Church silently moved accused child molestors to other areas for over 75 years

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
this makes my blood boil:

"After nearly three years of legal wrangling, the Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese released information Tuesday from the confidential personnel files of 126 clergymen accused of sexual abuse.

The records, which summarize the files of the clergy, show that for more than 75 years the Archdiocese shipped priests accused of abuse between therapy and new assignments, often ignoring parishioners' complaints."


they might as well have said that the act of raping a minor is ok ...75 ****ing years
 
this was in the news a while ago in massachusetts, when the boston diocese were going through the shit. frankly it is disgusting. we should be doing everything in the world to protect our youth. even the most hardened criminals will (in jail) take revenge on anyone who touched a child, and yet the "holier than thou" christian slimeballs can't even step up to tha plate and take some heat to defend the innocent. ****ing pathetic. goddamn cowards are worse than anything i can think of and yet they condemn gay marriage...or abortion...or anythhing else they think is immoral while this is going on behind closed doors???? ugh
 
well the pope just recently banned homosexuals from becoming priests. Many believe, myself included that this was more to placate the public into thinking they've made steps in preventing pedophiles from becoming priests ...more fear mongering.

one of the most admirable acts of protest over the decades of abuse was when Sinead Oconner tore up the photo of the pope on live tv

http://www.thepopesfanclub.com/images/SineadOConnor1.jpg


as a former catholic I'm ashamed and disgusted by the widespread acts of abuse
 
CptStern said:
as a former catholic I'm ashamed and disgusted by the widespread acts of abuse
Click to expand...

well, the actual acts are the faults of the individuals who commited them. (also as a former catholic) i am more disgusted by the churches response, things like you said in your original post, as well as shifing the focus to homosexual priests. fortunatly for the church, they indoctrinate youth before they can form their own opinions, turning them (in their adult lives) into mindless followers of a false god. they will forever be bound to the church, ignorant of its follies, blind to its lies, and married to the idea of its infallability. despite things like this, negative reprecussions will be mild at best, and people will continue to turn a blind eye, continue putting their kids in at a tender age, and continue the viscious cycle of ignorance and selective intolerance. kmack ftw
 
Kmack said:
well, the actual acts are the faults of the individuals who commited them. (also as a former catholic) i am more disgusted by the churches response, things like you said in your original post, as well as shifing the focus to homosexual priests. fortunatly for the church, they indoctrinate youth before they can form their own opinions, turning them (in their adult lives) into mindless followers of a false god. they will forever be bound to the church, ignorant of its follies, blind to its lies, and married to the idea of its infallability. despite things like this, negative reprecussions will be mild at best, and people will continue to turn a blind eye, continue putting their kids in at a tender age, and continue the viscious cycle of ignorance and selective intolerance. kmack ftw
Click to expand...

ya sorry that's what I meant, I'm disgusted by the individuals and the church as a whole for aiding criminals ..they pretty much set them up to rape again and again ..off to a new city where no one knows you
 
happened here too, 'states of fear' anyone? well anyone irish, and thats like 3 people...:dozey:
 
This is why I choose to believe in God on my own terms, rather than through organised religion.

-Angry Lawyer
 
Angry Lawyer said:
This is why I choose to believe in God on my own terms, rather than through organised religion.

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...
now there speaks a clever man.
 
Angry Lawyer said:
This is why I choose to believe in God on my own terms, rather than through organised religion.

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

Agnostic?

as of right now I think that's my path as well....I prefer not to let others tell me what, and more importantly how to believe.
It also eliminates the threat of corruption which, as seen in this case, can be uttery devastating.
though i still circle back to buddhism :)
 
Reaktor4 said:
clever people dont believe in mythical beings.
Click to expand...

ahh someone has yet to delve into the depths of philosophy... check out the Ontological Argument.
heres a tidbit
The ontological argument claims that the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn’t exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what “triangle” means makes it obvious that a four-sided triangle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what “God” means makes it obvious that God’s non-existence is impossible. The claim that God does not exist is self-contradictory.

its pretty deep stuff, but there are a number of arguments that trivialize your flippant ersponse to someone elses belief. basically any priori argument just makes you look ignorant. (ew, im defending God,... i used to think your way, but seriously, check out some priori arguments, especially Descartes)
 
Absinthe said:
He very much believes in a God.
Click to expand...

he didnt say that, and you can let him speak for himself i think. thanks though. also, someone who is agnostic CAN believe in a God. but thanks.
 
Well, excuse me. But I think it's been made quite clear in his own post and on a number of occasions that he is a theist.

And yes, I'm quite aware of the relationship between agnosticism and theism. I assumed your use of the word, is all.
 
thats ridiculous. the catholic church as an institution is a very damaged one. child molesters do NOT deserve god's sanctuary, string them up by their bollocks.
 
Absinthe said:
Well, excuse me. But I think it's been made quite clear in his own post and on a number of occasions that he is a theist.

And yes, I'm quite aware of the relationship between agnosticism and theism. I assumed your use of the word, is all.
Click to expand...

sorry, but im agnostic and i believe in God. its upsetting when people jump to the conlusion that to believe in God excludes one from being agnostic.

anyways, back on the topic, even at the highest levels, where you'd think they are closer to God, they can act this disgutingly.

Reaktor4 said:
i agree.
Click to expand...

just don't flippantly cast off the theory of God. ill go priori on your ass :)
 
Reaktor4 said:
/me flippantly casts off the theory of god
Click to expand...

St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D- In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.

i can go all night with thousands of philisophical arguments if you would like. or, you can continue to plead ignorance. though for someone who flippantly casts off the theory of God, I assume your education is lacking and this is probably way to deep, but trust me, you just sound stupid to anyone with some degree of intelligence, philisophical research non-withstanding.
 
you collect piss from your bathroom? youre one of those urine drinkers arent ya?
 
Kmack said:
St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D- In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous argument, but this isn't really the place for a theological debate.
 
Absinthe said:
That's a ridiculous argument, but this isn't really the place for a theological debate.
Click to expand...

that is one of the most respect and longest held (as well as most difficult to refute) statements in the history of not only philosophy but theology. lol what are you thinking! look up the ontological arguments or any priori arguments! omg...
 
It suffers from a lack of imagination and, narrowness, and the assumption that there has to be a greater being. At least if my interpretation of it is correct (honestly, the word "great" pops into that so many time that it gets muddled). Unrefutable? ****ing dandy when you're working with completely unfalsifiable concepts.

Frankly, you can spare me your piss and vinegar.

ADDED:
We have a concept of a Perfect Island:
Such a Perfect Island must necessarily exist.
Why? If it did not exist, then it would not be Perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top