The sins of the Fathers are crimes

Child abuse is nothing! Western Christians will abandon Christianity in droves if they get to know how "really" religion of love is spread among pagans and heathens!

On November 6, 1999 Pope John Paul II in his sermon at the Sacred Heart Cathedral of New Delhi, INDIA, openly stated, "Just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the third Christian millennium, a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent [Asia]"

This is a story from INDIA, where this - priests raping nuns and boys - disease is spreading like AIDS.

http://myexperimentsagainstprejudice.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-sex-and-scandals.html

YOU ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A NEW BLOG…

…that tackles Church abuse, separation of Church and State, Atheism, Buddhism, Existentialism….

Just posted:

CONCEPTS + LOGIC = KNOWLEDGE, by Blacksun
MAN AND REASON, by Randall Duncan
RATZINGER’S VATICAN: SEX, LIES AND SECRETS, by Emily Helm.
THE NEW BUDDHIST ATHEISM, by Mark Vernon

http://theexistentialatheist.blogspot.com/

“The only way to cure the cancer of Catholicism, and stop the pedophilia, is to begin each ceremony of ordination to the deaconate with castration.”

In all of this church defenders are constantly referring to "past" abuse of children.
It takes many years for abused children to become adult enough to understand what happened to them and to report it, or to get a hearing.
So how do we know these same abuses are not CURRENTLY taking place and that the bishops who presided over the silence are still covering up?
As long as Cardinals Law and Mahoney and the Irish bishops remain in powerful posts, I will not believe that the Pope and the institutional Church are doing anything more than public relations.
On learning of a credible report of priest-child pedophilia or ebophilia has a bishop ever picked up the phone and called the police? Ever?

In my field, medicine, our traditional oath starts with "primum non nocere"- first do no harm.

Appears to me that "first do no harm" ought to be a basic requirement for the priesthood as well. A priest who does harm cannot be entrusted with a congregation.

Note well - in medicine, the harm is not specified. It means that we physicians are not to use the powers society has entrusted us with to harm others.

That said, I would like to hear the Pope apologize for his abusive priests, and then have him immediately raise the whole dialogue to a higher level. It is time to make it a church policy to defrock any priest anywhere in the world who systematically uses his job as a way to harm any of his parishioners.

And then a finer point: Harm does not have to be sexual abuse. The Pope can leave harm as a generic idea open to definition thereby allowing the church to flex its muscle as future times may require.

Ratzinger still doesn't get it.

The abuse of children by a small percentage of Catholic priests is ugly and shameful, and in the future, Catholics all should ensure that those who commit such acts are held criminally responsible. Many, can't seem to understand the Church's position on abuse. Decades ago, when much of this abuse happened, child abuse was treated very differently by many segments of society, the family, educators, government entities and legal authorities. It has only been in the last decade that society has brought about changes in the way child abuse is viewed and handled by many. Of course it should be reported by authorities and those responsible should be held accountable and imprisoned. However, I would like to remind people that one of the precepts of christianity is forgiveness. Catholocism has always stressed forgiveness and absolution of sins. I am not saying that forgiveness should preempt accountability for a criminal act. What I am saying is that when bishops and cardinals knew of child abuse by a priest, some of them honestly thought decades ago that if one asked for forgiveness and was given absolution and they promised not to do this again, they thought it ended it. Unfortunately, as we all know now, pedophiles do it over and over again given the chance. I'm not trying to excuse the hierarchy of the church, only to understand this terrible situation. What they forgot was that the Church does not need protection, it as survived and will continue to survive until the end of time. I say that there is a frenzy out there of individuals who seem to have a real hatred for the Church and given any reason, seem to relish this feeding frenzy.

Having practiced Catholicism as a teen I had no experience whatever with priest misbehavior. The evidence of some of them doing so around the world however, is so enlightening that I have to believe there are/were some that did abuse both God's word and the rule of human decency. To deny this with impunity is tantamount to excusing them. There are bad people in all walks of live. Let's accept that and go on trying to our best to call them to task for that.

If Susan's facts are wrong, how accurate can her opinions be?

Susan,
You state in your article "In Cardinal Ratzinger's 2001 letter Crimen Sollicitationis..." In reality, this document was issued in 1962 by Cardinal Ottavani, while John XIII was pope. You may be thinking of "De delictis gravioribus," which was issued in 2001 by Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF, under JPII.

Susan,
I think you are correct that the Pope still doesn't get it or take responsibility for the abuses on his watch that he could have prevented - he sounds like he thinks he's a victim of "gossip." If the word had come down from the Vatican that all sexual abuse was to STOP and that abusers and those who cover it up were to be turned over to police (as they now say the bishops in Milwaukee should have done) things would have been very different. I have a sad feeling that the Catholic hierachy is so full of perverts that they really can't recognize the evil of sexual abuse. BTW, I am a Catholic and the whole thing turns my stomach.

Once again the Post treats us to Miss Thistlethwaite's breathtaking ignorance.

She is last person on earth who should be lecturing the Holy Father about the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, in which he participated as an expert theologian. Her main complaint seems to be that he does not embrace all of her hippie enthusiasms.

Miss Thistlethwaite really is an insufferable ignoramus whose inane opinions are of interest to no one.

Susan, as a fellow theology prof I thank you for addressing this very important issue. I think there are problems with Pope Benedict's vision of Church. His handling of sex abuse is very mixed, with some good openness, but also too much blaming other people and not facing charges. On one point, though, I think you're off base. If you read Benedict's extensive writings on ecclesiology it is clear that he believes all the baptized People of God are the church. How he carries this out is another thing, of course. But I'd urge you to study all his writings before making such a blanket claim.
Peace,
Father Anthony Ruff, OSB
Saint John's Abbey and University
Collegeville, MN

Oh boy! here we go again. The priest was defrocked in 1966. The statute of limitations was up. What cover up. Murphy did this in secret. His case is hardly comparable to the liberation theologians who were shouting their case from the rooftops.

Susan, your case and line of argument is illogical and makes connections and assumptions which are patently false.

Learn to think before you write.

Susan, your anti-Catholic bias shows through in your utter ignorance of the actual facts here. 1) The Murphy abuse instances happened in the 1970s, and the then archbishop of Milwaukee, William Cousins, now deceased, is the one you should direct your hysteria at. 2) In the mid-1990s, Abp. Weakland referred the matter to CDF under Crimens, and a canonical trial was begun. The then Card. Ratzinger, in his capacity as Prefect, had no jurisdiction to laicize or otherwise discipline Murphy, until the canonical trial was concluded--and in fact, he recommended that the canonical trial proceed swiftly. Weakland was in no way prevented either de jure or de facto from contacting the police about Murphy, but he did not. Throw some of your histrionics his way, if you like. But I doubt you will, because Weakland is your kind of Catholic--which is to say, disobedient to the magisterium. Murphy's canonical trial was suspended because of his terminal medical condition, and he in fact died only months thereafter. This is the same humane treatment you would be hysterically calling for against an al-Queda terrorist, I'm very sure.

In 300 years the Roman Catholic Church will refer to these times as one in which the church was falsely and malignantly attacked by atheists, non-believers, government and Satanic enemies of Christianity.

"Against a massive effort to discredit the piety and chasteness of the clergy with accusations of heinous crimes, the church and her followers fought a protracted battle against this evil... eventually triumphing in the name of Jesus and to the greater glory of the mother church."

I assure you that this will come to pass...this has always been the strategy of the criminal enterprise called Catholicism.

May the light of knowledge shine on your path,
May your path lead to truth,
and the LIE die.