WeAreCATHOLICS.com
Disappointed by the Catholics: One Internet Exchange
The following is an interesting exchange on an IMDB.com thread triggered by the release of the documentary Deliver Us From Evil. These posts were made in October 2006. It is mostly between individuals using the names MikeMonger and MarkofCain. Occassionally, others jump into the discussion. Mike Monger's posts are in italics. Statements in boldface are copied from previous posts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Monger starts the thread:
You know what disturbs me the most about this whole controversy? Its the reaction of the "devout" Catholics.
"We're being persecuted because people don't like Catholics."
"Jews and Muslims molest children too!"
Etc., etc.
I'm going to start off by saying that, up until this controversy hit, I considered myself a Catholic, and most of my family is still devout Catholic. I didn't leave the Church because some priests raped some kids. I mean, really, we live in an extremely disturbed society where sexual violence against children is far, far more prevelant than we want to believe.
I left the Church because, by hiding these priests' activities, by assuring the priests a constant fresh supply of victims by moving them from parish to parish, and by continuing to deny, evade, and deflect all responsibility for these crimes, the Church was complicit in these crimes. Me...I'd be willing to say that the Church actually CONDONED this kind of behavior, by making it so easy to engage in.
But the so-called "devout" Catholics don't seem to have a problem with this. They ignore the FACT that the organization as a whole made over 10,000 child rapes possible, and they did it KNOWINGLY.
The truly "devout" Catholic isn't a Christian...he's a Catholic. I never thought there was a difference, but apparently, there is. Christ never said "go unto the little children, and rape the living crap out of them." But to the "devout" Catholic, a church that condones that kind of behavior is perfectly hunky-dory.
"Devout" Catholics, for some odd reason, seem to believe that their Church can do no wrong. And that condemning the Church for condoning and facilitating child rape for decades is some kind of manifestation of anti-Catholic prejudice.
And it's because of these "devout" Catholics that children will continue to be raped, abused, and molested. As soon as a little bit of the heat dies down and the spotlight isn't on it anymore, the Church will return to it's old ways of actively assisting pedophile priests get..."dates".
And these "devout" Catholics will continue to fund the coverups and pay for the lawyers with their contributions, while children suffer.
Because the "devout" Catholic's loyalty isn't to God. It's to the Church. I was raised to believe that they were practically one in the same. Fortunately for me, I was able to cast off that misconception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mwhr222:
Why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A deleted post said, in part:
Your're an idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MikeMonger:
Your're an idiot.
I'm going to respond to your well-phrased, thoroughly thought out argument with one of my own...
You're a dookie head!
Anyone notice how he misspelled "Your're"? That's irony....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another deleted post said, in part:
No not irony, dogy keyboard. It's also quite clear you're a bit of a troll too. Do you work for the production company?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MikeMonger:
No not irony, dogy keyboard. It's also quite clear you're a bit of a troll too. Do you work for the production company?
Nah, I only troll you because you obviously have nothing intelligent to say, nor anything to add to the discussion.
In short, YOU'RE an idiot.
Now, go give the Church some more cash. They need to keep paying those lawyers!
EDIT:
By the way, what's "dogy" mean?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shockme 7:
It's so good to see people who are religious but still have plenty of sanity left in them. It seems I have bad luck because almost every religious person I meet is either slightly cuckoo, very cuckoo, or tries to convert me in some way. Cheers to you for proving that organized religion and logical thinking can co-exist. :D-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markof Cain:
I am somewhat sympathetic to your views, although I disagree with your decision. I am a Catholic, and you might even consider me "devout" (although that certainly doesn't mean I don't have the normal doubt and insecurity when it comes to belief in God). Let me first start off by saying that I have not seen this documentary. I haven't "studied" the specific details regarding Mahoney and this particular priest. Moreover, I do agree that the fact that certain priests rape children is not symptomatic of hte Church as a whole. In other words, I don't think that because a person is a priest, they are more likely than other people to rape a child (in fact, teachers molest many children -- does being a teacher make a person more likely to rape a child?). There are other factors involved. Thus, I agree that your ultimate concern is valid: certain people in the Church's decision to move around abusive priests is the most troubling aspect of this whole situation. However, I disagree that this implicates the entire Church hierarchy, and that this evil reaches up to the highest levels, namely the Pope. I do not think the sins of a few characterize every bishop, every priest. There are certainly many good, holy bishops out there. Thus, I think your decision to leave the Church is impulsive. Now you may think that I am merely being a "devout" (partisan, brainwashed?) Catholic when I say that there are absolutely people in this country who would like nothing more than to see the Church brought down. You see, the Catholic Church (which I view as the true preserver of Christianity, albeit not the sole--I certainly do not think if you're not Catholic you go straight to Hell) holds many values and traditions that are contrary to those of certain people and groups. Namely those who are pro-abortion, gay marriage, and other "socially liberal" causes. Moreover, many of these people are vehemently anti-religious, and like it or not, the Catholic Church is the archetype of religion in the West. I do think anti-Catholicism is rampant in this country, on both sides of the political aisle. Thus, I am always a little hesitant when I see a documentary that claims the Pope was involved in hiding child molesters. Possible? Yes. Probable? Unlikely. Anyways, I hope you reconsider your decision to leave the Church. Thanks for reading this. MofC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MikeMonger:
First off, I agree with you. Priests are not more likely to molest children than the general population, nor are ALL priests child rapists. Only a small percentage of priests are guilty of these crimes....although I would be interested in seeing how many priests violated their vows by having more normal (albeit secret) relationships with adults.
However, I think you're definately underestimating the scale and scope of the conspiracy. It was definately more than a few rogue bishops who knew about what was going on...I mean, records from as far back as the 1950's show that the Church has been paying to keep these things quiet for a long, long time.
If for no other reason, those financial transactions would have put alot of the higher-ups in the know about the problem. Because everybody, clergy or no, wants to know where the money goes.
Also, remember that the Church has a very, very rigid hierarchy. I find it difficult to believe that the bishops in charge of the various diocese would take it upon themselves to keep all this quiet without consulting with peple higher up on the food chain. Again, especially from the financial point of view.
Now, did the Pope himself actively participate in keeping this stuff quiet? I'm going to say probably not. But was the Pope fully aware of what his underlings were doing to keep it quiet, ad give his approval for it? Absolutely.
And I'll consider rejoining the Church when it feels contrition for it's crimes, confesses, and repents. They taught me that that's the only way to receive forgiveness....it's time they practiced what they preached. Because what makes me the most angry about this whole thing isn't the coverup so much, as the fact that the ONLY reason the Church is making an effort to appear to be doing something about it is because it got caught.
Were it up to the Church, this never would have gotten out, and things would still be going on as they were before. And that fact fills me with nothing but revulsion for the Church. There's nothing "holy" about it....it's an organization willing to hide and abet child rape. In my mind, anything else the church might be is secondary to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MarkofCain:
Hi Mike,
The Church is not simply the Church hierarchy. I hope you realize that, because it is an important point. It is not simply priests and bishops. It is you and me, every Catholic, indeed every Christian, monks, and nuns; moreover, it is the tradition and beliefs that have been passed down through the millennia. It is not a monolithic organization, and to say that it has a "very, very rigid" hierarchy is an exaggeration. Again, I think it becomes so easy just to use the term "the Church" as if it were some group of squinty-eyed old men lurking in the shadows, conspiring to bring down regimes and condemn souls. So when you say "I mean, records from as far back as the 1950's show that the Church has been paying to keep these things quiet for a long, long time," I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean the Conference of American bisops, a particular diocese, a particular bishop, the bishop of Rome (the Pope)? The Church is a large, large organization: go here if you want to see the number of bishops in the US alone: http://www.usccb.org/bishops.shtml Quite a few, eh? Do you think a majority of these men were engaged in conspiracy to hide child molesters? Were some? Probably, to their shame, although I admit I don't know the extent of some of their actions. So, I think your concern over these men's actions should not cause you to question the Church's place in the world, but instead the evil that affects all men, even those in the Church, and realize that only through God's love, and His Son's love, can we overcome it (and I think that is best achieved through the Catholic
Thanks for reading this Mike.
Derrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Monger:
No. I don't accept that. You're doing the same thing certain members of my family are doing...dismissing the situation by making the argument that it was just a small group participating in the cover-up.
And you know what? I'd tend to agree with you....if this was a problem involving just a few priests, just a few kids, in just one or two diocese.
But that's not what it was. It was a widespread problem, that touched ALL the large diocese in the country and some of the smaller ones as well. And some estimates put the number of children abused at over 10,000.
Is it therefore your argument that none of these bishops ever, like, got together and talked about the problem? Or, maybe, mentioned the problem to Rome every once in awhile?
No. I don't believe that.
And how can you say that the Church doesn't hae a rigid hierarchy? Where does Catholic doctrine come from? It's not like the Protestant religions, where they get together and vote on stuff. It all comes from the Pope and the College of Cardinals. Doctrine is dictated from the top down, not from the bottom up.
I mean, one of the major aspects of the Church is the Ritual. Honestly, what do you think would happen if a priest came in and say, decided to do Mass an entirely different way? They'd come down on him a lot harder that they would if he'd molested a child, apparently.
When I say "the Church", I guess what I'm really referring to are the people who dictate how Catholicism works, and what Catholicism believes.
And when it comes right down to it, I can't have any faith in men who allow and assist child rape to happen. And since those men are the same ones who steer the Church, I can't believe in the organization.
And even now, look at their response. The Church is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet they'd much rather pay lawyers than victims. It shocks me when a lawyer representing one of these diocese goes before a judge and says, "Well, yes, the abuse happened. But the statute of limitations is up, so we're not liable."
Or how about how the Church fights tooth and nail to keep prosecutors from looking through personnel records. Records that could help the government find more abuser priests.
Apparently, the Church doesn't want that to happen.
Are these the actions of an organization that's sorry for what happened?
If the Church were contrite, if the Church was giving 100% cooperation in finding and prosecuting ALL bad priests, and if the Church offered something more than a half-hearted "Sorry you got raped", then I could have faith in it.
But it's behaving just like any other corporation that's been caught doing something it shouldn't. Putting your faith in the Church is the spiritual equivalent of putting your faith in Enron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MarkofCain:
Actuall, your understanding of how doctrine is formed is somewhat incorrect. Although the Pope is the ultimate authority on matters relating to the Faith, all of the bishops come together every few hundred years to decide the particulars. Perhaps you heard of Vatican II? Yea, that was a big meeting between all the different bishops. Before that was the Council of Trent, in the 1600s. And maybe you've also heard of the Nicene Creed, which nearly every Christian sect subscribes to? That was agreed and voted on by a bunch of bishops in 325 AD. Although it is certainly true that the Pope does issue many statements regarding the interpretation of Christian doctrine (sometimes called "encyclycals"), it is unfair to say that the council of bishops have no say in the matter. Now there are certain people who have advocated doing away with the Pope, and having a straight democracy (Hans Kung, especially), this would seem contrary to Christian tradition (although I really don't want to get into that).
Can I make you change your mind? Of course not, and I wouldn't want to. I don't know where you get your information about the abuse scandal. Wikipedia has a pretty interesting overview of the scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
I think your just hellbent on blaming the entire Church for the problem, and you're failing to see that it doesn't affect everyone in it. I wonder if you clicked on the last link I sent you, with all the different bishops. You are going to tell me that there have been sexual abuse scandals in every single one of those dioceses? Give me a break. At least back up your statements with some sort of information.
Cheers. MarkofCain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MikeMonger:
I was, of course, referring to the common, daily, day-to-day business of running the Church, not the extraordinary gatherings of Bishops that occur every few centuries.
But, ok. Fine. Is your point that it's actually the Bishops who dictate Church policy? Many of thses are the same bishops who assisted child molesting priests maintain a fresh supply of victims. Is your point that much of Church doctrine was written by men who endorse and assist child rape?
Wouldn't that give me even MORE reason to despise the Church? How can doctrine be "holy", if a good number of pedophiles and their assistants had a hand in creating it?
You say I'm "hellbent on blaming the entire Church", and that I'm "failing to see that it doesn't affect everyone in it". And yet, I'm pretty sure that I clearly explained that my ire lies with the upper echelons of the Church hierarchy, who knew about it, did nothing, and even now do everything they can to deny it ever happened.
In your glee to minimize and marginalize the crimes of the Church, you did a wonderful job of ignoring many of the completely 100% valid points I made. Instead, you respond with a diatribe telling me how wrong I am that the Pope and the Cardinals steer the Church, because every few hundred years the bishops get together.
You, sir, are the reason why child rapes within the Church will go right back up, one the heat dies down. Because you, sir, can't acknowledge that the Church, then and now, cares far more about it's image and keeping contributing members, that it does about protecting children.
EDIT: Yes, I just clicked on your link. One sentence stands out:
"Conservative and traditionalist Catholics had long claimed in fact that a significant minority of the clergy had been practicing such behavior for decades, alleging that a "homosexual collective" within the priesthood viewed it as a "religious rite" and "rite of passage" for altar boys and young priests."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MarkofCain
Ah Mike, just when I thought you were reasonable. Please do not distort my words. How dare you say that I'm the reason why child rapes within the Church will go back down. Because I choose not to believe that the actions of certain bishops means that EVERY bishop acted like that. Mike, frankly you are being inconsistent. On one hand, you acknowledge that because certain priests molest children, not EVERY priest molests children. Well, I am merely applying that same logic to the college of bishops. I don't think a majority of these men sheltered child molesters, even a significant MINORITY. Some did, most likely, and they should in no way be defended. But again, to say that makes the entire CHurch culpable is more than outrageous, it's ridiculous.
Mike, I was referring to the link in my previous post, that shows the number of bisops and dioceses in the US. Do you think that every one of those men helped move around child molesters? If you do, well, I don't think any argument or evidence could change your mind, because you've already made your decision, and refused to listen to anyone else.
You last quote speaks to causes, we have been merely debating the scope of the abuse scandal. The cause of priest child molestation is a whole other debate. And I'd ask you again to not hold me responsible for child molestation. Do you think by leaving the Church you are now preventing child abuse? You are naive. If anything, the Church needs you more than ever, to reform certain aspects, rather than put your tail between your legs, and run away like a coward.
Best, MarkofCain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Monger:
I never made the claim that ALL bishops sheltered child rapists. You distorted MY words, trying to imply that I'd said that.
What I said is that the bulk of bishops KNEW about the behavior, and did nothing. And that makes them almost as culpable.
Did all the bishops in your link shelter child rapists? Probably not. But did almost all of the bishops in your link know what was going on?
Absolutely.
That's the difference between you and I, I guess. You're willing to ignore the fact that, among the upper ranks of the Church, the problem was well known. You content yourself by saying only a small number of people were actually involved. Me...I consider the whole bunch rotten, because they COULD have taken action to put a stop to it, but didn't.
Do I think that by leaving the Church, I'm preventing child rape? Not at all. But are my monetary donations being used to help shelter child rapists, pay for their legal defense, or contributing to a hush money payout.
Nope. And I'm satisfied with that. I would rather go to a different Church than konw that I, in any way whatsoever, help a child rapist avoid jail time, or helped keep a child rapist's activities secret.
And my last quote doesn't speak to causes. It speaks to the fact that this kind of behavior was well known for a very, very long time. Heck man, I heard the jokes when I was a kid. I thought that they were just anti-Catholic prejudice. But obviously, there was quite a bit of fact behind them.
Again, Mike, the burden of proof rests on you. Point me to a link that shows most of these men knew about it. You can't.
You know what? No. I can't. You're absolutely right. But what I can do is apply unbiased common sense.
FACT: A whole lot of money has gone into paying hush money to keep this controversy under wraps for a long time.
FACT: There have always been rumors and speculation that this was a problem within the Church.
FACT: Estimates are putting the number of children abused by clergy at over 10,000, indicating a relatively prevalent problem.
FACT: There are still unrevealed incidents. Just today, yet another priest was revealed to have had inappropriate interaction with a child in a diocese not mentioned earlier (in relation to the Foley scandal). What other stories will come out tomorrow, or the next day, or the next day?
FACT: The Church continues to pay lawyers to keep authorities from going through their personnel records. Why, if there's nothing to hide?
Now, you being a loyal Catholic choose to ignore these facts, because you don't want to acknowledge what they imply. I'm really not capable of that kind of selective belief.
Truly, it might help better understand your position. Oh wait, you've based your facts on the actions of a few bishops, and assumed that everyone know about? Oh, ok. That's what I thought.
And you, on the other hand, choose to view the child abuse as a series of isolated events, while ignoring the sheer numbers involved. Yes, two or three bishops and maybe 20 or 30 priests are responsible for ALL of the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
It must be comforting to you to believe that.
Besides, if you think every diocese of the Church is now involved with sheltering child rapists, paying for their legal defense, or contributing to hush money, our really are an idiot.
Now, waht would make you think that I hold that opinion? I'm pretty sure that I specifically said that not all dioceses have been touched by this scandal.
Of course, just today, a new one got added to the list...
The fact of the matter is you have really no idea what you're talking about. I'm really not interested in continuing this conversation, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Although, I still think you are completely unreasonable.
And there you have it. The typical "devout" Catholic response to the situation. See the title of this thread. You're the kind of person who I had in mind when I wrote it.
Because instead of taking your Church to task, and DEMANDING that they PROACTIVELY seek out and stomp out ALL of this behavior, you forgive it. You dismiss the numbers involved. You dismiss the Church's continuing attempts to say or do anything significant about it.
Nope. Your response is, "well there's no proof that it happened anywhere else".
You know what? There's no PROOF that the Church is actively doing anything to stop this kind of behavior, either. Show me a link that shows a priest got defrocked BEFORE the authorities found out about his activities. Show me a link where a diocese reported one of it's priests' inappropriate behavior.
God help your children if you happen to be unlucky enough to live in one of those parishes where a predator priest happens to reside. Because even if your kid comes up to you and tells you what Father did to him, you wouldn't believe it.
According to you, I don't know what I'm talking about. According to me, you've made the concious decision not to know what you're talking about.
But in the end, I find it amusing that you responded to logical arguments with anger and insults. It shows I'm right, and you're not.
Buh bye now
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Monger:
One other thing, since yo seem to like links so much:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/20/foley.priest.index.html
Quotes from the article:
"The priest whom former Rep. Mark Foley has accused of molesting him when he was a teen could face sanctions, the Miami Archdiocese said Friday while offering the embattled ex-congressman an apology for the priest's "morally reprehensible" behavior."
"The Archdiocese of Miami is distressed by the revelation disclosed by Father Mercierca regarding former Representative Mark Foley. Such behavior is morally reprehensible, canonically criminal and inexcusable", the statement says."
"Once maybe I touched him or so, but didn't, it wasn't -- because it's not something you call, I mean, rape or penetration or anything like that you know. We were just fondling," Father Anthony Mercieca, 69, said in a phone interview with CNN affiliate WPTV from his home on the Maltese island of Gozo in the Mediterranean.
"He seemed to like it, you know? So it was sort of more like a spontaneous thing", Mercieca told WPTV, a West Palm Beach, Florida, station."
So, the Archdiocese called what happened "morally reprehensible, canonically criminal and inexcusable".
The priest in question admitted to sexually fondling a young boy.
And his punishment? He "could face sanctions".
If you or I were to sexually fondle an underage boy, that's 5-10 years, willing or no.
A priest does it, and he "could fact sanctions".
I think that's all you really need to know about the Catholic Church. A priest can admit to molesting children, and not only NOT get defrocked, but possibly not even recieve so much as a slap on the wrist. Add that one to my "FACT" list above....it's another fact that shows how the molestation in the Church is widepread.
It isn't even seen as a major transgression.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MarkofCain
Mike,
You don't even know what a logical argument is. I actually just read the Foley thing, before coming to this thread. Uh, since when does this show that the diocese is responsible? Is there any evidence that the diocese knew about this particular priest and chose to hide it? You see, you really have no idea what you're talking about. There are so many things wrong with your argument, and the sad thing is, you haven't the capacity to see it. I'm afraid that even if I hammered into your head, you still would ignore any semblance of truth or reason.
Your beliefs are full of self-contradictions and inconsistencies. So now you think that child abuse is rampant throughout the Church? In earlier posts you did not. In fact, if you want to look at the number of priests involved in abuse scandals compared to the number of priests in the United States, it's something like 1% or so. I don't remember, it's pretty small. Of course, and the only reason I'm stressing thins is so that morons like yourself won't accuse me of condoning child rape (even though you will anyways -- which is why you're a moron, QED), this does no mean that ANY case should be ignored or deemed an "isolated" incident. I AM MERELY STATING THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE ENTIRE CHURCH, EVEN THE MAJORITY OF THE CHURCH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT??? DOES CAPS HELP???? YES, PARTICULAR DIOCESE WERE INVOLVED, BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY WERE INVOLVED, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA. YOU ARE BASING IT ON GUT REACTIONS, AND YOUR OWN ANGER. Not common sense. Please, I practically invented common sense. Now go back under your bridge, troll.
MoC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MarkofCain:
Also, another example of your selective use of facts: the alleged priest is not evenin the country anymore, he's in Italy (Malta, I think). So what do you want this diocese to do? In fact, there's an article floating around saying that the Italian diocese is now investigating the priest. What do you want? A public whipping? The priest paraded before everyone and stoned? Look, I'm repulsed by it as well, but just relax a little. Don't worry, Mike, I'll say a prayer for you tonight.
MofC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Monger:
You don't even know what a logical argument is. I actually just read the Foley thing, before coming on to this thread. Uh, since when does this show the diocese is responsible?
We'll see, if and when that particular priest's activities are further investigated, won't we?
But seeing as how the Church has a well documented history of assisting child molesting priests, I think it's pretty obvious what'll turn out.
Is there any evidence that the diocese knew about this particular priest and chose to hide it? You see, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
It's called making a logical assumption based on previous actions. For me to "not know what I'm talking aobut", you would have to say, with absolute certainty, that the diocese DIDN'T know about it.
So...can you say that? Or can you just say you "don't think" the diocese knew about it? And then, can you convincingly explain why you don't believe the diocese knew about it and hid it, despite the activities of several other diocese in the same country at the same time?
No? You can't?
There are so many thing wrong with your argument, and the sad thing is, you haven't the capacity to see it. I'm afraid that even if I hammered into your head, you still would ignore any semblance of truth or reason.
Actually, there's abolutely nothing wrong with my argument, as evidenced by the fact that you can only offer the same counter-argument, over and over and over again..."well, you don't KNOW that".
And you have yet to put forward any reason why my opinion or beliefs aren't firmly embedded in the facts on hand.
Your beliefs are full of self-contradictions and inconsistencies. So now you think that child abuse is rampant throughout the Church? In earlier posts you did not.
You're reaching here. I never said "rampant". I said "prevalent". It means "commonly occuring".
I stand by that.
In fact, if you want to look at the number of priests involved in abuse scandals compared to the number of priests in the United States, it's something like 1% or so. I don't remember, it's pretty small.
Links? Proof? I once saw one estimate that put the number of abusing priests at 10%. Which number is closer to right?
Well, since the Church is dead set on preventing as much as they can from coming out, we'll never really know, will we?
Of course, and the only reason I'm stressing thins is so that morons like yourself won't accuse me of condoning child rape (even though you will anyways -- which is why you're a moron, QED), this does no mean that ANY case should be ignored or deemed an "isolated" incident.
More insults? I guess that's what people fall back on when someone else consistently shows them that they're wrong.
And I never accused you of condoning child rape. I accused you of supporting an organization that condones child rape, and by supporting that organization with monetary donations.
Which is exactly what you are.
I AM MERELY STATING THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPLICATE THE ENTIRE CHURCH, EVEN THE MAJORITY OF THE CHURCH. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT??? DOES CAPS HELP???? YES, PARTICULAR DIOCESE WERE INVOLVED, BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY WERE INVOLVED, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA. YOU ARE BASING IT ON GUT REACTIONS, AND YOUR OWN ANGER. Not common sense. Please, I practically invented common sense. Now go back under your bridge, troll.
I see. So, because you choose to ignore many of the facts on hand, I'm a troll.
Got it.
And to continue onto your second post:
Also, another example of your selective use of facts: the alleged priest is not even in the country anymore, he's in Italy (Malta, I think). So what do you want this diocese to do?
So, wait. It was my understanding that a Church could defrock a priest, whether he was physically residing in his home diocese or not. Because, you know, the Church is Universal and all that.
In fact, there's an article floating around saying that the Italian diocese is now investigating the priest. What do you want? A public whipping? The priest paraded before everyone and stoned? Look, I'm repulsed by it as well, but just relax a little.
He's already admitted to molesting one young boy. What's there to investigate? I mean, he can't do jail time because of that very, very useful statute of limitations so many priests have been relying on. But, he can be defrocked, and denied the comfortable retirement that the Church is currently providing him.
I would be MORE than satisfied with that. But, of course, to someone like you, that's completely unreasonable. Are you going to make the argument that every priest should be entitled to molest ONE young boy, especially if he liked it?
Or are you going to ignore this logical point as well?
I'm betting the latter, since you seems so satisfied with the whole "public whipping stoning" thing.
And how it my ideal punishment for the man "unrelaxed"? Isn't it logical?
Apparently, to to a Catholic. It amazes me that after that big meeting of American bishops a few years ago, they came away saying that molesting priests won't necessarily be defrocked.
Actually, that's what caused my final break with the Church. Because if violating children isn't enough breaking priestly vows or Church doctrine, than really, what is?
Don't worry, Mike, I'll say a prayer for you tonight.
How kind of you. While you're at it, say a prayer for the children who have been and currently are being violated by priests who are protected by the Church. They need it more than I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark of Cain:
Mike,
Again, you have no evidence for your claims. You seem to keep pointing out that my argument that you "don't know" is false, but it isn't. You have absolutely no evidence. You don't like it, touch. Simply don't make claims that you can't support. That's the definition of a troll, in my book. I choose to ignore the facts? What facts, Mike? C'mon...show them to me. Seriously, I really want to see them. You honestly don't have any idea what you're talking about . You seem to think that most of the bishops were involved in covering up this scandal. BUT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO BASE THIS BELIEF ON. Look, I don't even know why I get involved on this stupid message board, most of the people are ridiculous, and you have certainly not helped in assuaging this belief. Look man, you are more than entitled to believe in a vast church consipiracy, but don't blame me if I put you in the same group as the rest of the loonys out there. Let me guess, you also believe the US gov't. brought down the World Trade Center? Please, the Catholic Church doesn't support child rape. Did certain bishops enable certain priests to engage this behavior? Yes, and it's a damn shame that they did. It's absolutely wrong. And yes, I agree that the priests, if guilty of these crimes, should be defrocked. But unlike you, I also admit to not knowing all of the facts for each particular case. And instead. And instead of pointing to some vast conspiracy on the part of the Church to hide child molesters, I instead prefer to reserve judgment on an organization that has been my spiritual home for many years, indeed the spiritual home for millions for thousands of years. The Church is composed of men, not all of them are saints, and although this does not excuse their behavior, it no way implicates the Church as a whole. I know this may be difficult for someone like you to grasp, but that's OK. Actually, I live in New York City, and my parish, like most others, is involved with many charitable events, such as feeding the homeless, etc. I'm pretty sure that's where at least some of my money goes. But again, you're the "logical" one. Seriously, get a life. MoC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark of Cain:
I think I need to clarify something for Mikey-boy here... Even if a lot of money was spent, how does that implicate the majority of bishops? I mean, diocese are generally self-contained entities. Although there is certainly communication between many branches of the Church, you act as if it is some government agency or something, like the CIA, where the higher-ups know everything about what is going on beneath them. Or maybe a comparison to a corporation would be better...Do you think the Church is run like a corporation, with the Pople as the CEO? C'mon, Mike! You see, you are making the textbook example of a logical fallacy (do you know what that is Mike, you pointing out your "logical" arguments?): inferring from the actions of a segment of the population, characteristics or generalities about the entire population (in this case, the "population" is the Church, in case you didn't quite catch that). Again, I don't expect you to be reasonable (but evidently I'm the one who's unreasonable). Like I said, you're just spitting out the same thing over again (and saying the same thing about me). I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, like I said so many posts ago. No hard feelings...I just hope you don't turn into a vigorous anti-Catholic. Although by the looks of some of your posts, that may already be the case. Please Mike, don't question my empathy for these victims. We should never lose sight of those who have suffered. But I refuse to let people like you turn their suffering into some sort of crusade against the Church. Cheers, MoC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark of Cain:
One last think, Mike: Check out this: http://usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/index.htm I actually attend the school that did this study. Yea, that's right. So don't act like I like criminals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mke Monger:
One last thing, Mike: Check out this: http://usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/index.htm I actually attend the school that did this study. Yea, that's right. So don't act like I like criminals.
Ok, and I'll close with a nifty little story. This story is 100% true.
TO BE CONTINUED................................
Share any comments you have about this exchange by emailing them to viewpoints@wearecatholics.com
WeAreCATHOLICS.com