Euthanizing gay dogs

[J]

Bill Donohue comments on a couple of interesting ironies:



The quest for autonomy has reached such a macabre level in the
Netherlands that last year the Royal Dutch Medical Association
expanded the list of conditions legalizing euthanasia to include
“loneliness.”

In the state of Washington, a debate is currently raging over whether
to expand the list of conditions legalizing euthanasia to include
those who are not terminally ill, as well as those who are mentally
disabled.

By contrast, this week in Tennessee a dog was rescued from being
euthanized (one news outlet said he was being spared “the Gas
Chamber”) because the condition driving the dog’s death was his
alleged homosexuality (the owner was ticked when he saw his Fido hunch
another male dog). For reasons that appear entirely reasonable, the
gal who rescued the dog named him Elton

The place where Elton was dropped, Euthanasia Jackson TN, encourages
dog adoption, but it also promotes dog euthanasia. Not, however, in
Elton’s case: the shelter has no stomach for putting dogs down on the
basis of sexual orientation. It must be said, though, that the shelter
is not exactly inclusive in its policies. To wit: Had poor Elton not
been identified as a homosexual, his heterosexuality would not have
been enough to save his hide.

The moral of the story is: Being gay is not only a bonus for humans
these days, it is a definite plus for dogs as well. As for straights,
the lonely and the disabled, that’s another story altogether.











J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Davej]

On Feb 1, 9:53 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]

J Young, as gay as they come.

[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.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <f73pg8ped1n5itesr...@4ax.com>,

This is completely moronic.

Male dogs mount other male dogs as a form on domination. It has nothing
to do with sex.

Sheesh. The nonsense some people believe.

--
JD

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

[Syd M.]

On Feb 1, 10:53 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Bill Donohue comments on a couple of interesting ironies:
>
>

You mean, Bill Dummyhue whines yet again.

PDW

[Syd M.]

Oh, good. Yet another bigoted asshole.

PDW

[duke]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:45:24 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

Which dog told you that?

>Sheesh. The nonsense some people believe.

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

[Syd M.]

On Feb 2, 8:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:45:24 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <f73pg8ped1n5itesrog180qq9cj5ff4...@4ax.com>,

Still trying to be intelligent, eh Dork?
You should stop doing it. It only reveals the fool that you are.

PDW

[Ben Kaufman]

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

Like priests and nuns?

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:45:24 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

Disgustingly hateful nonsense.

Ben

[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.

[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

[Paul Duca]

What Bill and J Yo never learned is that young animals of most species engage in practice mating with either gender to prepare them for the time to reproduce arrives.

Of course, what bothers Bill is the word "autonomy", as in self-determination, as in not bowing down when someone else says what God wants. Of course, J Yo doesn't believe in God, so that's really not his concern. All he needs are Catholic pews filled with the lonely, disabled, and "straight" who, should they make it to Heaven, will beg Him to let their DEAR supporter J Yo in with them.

Paul

[Paul Duca]

> And will he let me mount him?
>
> I'm lonelier than I realized...

[Paul Duca]

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 4:11:54 AM UTC-5, IBen Jackinoff wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Remember that the next time you're choking on a big one...that I'm
>
> lonely and friendless and not even a man wants me--fuggetabout
>
> a woman. I am SO grateful the priests LET me keep them company
>
> every Sunday.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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? Shitty as that place happens to be?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 God doesn't have to bother doing anything.
>
>
>
>
>
> IBen Jackinoff

[Paul Duca]

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 1:08:17 AM UTC-5, IBen Jackinoff wrote:
> 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 Jackinoff >><LloydsEelAa...@AOL.com>

> No. They're doing God's work. That's because they don't have
>
> the capacity to do work for anyone else.

[Paul Duca]

Don't insult gays with such a horrid comment...


Paul

[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.

[Paul Duca]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:35:40 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> 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.
>

> Which is why it's SO important we ignore the bad ones.

[Paul Duca]

> Benedict did in blaming the homosexuals for our Church's problems.

[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.

[Paul Duca]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:25:54 PM UTC-5, Patrick wrote:
> 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.
>

> End of story.
>

[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

[Paul Duca]

> shit. Mine could hear and I didn't like doing that.

[Paul Duca]

> in 1965. My mommy STILL cares for him...it is her blessing from God.
>

[Paul Duca]

> "Mea Maxima Culpa" was just another bull shit movie that doesn't
>
> comfort, distract, and rationalize for Catholics, the way everything
>
> from EWTN does.

[Paul Duca]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:09:17 AM UTC-5, Patrick wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

> Meanwhile, I couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful
>
> of pardons.
>
> Damn right I'm resentful!
>
> And more than willing to accept gays as a scapegoat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Paul Duca]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:52:32 AM UTC-5, Patrick wrote:
> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >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.
>

> So we can ignore their pain and problems.

[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?

The dukester, American - American

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

[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.

[Paul Duca]

Other than killing time...what has Catholic Slobbering done for Patrick?

Paul

[Paul Duca]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:00:30 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> 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 buried by 2002 when
>
> bad people dug it up.

>
>
>
> >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 if God says no...which He NEVER does for priests.

>
>
>
> >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--and He's even less interested than I am.

>
>
>
> >> 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,
>
>
>

>

> The dukester, American - American
>
>
>
> ********************************************
>

> The only thing that keeps me going is the thought
>
> of rug-munching my mommy in Heaven.
>
> ********************************************

[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?

[Paul Duca]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:56:49 AM UTC-5, Patrick wrote:
> 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.
>

> We kicked all you fags out.
>

> And now, the problem is solved.
>
> You'll have to pardon me.
>
> I don't want to miss it if today is the day
>
> the FOX AND FRIENDS gal gives us a beaver shot.

[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.

The dukester, American - American

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

[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.

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.

[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

[Paul Duca]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:38:46 AM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> 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.
>

> Expect as my sex partners.

>
> The dukester, American - American
>
>
>
> ********************************************
>

> 3 out of 4 cases of priest molestation didn't involve penetration.
>
> They should be ashamed they weren't good enough for a butt-fuck.
>
> ********************************************

[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.

[Paul Duca]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:32:41 AM UTC-5, Patrick 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 being a fag (in the USA) is immediately removed
>
> from the ministry, and publicly condemned.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>
>

> This is not my problem.
>

> I've been told everything is fine.

[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.

[Paul Duca]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:44:28 PM UTC-5, Patrick wrote:
> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Why are you so dishonest?
>
>
>

> I pick and choose the questions I can answer with simple
>
> pre-made Catholic platitudes.