I am sick to death of hearing how many kids were allegedly molested by the priests and now it is just coming to light? I think not. There were countless complaints by teachers, pricipals and parents to the church over these matters. If I were one of these parents and my child was molested I would have gone to the police. Why didn't they? If you want to hold the church accountable then the parents and teachers of these kids need to be responsible too. Maybe the priest in Boston did some rotten things but we'll never know since he's dead. Pretty easy to blame a dead man. Why didn't people come foreward when it happened? Why didn't they call the cops and file charges? Why weren't the kids examined at a hospital? Why didn't they go to the press?

My 18 year old daughter was sexually assaulted by her boss. We filed charges. The exam was done. The pictures taken. The statements made. We go to court. We are suing him. She's my daughter and as her parent I have a responsibility to see her through this. Where were all the parents when their kids were allegedly abused by the priests? Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), May 01, 2002

Answers

Ellen - Your an honourable woman and mother assuming from your post. As to the question of why and where are the other mother's in these cases may I a express my thoughts?

The Church and clergy of ALL religious institutions are held above the most as being trustworthy etc: etc:. Sadly this now media exploited issue at hand is being worked to death in matter of speaking.

This June the Bishops of America will be holding a National Conferance in Dallas Tx. to hopefully bring matters up to date from their point of view(s). This I feel will bring a new age to our Church in North America.

Here in Canada we tossled with the same issue in the mid 90's and many of the Canadian guidelines will be focused on and used so it seems. The shock of betrayal has done it's bell curve in Canada and we are as laity now both aware and prepared. This will take time to root of course. Our children will benefit from our experience.

As to a direct question to where and why you have asked - I feel the initial shock is still prevelant in the USA and will do it curve within the next few very short years. The Institutional Church has been brought forward to answer for it's mannerisms.

Now with this said let our real Church go forward and preach the Gospel as both Christ and His Apostle's intended. Remember though numan nature being what it is will attempt to divert these teachings always.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 02, 2002.

Ellen, Many of these abuses were reported but unfortunatly, not outside of the church.
It is how the men in charge handled the charges that are now as big a part of this problem as was the abuse.
You are sadly mistaken to believe that the only involved priest is dead. This statement would indicate how far removed you are from the controversy. You might want to do some background work here to find some of the answers to your questions.
The response to sexual abuse is far different these days than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Your example would not apply to some of the problems that the abused and their families were up against in the past.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 02, 2002.

Ellen,

I don't know where you got your information from when you say the one priest inolved in sexual molestation is dead, BUT, there are 'hundreds' of priests involved and thousands of kids involved.

We may question why the parents did not go to the authorities. Have you ever dealt with the hierarchy of the church, Ellen? They are very powerful and can be very intimidating as well. Also, don't forget at that time parents were 'friends' with some of these priests and very good Catholics who probably did not want to bring shame upon the church either, nor did they want to subject their child to all that ugly shame and publicity. Who knows? It is easy to say what we would do when it did not happen to someone in our family and we are not the ones to have to deal with the very 'powerful' leaders of the Church.

Also, don't forget, the parents were told by the Bishops that the situation would be taken care of and they 'trusted' their Bishops to do that. It is not for us to judge the parents decision. Don't forget most of the incidents happened years ago; times were different then. People kept silent about lots of things. We did not air our dirty laundry for the world to see, the way people do today. We did not have hundreds of tv channels exposing the news and following up on every detail every minute of the day.

Perhaps the victims came forward now because they feel 'safe' doing so, they will get the support now that they did not get back then. You may not want to hear this Ellen, but the 'reputation' of the institution was more important to the Bishops back then and that, is the truth - more so, than the lives of the children.

My friend's nephew committed suicide about 12 years ago - in Texas. The priest was a very good friend of the family, always at the house for dinner, family gatherings, parents very active in the church, etc..He was an altar boy and always at the church. At that time, these kids didn't think the parents would believe them if they told. Years ago, the people in authority were always right - parents took their side - an unfortunate truth.

Anyway, he left a note for his mother - he hung himself on Mother's Day. He left a note telling the whole story and how he could not live with the shame he felt and he did not want to get 'Father' into any trouble, nor did he want to hurt his parents with this information. Shows how 'immature' he was to think his killing himself would not hurt his parents more!

So, before you judge anyone else, put yourself in their shoes for a while. Maybe we will hear the parents story down the road.

In fact, just one hour ago Fr. Shanley, former priest of the Boston Archiocese, was arrested in San Francisco. There are many more out there who should be arrested in order to protect the children. It is very sad indeed, very, very sad.

Hopefully, we can all learn from this experience, thank God it has been brought into the light as God says: Anything done in darkness will be revealed in the light.

Did you ever think, Ellen, that God's justice may be prevailing here? This had to stop, Ellen. Perhaps this scandal is the stepping stone of healing our church, our priests, our children - perhaps there are children being abused by their parents and trapped in a "wall of silence" because they don't want to hurt anyone - maybe this will encourage them to go for help - to see that it is okay to 'blow the whistle.' Let us remember all children who are being abused in some way and pray for them that God protects them.

Let us pray for our priests who are hurting now because of this scandal, may we show them our support and may God give them strength to rise above the ashes of slander towards them.

Let us pray for our Bishops and Cardinals that God guide them and bless them with the gift of wisdom and discernment when they meet in June.

Let us pray for our Church and all members of the Catholic Church.

May we pray and not judge - let us leave the judging up to God. Amen

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 02, 2002.

MaryLu wrote:

"Have you ever dealt with the hierarchy of the church, Ellen? They are very powerful and can be very intimidating as well."

MaryLu,

My experiences have been just the opposite. The "hierarchy" consists of kind, soft-spoken people. Those whom I've met are devoid of any pretense of superiority. They are humble people as a rule.

Second, though you may perceive "power," priests are not above the law--no American that I know believes that priests have some kind of exemption from criminal law.

I knew right from wrong when I was a child; and had some priest, teacher, coach, or relative abused me in any way, I had the knowledge as a child that my best response was to open my mouth. While it's a commonly held belief that children are often unable to respond to these situations, this is quite a contrast to the equally common belief that all children know (even before they learn to speak) how to effectively "get what they want." Try keeping a child from a toy, McDonald's, or a candy bar, and you'll understand what I mean. Though I don't think it's worth treating these situations as if they were the same, we should give children a little bit more credit in their ability to be advocates for their own interests.

If anything positive comes out of this media blitz, maybe parents will realize that they should spend some more time being parents and teaching their children how to respond to situations like these. We must arm children with the appropriate knowledge of how to deal with any immoral adult.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 02, 2002.

Dear Mateo, You are fortunate to have had positive experiences with the 'humble' servants of the hierarchy. Many people have not. I am not saying all of them are intimidating, but they are very, very powerful and very political as well.

Would you say that living in luxurious estates, and driving around in chauffered driven limousines a 'humble' lifestyle? Have you ever seen the living quarters of a Cardinal?

A priest was on a radio show the other day - a well-known priest from the NY Diocese who told a story when he was pastor and received a complaint about sexual abuse. When he reported it to the Bishop, the bishop got a lawyer, etc. and said we will pay him off - give him this amount of money. The pastor said that is not enough for what this child went through (priest admitted it) and the Bishop said, "Well, then we will just embarass him and make him go to court, make him look like he 'tempted' the priest." So much for your 'humble' servant.

It seems to me that everytime someone has something to say about the church (that may be true, and I love my church) it seems that you have to say the opposite.

Would you say that Cardinal Law is acting in a humble fashion or arrogant? I don't think the Cardinal wants to give up his power or his elegant living quarters.

I knew John Cardinal O'Connor personally and loved him dearly. He was very powerful, but that did not make him arrogant. He loved people, cared for people, and did much to help others. I do not know any of the other cardinal personally, but I have dealt with the powerful in the church and they can be very intimidating.

Parents cannot be with their children 24 hours a day, nor should they be. In many of the cases involving the sex scandal, parents were 'involved' in the church, children were altar boys, parents were 'friendly' with the priests and 'trusted' them. Years ago, we didn't think like we do today - parents were trusting of the priests and those who represented the church. If Father John said I am going to take the kids fishing, I would have let my kids go fishing with Fr. John. We didn't have the awareness then, that we do not.

Years ago, we used to hang out in the school yard after school. We had 'neighborhoods' then. The girls used to help the nuns in the convent and the boys used to play in the schoolyard after school, and had 'altar boy' practice, etc. We could ring the bell of the rectory any time we wanted and there was always a priest available.

Did we ever think that we could not trust a priest - no, not back then, we didn't.

Besides, these things were 'hidden' so how could anyone have awareness or insight into these things happening. No one even thought of it. As for the parents taking the money, yes, they were wrong too. I'm sure they were intimated into not talking. At that time, who would have believed the family? No one. They would have believed the Church. They should have reported it. One day the whole story will come out and we will hear 'all' sides of it. Today is different. There are all kinds of crazy people walking around and parents have to be careful. Today parents leave their children in day cares from morning 'til night - the children are being raised by strangers while mommy goes off to work....very sad.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 02, 2002.

It also sounds to me, Mateo, like you are 'blaming' the kids as well. How can you even compare a kid in a candy store to a child being sexually molested???? It's like saying a woman who was raped, was raped because she looked for it by dressing inappropriately.

In a lot of these cases, the kids came from dysfunctional homes where there was abuse of some kind....or absentee parents and these kids were desperate to be loved and these sick priests took advantage of kids like that - not in all cases, but a lot of them.

As for as the hierarchy being humble and kind, would you say it was kind to cover up sexual abuse and tell the parents it would be taken care of and then trasfer the priests to other parishes where innocent children were put in harms way???? Where is the humility there? Where is the compassion there? As far as I am concerned the bishops involved are just as guilty as the priests who committed the crimes and they are crimes.

I don't think any jury would buy your opinion on things....comparing the situation to kids in a candy store. Check out information on sexual abuse, Mateo, and try telling the victims your impression of things. It is absurd.

They have to answer to God for their sins, not me or you or the media. God knows all.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 02, 2002.

Ths talk has absolutely nothing to do with Apologetics. It is depressing at best and needs to be curtailed and let this forum get back to it's original intent. APOLOGETICS not politics.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 02, 2002.

Marylu wrote:

"It also sounds to me, Mateo, like you are 'blaming' the kids as well. How can you even compare a kid in a candy store to a child being sexually molested???? It's like saying a woman who was raped, was raped because she looked for it by dressing inappropriately.

I don't think any jury would buy your opinion on things....comparing the situation to kids in a candy store. Check out information on sexual abuse, Mateo, and try telling the victims your impression of things. It is absurd."

MaryLu,

I have no idea what you are talking about. You might want to reread my post and explain how you make these conclusions. I didn't infer anything approaching what you accuse my words to say. Please help me understand how I compared a "kid in a candy store to a child being sexually molested."

If you would like me to expound upon what I meant, I will; but please don't jump on my words without asking for what I meant.

Here's why I brought up children and candy, toys, etc...

1) I made a statement that children, even before they speak, know how to "get what they want." We all know that children can communicate what they want. Would you disagree with this?

2) I make the conjecture that children who are abused inherently know that they were abused and would like to do something about it. Would you disagree with this?

3) When I was a child, if any adult mistreated me, I would immediately speak up, knowing that speaking would be an effective way to get what I want (retribution and prevention of further mistreatment). In this case, I want to have recourse against someone who has wronged me. Just as with more mundane examples (toys, etc), I was capable of choosing a course of action to "get what I want." In this case, I would want to get back at the person who was mistreating me so that I could prevent further mistreatment from this person. Do you see the parallel in my personal case?

4) You and I will agree that, although kids know how to deal with getting simple things (candy, toys, etc), some kids aren't equiped to deal with these situations. You state that these children are brought up in dysfunctional homes. By this statement, you (not I) are blaming the parents for the child's inability to act. I stated that parents should fulfil their roll as parents by equipping their children to deal with the situation by communicating without fear. Are we not in agreement here?

5) Plenty of "signs" exist that point to abuse, even when the child doesn't say a word. These signs include a child losing interest in school (lower grades) and all sorts of other negative things (eating disorders, low self-esteem, etc). Until "dysfunctional" families are a thing of the past (this will never happen!), teachers, parents, priests, and everyone else must be ground troops for identifying these signs and reacting to them.

I hope that you understand my point of view better, now. I 100% disagree with your characterizations that you made of me. I don't think that I have a radical opinion here. If you still must challenge my point of view, please give me some specifics.

You also write:

"It seems to me that everytime someone has something to say about the church (that may be true, and I love my church) it seems that you have to say the opposite."

If my experiences are the opposite, should I remain silent? I've had positive experiences in Church. What do you recommend that I do? If people are vocal about the negatives, are you criticizing me for being vocal about the positives? BTW, I have been vocal on this forum about negative experiences that I have had.

You wrote:

"Years ago, we didn't think like we do today - parents were trusting of the priests and those who represented the church."

This is a strange generalization. I personally never had so much trust in others (including priests) that I would allow anyone to take advantage of me. Had you asked me when I was in my teens (when most of the abuse occured), I would have said the same thing.

This is also a terrible way to characterize things. It wasn't that people trusted priests more...people trusted everyone more in years past. All of my personal knowledge of abuse (friends, etc) includes teachers, babysitters, family members, and Protestant ministers. Now, the remedy (sadly) includes teaching children to trust no one, and to be suspect of all physical contact. I've travelled around the world and seen that non-Americans are much more able to express themselves physically (hugs, etc) than Americans. My friends who are teachers avoid physical contact with children (hugs) like the plague, for fear of being accused of sexual abuse. I don't have any alternative to offer; but, here we are teaching children that hugging a caring adult is "dirty."

Sexual abuse is a societal problem. Finding a scape-goat is not going to give us a solution...

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 02, 2002.

MaryLu,

You wrote:

"There are all kinds of crazy people walking around and parents have to be careful. Today parents leave their children in day cares from morning 'til night - the children are being raised by strangers while mommy goes off to work....very sad. "

Amen! I think that we as a society have to learn how to raise children. They aren't glorified pets--they are children. Emotional neglect and other parental neglect is another form of child abuse. If we want to look out for our kids:

1) We've got to punish sexual predators (priests, teachers, babysitters, etc).

2) We've got to teach children how to protect themselves from abusers, and,

3) We've got to foster a society that looks at offspring as a blessing, not a curse that we push off onto a daycare center.

We're all falling short of what God wants, and what children deserve--love, respect, and a knowledge of their infinite value.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 02, 2002.

Mateo

Your Quote: 1) We've got to punish sexual predators (priests, teachers, babysitters, etc).

Thgat is precisely why I am tired of theis issue. Has anyone looked beyond the Church leaders and priests? This problem is everywhere you look. It is on our beaches, ballparks, YMCA's, Youth Camps, schools of all kinds, Boy and Girl Scouts, Family, yes, I said family organizations, and the other venues that cater to children. The issue of the Catholic Church is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the Church situation and they all have covered up their problems too. It is time the media and others got off this Church Bashing thing and looked around. The recent Supreme Court ruling against pedophilia and porn laws has not helped matters one bit. That is where the issue lies. That is where the press needs to work and help. Not kill the Catholic Church for sale of papers.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 02, 2002.

Even if someone were to make the baseless assuption that priests were 10 times more likely to be child abusers than other men, we'd be ignoring about 99.5% of all child abuse. This assumes that no woman in the entire country abuses children.

Assuming that the experts are correct (priests rates of child abuse are roughly the same as other people), the people who are obsessed with this "scandal" are ignoring 99.98% of abuse victims--don't they deserve justice? Maybe this is why all of my personal knowledge of abuse is perpetrated by people who have nothing to do with the Church...hmmm...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 02, 2002.

"That is precisely why I am tired of theis issue. Has anyone looked beyond the Church leaders and priests? This problem is everywhere you look. It is on our beaches, ballparks, YMCA's, Youth Camps, schools of all kinds, Boy and Girl Scouts, Family, yes, I said family organizations, and the other venues that cater to children. The issue of the Catholic Church is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the Church situation and they all have covered up their problems too. It is time the media and others got off this Church Bashing thing and looked around. The recent Supreme Court ruling against pedophilia and porn laws has not helped matters one bit. That is where the issue lies. That is where the press needs to work and help. Not kill the Catholic Church for sale of papers."

That's exactly what I have been trying to say and when I say that this AOC law has to be abolish, I am refer to as a troll ? I hate to tell you this, but you can't find them in one place, I'm sure that even the Government and law enforcers have this scandial as well, matter of fact, I'm sure of it, if you can make the law then you can also break it. But the sad part is, christians had brought this on to themself. People refuse to be responsable, people refuse to except that moral laws and harsher punishment don't work. The media isn't going to get better, because "BAD NEWS MAKES GOOD NEWS" Why you think they have murders, rapes, robbery, abuse in the media ? Same reasion with OJ, same reasion with the clinton sex scandial. But you know what, you can't blame the sins of adults for your love one, we must blame the parents, it was them that had allow there children to sin.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 03, 2002.

Ellen said: "My 18 year old daughter was sexually assaulted by her boss. We filed charges. The exam was done. The pictures taken. The statements made. We go to court. We are suing him. She's my daughter and as her parent I have a responsibility to see her through this. Where were all the parents when their kids were allegedly abused by the priests? Ellen"

There's already a law against that, it's called rape, but I'm sure you can gather your friends together and rase the Legal age tour 30, no maybe not, then that would mean niether 18 year old or 8 year old can consent and make anyone under the age of 30 children. But I can tell you where the parents were, they will comfortable at work knowing that the so called law will protect there children from there inocent, trusting the moral athority that they were just to proud to admit that such a thing will never happen under the house of god. Kind of reminds me a commerical on AIDS "I won't get it" "it won't happen to me" and when it does, they are shock ? Where is the Dragon ? EVERYWHERE.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 03, 2002.

"But you know what, you can't blame the sins of adults for your love one, we must blame the parents, it was them that had allow there children to sin."

Tony,
Run that one by me again, will you? I am certain I must have mistaken your message.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 03, 2002.

Am I seeing something happening here for the first time? Somebody has finally seen the truth that this child abuse thing is well beyond the Church.

Yesterday I did a lot of research on Child abuse in some other areas of public life such as beaches in this country and found many sex abuse situations that occur in club settings of family groups for instance. Did anyone ever hear of Nikki Craft? She is a leading proponent to expose sexual abuse of children in the nudist lifestyle and swinger lifestyles. She has for 20+ years written and compiled evidence to put many people behind bars for child abuse and still does to this day. She has put people such as State Highway Patrol officers, Club owners, business executives and many others in jail. These people are some of the most notorious of the child porn freaks that prey on kids and there are many others still out there. I annoys me that the news media is so busy crucifying us Catholics when they may have some of the worst pedophiles sitting within eyeshot of them just glowing over the protection they get in this diversion that is currently going on.

Just the other day the Supreme Court threw out a set of laws to ban child porn and now the porn people are flooding the internet and other arenas with more filth than ever because they are now "FREE" to do their thing again with minimal fear. Yet the press glorifies itself over the prize catch - our Church.

Just a few months ago a fireman/chaplain (Protestant) was arrested for child molestation and possession of child porn materials in Vermont. It made the local news in a tiny article and was immediately forgotten. How convenient.

Did you all know that the majority of the Child porn that is currently made is on the internet and is produced in the European countries of Holland and Germany with Russia gaining ground? Well it is all now available freely right here on the internet and they can even do it because we DO NOT HAVE ANY LAWS to prevent international groups from putting it on our internet systems. Yet Europeans are currently trying to determine by their laws as to how we as Americans should live.

If you people want to talk about this child sex abuse and porn crap all of the time then lets open this can of worms ALL WAY OPEN and expose the whole scene from sea to sea. It is in our Police Departments, Congressional offices, Corporations, Hospitals, local Y's, Masonic Lodges, Day Care groups, Schools and Colleges of all types, local supermarkets and other stores, and other public venues.

It would be very interesting of what we would find if we took the time. This is not new at all for the sex abuse situation started in the early 90's in my home state of N.H. and in Massachusetts. I have read of this now for 12 years and am thoroughly sick of it all and it just gets dragged on more and more every day. It NEEDS to end and the press needs to look elsewhere for a change.

DID you all know that there have been many teachers at well known schools who have been caught, tried and jailed for child porn in recent years? Well lets look there and open our eyes for a change. The victims of these crimes are not getting the HUGE money awards the the Church is handing out. I am for the total stopping of the huge money awards that is occuring and the arrest and conviction of the perpretators of these crimes. Let's do this right and NOW.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.

Fred,
And what would be your point?
We all know of child abuse in every place where there are children. So what?
This scandal is about trusted Catholic clergy and the response to the broken trust over many decades.
You may care to expose the whole story (again) but in this moment we are dealing with an issue that is focused on the Church and because of the nature of the autrosity, it deserves specific scrutiny.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 03, 2002.

Chris,

You write:

"And what would be your [Fred's] point? We all know of child abuse in every place where there are children. So what? This scandal is about trusted Catholic clergy and the response to the broken trust over many decades."

My questions to you:

1) Were Catholic priests the only trusted people in the world? Aren't babysitters, relatives, and teachers "trusted" people?

My point, though you didn't solicit it, is that our media's "compassion" against victims of child abuse ignores 99.5% (conservatively) or 99.98% (realistically) of all child abusers. Why?

If one of the national media's top news items is about a pedophile priest in San Diego who allegedly committed his crime almost 20 years ago, what I want to know is: why doesn't my local news bother telling me about all of the typical abusers (parents, relatives, teachers, babysitters)? Here's some alleged sick-o in San Diego who molested 4-5 children, whom the legal system took 20 years to respond to.

(1) Why is this national news, considering the millions of abuse cases that have occured since 1983? Many of these abuses were "covered up" or defended by employers' or government lawyers.

(2) Why isn't anyone complaining about our justice system which evidently waited 20 years to go after this guy?

There seems to be a myth that Catholics are taught that they have no rights to prosecute criminals in a court of law. I was never taught such a thing, and I know of no Catholic who believes (even remotely) that criminals shouldn't be prosecuted because of their crime.

A priest that I know gave a homily a couple weeks ago, in which he gave a direct message. If anyone knows of any abuse by any priests (past or present), they should report it to the diocese and the bishop. If the diocese doesn't listen, tell the story to the media (not a terribly sympathetic media, as we know). The message: "this diocese has not and will not mess around when claims of abuse are brought up." When the priest went to sit down, he got a standing ovation from the congregation.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 03, 2002.

Mateo

Thanks. It is well appreciated. People have blinders on them and cannot see the real problem. You saw some of the things I saw and well too. Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.

Mateo

My pastor did a speach of a similiar nature. But the one you heard was absolutely great and took much courage.

I read this morning on the News (AOL) that the state of Conneticutt has passed a law requiring priests to reveal confessions of any criminal nature. How nice of them. Now Confessions are no longer SACRED. Ding bats.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.

OK,

So here's another complaint about the reporting on this San Diego retired priest. The Headline is that he is accused of being a sexual abuser of children. The only thing that makes this particular retired priest (Shanley) newsworthy is that he's the "NABLA" priest--a vocal advocate (it seems) for legalizing this abuse of children.

I still don't believe that his sexual abuse of children is something that makes him or anyone worthy of national news. I certainly won't be shedding too many tears because of his arrest and extradition to Boston.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 03, 2002.

Mateo

He is only a small figure in the whole pie too. There are far worst culprits than Shanley out there to be found. Yet the whole press and political system is worried about "one" retired priest. He is not the worst of the Nambla culprits by far. He is actually a small figurehead in the whole picture. Of course you cannot tell small minded people of this fact at all.

It saddens me greatly to see the Catholic Church used for the scapegoat of so few people and the majority of the culprits are not being searched and the Supreme Court rejects Laws to nab them.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.

A little more,

It seems like this guy didn't have any interest in Church teachings. It certainly wasn't a repressive view of sexuality that led him to act criminally! So much for the "repressive teachings made them do it" argument.

Here's the CNN Title to the article:

"Priest accused of child rape faces extradition"

Here's mine:

"Anti-Hierarchy, pro-Homosexual and pro-NABLA Priest accused of child rape faces extradition"

Has a certain ring to it... ;-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 03, 2002.

Fred, this is what I had been trying to say all along, it is the systom that is evil, when government force our children to go tour public or privite schools, they are encourage with all the evil that is there, when you pass child protection laws, then CPS gets money for bringing children in and they are the ones that abuse them. When ever you move into an apartment, you have no property and no rights to defend your grounds. International law, won't change sh!t and we must not act like a bunch a socialist and banning things that are not with in our own boarders, it is PREVENTION and RESPONSABILTY we must forcus on, changing the world into a communist state isn't going to make things better, it will give MORE control tour the leaders to enforce the people and brake the laws. You can't protect all children, you can banned sin and you can't enforce morals, but you can change your way of living and your lifestyle so that your children can always remain protective.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 04, 2002.

Mateo, the only differents between the priest and NAMBLA is that NAMBLA fellows the law.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 04, 2002.

"Yesterday I did a lot of research on Child abuse in some other areas of public life such as beaches in this country and found many sex abuse situations that occur in club settings of family groups for instance. Did anyone ever hear of Nikki Craft? She is a leading proponent to expose sexual abuse of children in the nudist lifestyle and swinger lifestyles. She has for 20+ years written and compiled evidence to put many people behind bars for child abuse and still does to this day. She has put people such as State Highway Patrol officers, Club owners, business executives and many others in jail. These people are some of the most notorious of the child porn freaks that prey on kids and there are many others still out there. I annoys me that the news media is so busy crucifying us Catholics when they may have some of the worst pedophiles sitting within eyeshot of them just glowing over the protection they get in this diversion that is currently going on.

Just the other day the Supreme Court threw out a set of laws to ban child porn and now the porn people are flooding the internet and other arenas with more filth than ever because they are now "FREE" to do their thing again with minimal fear. Yet the press glorifies itself over the prize catch - our Church."

Fred, this is a very big sin you had just made, it's called ignorants. First of all, the supream court didn't legalize child porn, they kept virtial child porn legal, you know the differents between the two ? Well, virtial has to do with painting, computer graphics, statues, drawing or ADULTS that look close tour a child, you have any ideal how much control this will give over the government ? They can look at those paintings in the ceiling of the church and they can arrest you for having child porn and when I say this, I'm refering tour the naked baby angels, it could be a sketch that your child drawn or it could be just a kid in a swimming suit, it could be a family photo or film, IT COULD BE ANYTHING. also, being a nudist isn't a sin and it's not wroung either, after all, wasn't it Adam and Eve that were ashame tour there nakedness because they had sin ?

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 04, 2002.

"You saw some of the things I saw and well too."
So tell me Fred and Mateo how does this well known knowledge help the church?
Are you saying that because child abuse exists in everyplace there are children, but the press is being pushy, the Church should be less accountable?
I work with jailed people and they are always pointing fingers and comparing their plight to other convicts, as if that should change things or we should see them as victims. You guys remind me of these folks I work with. Your argument may have some validity but it has no value.
I just don't get your going with this. How does this help the Church move from the mess it has created?
Or maybe you just don't think it is that big a deal. Is that it?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 04, 2002.

C'mon, Chris C.. Put on your "thinking cap." This is not a tough one. You should not have to ask for clarification.
It seems that you must be unaccustomed to thinking or that you are being blinded by a prejudice against the Church. Either way, you have a huge defect, so I suggest you start doing something about it. For the first possibility, the remedy is to start exercising your brain. For the second, the remedy is to pray for the grace to stop hating true Catholicism and the clergy.

One should have no trouble at all seeing what Mateo and Fred are driving at. The media have been plastered, for months now, with an all-out assault against Catholicism, using guilty priests (and accused priests, some innocent) as a focal point for the battering. Instead of this, Mateo and Fred are saying, the media ought to expose what is taking place in the whole of society on this subject, not just in one little segment that the media detest (Catholicism). The media, to be just to the Church, need to tell the whole public the full truth about the widespread character of the rare problem of true pedophilia and more common problem of ephebophilia (taking advantage of post-pubescent minors). The media have to show that the sexual sins of the Catholic clergy comprise only a tiny percent of the sexual sins of society -- instead of trying to fool people, for months, into believing that the vast majority of abuse in America is carried out by Catholic priests!

Some in the media (and certain anti-Catholic authors of books) have enjoyed, for the past decade, trashing Pope Pius XII, for what they falsely claim he did (or did not do) during WWII. But all that activity has actually been done, not so much to attack the past pope, but to undermine the authority of the current pope. The media and authors have thereby tried to fool the public into believing that all popes (past, present, and future) cannot be trusted and that their Church teaches stupid ideas. The media and authors do this because they want a "democratic" Church with changeable doctrine, freedom to use contraception, freedom to abort, freedom to divorce and remarry, and freedom to have non-marital sexual encounters (even homosexual ones).

Well, guess what? This incredible rampage of media attention toward sexual sinners in the Catholic clergy is more of the same. Many in the media are not honestly and simply interested in prosecution of the guilty and healing of the wounded. Rather, for them, these recent events are just another opportunity for them to try to undermine trust in the leaders of Catholicism -- and to make the Church shrink in numbers if it cannot be forced to become "democratic." The anti-Catholics in the media are intoxicated by the ultra-liberal character of their favorite brand of democracy, so they intend to do all they can to impose it on Catholicism. And you, Chris C, need to stop letting the media fool you into joining them. If you refuse, then I ask you to find another religion to follow, because I don't want you coming to Mass and pretending to be a Catholic.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

John, chris is right, the Christians had brought this onto themself, I try to warn people about the evil of polictic and moral laws, but they don't seem to listen, you have to look at the big picture, you have to look beyond what the bible teaches and you must know how evil work.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 04, 2002.

"And you, Chris C, need to stop letting the media fool you into joining them. If you refuse, then I ask you to find another religion to follow, because I don't want you coming to Mass and pretending to be a Catholic."
Because I personally know two priests who have recently been kicked out of their jobs because of their desire to have sex with children, I'll be keeping an eye on all the news. So I do refuse and you can stuff your advice John.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 04, 2002.

"The media and authors do this because they want a "democratic" Church with changeable doctrine, freedom to use contraception, freedom to abort, freedom to divorce and remarry, and freedom to have non-marital sexual encounters (even homosexual ones)." John you are missing the point. It is as simple as not wanting an important and powerfull istitution to protect and harbour men who like to have sex with kids. Something has to change and thank God it looks like it is- but only as a result of the efforts of the media and authors you rally against. I say to you find another Church - [edit for content. Moderator]

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

Chris Coose writes:

"So tell me Fred and Mateo how does this well known knowledge help the church?"

The point is that the media would have us believe that the Church is the only place where pedophilia is a problem. The public doesn't seem to be hearing the message that these priests represent somewhere between 0.5% and 0.02% of all child abuse.

While the most sick priest was a NABLA supporter who openly taught against Church moral teachings, we are being fed the story that the rigidity of the teachings "made them do it." How could a moral rule make a difference to Shanley, who openly rejected the rules? Yet the argument that "strict moral teachings" make people abuse children is pushed down our throats.

Most reports of sexual abuse seem to show ephebophilia (sp?) against 16-17 year olds, not pedophilia. While (in my opinion) both of these are crimes worthy of strict civil punishment, here's another point of hypocrisy. The movie "American Beauty" contained a plot detailing a married man who pursued his daughter's best friend in highschool. When this movie released, did the media smear the movie? Was there a boycott of the movie when people found out that it glorified these behaviors that are now being condemned? Nooooooo...it was praised as art. Sick lust of a married man toward a minor is "art" when it comes from Hollywood. Ironically, Kevin Spacey won an oscar for his role as the hero/sexual preditor. "American Beauty," far from being smeared by the media, was awarded five Oscars. As for voting with our feet, movie-goers helped bring in ~$250 million at the box office (not including rentals, etc).

Anyone who can't see the irony in this cultural hypocrisy needs to take his/her blinders off. If we as a society were committed to protecting children, why are we all watching movies that glorify perverse behaviors?

Chris Coose writes:

"Are you saying that because child abuse exists in everyplace there are children, but the press is being pushy, the Church should be less accountable?"

The Church should not be less accountable. Ideally, justice is blind: this means that an accused sexual abuser should not be pursued more diligently because he is (or is not) a priest. All accused sexual abusers should be pursued equally. If there is any variable that should determine who the police spend the most effort pursuing, the credibility of the case should have (and does have) an impact on the level of effort to pursue justice. I just don't see how anyone can think that this is an unfair way to dispense justice.

Chris Coose writes:

"I work with jailed people and they are always pointing fingers and comparing their plight to other convicts, as if that should change things or we should see them as victims. You guys remind me of these folks I work with. Your argument may have some validity but it has no value."

My valid argument has no value? What does that mean? Maybe it means, "I can't refute you argument, so I'll just cover my ears."

There is a media witch hunt. I don't think that this has anything to do with criminal justice. The media is not the judge. The people (represented by the jury) is the judge when a case is brought to trial. The media tends to "convict" people without a trial. In the US, everyone has "equal protection under the law." This is all I've argued...nothing more, nothing less. I haven't hidden my opinion--I want criminals to go to jail if a court of law proves them guilty. I don't think that a media witch hunt that latches on to a scapegoat is part of the solution. It is simply a political tool for enemies of the Church.

Chris Coose writes:

"I just don't get your going with this. How does this help the Church move from the mess it has created? Or maybe you just don't think it is that big a deal. Is that it?"

If I didn't think it was a big deal, I wouldn't talk about it. Here are some of my previous statements on the forum:

"1. Those who are sexually abused should bring up criminal charges against any sexual predators.

2. Those men and women who can be criminally convicted of any abuse of children should be placed in prison.

....

If a priest is accused of something criminal, he has the same rights as anyone else--he is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law (not the media). A priest deserves no more and no less protection than any.

....

My diocese, like many others, has had a strict policy for dealing with sexual abuse. This includes:

1) It is proactive in recruiting priests and lay who are a minimal threat to children (there are no guarantees). The seminarians are subject to pschological tests. Anyone who wishes to work with children (CCD teachers, for example) must take a special class that outlines the dioceses policies regarding sexual abuse.

2) It is proactive in dealing with accusations of abuse.

3) It is punative in dealing with convicted abusers. The priests can be defrocked. This should be in addition to (not in place of) the civil authority's responsibility for criminal punishment to those guilty of breaking the law. People should stop imagining that priests and other church officials have some secret status that nullifies criminal justice--they don't."

Chris, I hope you'll agree that these words are not compromising or evasive. They also address the Catholic Church's response (in my diocese) to fight against sexual abuse, even before there was a national scandal.

If you'll excuse me, I've got a tall building to leap. Lois is waiting for me... :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.

Thanks for the return Mateo,
Remember that American Beauty is a movie. Something somebody made up. The homo and hetero sub plots were done by paid actors not unsuspecting children. It is an interesting comparrison but a bit off.
You and I both know that there may not be one criminal charge to come from all of this due to the statue of limitations so if you think justice will be served by waiting for a criminal conviction you might not see it. It is being seen that the Boston archdiosese is digging in it's heals in legal manuvering. By doing things like countering that the rapist Geoghan's seven year old victim's charges by blaming him and his parents, it is going to be a long wait before there are any findings even in civil courts.
A couple of months ago I read some articles in the newspaper written by a K-12 classmate of mine, describing what happend to him on trips with Fr. Rosencranz, a priest I used to serve at the altar. He also described the path he took over the years to resolve the issue. This story did not look anything like American Beauty. If it weren't for this large story finally finding it's way into the light, Pete Pollard would still be getting stepped on - silenced. And I'd bet the farm that Pete is telling the truth about Rosencranz and the shuffle.
Last week they tossed a priest I worked with in Ellsworth, ME because he admitted having sex with a boy.
That is news that I am interested in. And I would be interested if this was news about teachers, child care workers or anybody else. The conditions of this nastiness was not caused by the press. The surpression of this story which builds it into a giant media event lies at Cardinal Law's door and not the Boston Globe's.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 05, 2002.

Moderator, please delete the obscene posts just left by Chris Coose and "kiwi" (in response to me) and warn them that they will be suspended or banned if such behavior continues.
Thanks. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

John and moderator apologies, my comments were immature and inappropriate. Bit of a touchy issue for me, which on reflection I perhaps should refrain from posting on.

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

Hang in there kiwi,
Up to the last sentance your were on a fine roll. It is this kind of passion and emotion that JFG and his ilk are ignoring in this challenge by throwing blame curve balls all over the field.
This ignorance is a half-measured conscieousness to resolve this crisis. What does it feel like to you to hold back half your confession in the booth? It would be a good idea to give it all up and take the pennance and that it happening in most diosese. They will be the ones to move through this most quickly. Spreading blame, acting as victims and ignoring the backlash of this problem will only prolong the pain.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 05, 2002.

Chris C, I have seen this same garbage from you and others in various threads on this topic. Others (especially Mateo, very eloquently) have corrected you for making this same mistake again and again and again.
Why can't you people get it through you thick skulls that those of us who object (as on this thread) to the abuse of the Church by the media (and by dissenters) DO want ... DO want ... DO want all the guilty to be properly punished, DO want ... DO want ... DO want needed reforms to be implemented in the Church? We don't want ANYTHING to be brushed under the carpet. We want action, and we want it fast. We want defrockings and prosecutions!!! HEAR THAT, KIWI AND CHRIS!???? Now REMEMBER THAT I SAID IT! You forgot it after Mateo and other said it repeatedly. So REMEMBER that I said it!

You guys read our words of complaint about the media's incomplete reporting of the society-wide problem ... and our words of complaint about overkill by some in the media ... and our words of complaint about the ulterior motives of some in the media -- and you go ballistic, completely forgetting that we have stated many times that we want the guilty to be punished!
Now PLEASE stop forgetting it!

God bless you.
John
PS: Kiwi, I accept your apology for the obscenity.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

Thankyou John and apologies again. I still however disagree with you on the angle the media is taking ie "trying to fool people, for months, into believing that the vast majority of abuse in America is carried out by Catholic priests!" I dont think the media is trying to convince people of this at all. Rather it is disgusted ,as I would venture to say are most Catholics with how the Church handles such allegations. I only have to consider how differently my own profession- teaching, deals with such allegations . "DO want ... DO want ... DO want all the guilty to be properly punished, DO want ... DO want ... DO want needed reforms to be implemented in the Church? We don't want ANYTHING to be brushed under the carpet. We want action, and we want it fast." Cool were all(media included) on the same wave length. This was not the view I got from reading your previous posts,though Im sure this can be put down to my "thick skull".

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Kiwi.
You stated: "I still however disagree with you on the angle the media is taking ie 'trying to fool people, for months, into believing that the vast majority of abuse in America is carried out by Catholic priests!' I dont think the media is trying to convince people of this at all."

I always ask folks to read my messages very carefully, because (except when I am in a rush) I try to use words with precision. Please notice what I actually wrote: "Many in the media are not honestly and simply interested in prosecution of the guilty and healing of the wounded."
The key word there is "many." You overlooked that and disagreed with something I had not stated. You made it seem that I was condemning everyone in the media. No. I know that there are some honest reporters. But from having observed and read about people in the media for decades, I know that there is tremendous dishonesty in many quarters, along with massive doses of anti-Catholicism.

If you were a member of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights for the last fifteen years (as I have been) you would have been aware of the thousands of anti-Catholic actions perpetrated by the media during that period. You would know that polls have revealed that something like 85% of all people in the media consider themselves liberal Democrats, that they are pro-abortion, and that they are in favor of broad "gay rights." You would know that a similar percentage of the media practice no religion at all. This adds up to a contempt for Catholicism, which exhibits itself in an endless stream of attempts to undermine the Church, using any kind of problem or scandal available as a destructive pretext.

I hope that you will find independent confirmation of what I have just told you, because I realize that something so big, new, and shocking may be hard for a person to swallow.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

John we dont seem to agree on much, again I must defer!

THE NOT MANY IS THE KEY WORD HERE! I stand by my quote of you. You wrote many many many many times using the broad brush of "the media". Please read carefully again and see who is taking who out of context.

"One should have no trouble at all seeing what Mateo and Fred are driving at. The media have been plastered, for months now, with an all-out assault against Catholicism, using guilty priests (and accused priests, some innocent) as a focal point for the battering. Instead of this, Mateo and Fred are saying, the media ought to expose what is taking place in the whole of society on this subject, not just in one little segment that the media detest (Catholicism). The media, to be just to the Church, need to tell the whole public the full truth about the widespread character of the rare problem of true pedophilia and more common problem of ephebophilia (taking advantage of post-pubescent minors). The media have to show that the sexual sins of the Catholic clergy comprise only a tiny percent of the sexual sins of society -- instead of trying to fool people, for months, into believing that the vast majority of abuse in America is carried out by Catholic priests!

To say this is qualified by your single line later on in your post "Many in the media are not honestly and simply interested in prosecution of the guilty and healing of the wounded" is tenuous at the very least.Why did you not refer to "the media" as "some in the media"?

Have I missed something(probably)?, cause I feel tremendous dishonesty in many quarters indeed! God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 07, 2002.

Hello, Kiwi.
Now you are "stretching," and what you are trying to say does not come out as believable. If I messed up and said a bunch of inaccurate or unfair things, it would have been quite obvious. The truth is that I didn't mess up, but you're finding that hard to admit. You're trying to get off on a "technicality," but without success!

Let's take a look at what you just quoted from me:

"The media have been plastered, for months now, with an all-out assault against Catholicism ..."
I thought that you would have recognized this as a truthful generalization -- namely, that each of "the media" (i.e., TV, radio, print, in general) "have [indeed] been plastered." This is not an indictment of every journalist or of every media outlet.

"Instead of this, Mateo and Fred are saying, the media ought to expose what is taking place in the whole of society on this subject, not just in one little segment that the media detest (Catholicism)."
No problem in the beginning of this, because "the media" (all of them) really ought to expose the society-wide problem. I will grant it would have been better if I had written the final phrase as "... many members of the media detest (Catholicism)," because that better reflects my belief. However, my later, qualifying comment makes that meaning clear.

"The media, to be just to the Church, need to tell the whole public the full truth about the widespread character ..."
Again, true. I am explaining a duty of the media.

"The media have to show that the sexual sins of the Catholic clergy comprise only a tiny percent of the sexual sins of society -- instead of trying to fool people, for months, into believing that the vast majority of abuse in America is carried out by Catholic priests!"
Again, true. I am explaining a duty of the media.

That marks the end of your quotation from me.
Then you state: "To say this is qualified by your single line later on in your post ('Many in the media are not honestly and simply interested in prosecution of the guilty and healing of the wounded') is tenuous at the very least."
Obviously, I disagree with you. I have just shown most of what I had said previously did not even need "qualification." But that which did need it was well qualified by my later statement ("Many in the media ..."). There is nothing "tenuous" here.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

umm ahhh "I thought it was quite believable" he says red faced and hiding from the computer screen. whoops! sorry yet AGAIN !!! maybe the big guy is trying to tell me something... God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

"The media have to show that the sexual sins of the Catholic clergy comprise only a tiny percent of the sexual sins of society -- instead of trying to fool people, for months, into believing that the vast majority of abuse in America is carried out by Catholic priests!"JFG

You must think the rest of us are a bunch of numbskulls.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 08, 2002.

Chris, on close reflection I think John is right, though only technicaly, as the general impression one would take away from his comments would be the media is all bad. John you are a wordsmith of the very highest order. I am somewhat in awe of the trickery!

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

Chris C

You are taking the comments in the wrong light again. We are fully aware of the fact that the sex abuse issue is not as large in the Church as the press is trying to show and furthermore if a case appears on the secular society side it would NEVER make national news headlines. Did you know that 2 men to the best of my knowledge in the recent 5 years have been arrested for activities of child porn in Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter N.H. and one other was also if I have my memory on track another was found in Andover Academy in Andover Mass. From these incedents alone there appears to be a good number of educators who are being found to be involved in similar crimes. Yet the press NEVER exploits these things. Do you ever wonder why? It doe not take a rocket scientist to figure out where the press will go to make money and gain attention. It is also a golden opportunity for the reporters to rise up in their jobs and gain better pay opportunities at the expense of the Church.

Wait when the Church crises cools down and see where the Boston press heads next. I have seen 58 years of this stuff from them. THEY LOVE sensationalist press releases. It sells papers. But hurts souls.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 08, 2002.

Kiwi,

I don't see any "trickery" in John's wording. I think he spends time trying to phrase his statements so he doesn't have to explain himself twice.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 08, 2002.

indeed it is too strong a word, "trickery" should be "cleverness"

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

Dear Fred Why can you not see that that the numbers involved are only a secondary matter surely? Does it give you some sort of satisfaction attempting to quantify the amount of damage done, what is this a benefit/cost analysis???? Im flabbergasted, really lost for words. Educators are not protected and sheltered by their own institutions, ahhhhhh Im going mad. I know you disagree with Jeffery's thread but at least it may have opened your eyes at some level to the bigger issues and problems involved? I feel so frustrated reading posts like above you just seem to be going round and round without taking or accepting ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR VERSION OF THE TRUTH. I can accept their may be an anti Catholic bias to some reports but where there is smoke there is fire, and its the processes and procedures that are at issue here. Is the Church rotten to the core, of course not, but did it need a shake up YES YES YES YES. At least try and accept that some good will come from the work of the media. Can someone who Fred respects at least try and give him some guidance Please for the sake of my sanity. God Bless all

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

That's another great reason for the death penalty, to say to society: "this crime is so heinous that we no longer want this person's influence in society, even in the minimal effect it would have from him being alive in prison."

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 08, 2002.

Frank

What are you saying? This is NOT the death penalty thread.

Kiwi

What is your problem? I AM talking about the sensationalism that has occurred and you talk about the money issue. The press in the Boston area LOVES, I REPEAT, LOVES to put down the Catholic Church. What is so difficult about that fact? I lived in that area for 58 years and saw daily press almost daily from them trying to put down the Church. If you lived there then you would see what I am talking about.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 08, 2002.

Kiwi

Another thing is this. This schools I was referring to are private schools and are considered as institutions too. They are privately funded and do not rely on public funds at all. So they can be sued as well if there is activity by the teachers that is covered up too.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 08, 2002.

So it is sensational.
It is an overblown story in all New England press, conservative and liberal alike.
So they have an interest in selling their product.
There have been lot of priest perverts in the Boston area and the Church in Boston has done a terrible deed by exasserbating the problem.
All truths.
We live in a free press capitalist country and they can do pretty much whatever the hell they want to.
The question is what are you press bashers to do except complain? And what will your complaints get you?
This is a big story and they have jumped on it like a duck on a June bug and it has moved the closeted problem squarely into the light and the closet door has slammed so this problem has to be examined. All in all, I think they've done us a great service and you are all welcome to your complaints and your frustrations with a problem that you can do nothing about, except choose to ignore the daily breaking news on an important Church issue.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 08, 2002.

Yeh sure, and the Boston Press bullies do what they want to do and the remaining culprits are runnig for cover undetected because the press is too BUSY glorifying itself. For every one priest who is guilty there is at least 10 or more others doing the same thging and going undetected. What do you think I am BLIND. I AM NOT. Just look it is out there and in large numbers.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 08, 2002.

Fred would that wisdom be backed up by delusion or paranoia?

But we will never know the real truth, right? Because the demonic press is keeping the story from us so they can ruin the Catholic Church. Wow!

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 08, 2002.

A Catholic reporter tonight said this:

"I am Catholic, educated in the catholic school system K-graduate school, attend church every sunday, ............It pains me to have to report the things I do, BUT, I will continue reporting on this scandal BECAUSE it is not about the church, it is not about the priests, it is not about the Bishops, not about the Cardinals...IT IS ABOUT CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED AND THE CHURCH LET IT GO ON.." He went on to say that no one is going to stop him from reporting it and no one is saying that 'all' priests are abusers. He is tired of the priests behaving like victims - and the victims being treated like enemies of the church.

I don't remember the reporters name, but he was on Foxnews around 6:00pm

Went to a church meeting last night and the speaker (a catholic priest and author) was pastor for 25 years and well loved by everyone, including his fellow priests - brillant man and very charismatic (personality wise, not a "charistmatic) He thinks Cardinal Law should step down. He also asked that we continue to support the good priests, our pastors, send a card letting them know we care and understand that they are hurting. He asked that we please continue to support our church financially.

Lots of priests were there, the church was packed, and he got a standing ovation when he said he thinks Cardinal Law should step down, humble himself and dedicate the rest of his life serving the poor....like Mother Teresa's sisters.

Now, I did not say these things, a priest did and all the priest stood up as well and gave their brother priest a standing ovation. MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 08, 2002.

No. Just you (singular), Chris C. ;=)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 09, 2002.

Dear MaryLu,
If we all have our own opinions about it, that makes no difference. A Catholic reporter is only stating what HE thinks, and the good father you've told us about is also entitled to his opinion. Those others that aplauded him for saying Cardinal Law ought to step down are entitled to applaud. This is a free country.

But there must be other opinions. I feel the Cardinal has no obligation to resign. He CAN, if he chooses; but he has NO obligation. I for one think it's judgmental and presumptuous of the public to demand resignations of Catholic prelates.

Assuming Cardinal Law is truly guilty of a sin of ommission, by letting these evil men get away with their crimes, he should be punished by law. But not by the Church, and even less by the Catholic laity.

If the law is to punish him, he is entitled to defend himself in court, like all Americans are. We only see what's apparent on the surface. He may be guilty as sin. Or, his fault may be one of total ignorance of the true circumstances. That's what a jury would have to think about. As things stand now, he's being judged in the news media; and he's guilty by association. He knew these criminal priests, and he could have done a number of things to protect the faithful and their children. Why didn't he? Because he's indifferent, as stupid Mole says? Or for more complicated reasons?

I'm positive Pope John Paul has heard Law's side of the story. He may have heard an abject and sorrowful confession!

Why hasn't John Paul ordered him to resign? Could it be in deference to the innocence of the Cardinal; who may not have understood what he was doing, as he dealt with a devious band of predator priests??? We haven't been in the confessional with either those evil priests, or with Law. We see what we want to see.

If the Pope had intimated to the Cardinal he would be better off retired, he would have been instantly obeyed. That's my opinion. The Pope is not some beady-eyed procurer, as some anti-Catholics like to think. He is a saint. If Cardinal Law is at fault, let the chips fall where they may later. The public has no right to pester him.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 09, 2002.

Eugene writes:

Assuming Cardinal Law is truly guilty of a sin of ommission, by letting these evil men get away with their crimes, he should be punished by law. But not by the Church, and even less by the Catholic laity.

I couldn't agree more. You make such a clear statement with so few words...as Shakespeare wrote:

"Brevity is the soul of wit." (Lord Polonius)

Eugene, may God Bless you.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 09, 2002.

Chris C

You are becoming a real block head to facts. The press is ONLY INTERESTED IN THEIR GLORY. The Catholic Church is one hell of lot bigger target for them to attack than some little School teacher in a little rural town in the hills. What part of this is it you cannot understand here. It is the size and scope of the target and the ability of the Media to grab attention. That is what sells pap[ers and promotes the reporters to higher status jobs. The Church crises is their Golden opportunity to national fame and for their names and even faces to be known to the world public.

Wha t is it that I have to prove to you in this issue to make you understand this rubbish that the press is doing to glorify itself? You seem to forget the many cases of child abuse that gets no press recognition daily. You forget the many cases of child porn that recieves minimal attention of the press. Those cases and GOD only knows many more of them are never heard.

You are one of them people involved and I personally am sick to death of your crap of your wanting to Kill the church and her leaders and the damnation the Boston Press and others have done. It is time for them to produce the real picture and stop the direct scam that they are doing to our great church.

The other stories are not being told and should be. It is not just a Catholic Church problem at all. IT IS a social problem and it needs to be seen in that light. What is it you cannot understand? I have made my point quite clear. VERY CLEAR. It is NOT a church issue alone, but a social issue. I was one of those who grew up in the sexual revelution era. I saw directly the effects of that era and how it is now affecting us today. If you were a bit older as I am then you would see this as well as I do. It is the behavior of those in my era that started the things we hear of today. Look at the Gay rights crap for example and the feminists who are so prominant in our press and more. The problem is not the Church at all. It is the human element and our free social ways that has done more harm. DENIAL OF GOD and his WILL. I DO read and think too. God has been denied for too long and it shows in the press too.

I can say a lot more on this but I am going to hold it in my head for now. It is not worth the pains to tell it all. it has already been talked about clearly by the other members in the forum very clearly in the past days. I wish that this forum would get back to it's real intent, the salvation of souls and the propagation of our faith. I hate anger and there has already been too much of that done in here. GET IT?

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 09, 2002.

Fred,
I agree with you that it is a social issue but what has happened in the past 40 or so years as the (Boston)Chruch relates to this social issue is like a hydrogen bomb compared to a bazooka. The press responds accordingly.
So what can you do about it? Nothing, except complain. I'll listen to you but I just don't agree with you on much of this one and that's OK by me. How about you?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 09, 2002.

Chris

Yep ole down Mainer. Ah is got it. You and i will have to agree to disagree. Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 09, 2002.