Catholic Official on Child Abuse: "Blame the Kids!"

not sure who chooses bishops, but the vatican certainly approves them. at least they're usually pretty fast with firing or even excommunicating them under certain circumstances, rampant child abuse not being one of them.

and when was the last time a pope had not been cardinal before?

The reaction took a decade, that kind of heresy could have affected the souls of many millions.

Urban VI
 
I think the pope thinks that the situation should be handled internally. If someone was fired, the cops might get involved, and I don't think the church leadership wants that. Which is illegal, but that's what it seems like.


That's really what it is all about. The church is protecting the church. When they should be protecting the children. And when it all went public it blew up in their faces. But in the process of trying to protect the church, they endangered a great many more children than would have been in danger otherwise.

And even now they are fighting, not to clean up the mess and clear their names, but to continue to sweep as much of it as possible under the rug still. And to deflect blame from the higher ups, up to and including the current pope, who are responsible for for the coverup in the first place.
 
tell me, what effect has tolerating child abuse on the souls of many millions?

There is no systematic cover up, the stuff used to be dealt with by the diocese. Liberation theology posed the threat of damning tens or even hundreds of millions of people to Hell and so posed an extreme threat to humanity.
 
And yet child abuse was something that was apparently okay
 
There is no systematic cover up, the stuff used to be dealt with by the diocese. Liberation theology posed the threat of damning tens or even hundreds of millions of people to Hell and so posed an extreme threat to humanity.

Are you serious? How about the systematic cover up by the different diocese?

I'm not trying to attack the religion itself - but the bolded statement above has no basis in reality. Whatsoever.

And by your logic in the second sentence, all priests, clergy and officials of other religions on Earth should be exterminated or at least persecuted so as to cease spreading the 'false' beliefs that all end in damnation.
 
And just exactly how did it do that? :crazyeye:

Catholics believe that those who don't follow the word of God are sinners, and that priests are supposed to encourage people away from sin, so to have priests instead leading them towards it is pretty bad, in their eyes. I'm not saying that this is a good world-view, but it's often good to be able to understand why people do the things they do.
 
Catholics believe that those who don't follow the word of God are sinners, and that priests are supposed to encourage people away from sin, so to have priests instead leading them towards it is pretty bad, in their eyes. I'm not saying that this is a good world-view, but it's often good to be able to understand why people do the things they do.


OK. But to track on that, it would mean believing that men are never wrong when deciphering the will of god. And given the track record of men, particularly men who run the Catholic church, that's a belief that defies rationality.
 
Yes, it is, but the belief - if we take as a given that heresy is sinful, and the Catholic view of the consequences of sin - that priests shouldn't teach the 'orthodox' view defies it even more.

As to whether it actually relies on that belief: there's a good essay by Isaac Asimov called 'The Relativity of Wrong', in which he argues (the parallel with teaching creationism in schools is implicit) that yes, our theories of the Earth's shape and situation are likely to be updated in the future, so they are to an extent 'wrong', but they're less wrong than the belief of the ancients that the Earth is flat. The Catholics would say that the same applies to theology; it evolves over time, so what we've got now is probably mostly right, and anything that purports to re-write all of it is probably wrong, in the same way as scientists would.
 
Possible. But here the situation was just that the hierarchy cracked down on something because it was a challenge to their own personal authority. Rather than that it could be rejected based on theology. And in doing so, they moved the theology further from what seems to be the spirit of Jesus.
 
Possible. But here the situation was just that the hierarchy cracked down on something because it was a challenge to their own personal authority. Rather than that it could be rejected based on theology. And in doing so, they moved the theology further from what seems to be the spirit of Jesus.

If you actually checked why it was rejected as heretical they went through what parts of liberation theology were heretical and why.
 
"A father less child seduces the priest in his moment of weakness..."

That is the must ignorant BS I have ever read.I was molested as a child and I didn't ask for it...

I hope this is just one stupid priest and not speaking for the whole community...the man pities Sandusky..the king pedophile...I am so happy I am no longer Catholic....
 
"A father less child seduces the priest in his moment of weakness..."

That is the must ignorant BS I have ever read.I was molested as a child and I didn't ask for it...

I hope this is just one stupid priest and not speaking for the whole community...the man pities Sandusky..the king pedophile...I am so happy I am no longer Catholic....

Keep in mind this is on old man who suffered serious head trauma and is lucky to not be a vegetable or dead.
 
And perhaps we should expect journalists to report with context and nuance, or that people will read articles that way. Bwhahahahaha!
 
Back
Top Bottom