Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest (who molested as many as 200 deaf boys)

[kpete]

Source: New York Post

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?src=tptw

[Bryn]

1. So many men become priests just to have sex with little boys!

x(

[WinkyDink]

28. "Why do you rob banks?" "It's where the money is."

[caseymoz]

36. Actually: teenagers choose to become priests only knowing they don't have attraction toward women.

I really think that's it. It's not that celibacy causes pedophilia. It's more like these guys choose to become priests in high school. Why, at what should be the horniest time of their lives, do prospective priests think for some reason celibacy will not be a problem? If a guy doesn't, there's generally something abnormal. That should actually be a warning sign right there.

Maybe, it works like this: as far as they know then, they don't find attraction toward women to be a threat toward keeping their celibacy. At the time, the might chalk it up to their superior morals, or to God's guidance. It isn't until later that they realize it's because they're actually attracted to children. Maybe pedophilia "matures" somewhat later in adolescence?

I really think that's part of what happens. There is no doubt in my mind the Catholic Church has the problem to a greater extent than any other denomination. I think it's related to celibacy, but not actually caused by it.

[TK421]

38. That vow of celibacy....it will not hold for any man, woman, or in this

case, child. We all need our release, but what these priests are taking that release out on is just plain sick. Yeah, you are correct when you say there is something abnormal there. I was never a victim, but know people who were, and in my Catholic grade school I KNOW stuff happened there, but no way to prove it now

[caseymoz]

48. A larger problem: people who have taken the vow have led the church-- forever.

If you read Humanae Vitae, it looks like it was written by an alien race that reproduces asexually, and its reasoning is decidedly strange. The English version also has to be the only document about birth control that does not use the word "sex!" Instead, you get Orwellian screwball terms like "conjugal rights," "conjugal love," and, most intriguing, "marriage act." They also refer to wives as "marriage partners."

Are these celibate guys all just a little too creepy about sex? How can anybody read that document and stay in the church?

[defendandprotect]

52. RCC has always been legalistic and authoritarianly obsessed with human sexuality . . .

which, needless to say, has created "arrested development" issues for many young

males - and "mental clitorectomies" for females.

Catholic Church = sexual confusion --

Plus, you have to throw in misogynist history re females -- !!

[defendandprotect]

51. Catholic teachings on human sexuality -- and disdain for females -- creates sexual confusion

for young males --

Re this . . .

Actually: teenagers choose to become priests only knowing they don't have attraction toward women.


The RCC's main obsession is controlling normal human sexuality. In a legalistic and fanatical way.

The children who are victimized by these instructions/teachings are often referred to as having

suffered "arrested development" or "mental clitorectomies" --

If you look at some of the pedophiles, like Father Porter for one -- and I offer NO sympathy for

him -- he seemed to be just such a case. Nuns related that he was tongue kissing young girls

in classrooms in view of everyone as a priest. Porter also seemed to develop traits of a

pathological liar to cover his behavior -- and doesn't ever seem to have had the maturity to

see what he did as anything but harm to himself! Porter seems to have no insight or repentence

for the harm he did to hundreds of children -- which included raping one young boy in a hospital,

the boy having just had back surgery and he was in a huge cast! Keep in mind Porter was another

of those regularly moved from one parish to another, despite the fact that the church and its

doctors -- and its insurance companies -- knowing all of these facts about him!!


Therefore, young Catholics can often be confused about sexuality just based on church teachings.

Another factor which does harm to the church and its priests is its continuing war on women

and holding females as lesser than males, as second class members.

The concept of a married priesthood would align and bond males with females in respect, rather than

causing disdain for them. There is also for the church a very related issue of money and church

property because they fear inheritance claims from priests' families who would require financial

support/housing/education for children.

Granted also, many homosexuals have entered the church, but not to abuse children.

Within the church -- including the Swiss Guards -- there are many willing partners ...

Hetereosexual males are 100X more likely to sexually abuse children . . .

than homosexual males --

[no_hypocrisy]

2. . . . . failure to act on the matter could embarrass the Church . . . .

How about failure to act could incur more victims and allow further trauma of the past victims?

[Moonwalk]

6. Exactly! That's what I was thinking when I read it. That's all the Bishops bothered--

--to warn about? Possible future embarrassment for the church? :wtf: Nothing like "it's evil, sinful, against our religion and against the teachings of Jesus to abuse children" nothing like "we're doing terrible damage to these kids and it's flat out wrong"? And merely that it might "embarrass" the church? I think embarrass is a tad understated. It makes the church look criminal, vile, sociopathic even as it allowed these priests to do this over and over again to chidlren--CHILDREN! Embarrassment was their only worry?

[caseymoz]

37. The Church has no way to acknowledge the cruelty here.

To them, pedophilia is simply a sexual sin. The equivalent of oral sex between a married couple. (And yes, I do mean this.) If you go back to the middle ages and beyond, the church always had pedophiles in it. I think the culture of the church is simply calloused to it. It has always been there. The guys running the church have at least always been used to it being in their midst. The Pope's response to this, current and prior, shows this is the case.

[Lucy Goosey]

42. Oral sex is a sin even for a married couple?

Thank god I was raised as an atheist!

[caseymoz]

55. Yes. In catholicism, every sex act even in marriage has to be procreative.

It's why they make this artificial separation between "natural" and "artificial" birth control, sanctioning the rhythm method. They don't come out and say it, but the church recommends the rhythm method because it is relatively ineffective and difficult. The way the Church puts it: it doesn't thwart God's will to create life!

[defendandprotect]

53. Plus, once you fail to recognize the full personhood of females and

make them less than males in the church, then you also put children in danger.

Women are the first line of defense against sexual abuse of children.

When females have their personal power taken from them they lose the ability to

protect children.

Hetereosexual males are 100X more likely to sexual abuse children than homosexual males.

[caseymoz]

56. But this is not what people in the Church see themselves as doing.

So, you can't win the argument on that basis.

They see themselves as having no will to oppress women, but they must be obedient to God's laws that have as a side-effect the oppression on women. (The low esteem many have toward women, notwithstanding.) They really see themselves as obeying and conveying canonical law, dogma and doctrine for which the only good happens to result in the "lesser evil" of women being oppressed. Unfortunately, those laws were issued specifically by the misogynist of that day.

I remember reading a Pastoral Letter about why women could not be priests. It was interesting that it started out talking about how Jesus apparently had such great esteem for women. And when it got to the Apostles and the Church "Fathers" it mentioned that had a great antipathy for women, but then said, I swear, that there was no evidence that this effected their divine missions!

And then it ended by saying since Jesus was a man then a Priest acting as Christ had to be a man . . . that there was something intrinsically different between a man and woman's soul. No, it didn't effect those guys missions at all.

[defendandprotect]

3. "Save the Church" was the only thought .... including intimidation of parents/children . ..

and buying their silence when they had to ...

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

Shouldn't Catholics be moving to force this Pope out -- ???

[Lucy Goosey]

43. He's infallible now, though - is there really any mechanism to force him out?

There must be something they can do.

[defendandprotect]

44. Have no actual info, but presume only way is for resignation?

Things would have to get very hot here for the US Catholic Bishops, IMO --

Money would have to STOP coming in, for another -- worldwide.

Think that would be a big beginning!!!

Unfortunately, too many people still support male-supremacist religion!

While they profess to want justice and democracy -- equality for all!!

Those left in the Church may yet make Swiss Cheese of it . . . ???



:evilgrin:

[TorchTheWitch]

46. Impossible

The entire hierarchy of the RCC is based on holiness... the higher the position the more holy is the man in that position. Therefore, the pope is the holiest of all living people. So holy he's just a step down from sainthood. Therefore it can never be admitted that the pope - the holiest person on the planet - is infallible. The very idea of this holiest of persons to be so FAR from holiness as to be a criminally evil would destroy the church. It would be an admission that the entire church structure and the whole of the Catholic religion that relies solely on faith in this level-of-holiness system is corrupted to the point of utter destruction. Even if the pope WANTED to resign, he couldn't for this reason... it would destroy the church. Even if they had to keep him in a locked room forever hidden from everyone but his closest handlers till he dies out of fear of what he may do or say it would be done to save the church from such collapse. There is no choice but to preserve the illusion that the holiness system works.

[get the red out]

4. There really aren't words for this

Except maybe CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

[amandabeech]

34. Rico? Rico? Did I hear someone calling for RICO? n/t

[defendandprotect]

5. Evidently the Vatican has some confusion re sin vs crime . . . !!!

the Vatican has tended to view the matter in terms of sin and repentance more than crime and punishment.

Right, ten "Hail Mary's" and two "Our Father's" and you're off the hook!


Thousands of cases were filed over decades -- 1981-2005 --

3,000 cases from 2001-2010 but only 20% given full church trial.

One deaf child was molested 50-60 times from age 12 by Father Murphy!

[hayrow]

7. This was not a secret

Growing up in the German Catholic Northwest side of Milwaukee in the 1960's, the sexual abuses of Catholic priests was well known and communicated clearly to everyone, including non-Catholics. Many of my Catholic friends told me that every priest was a pervert, and the best policy for any one of our age and gender was to stay as far away from them as possible. The Church had local law enforcement and the courts completely in their pockets. For adult parents of baby boomers in Milwaukee, losing some children to the predator priests was acceptable, as long as African Americans did not move into the neighborhood.

[fascisthunter]

8. looks like the devil learned to hold a cross

[caseymoz]

9. Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest

Source: New York Times

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html

---

It turns out the entire disgusting, widespread scandal went to the very top of the Catholic Church, but that was apparent already. Otherwise how does one account for it being an international problem?

My opinion: I really think the Catholic Church never in its entire history thought child molesting was a serious thing. Otherwise, I truly can't account for how systemic and practically universal this is within the church. No other church or religion has had nearly this problem with it.

For Catholics who are offended with what I say, I ask you to really read the history of the Catholic Church and look carefully. You will find that this gets mentioned endemically, and was a "problem" (though not reported as such) as far back as the middle ages and before. There is nothing in the current church that has changed it.

[Happyhippychick]

10. I don't think the Pope is going to survive this scandal. I don't mean literally "survive",

I mean he won't be the Pope much longer. There are several scandals unfolding and his fingerprints are on them.

[laconicsax]

19. I doubt it.

The Church is working overtime to hide his involvement in this. If they really cared about the issue and who was at fault, they probably wouldn't continuously shield the Pope from criticism on an issue he is deeply involved in.

[defendandprotect]

45. ... but it was Church members who ultimately moved Cardinal Law out . . .

based on same recognition of a cover up by him --

as this one by Ratzy -- and this one is a GLARING, LENGTHY cover up over the

entire issue throughout the entire RCC church!

They've also had to cover up the Vatican murders ... allegedly a hetereosexual triangle

where actually it was a homosexual affair, involving the head of the Swiss Guards!

And, Swiss Guards are another huge question re homosexual behavior in Vatican!!

They also have had the Vatican Bank scandal -- at least one murder there connected.

What's going to implode first, Vatican or GOP?

[laconicsax]

49. The GOP already imploded. It's just that they don't realize it and the MSM won't cover it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8565986.stm

Vatican defends Pope Benedict in German abuse scandal

The Vatican has denounced attempts to link Pope Benedict XVI to a child abuse scandal in his native Germany.

Spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said there had been "aggressive" efforts to involve the Pope, but added: "It's clear that these attempts have failed."

The Holy See's prosecutor meanwhile said that "to accuse the current Pope of hiding &#;91cases of abuse] is false".

The Vatican has made it clear that it is going to defend the Pope at all costs. This scandal has been going on for years now with a continually growing mountain of evidence. The way I see it, the only reason that Catholics aren't leaving the church en masse is because they're either OK with being associated with child rapists and an organization that covers for them, they're willfully ignorant, or they're simply intimidated by the prospect of going to hell for denouncing child rapists.

Of course, there's bound to be overlap between the groups. Either way, the RCC isn't going anywhere.

[defendandprotect]

50. Only 20% of the public are identifying as Repug . . . however . . .

re Vatican the church is lying and the documents are out there to prove it --

Ratzy organized the approach -- silence -- save the church -- intimidate the parents -

no reporting to authorities. It's out there -- we need more to know about it, however.


The way I see it, the only reason that Catholics aren't leaving the church en masse is because they're either OK with being associated with child rapists and an organization that covers for them, they're willfully ignorant, or they're simply intimidated by the prospect of going to hell for denouncing child rapists.

Of course, there's bound to be overlap between the groups. Either way, the RCC isn't going anywhere.

I'm going to disagree with you on this -- though it's going to take more time to happen.

10-15 years ago, the RCC had written off America, Canada and Western Europe and were finding

their new fortunes in China and Africa. They may have rethought that and decided to fight another

day in those areas, but I don't think so. They do HAVE to keep the cover ups going, however,

in those areas -- and some members' money coming in to pay off the pedophile lawsuits!!

And evidently that's getting to be a pretty desperate situation.

I'm sure you're aware that one of the recent events was a Catholic official calling out members of

the church in IRELAND for not being sympathetic enough to Catholic priest-pedophiles -- !!!

-- and NOT being generous enough in helping the church pay off the lawsuits!!!

Meanwhile, this Pope is taking the church to EVANGELICALISM ... outright religious fanaticism.

That's been confirmed over and again -- it's where they're going!

Also keep in mind that much of the RCC riches/wealth were based on Catholic Schools because

that's where they trained/terrified/brainwashed the next generation. When the nuns left the

schools couldn't be run without huge expense in hiring professional lay teachers.

And many who have stayed in the church -- women/? -- are making Swiss Cheese of it and its

legalistic religious teachings. Needless to say Vatican II also made Swiss Cheese of the

authoritarian Church. Offered a compassionate and humane face to Catholicism.

Pope John XXIII told Catholics to use their own free will to decide whether or not to use birth

control -- that's a direct kick in the arse to Papal Infallibility!

Right to Personal Conscicence in all issues!! Wow!



Also consider how much help our government has given them as their fortunes have declined . . .

Charter schools helped them to get financing to keep their schools going --

And, Bush introduced "faith-based" subsidies from American taxpayers for their organizations --

most of them being Catholic.

We might question whether that money was intended to help them pay off their pedophile lawsuits --

and, indeed, I read a few months ago that there was an investigation being opened as to whether

exactly that has happened!!!

Keep your fingers crossed -- !!!

:)

[Greyskye]

30. But the Pope is ineffibly infallible!

Right? Isn't that part of the job description?

:sarcasm:

[LiberalFighter]

32. I won't have any sympathies for him or any of the Cardinals.

The meme that any candidate for Pope is not qualified due to corruption and lack of moral ethics should be pushed heavily.

Even if they could find a Pope that wasn't dirty he would be a leader of priests, bishops, and cardinals that are dirty.

[NYC Liberal]

47. He has no reason to quit. He's an absolute monarch in his own little country.

Which is really too bad, as he won't ever be held accountable.

[fascisthunter]

11. WOW!!!!!...

I have been ignoring this for too long. The pope is screwed... the Church itself should be ashamed.

[CountAllVotes]

54. the communications I've been getting from the Church

they do not mention Ratzinger. However, they often mention John Paul II and show pictures as him.

They oh so want Ratzi gone. They are ignoring him.

It is as if he is not the pope. They are thinking that many Catholics that aren't close to the religion might think that JP II is still alive I sometimes think!

:dem:

[DURHAM D]

12. Sexual abuse of children is probably not in the Canon -

it probably only covers heterosexual adult contact.

[laconicsax]

20. The Vatican sort of addressed it.

They came up with an ad hoc definition of pedophilia to exclude most priests who rape children. If a priest rapes a boy who's between 11 and 17 (80%-90% of cases), he isn't a pedophile, but an ephebophile. Just like that, they reduced the number of pedophile priests by 80-90%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican

[caseymoz]

29. From what I've been able to see, actually . . .

It is covered in Canon law as a "sexual sin" but not as any sin of cruelty. To the church, every sexual act has to take place in the context of marriage and be open to procreation in order to not be sinful. Well, of course, that would mean child molestation and rape, too. The problem is, in my opinion, it's not considered any more or less a sin than a married couple engaging in oral sex.

Of course, this is a slight step forward from medieval times when the church considered every sexual act to be sinful, and something that had to be confessed and for which the priest would assign penance.

For info:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/

[LiberalFighter]

13. Thank goodness I didn't attend a deaf school. And thank goodness I wasn't Catholic.

[DeSwiss]

14. K&R

[musical_soul]

15. Mixed thoughts.

First, it wasn't just the Catholic Church who used to not take accusations seriously. I've heard all sorts of stories about how adults handled things in the "good 'ole days." It's enough to make me think they weren't that good or moral.

However, as a Catholic, I feel the Church should be held to a much higher standard. Stuff like this makes me seriously consider
leaving.

Now, don't get me wrong. This crap is happening everywhere. It happens in other denominations, in particular professions (where one gets to be a trusted authority figure), and all through different classes of people.

However, the church is supposed to be really all connected and together. We're supposed to look up to that Pope. I don't mind the Pope not being perfect, but there are some sins one better repent for in public. I feel this is one of them. Of course his dealings with the law are another matter (as to whether the law should let it go). If the Pope wants to make things right, he'd release all the files on this subject that are wanted and needed.

[laconicsax]

17. The current Pope crafted the rules that covered this up.

When he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he wrote a letter reminding bishops that it was a serious crime for anyone to share details of any child rape allegations with a non-Church source. That letter went on to say that the whole issue must be kept secret under the penalty of excommunication. What's more, if a victim came forward with allegations, Ratzinger's rules held that the entire issue should be dealt with secretly within the Church justice system.

Here's a pair of articles on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection1

He also set a statute of limitations on the crimes--if the victim didn't come forward before their 29th birthday, it never happened.

This is clearly a systemic problem that dates back to the middle ages. The same body that declares that condoms cause AIDS, that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is evil, etc. willfully covers up the rape of children and protects the perpetrators. I honestly can't see any good morals at work here.

[boppers]

16. DADT, Catholic style.

Of course, to be fair, check out the Boy Scouts stuff that's bubbling up.

[laconicsax]

18. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Both the Church and the Boy Scouts have this problem. The problem is that each group plays a ad hominem tu quoque style game of "look over there! They're doing it too" to distract from their own criminality.

[BigAnth]

33. The main priorty of the Catholic church is to maintain the prestige and power of the Catholic church

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. They have to resort to doublethink in the same sentence to try to defend their position

Father Lombardi emphasized that neither the Code of Canon Law nor the Vatican norms issued in 1962, which instruct bishops to conduct canonical investigations and trials in secret, prohibited church officials from reporting child abuse to civil authorities. He did not address why that had never happened in this case.

Why they never reported the rapes to the civil authorities? Because you told them to investigate and try in secret, you lying old fraud! You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence!

[AngryOldDem]

25. Here's another way they hide it:

They confess it. Then, it's under the seal, and whoever hears the confession cannot go to anyone else about it.

That's what most likely happened in this case, because the explanation I heard as to why this was shoved under the rug is that the asshole "repented."

When is the Church going to be told that it is not above the law?

ON EDIT: Word confusion.

[caseymoz]

31. I have no doubt that what you say is exactly what happened.

The procedure for receiving forgiveness for sin has been doctrine since probably before the middle ages. What the church demands for forgiveness is: 1) That the person confess his sins to his confessor; 2) that they be really repentant, that is, really really sorry; 3)They promise try not to sin again; 4) and that they do their penance assigned by their confessor. (When I went to confession, nothing like child molesting mind you, my penance was always to say ten Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers).

When that's done, the confessor has to perform absolution; God has taken away their sin, and the child-molesting priest is innocent again. And, so, once he's innocent, he and the church then have to be protected.

Now, as I said, the "modern" (neo-Medieval church) has inherited this sacred procedure from the centuries of tradition. It's something like what is sanctioned in the Bible. The problem is that none of this takes into account abnormal psychology, such as, what if the person cannot feel any guilt for the act and actually can't stop?

But why couldn't the confessor have assigned for penance that the person turn themselves in? There's no excuse about any of this.

Edited for clarity.

[boppers]

39. "like what is sanctioned in the Bible"?

Uh, where in the bible is a procedure of confession, and ritual prayer, leading to absolution?

I've read multiple translations cover-to-cover, and the Catholic tradition seems to be a completely made up set of policy and procedure, entirely outside of the text.... can you perhaps give me some pointers on how it's biblically related?

[caseymoz]

40. To clarify: I didn't say it was the exact procedure in the Bible.

What I meant was forgiveness in the New Testament was depicted as having these elements, in composite: confession, repentance and penance. Just about every Christian sect recognizes those elements, and the Catholic Church's has its own interpretation of it.

Yes, I could go through the Bible and list passages where confession, repentance or penance are mentioned, but now that I've explained, do you want me to do that?

The Catholic Church has another twist on it which is extra-Biblical. That is, when you are forgiven for your sins, it keeps you from going to Hell, but the sins still add to your time in Purgatory before you go to heaven. You need an "indulgence" to shorten your time in Purgatory for your sins. The Catholic Church doesn't emphasize Purgatory and indulgences the way it once did, but it is still the doctrine and dogma of Church.

I'll add (on this edit) ritual prayer was not emphasized in the Bible, unless it's a required part of penance.

[boppers]

41. Ok, gotcha.

Confession (as practiced by the Catholic Church) is fairly peculiar to me, bound up in ritual.... I found some arguments here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html

That site is a tad anti-priest, but at least it gave me the scriptural reference points for the foundations of Catholic ritual.

[pipoman]

22. Can someone explain

why Pope Benedict XVI is referred to in this 2010 article as, "the future Pope Benedict XVI", and "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope"? I thought he became pope in 2005....:wtf:

[AngryOldDem]

26. If these allegations came before Benedict rose to the papacy....

....then the adjectives used are correct. Supposedly, he knew about these abuses while he was still Cardinal.

[RainDog]

27. not supposedly.

he wrote the instructions on how to deal with the abuse that was taking place in the U.S. and Ireland.

he insisted these crimes should be dealt with by the church, not local law enforcement.

...and the church never dealt with them. they continued to put children in danger in case after case.

This is not an organization that has anything to say to anyone about the ethical way to live in this world.

I hope the church gets sued out of existence.

that's the easy way out for them.

[dugaresa]

23. defrock him? Why not burn him at the stake for molesting those kids?

[Stuart G]

24. These two paragraphs say it all.....and they are ugly

They are from the Huffington Post link on the same story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/pope-sexual-abuse-lawrence-murphy_n_512483.html

"As a cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI and other Vatican officials did not punish or even hold a trial within the Catholic church for a Wisconsin priest who may have molested as many as 200 deaf boys, according to The New York Times.

The Times reports that despite warnings from "several" bishops to then-Cardinal Ratzinger about Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest at the St. John's School For The Deaf in St. Francis, WI, the Vatican chose not to act and ultimately allowed Murphy to go unpunished before his death in 1998. The Times reports"

[panzerfaust]

35. But our duty is to Holy Mother Church - not to her children.

Better costumes than the Shriners, But less compassion.


WTF?

Best Hope I Don't Come Back

[RainDog]

57. Pope= leader of an international pedophile ring

which means the church is a cover for a criminal enterprise.