred and that there was an appreciable number of
>female victims to debunk your claims. You brought in other things for me to
>challenge, like claiming the bishops were clueless to what was going on.

OK, there were females also abused.
That has not been a problem for most atheists.
You catholic bashers seem to wish to focus on the priests abusing
little boys. In reality, I have never known a single girl who has
accused a priest of abuse. Never.

>>>You are also trying to build a strawman. You know very well this is not about
>>>the character of the vast majority of individual priests, it's about the coverup
>>>of the bad ones who rape children.
>>
>>It WAS about the coverup.
>
>No, not with me, it was your claim about alleged acceptance of ordaining gays
>in the 1960s that started the whole issue with me.

Sorry. I can't tell you apart from your other atheist fag buddies.
I don't remember one of you compared to another.
You are all alike.
Since there are only 3 or 4 persons that try to defend against the
lies that all you catholic bashers spew, I only know a few names.
Robert, J, Duke and I try to speak the truth.
( Sometimes I reach out to bitch slap one of you)
Then there is Mark, R Measures who are reasonable.
Then there is the alvin crew from UK, and a whole bunch of loozers
that will lie about anything.
Finally, duca, dolan and other idiots who forgot their meds today.
If you like, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

>>When you see this happening in this millennium, speak up.
>>If you just plan to rehash old shit, find another venue.
>>
>
>I came into this mid-thread to refute some statements YOU made, not the Church.

Good enough.
That is usually how I enter a thread.

>>>>Bring up a case, any case... and we will discuss it.
>>>
>>>We are discussing your erroneous excuses for why this happened.. Forgot that?

You may be.
I am not.
I am merely screwing with you so that you have to think about
everything you say to me. After all, I do get under your skin.

>>
>>If you don't like the reasons, come up with some of your own. Then
>>come up with your own solution. Then spew your crap again.
>>Until then, your constant whining about the Inquisition and the
>>Crusades is getting real old.
>
>I am refuting your reasons, the Church didn't make this stuff up, you did.

You are right.
I admit it.
I am merely repeating the same type of crap that catholic bashers like
to use against the church.
Bring ip Chick Tracts and we'll really go to town.

[Patrick]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:04:47 -0500, Ben Kaufman

Not really.
I am continually baffled by each new country that comes up with the
same problems and bad decisions that American Bishops solved 11 years
ago. But then, we know that old people really don't like change. The
older cardinals are pretty much set in their ways. They don't like to
admit that they made mistakes.
The pope recognizes this, and he has selected some younger cardinals
who look very promising. I like Dolan and Gomez. And Gregory. I
don't even know the name of my bishop - dennis something.
I think one of the best decisions made by Ratzinger was to resign. It
is time for younger men. Pope JP2 was really good for the church. I
would love to see another younger pope with new ideas.
But, I am not holding my breath.
I certainly did not believe Ratzinger would be elected.