Vorkosigan

The Church refuses a blanket ban on pedophila.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44390-2002Apr24.html" target="_blank">Here</a>

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Don't be so hard on the RCC boys. Give them another 400 or 500 years to come around.

The Other Michael

I like the part about how if the pedophile becomes "notorious" (generally or widely known) they can do the expedited defrocking (my but that sounds salacious).

I guess that means that if they can keep it from becoming notorious then that's not such a big concern.

Right.

cheers,
Michael

Mageth

I equate "notorious" with "the press gets wind of it and thus it becomes a PR problem."

daemon

I'd just like to note that this is educated guessing, right off the bat.

I grew up RC, and actually kept abreast of some of the issues in the Church as a whole. I have the feeling that the non-committal response is due to the hard place the Church in America is in right now: a serious lack of priests. As it stands, many Roman Catholic parishes throughout the country do without priests, and I have the distinct feeling a significant number of RC priests have been involved in paedophilic incidents. I mean, they shifted 12 out of Boston based on complaints when this first started hitting the news... that seems an awful high number.

So, anyway, the American Church is caught between a rock and a hard place; either it decreases an already-too-small pool of priests, or it tries to continue to hush it up. Of course, I think they're completely out of touch, and that American Catholics, as a whole, will simply not tolerate this attitude, but I've been wrong before.

At least it's not that idiot Clark [not Egan] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-1680776,00.html" target="_blank">blaming the gays and American society</a>. I sincerely hope someone slaps him down for that crap.

[Other than Leonard Pitts, Jr., an editorialist (<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134442390_pitts25.html" target="_blank">So much hypocrisy, so little time to reply</a>).]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

NON-theist

I hardly think they're saying its "Okay" to molest children.

daemon

You're right. They're not. What they are saying, however, is that if a priest does molest a kid, as long as it doesn't get much press, they don't promise to do anything.

Sounds like they accept paedophilia a hell of a lot more than I do.

Toto

For a priest or minister to have sex with a parishioner is very similar to a therapist having sex with a patient. When that happens, the therapist is finished professionally, no extenuating circumstances.

WhiteKnight

What troubles me most is that the church is essentially saying it is above the law.

I know that repentance/forgiveness is a central theme, but asking another priest & God for forgiveness does not do justice for the victims.

As the saying goes, "Do the crime, do the time".

TollHouse

Just what the fuck is wrong with these bozos?

Even myself, as an 'evil' atheist who lacks belief in 'objective morality' has a zero tolerance towards pedophiles.

These guys make me sick, they don't even have to balls to take a strong stance against child molestation.

Good-bye RCC...