F
fish90
Guest
How does a faithful Catholic respond to the fact that bishops allowed known offenders to be transferred to other parishes?
Thanks
Thanks
- Status
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
By asking where they get the idea that Bishops can’t be human and sin?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hiyas
Have you tried reading the answers given?
I hope this helps
This says you’ve been to the “other” threads…
Have you tried reading the answers given?
I hope this helps
H
Holly3278
Guest
I respond to this fact by acknowledging the other fact that priests and bishops are fallible people just like everyone else.
I
izoid
Guest
Prayer and forgiveness.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
I was asked by our Diocese ro investigate three cases, before the problem became notorious in the press. This was my analysis, and it still is…
In the post war period, as America began to benefit economically from the post-war boom, vocations to the priesthood began to fall. There was also a gradual shift in the liberal direction in American thinking.
As a consequence of these two changes, the American Church (and the European Church also) began to lower standards, quietly admitting more and more homosexuals to the priesthood. The Chancellor in our Diocese once confided to me that about one-third of American Catholic priests are gay.
Gay men are promiscuous. Whether you like it or not, this is true. About 5 years ago a University of Chicago study, interviewing about 2,000 gays, found that promiscuity is the rule, not the exception. About 100 partners was the average. The promiscuity was so bad that the study defined 15 or fewer partners as “celibate” (or a word like “celibate” – it’s been a few years since I looked at the study).
While Catholics went to Mass and plunked money into the collection basket, they were, by doing that, unwittingly financing a large amount of gay sex.
The gay priests did not limit their activities to the “mature.” Young, post-pubescent males, between 12 and 18, were good targets, because, they were more trusting, philosophically immature and therefore “stupid,” and in the best of health, physically. They were “prime beef.” I also found, in my investigation, that the victims, in the three cases I investigated, were the “bad kids” in the neighborhood – the “young toughies” who “would do anything for a buck” – even drop their pants to accommodate a gay guy for money. All three cases I investigated were like this.
To prove this to yourself, do a web search of the cases thoroughly investigated by the media.
Though it became fashionable for the media to protect their favorite cause – gay rights – by dismissing the priests as “pedophiles” or “ephebophiles” (that term invented when many noticed that the offending priests did not fit the pedophile profile), in fact, in every single case I looked up, the offending priest was also guilty of “doing” adults! Pedophiles just don’t do that. The typical pedophile profile is to “hit on” PRE-pubescent GIRLS with NO adult body hair and NO adult sweat. Why? Because pedophiles are trying strenuously to avoid adult sexual characteristics. That’s why they’re “pedophiles.”
So, if you look at media-generated chronologies of the offenders’ lives, like this one…
bishop-accountability.org/assign/Shanley-Paul-Richard.htm
…you will see their in almost every case – I believe that this is about 99% true, ultimately – the offender was found to “hit on” adult males, too.
They are gays going after prime beef – not pedophiles.
When those bishops wrote those recommendations, shipping homosexual sexual predators to new unwary flocks, thus enormously abetting the predators’ ability to prey on the young, if you think about it they were functionally “pimping” for the offenders.
That’s a harsh term, but how long can you claim to be “foolish” before you become eligible for harsh terms?
In effect, the bishops were helping “gay priest prostitutes” to trade Church assets to post-pubescent “johns” (5/6 of the cases involve POST-pubescent young men) for sex. Ironically, the lawsuit/damages process amounts to a SECOND payment to the same victims for their sex with the gay priests!
Were the bishops knowingly “pimping” – giving their gay associates greater sex opportunities, so that they could trade-out Church assets for gay sex with “prime beef”?
I believe that this is a hidden part of the psychology of the phenomenon of bishop recommendations – hidden even from themselves.
I think that the prime motivation was a desperation for priests to run their churches.
I think that the next motivation was an inclination to forgive.
I think that the next motivation was dyed-in-the-wool liberalism (the Catholic bishops are exceedingly liberal – and therefore sympathetic to gays).
And I personally believe that, deep in their hearts, many of those letters of recommendation amounted to subconscious “pimping.”
I welcome the lawsuits kicking our Church in the face. We NEED to be kicked in the face.
I hope that we continue to be kicked, kicked, kicked, kicked in the face, until every last promiscuous priest and every “pimping” bishop is removed.
That is how a faithful Catholic responds to the fact that bishops allowed known offenders to be transferred to other parishes.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I personally see is a punishment, a judgement upon us. you see, we have stopped given God the best of everything. we have stopped caring for the House of God as our main priority. instead we begin building churches that looks more like a shack and warehouses. they look more like empty buildings. no kneelers, no rails, the Altar is very poor looking with no ornments whatsoever. we came up wiht the idea that the CC must look very poor. there we have it. lost millions of dollars in law suits and scandals.
and more scandals is breaking out. like so called Catholics institutions using Catholic money to fund gays and lesbians, and abortion.
we have not learn a lesson yet. the pervesion seems to continue while the Bishops gets involved in politics. shouldnt we first clean up house before we can tell the world to clean up their act?
the change of the language has given many excuses for sins and not so holy actions…
we see camoaign against punishment, what we dont see is campaign against those who commit the crimes itself.
Peace.
and more scandals is breaking out. like so called Catholics institutions using Catholic money to fund gays and lesbians, and abortion.
we have not learn a lesson yet. the pervesion seems to continue while the Bishops gets involved in politics. shouldnt we first clean up house before we can tell the world to clean up their act?
the change of the language has given many excuses for sins and not so holy actions…
we see camoaign against punishment, what we dont see is campaign against those who commit the crimes itself.
Peace.
F
fish90
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
As somebody who is 53 and can remember the 60s and 70s and 80s (and was working in the health field from the 70s on) I can tell you that our dear friends the MDs (psychiatrists) and their fellow psychologists and therapists etc. were telling the bishops in the 70s and 80s at least (and THAT is when much of the abuse and ‘switching’ took place) that pedophilia could be cured and part of the cure was giving the person a ‘chance’ to prove himself in a new venue without a ‘record’ hanging over his head.
It boggles my mind that NONE of these MDs is held accountable for giving information on treatment that turned out to be wrong and that instead, the bishop who, in good faith and with perfectly understable acceptance of medical authority of the time, is the one being pilloried.
Right now, I bet y’all have seen the reports that mammograms are NOW being suggested for women to start after age 50, not age 40. That, because of the screening at age 40 that was presented as medical authority and standard for the last many years, many women wound up being worse off and that this is the reason they are now advocating screens at a later age.
So. . .I **presume that y’all are now going to go and sue your doctors because they gave wrong advice for the last 15 to 20 years and more regarding mammograms.
If not, why not? Because they aren’t priests? **
It boggles my mind that NONE of these MDs is held accountable for giving information on treatment that turned out to be wrong and that instead, the bishop who, in good faith and with perfectly understable acceptance of medical authority of the time, is the one being pilloried.
Right now, I bet y’all have seen the reports that mammograms are NOW being suggested for women to start after age 50, not age 40. That, because of the screening at age 40 that was presented as medical authority and standard for the last many years, many women wound up being worse off and that this is the reason they are now advocating screens at a later age.
So. . .I **presume that y’all are now going to go and sue your doctors because they gave wrong advice for the last 15 to 20 years and more regarding mammograms.
If not, why not? Because they aren’t priests? **
F
fish90
Guest
Do you have any sources?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
here is another video exposing the liberals within the Church.
youtube.com/watch?v=8n_YseZ7Cog
wake up Catholics. pray for the Church. bless her every day.
youtube.com/watch?v=8n_YseZ7Cog
wake up Catholics. pray for the Church. bless her every day.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I’m also interested in sources for this?
R
Roman_Army
Guest
Yes, I agree that these bishops and priests should get “kicked in the face” (censured, jailed, and sued), and since they represented their dioceses and the lay people also share in the blame for their bad influences and Liberalism, then the entire diocese must pick up part of the tab. But, then when does the persistent “kicking in the face” stop being a just punishment and begin to be abusive violence? I think the media and many politicians are going overboard and applying double standards. They’re letting public school districts, protestant churches, and Jewish Communities get a mere frown or slap on the wrist meanwhile the Church is getting skinned alive. They’re blaming it all on pedophilia, when as you say it is because of their licentious support of homosexuality and all other sexual depravities that has caused it.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
I don’t think so, in this case. Many of our bishops were irresponsible liars on this subject. Personal story: I was appointed our parish’s chief collector in our Diocesan capital campaign. When the bishop came to give us a pep talk, I explained that the collectors had come to me to ask me if we were collecting money to pay for lawsuits for homosexual activity between priests and young males.
The bishop paused and said, “Pete, let me answer this way. If we catch any priests doing that sort of thing nowadays, I promise you that they’ll be out the door on their a - - lickety split!”
A short time later, the bishop wrote a letter of recommendation transferring a rogue homosexual priest to another diocese.
Our diocese was sued for that letter.
Nothing will stop them but a sledge hammer.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Funny you should ask about sources. . .actually the bishop in Vermont addressed this topic recently. . .
Note that not only does the bishop, on behalf of the diocese, note that he is sorry for what happened (though he himself had no part in it), that he notes (quite correctly) that the diocese relied on professionals who assured the diocese that the man in question had been cured, and that the decision made by the deceased former bishop to hire simply cannot now be known in its entirety. Certainly it appears likely that the former bishop trusted the psychologists and also that the former bishop may have been assured by the abuser (and this would have been under the seal of the confessional most likely) that the abuser was cured. . .IOW, the former bishop was assured by professionals that the abuser was cured, was likely told by the abuser himself that he was ‘cured’. . .and judging by those facts alone–not evidence that has come to light years later–the former bishop may have felt that it was ‘safe’ to transfer the abuser. Certainly there is no indication by the current bishop that he ‘became a bishop to abuse children’ --so why is there an assumption tacitly made by the prosecution that the former bishop would have been any more likely than the current bishop to engage in actions that would end up in the abuse of innocents?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Very interesting and useful. Thanks, Tantum.
J
jpjd
Guest
You are assuming that the bishop knew at the time that the priest was “problematic.” Do you know that to be the case?
Your portrayal of bishops “pimping” in your story is OUTRAGEOUS. Pimps receive money in return for offering someone for sexual favors to another. You are saying that not only did priests offer money to their victims for sex (which is the first I’ve heard of that – is that even a fact?), but that bishops received a cut of the money the victims gave the priests??? And purposefully moved priests around so as to offer them greater sexual opportunities??? Is that true? If so, please substantiate. If not, retract your portrayal.
I, like you, am absolutely sick about the priest scandal, but it is completely irresponsible and slanderous of you to make these personal speculations that make an already sickening situation more denigrating to the Church. And using weasel tactics like “in effect” and phrasing your denigration as a question “were the bishops…” and “how long can you claim to be foolish before you become eligible for harsh terms” does not make it OK to put forth a portrayal of pimping.
D
Deconi
Guest
I concur with Pete, to a degree, of course. We’ve had several issues down our half of the globe and only in the past decade have enough come to light to suggest the extent of the problem.
We have found in our investigations that the problem seem to have become widespread BECAUSE of the Bishops. Whereas the fallen priests were in isolated silos, the Bishops caused the spread by the movement and shifting of the ‘problem.’
Being moved and relocated was also seen by other ‘rouges’ as almost condoning it by the head of their respective dioceses or at least suspect him of being sympathetic or liberal. Many priests speak of being ‘alone with the realisation’ of their sexuality, including the heterosexual ones! And they too, number among the fallen. Others admit to entering the priesthood to escape ‘themselves’ and struggle throughout.
Fortunately for Catholics, in spite the seemingly incredible numbers, the faithful outnumber the fallen in every decade in the past 2 - 3 decades. This include “brothers” in schools etc.
We have found in our investigations that the problem seem to have become widespread BECAUSE of the Bishops. Whereas the fallen priests were in isolated silos, the Bishops caused the spread by the movement and shifting of the ‘problem.’
Being moved and relocated was also seen by other ‘rouges’ as almost condoning it by the head of their respective dioceses or at least suspect him of being sympathetic or liberal. Many priests speak of being ‘alone with the realisation’ of their sexuality, including the heterosexual ones! And they too, number among the fallen. Others admit to entering the priesthood to escape ‘themselves’ and struggle throughout.
Fortunately for Catholics, in spite the seemingly incredible numbers, the faithful outnumber the fallen in every decade in the past 2 - 3 decades. This include “brothers” in schools etc.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
The Diocese settled that case by paying money to the priest’s multiple victims.
The reason why I placed quotation marks around the word “pimping” the first time I used it is because it is a little bit different.
In our case, the bishop who issued the letter spoken of issued the letter spoken of while our Diocese was being sued in several other cases involving several other priests for whom letters were issued.
In regular pimping, the pimp abets sex to make money for himself. So, they abet sex involving an exchange of money.
In the case of the priests, the bishops did what they did not to make money for themselves, but to protect sexual predators while THEY, the predators, paid out church money to their victims, and then the BISHOP pays out money AGAIN to the same people as victims in the lawsuits.
If the bishops continued writing letters, knowing that, nationwide, the sexual predator priests were continuing to prey upon post-pubescent young men in new parishes, and knowing that nationwide the Church was being SUED for the writing of those letters and the continuation of the sexual preying by the sexual predator priests, and if many of the letters were written WHILE the letter-writing bishop himself was being sued for writing the letters in other cases (!!!), how unjust is the word “pimping” in quotations?
It’s not.
I’ll bet you that even today, after the American Church has paid out about $1 billion to victims, there are some bishops writing letters.
Why do I say this?
Because there have been no mass firings of homosexual priests, and male homosexuals tend to be innately promiscuous – they can’t control themselves.
That University of Chicago study found that the average homosexual male interviewed had had about 100 “correspondents” – sex partners. (Remember: The promiscuity problem was so bad among homosexuals that the study had to assign 15 sex contacts or fewer to the word “celibate” or a word like “celibate” … “chaste,” maybe? ( – it’s been about 5 years since I read the study).
You asked up above if the priests paid money to their victims. Yup. That was the practice. They would reach into the collection basket, and buy expensive “toys” – bikes, TVs, vacations, and so on – or just give them cash.
It wasn’t just bad boy priests sneaking off into the closet with kids at the family gatherings. Those were rare. Those were the ones the press wrote about, because they were sympathetic. The press didn’t write about the UNsympathetic cases very much – where the little thugs having sex with the priests were even telling their juvenile delinquent friends, “Hey, let me tell you where to make some easy money…!!!”
I was asked to investigate three cases. In all three cases the victims were post-pubescent boys with juvenile records who walked TO their parish’s rectory repeatedly, dropped their pants for the priest repeatedly, and were paid money or given “toys” repeatedly. They were sex-for-money relationships. All three boys were paid money in our Diocese’s lawsuit. They may in fact be vikctims, but frequently – most of the time, I believe, based on what I have seen and read – it’s not pretty.
Re my hint that the bishops were moving predator priests around SO THAT the priests could have greater sexual opportunities…
What is the difference between
(1) sending a priest with a very thick file recording multiple complaints of sexual offenses as well as multiple broken “I’ll - be - a - good - boy - from - now - on” promises to a new unwary flock with a written recommendation, WHILE you are being sued for priests you RECEIVED from other Dioceses with letters of recommendation, and
(2) knowingly abetting sexual activity by sexual predator priests?
Not much. That’s the basis of the lawsuits.
Do you think that the letter writing bishops are perfectly innocent victims???
Sorry. The files of the offending priests, containing the bishops’ own signatures numerous times, were sometimes VERY thick.
Those memos in the priests’ files bearing the bishops’ signatures are the “star of the show” in the court cases. Usually the bishops had minions write and sign administrative memos in the priest’s files.
A certain percentage of the time, however, the bishops “got lazy” and signed memos themselves.
There is something else everyone overlooks in considering how much the bishops and the priests in their staff knew, when they wrote the letters.
The confessional.
Without breaking the seal by naming names, they undoubtedly got a handle on the scale of the problem, and talked about it generally without betraying specifics, after priests hear each other’s confessions.
Do you know why entire Dioceses are declaring bankruptcy in response to the lawsuits?
Because our bishops knew enough to be held guilty of negligence.
They’re paying money because they are guilty as charged – not innocent.
A common characteristic of the lawsuits is the required promise by the victim to keep his mouth shut after he gets his money.
Who do you think that promise is intended to hide facts from?
J
JustaServant
Guest
Could this be why we are now seeing more priests in the US who are not native born?
Our country and the Church is paying the price for winking at depravity.
Our country and the Church is paying the price for winking at depravity.
- Status