A bunch of Crock....

[CatholicCid]

I dunno... It just seems like this to me:

Anti-Catholic: All those women cut off from society must be abusing others sexually and physically! That's why they're cut off!

Later...

Catholic: Maybe we should limit allowing men with SSM into the seminaries as they would be faced with direct temptations because they'll be living with other men, ect...

Anti-Catholic: NONSENSE! That'd never happen! Homophobe!


Yay double standards!

Too bad they don't give a general idea of what happen... In today's society you can't say "You look nice" without worrying about sexual harrasment suits

Edited November 22, 2005 by CatholicCid

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 21 2005, 07:35 PM']Unfortunately, we can't give Priests and Nuns the benefit of the doubt these days.
[right][snapback]797079[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
and why the heck not? we should give about 98.2% of priests the benefit of the doubt AT LEAST. the other 1.8% are merely accused, and assumed guilty by anti-Catholic prejudice of course....

We should be more mistrusting of schoolteachers. we should be more mistrusting of any american adult, the rate of sexual abuse among priests is far lower than that of the general population.

it's a sad day when we declare we can't give priests the benefit of the doubt. certainly investigate, but we should continue to be more likely to believe the allegations are false than that they are true.

[Guest Rick777]

this is sad but shouldnt be called a bunch of crock it is still under investigation

[photosynthesis]

Abuse does WEIRD things to people. If these women were abused, I would understand why they would be angry, and why they would hand out fliers.

I was abused in an institution and I am angry at institutions. I think I'd be crazy not to be angry. If it is true that these nuns were abusing children, then they deserve whatever humiliation and punishment they get. It's a sin and it's a crime, and tolerating abuse only perpetuates the abuse. The Church must be purged of people like this so that they may repent.

[StMichael]

I'm far from exhausted, more disgusted and I do not have certain knowledge.

Apparently in many seminaries over the past 40 years, things taking place were way less than Godly. Upon inspection everything was hidden and some had a room called the pink room where the unsaid took place.

Furthermore, this is not just something that took place here in the US, but in Europe as well, thus the heightened no homosexual allowed to the priesthood.

Pope Benedict is doing more about ridding our seminaries of this disease than had been done prior.

I have faith that in my lifetime a priest will be seen as a man of Christ, once again, and not depicted as some homosexual predator.


[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 21 2005, 10:58 PM']Is that coming from exhaustive and certain knowledge?  Because it seems like a pretty tempting simplification.  Having been through the Apostolic Visitation in November, I get a little worried when people talk about it like the great solution to all our problems.  First of all, the seminaries are pretty good.  How they were before I don't know, but it would seem that the reality was somewhere between perfection and Michael Rose conspiracy theory.  Secondly, the visitation is an extremely blunt instrument.  It is not equipped to detect subtlies, positive or negative.  It is not equipped well to discover anything but the superficial.  I could go on and on about this if anybody cared what I thought...

Man this stuff is depressing.  It seems like there's just no end to it.
[right][snapback]797308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 22 2005, 12:47 AM']and why the heck not?  we should give about 98.2% of priests the benefit of the doubt AT LEAST.  the other 1.8% are merely accused, and assumed guilty by anti-Catholic prejudice of course....

We should be more mistrusting of schoolteachers.  we should be more mistrusting of any american adult, the rate of sexual abuse among priests is far lower than that of the general population.

it's a sad day when we declare we can't give priests the benefit of the doubt.  certainly investigate, but we should continue to be more likely to believe the allegations are false than that they are true.
[right][snapback]797335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In the context of a Church, and particularly an American Church, ravaged by sexual abuse scandals, I must disagree. We cannot give a Priest or Nun the benefit of the doubt. There was a time when people could say "He's a Priest, he would never do such a thing". Twenty years later, these people found out their children were raped on the altar.

If these nuns are innocent, then I pray that the courts of justice bring it to light. But until then, those who come forward as victims receive the benefit of the doubt that they are not, in fact, lying.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

You should have more doubt towards schoolteachers than priests. The priesthood is really on the low end of the spectrum out of all professions... I think you would be very justified in saying "it's less likely he's done that because he's a priest", because that's still true, priests are still less likely to have done such things.

[Era Might]

I am not a schoolteacher. I don't have a child in school. I don't work in a school. I'll have to leave it to others to determine whether or not an accused teacher gets the benefit of the doubt.

I am, however, a Catholic. My religion has been raped by too many Priests. Innocent children have been raped by too many Priests.

If judgement is to begin, it must begin with the household of God.

A benefit of the doubt implies that one party does not receive it. Thousands of children have been raped within the last generation by Catholic Priests. I agree that it is a sad day indeed, but Priest molestors have ruined any benefit of the doubt for other clergyman. That's just the way it has to be today.

Just to clarify, I am speaking of the benefit of the doubt toward accused Priests and Nuns. IOW, I'm not saying we should distrust someone because he's a Priest, but that, when an accuser comes forward, they receive the benefit of the doubt that they are not fabricating their story.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Era Might

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 22 2005, 09:02 AM']In the context of a Church, and particularly an American Church, ravaged by sexual abuse scandals, I must disagree. We cannot give a Priest or Nun the benefit of the doubt. There was a time when people could say "He's a Priest, he would never do such a thing". Twenty years later, these people found out their children were raped on the altar.

If these nuns are innocent, then I pray that the courts of justice bring it to light. But until then, those who come forward as victims receive the benefit of the doubt that they are not, in fact, lying.
[right][snapback]797599[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with everything, but you haven't mentioned the real problem. Many of these accusations are 20-30-40 years old. Father touched my butt, sister fondled me. There is no proof unless the accused actually admits it. There is only probability. Here in the Pittsburgh diocese, priests who had been DEAD for 30-40 years are now being accused. Priests who died with saintly reps and never a breath of scandal in their lives, and of course, we are expected to pay these people. It is BS.

Edited November 22, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Aloysius]

I don't give them that benefit, especially given the widely publicized nature of the concept of priests as molesters and the psychologists and lawyers who continually try to fish for 'repressed memories'

there are very often cases of people with severe mental problems but they can't come up with anyone to blame, and all of the sudden they recover some repressed memory... it's easier to have someone to blame. it's quite possible they even convince themselves it's true, but it's very likely and happens all the time. considering that so many of these crimes are accused of happening so long ago, the accused priest is left with basically nothing to defend himself, what evidence can he present against a false accusation of something that happened decades ago?

so yes, I certainly wouldn't give accusers the benefit of the doubt. I'm more inclined to think the priest didn't do it, my benefit of doubt lies with the man who is in a profession that is so unlikely to molest children rather than the troubled adult who claims to have recovered a memory about something that happened so long ago which can't be defended against.

[Era Might]

We'll have to disagree.

False allegations are terrible, as cmom notes. They do further violence to true victims. And there's nothing we can do about them. At the same time, there's nothing we can do about Priests who would lie about their sins, and deny the allegation.

If I had a child, and they came forward as a victim of clergy sexual abuse, I would not give the Priest the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I convict him. But it means victims come first.

I apply that same benefit to other people's children, who are really our children as well.

[Aloysius]

i'll certainly be very likely to believe a child (though not as far as the folks at Salem used to believe the accusations of children)

believing a troubled adult man with psychological problems who has finally figured out what the cause of them was due to unlocking a repressed memory, however, is a much different story.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 22 2005, 09:31 AM']i'll certainly be very likely to believe a child (though not as far as the folks at Salem used to believe the accusations of children)

believing a troubled adult man with psychological problems who has finally figured out what the cause of them was due to unlocking a repressed memory, however, is a much different story.
[right][snapback]797610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep, you are exactly right. You usually can believe chiuldren, depending on their age.
But when it comes to adults - when did the trouble of the adult start, what does his family say, has he accused anyone else, is he the type of person who transfers all responsibility to everyone else.....?

[homeschoolmom]

nevermind...

[son_of_angels]

Perhaps its just me, but the scripture which tells us not to take each other in front of the law courts is being irreverently cast aside in these days. The Church has a court, a hierarchy, and a means of punishment which is far more powerful and binding than anything the State could cook up. If a bishop chooses to have someone arrested, so be it, but it should not be for us to scandalize our church by seeking a false comfort from secular authorities.