L
- Status
Z
Zundrah
Guest
I was angry when I read this (below);
…but then again, aren’t we to turn the sinner away from sin? …rather than reject them?
“Hate the sin, not the sinner”
F
forever1
Guest
We should help those hurt by the sinner, locking up the sinner turns him away from this sin:shrug:
P
Phemie
Guest
Since the justice system chose to let him out on bail he needed a place to live. Being in NB, in a village where nobody wanted him, put him far from his lawyer and he couldn’t find a place to stay in Ottawa. I don’t think Archbishop Prendergast had much choice if he was to do as Jesus asked us to do.
B
Bessarion
Guest
It makes me angry that the money I give in offering every Sunday is used to settle sexual abuse cases. That’s the last thing I woul like my money to be used for. If the victims are to be compensated, it should be out of the pocket of the priest who is to blame for this behavior, not from my own pocket!
P
Phemie
Guest
Yes, because we all know that those priests are floating in dough.
While I have never understood how money can ever fix what has been broken in those who were abused, I realize that sometimes the most painful place to hit the abuser (and his supervisors) is in the pocketbook. Unfortunately, the average parish priest who is accused is earning a pittance and is in no position to pay the increasingly large amounts that are awarded in civil cases – even less so is the religious priest who took a vow of poverty.
I thought it was ridiculous for the former bishop to negotiate a multi-million dollar out-of-court settlement in his own diocese and then tell the parishes, “OK, you’re going to have to cough up this dough because the diocese has no money.” The average parishes are scraping by with decreased income due to industries closing left and right and they’re supposed to somehow keep paying the bills PLUS this settlement?
B
Bessarion
Guest
This is ridiculous. Why should the Catholic church be financially responsible for what their members do? If I commit a crime, will my employer pay the damage done? No!
I know that priests are not floating in dough, but even if he had to give 30-50% of his income to the victims, that would be an adequate punishment IMO. Perhaps we should change our judical system and back away from the system of these ridiculous US-style multi-million dollar lawsuits. The financial penalty should be based on the means of the person who commited the crime, not his employer/institution he belongs to.
I know that priests are not floating in dough, but even if he had to give 30-50% of his income to the victims, that would be an adequate punishment IMO. Perhaps we should change our judical system and back away from the system of these ridiculous US-style multi-million dollar lawsuits. The financial penalty should be based on the means of the person who commited the crime, not his employer/institution he belongs to.
P
Phemie
Guest
Well, if you commit a crime while acting as an agent of your employer he may well be found liable by the courts and that’s precisely what has happened in the various cases we have seen.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
You got my vote!
L
Lost_Found
Guest
I don’t mind contributing to the Sunday envelope because I realize it’s helping the victims. (okay and a few lawyers
) but mostly the victims. In the future we’ll just have to collectively be better stewards to the Church Jesus founded for us (Mt16:18) with better screening of our vocation applications. Unfortunately it appears that legally we are bound to pay for these unfortunate hiring decisions. All of this is making me more determined to be protective/watchful/prayerful for Jesus’ Church.
) but mostly the victims. In the future we’ll just have to collectively be better stewards to the Church Jesus founded for us (Mt16:18) with better screening of our vocation applications. Unfortunately it appears that legally we are bound to pay for these unfortunate hiring decisions. All of this is making me more determined to be protective/watchful/prayerful for Jesus’ Church.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
LOL - calm down, these things can’t be helped…I don’t mind contributing to the Sunday envelope because I realize it’s helping the victims. (okay and a few lawyers
S
Soutane
Guest
Quit calling them paedophiles-they are predatory homosexuals who victimize pubescent boys NOT toddlers.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
!? Say what? But these boys are children.
S
Soutane
Guest
These boys are adolescents not helpless babies and toddlers the real victims of paedophiles.These adolescent,pubescent boys are the victims of predatory homosexual chickenhawks that are hiding behind their cassocks.The vast majority of the victims of these “priests” are adolescent BOYS or YOUNG MEN.These "priests are homosexual criminal rapists not paedophiles.Even the homosexual 'community’recognizes this.Ever hear one little peep out of them regarding “paedophiliac” priests?Never because their not paedophiles they’re homosexuals who can’t/won’t control their perverted desires.
The ones that truly have my prayers and pity are the chaste,celibate,priests who suffer from same sex attraction,but obey God’s Law.There will be a special place in heaven for them,I am sure… .
The ones that truly have my prayers and pity are the chaste,celibate,priests who suffer from same sex attraction,but obey God’s Law.There will be a special place in heaven for them,I am sure… .
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
So you don’t think that 8 year old boys are young enough to use the term?
cbc.ca/cp/Atlantic/091008/t100827A.html
I’ve heard a lot of criticisms made by catholics on CAF regarding Mohamed and his 9yo wife, I’d think that 8yo boys would provoke the same level of upset rather than a debate over terminology.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
Soutane, are you mentally ill? Could you do us all a favour and please read over your own post and think about it.
S
Soutane
Guest
Your post has been reportedto the moderator.
S
Soutane
Guest
The term paedophile denotes abuse of little children,male or female.The vast majority of those abused by priests are pubescent boys or young men denoting a homosexual orientation on the part of those “priests”.If you want to argue semantics,fine,be my guest.My point is that these “priests” are not paedophiles within the common definition of the word but predatory homosexuals.For goodness sake even the Vatican says so:
Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican ( 1 2 3 4 5 … Last Page)
Pro Life News
If you want to argue further write to the Holy See.
Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican ( 1 2 3 4 5 … Last Page)
Pro Life News
If you want to argue further write to the Holy See.
Z
Zundrah
Guest
A peadophile is someone that abuses someone under age. That’s quite simple.
P
Phemie
Guest
No, sorry, a pedophile by definition is only interested in pre-pubescent children. While it may be a crime for a 21 year old to sleep with a 15 year old, it’s not pedophilia. Consider that Canon Law allows girls 14 years old & boys 16 years old to marry.
We have to stop expanding these categories beyond their original meaning.
- Status