What a piece of shit.
when are the catholics going to stop molesting boys wtf lol
Fuck him and the pope that he serves.
You mean what a badass. He would have been even cooler if he did the hit himself.
"Religious" child molsers.
gonna have some fun killing them
i vas, picketine glupe..
Sorry, what? I don't molest boys. Child molesters do. Being Catholic doesn't make you a child molester, being a child molester does.
But, I digress. Hang the motherfucker.
I sent this link to my friend.
"Why should goyem have all the fun?"
Wait, would they not be molesting Jewish children?
So, given your anti-semitic leanings, why would you care?
Plus, cantor Joel Gordon is the shiznit.
I have yet to see a Catholic deacon run a brothel.
I don't know man..seems to be quite an alarming number of instances involving catholics and molesting kids..
Is it safe to assume that you're also a pedophile?
But your religion CONDONES it. It PROTECTS priests that molest boys by reassigning them instead of turning them in thereby giving them the opportunity to molest MORE boys. Not to mention the two BILLION dollars the catholic church has spent in settlements to victims in civil lawsuits... again, protecting the faggot, child molesting priests, not incarcerating them.
In America there is a slightly veiled hatred for Catholics. It shows up in the media, here is quote from DixiesFinest:
When I say slightly veiled that is because really no one gets angry at his neighbor for hating Catholics, hate Jewish people, women, Muslims, gays, and you get criticized until you change your public statement or apologize. Hate Catholics, no one frets. I've had girls break up with me, and parents tell me to get out of their house when they have found out that I'm Catholic. It's like I am a leper.
Read the first link that is in DixiesFinest's post. No, my religion does not condone it, there might be a Bishop that condoned it through his behavior, but my religion does not condone it. The 40's through the 70's Chesters were not being sent to prison, either there was no laws against it or they were being rehabilitated, same thing with the priests.
They are not protecting those priests anymore if you haven't noticed, they have been released from their office and civil law can take care of them anytime it wishes. The Church's administrators are not immune to social pressures, the 60's and 70's was a very liberal time, and it shows in the Church. For about 25-40 years we were not following our Canon Law, and it shows through the action or inaction of Church officials with this. It's a dark time in the Church, and we need to purge of the sick fucks that do this shit to children.
No, it is not safe.
Are they really not protecting those priests anymore? Do you have examples of priests being tried in civil court who were "handed over" by the church? I'm only asking because I've seen evidence to the contrary. Here is a quick example from the economist:
But there is also abundant evidence that the Catholic hierarchy remains addicted to secrecy, and that it instinctively sees as its main task the safeguarding of the reputation of the church, rather than co-operation with the civil authorities or protecting potential victims. One recent case involves a priest found to be working in India, four years after criminal charges for sexual assault, which he denies, were laid against him in America. Father Palanivel Jeyapaul had been tried under canon law in India, but not defrocked, even though, according to a statement from the Vaticanâ??s lawyer on April 5th, it had recommended he be dismissed from the clergy.
Here's another from the same article that directly touches someone who was directly under the Pope's control:
[i]Secondly, while archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1982, [Pope Benedict XVI 's] diocese accepted a paedophile cleric who was supposedly intended to undergo therapy. But the priest (who for legal reasons may not be identified in media that can be read in Germany) was assigned to a parish where he taught at a school and abused at least one more child. The pontiffâ??s then deputy has taken the blame for the decision and says the future pope knew nothing about it.
After being convicted in 1986, the Bavarian priest was banned from working with children but not unfrocked. Two years ago he was sent to yet another parish where by last summer he was saying mass at a camp site for young people. It was only on March 15th, three days after the archdiocese released details of his case, that he was suspended for breaking the ban. His boss, the parish priest in Bad TÃ¶lz, in deeply Catholic rural Bavaria, said he had never been told of the offending clericâ??s past. The previous day brought dramatic scenes at the parish church, as members of the congregation barracked a replacement priest taking the mass. Some walked out.[/i]
Honestly, I'm hoping things have changed since this March 2010 issue of the Economist. But given the decades long cover-ups, I'm sure you'll understand how and why people are skeptical.
Yes, I do. I'm not saying everything and everyone is dandy in the Catholic Church. There are still people we need to purge out of priesthood. Also the Catholic Church needs to use their Canon Law, strengthen it as they have let it go lax in the past half century or so (which the recent letters to Seminarians from Pope Benedict XVI basically told them without the fourth piece of Canon, Canon Law, the other three pieces of Canon are weakened) Doesn't mean we (as the Catholic Church) condone the behavior. I believe that some of the bishops that have aided these priests that have harmed children are misguided in some of their efforts to keep from scandal, even though one can understand the efforts. They are trying to keep from scandal while attempting to correct the behavior of the priests, but some of have forgotten that if found guilty of committing acts of pedophilia then they are to be released from the duty within the priesthood.
I'm not a Canon Lawyer, but from speaking with Fr. Chris Frasier (the head guy for Bishop Olmsted) it is the correct action to excommunicate a priest (after a trial) if they are found to have sexual misconduct with a minor.
I agree with you that more steps need to be taken. What I'm disagreeing with is your statement
I don't believe this is the case.
I do agree that priests should be excommunicated after a trial. However, as the article above mentioned, not only was a convicted priest not excommunicated, he wasn't even defrocked AND he was allowed to say mass at a site for young people.
Also, you said
I can't understand these efforts, not at all.
Trail = Trail in the Catholic Church. Yes, being Catholic you have two courts you have to deal with. And, I didn't see anything about excommunication, which is medicinal punishment, not permanent punishment. Kind of like the Italian Mafia, we love you so much we're going to beat the crap out of you and bring you to your senses. However, I'd expect the priests to come back into communion with the Church sans-priesthood.
Not to create scandal of the Church? Basically prevent yellow journalism. Basically if someone is doing something wrong handle it in private, don't make a scene about it. But, I think they took it too far, they should have made it public that these priests were being released and excommunicated for their sexual misconduct, and until they repent they are to be excommunicated and any civil punishment (although I think personally the Catholic Church should have done the punishment) is fine as long as it fits that crime, which basically I think stops at hanging the perverts.
The problem, brother chris, is that the priests were NOT being "released and excommunicated." They were being shuffled around and purposefully shielded from civil prosecution.
If you have evidence to the contrary, or stating that this has changed, I would very much like to see it.