If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Influential Catholic Priest: "Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 277
    More: Sick, Father Benedict Groeschel, Catholic priest, sex crimes, National Catholic Register, Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archdiocese of New York  
•       •       •

9801 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Aug 2012 at 12:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



277 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 06:02:35 AM  

Runs_With_Scissors_: Here's a gem from the article:

Benedict expressed a belief that most of these "relationships" are heterosexual in nature, and that historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.

"If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way... And I'm inclined to think, on [a priest's] first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime."

What. The. Fark?


/Yes, that's true, and it used to be true just a few decades ago that a man couldn't rape his wife, it was his right to take her whenever he wanted, Way to defend child buggery. Idiot.
 
2012-08-30 06:03:29 AM  

Brontes: From the original interview:

Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?
A little bit, yes; but you know, in those cases, they have to leave. And some of them profoundly - profoundly - penitential, horrified. People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to - a psychopath. But that's not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer.

Why would that be?
Well, it's not so hard to see - a kid looking for a father and didn't have his own - and they won't be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.
It's an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers. Generally, if they get involved, it's heterosexually, and if it's a priest, he leaves and gets married - that's the usual thing - and gets a dispensation. A lot of priests leave quickly, get civilly married and then apply for the dispensation, which takes about three years.

But there are the relatively rare cases where a priest is involved in a homosexual way with a minor. I think the statistic I read recently in a secular psychology review was about 2%. Would that be true of other clergy? Would it be true of doctors, lawyers, coaches?

Here's this poor guy - [Penn State football coach Jerry] Sandusky - it went on for years. Interesting: Why didn't anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn't break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn't think of it in terms of legal things.

If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties - except for rape or violence - it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way. Sometimes statutory rape would be - but only if the girl pushed her case. Parents wouldn't touch it. People backed off, for years, on sexual cases. I'm not sure why.

I think perhaps part of the reason would be an embarrassment, that it brings the case out into the open, and the girl's name is there, or people will figure out what's there, or the youngster involved - you know, it's not put in the paper, but everybody knows; they're talking about it.

At this point, (when) any priest, any clergyman, any social worker, any teacher, any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act - not necessarily intercourse - they're done.
And I'm inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.

That is right, he feels bad for Sandusky. WTF Catholics, WTF.


Since you brought it up-

:'(

wtf?
 
2012-08-30 06:04:08 AM  
Meaning I agree, Brontes
 
2012-08-30 06:11:50 AM  
I guess we can call it even and just drop the whole thing.
 
2012-08-30 06:14:28 AM  

Rreal: cookiefleck: Rreal: Admittedly, while this guy is disgusting as all fark, growing up a boy, I remember being distinctly resentful of there being no available girls on the market as every single goddamn last one of them were openly, -openly- hunting down older cock. either college age guys or in many cases full grown men.

not saying it's -right-, I'm just saying the guy kinda has a point that sometimes it's the jailbait that's the agressor.


Maybe work on being more mature? The reason lots of girls go running, screaming towards older men is because young guys like you are still into game playing

dude, before you start flinging shiat like a monkey. this was twenty years ago, over half a lifetime ago, and I'm not a guy anymore


Ooo! Projection. That's a new one.

/keep it in your pants unless they're adults is not really difficult, pedo apologist
 
2012-08-30 06:17:37 AM  

jso2897: cookiefleck: I've said it before.. all FARK atheists seem really miserable. Like their life goal is to prove someone wrong.

Sounds like you are pretty selective in who you talk to and base your opinions on. Something I've noticed about Fark is that like attracts like. The extremist assholes all end up arguing with each other, and characterizing the "other side" as being the (similar to themselves) assholes they choose to talk to.


Ppfft.
Snicker.

And

{ohsnapjpg}

Ps- not atheist, but definitely not religious
 
2012-08-30 06:33:45 AM  
Somehow the saying "keep farking that chicken" seems a little too apt.
 
2012-08-30 06:37:50 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: When I used to stay with my Mom she always had ewtn on. I liked this guy. You would listen to him and think OK here's a guy that gets it and is pretty cool. But this.....and in the actual interview in NCR he kind of half way defends Sandusky. WTF?!?!?!?!?


My mother spends about half of her TV time watching ETWN. Any time I'm over there for any length of time I have to frequently step outside or something (I don't smoke), because the things I routinely hear from the talking heads on that channel disgust me...

Mostly because of those times I'd hear my mother parroting the same reprehensible screed.

My mom- most times- is a very nice lady, very kind. And that makes it very easy to see when she's been spending an afternoon in front of the warm glow of fire and brimstone. It's brainwashing, plain and simple. Most of my childhood we never had cable, so we never had access to the network. Ma was always a devoted Catholic of course (I quit at age twelve- for this, among other reasons), but her participation was at that time, mostly in church, mostly silent, and the most fire and brimstone talk she got was when Saint Thomas got a new, younger priest some time after I'd left.

Heck, she started attending a local monastery as an alternative when this new pastor signed on precisely because she didn't care for the tenor of his sermons.

I tell you now, of all the people I've seen idolized on that channel, very little surprises me when the skeletons inevitably come out of the closet. The only thing that mildly shocks me here was that Groeschel himself was the one to open the door to gleefully show us all what he has in his closet.

I guess the assumption here is that only the hardcore converts and devotees are watching, and they're already conditioned enough to accept this sort of sentiment as perfectly reasonable. I've heard my mother on the defense of the Church over the abuse scandal with sentiments like this. Something I find pretty alarming considering she herself was abused by her father at a very young age- if anyone should understand why this sort of talk is repugnant, it should be her.

And this is, again, why I have no trouble saying: it's brainwashing.

Red Shirt Blues: I can't believe it's Groeschel.


www.shescribes.com

I can.
 
2012-08-30 07:18:18 AM  

Coco LaFemme: Wall_of_Doodoo: Anybody else feeling kinda stompy and punchy right now?

Stompy, punchy, stabby, shooty, drowny, poisony, and electrocutey, actually. This is but one reason why I'm ever so glad I have nothing to do with the Catholic Church anymore.


Same here. I'm not going back until Pope Palpatine is gone and all the child molester priests are too. I believe it would be a much greater sin to support a system of child molestation then to not go to church.
 
2012-08-30 07:20:25 AM  
I haven't been to church in 17 years outside of weddings and baptisms, but I still can;t help being a bit ashamed of being catholic as a kid.
 
2012-08-30 07:21:08 AM  
Why the hell should Christians have to say: This guy disgusts me.

I am not apologising for idiocy committed by women, by white people, or by gays. I am certainly not apologising for the lunatic rantings of some old child molester either.

If Christians have to apologise for the acts and idiocy of other 'so called' Christians, or of Muslims have to apologise for radical terrorists, or if Jews have to apologise for Israel, then by this logic, all men need to apologise for rape. All black people need to apologise for Robert Mugabe or whatever.

What else? All Russians need to apologise for the Soviet Union, all Americans need to apologise for Hiroshima.

And we could go on.

I do not need to apologise for my gender, my faith or my sexuality. It should be a given that a person does not agree or endorse or in any way participate in this sort of lunacy unless proven otherwise.

Jeez.

That said, I certainly agree all all and I do mean ALL organised religion can go and frock itself. Religion is a business, faith is a personal choice.
 
2012-08-30 07:25:02 AM  

ShannonKW: Here's a thread full of condemnations, furious calls for barbaric punishment, dogmatic claims, black-and-white attitudes, and herd thinking -- some of it the evident result of glossing over an entire page of text to find a line to justify it all. The people doing this are apparently atheists.

The interview itself is characterized by open-mindedness, reluctance to condemn, objectivity, forgoing of moral absolutes, and willingness to make concessions to human nature. This person is a Catholic priest.

It's quite a spectacle to see secular humanism transformed into the demon it was conceived to fight. Friedrich Nietzsche was right.


No, the interview is the same Catholic BS covering for the crimes of their peers. The interview was basically, "Oh it's okay to use your position of power to abuse minors as long as you aren't literally farking them" and "We got away with it in the past. What's the big deal now?" And this is his reaction after repeated scandals and cover ups. This man is supposed to be a moral authority and yet he can't even condemn sexual molestation of minors by people in positions of power. No, he goes the other farking direction and blames the minors for seducing the adults.

Here's an example of a time to forgo moral absolutes: stealing food to feed your starving family
Here's an example of a time NOT to forgo moral absolutes: an authority figure molesting a child
 
2012-08-30 07:25:22 AM  
If you tithe the catholic church, you support child rape. There is no getting away from it anymore.

All that shiat in your good book about actions over words should sink in at some point.
 
2012-08-30 07:35:23 AM  

runujhkj: Godscrack: runujhkj: Man, I hate atheists. They're so annoying, with all of their internet snark.

[img266.imageshack.us image 449x630]

If that guy in the sandwich board was a Catholic priest, that picture would look very different.


If the boys on this picture were a sandwich, the catholic priest would be the mayonnaise.
 
2012-08-30 07:45:04 AM  
..."Pressed for clarification, the New York State-based religious leader explained that kids looking for father figures might be drawn to priests to fill a hole."

Bad choice of words in more ways than one.
 
2012-08-30 07:52:43 AM  

12349876: cookiefleck: I adore you, I really do.. but when people do the whole " All Catholics do this" it's the same as throwing the "all blacks do this"

You're right, because the ghetto gang bangers are just as influential and powerful in the black community as the Priests are to Catholics.


That wasn't addressing the assertion that you're making the same argument. He's right. All catholics aren't kid diddlers like those reprobates in Happy Vally. I have a aunt, a HILARIOUSLY Catholic aunt who has switched from tithing to donating building supplies to a hospital being renovated by her diocese. This is to insure that none of her cash is used in settlements. I think that you might be surprised at how profound the reaction to the boy touching has been within the catholic world.
 
2012-08-30 07:53:08 AM  

Rain Fall: Why the hell should Christians have to say: This guy disgusts me.

I am not apologising for idiocy committed by women, by white people, or by gays. I am certainly not apologising for the lunatic rantings of some old child molester either.

If Christians have to apologise for the acts and idiocy of other 'so called' Christians, or of Muslims have to apologise for radical terrorists, or if Jews have to apologise for Israel, then by this logic, all men need to apologise for rape. All black people need to apologise for Robert Mugabe or whatever.

What else? All Russians need to apologise for the Soviet Union, all Americans need to apologise for Hiroshima.

And we could go on.

I do not need to apologise for my gender, my faith or my sexuality. It should be a given that a person does not agree or endorse or in any way participate in this sort of lunacy unless proven otherwise.

Jeez.

That said, I certainly agree all all and I do mean ALL organised religion can go and frock itself. Religion is a business, faith is a personal choice.


Except that the Catholic Church is a hierachical organization. If you choose to be catholic you kinda endorse what those higher up the chain are doing.

Hierachical, funny word. Hierarchical hierarchical hierarchical.
 
2012-08-30 07:53:41 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?


You might want to wait for more than five posts before assuming we aren't going to speak out against this. So this is me, a Christian, speaking out against this. Of course, since I'm not Catholic, it's pretty easy for me to speak out against these things. (Not that I don't speak out against hateful idiocy coming from Protestants, either.) What you really want is a Fark Catholic to speak out against this.
 
2012-08-30 09:03:50 AM  
What the actual........this article gives me a massive, raging sad. For humanity.
 
2012-08-30 09:15:50 AM  


What a naughty bit touching pedophile may look like:

i.huffpost.com
 
2012-08-30 09:17:27 AM  

St_Francis_P: Translation: "We used to Roger little boys all we liked and nobody ratted us out. I miss those days."


Why back in MY day we would bugger two or three little boys before lunch and nobody ever said boo to us! And back then it was much harder because the boys were much faster. Of course we all had onions on our belts as it was the fashion at the time....
 
2012-08-30 09:18:10 AM  

saymayne: Lol FTA: "Fill a hole."

In Catholicism's defense, my Baptist children's minister is doin 20 for masturbating with kids.

In Christianity's defense,


That's hardly a defense of catholicism.
 
2012-08-30 09:22:51 AM  
I was going to make a post about how the church is better off simply allowing priests to get married the way other branches of christianity have done. However, given that what we're seeing here isn't a case of a priest caught farking a woman (or a dude, no judgement), but instead acting out on being a pedophile and another group of douchebags covering it up, I can't even suggest it with a straight face, since they won't be happy until society goes bonkers and somehow manages to approve of pedophilia, which won't happen.

/is starting to think his nordic ancestors had other reasons for raiding and burning churches way back in the day...
//"you sick sunnovabiatch, you came here and disrespected our religion, then you farked my five year old son! for that, you die!"
///Hard to disagree with that...
 
2012-08-30 09:24:58 AM  
Is this really a surprise?!?!?!

To be a catholic priest you have to CHOOSE to live the rest of your life without sex of masturbation. My guess is that the selection criteria skews the results towards "creepy dudes" and away from "well adjusted and normal adults".
 
2012-08-30 09:28:06 AM  
But it's those blasted independant nuns that are the real problem in the church, amirite? Woohoo! Over here! Nuns! Anyone? Hello.....?
 
2012-08-30 09:47:09 AM  
Priests should be castrated into Eunuchs... just like the old days.

Problem solved.
 
2012-08-30 09:51:11 AM  

SpectroBoy: Is this really a surprise?!?!?!

To be a catholic priest you have to CHOOSE to live the rest of your life without sex of masturbation. My guess is that the selection criteria skews the results towards "creepy dudes" and away from "well adjusted and normal adults".


I remember reading an interview with a convicted priest. For what it's worth, he was pretty candid about what he felt motivated him to do as he did. One of the things he'd cited was loneliness, specifically the desire to have a family (in Catholic churches, if you're the pastor, your flock is supposed to be your family and you're to have no other devotion to family but this).

Not saying any of this justifies this sort of behavior in anyone, but I think that- for most people- living like this over a long enough timeline twists them psychologically, and it's very possible this is one of the results of that forced lifestyle.

In a church which has a problem with a lack of priests, you'd think that relaxing the dogmatic requirements would seem advantageous for other reasons, but nope, can't change what's "written". That's just how the Roman Catholic Church Rolls. The chief reason not to expect any change is the Pope- not necessarily because he's a douchebag, or of questionable morals (though he may be both those things), but mostly because the Archbishops endorsed him specifically because they believed he wouldn't change anything during his term.

They got what they paid for there.
 
2012-08-30 09:51:42 AM  

Nezorf: 2: The ADULT in that situation is supposed to, you know, BE THE ADULT. Failing to do so is inexcusable.


If the other is 18, aren't there two adults in the situation?
 
2012-08-30 09:51:59 AM  
Jesuits can rationalize anything
 
2012-08-30 09:52:44 AM  

neutronstar: Problem solved.


If you think that the desire to do this comes from between a person's legs, your thinking on the issue is as malformed as theirs.
 
2012-08-30 10:06:19 AM  

saymayne: Lol FTA: "Fill a hole."

In Catholicism's defense, my Baptist children's minister is doin 20 for masturbating with kids.

In Christianity's defense,


There's a lot of defending needed if you keep painting with such a broad brush. How about in public school teacher's defense? Some of them have gotten with the kids, does that mean the whole education system needs defending?
 
2012-08-30 10:12:12 AM  
historically sexual relationships between men and boys have not been thought of as crimes.

But consensual relationships between men is evil and wrong and destroys the fabric of society and the sanctity of marriage and brings down God's wrath and letting them get married violates your rights because it forces you to accept their heathen lifestyle and it must be stopped at all costs. Gotcha.
 
2012-08-30 10:14:36 AM  

trappedspirit: saymayne: Lol FTA: "Fill a hole."

In Catholicism's defense, my Baptist children's minister is doin 20 for masturbating with kids.

In Christianity's defense,

There's a lot of defending needed if you keep painting with such a broad brush. How about in public school teacher's defense? Some of them have gotten with the kids, does that mean the whole education system needs defending?


That depends, do the superintendents of school districts have a knack for constantly shifting blame, hiding the perpetrators and failing to report the crimes?

Do they come out on nationally broadcast cable TV and have the audacity to say "gee, yanno, we were much better off when we could bugger boys indiscriminately," with a complete lack of irony or self-awareness?

Yes, there are redeemable aspects of the Catholic faith, and even, to some extent, the institution of the Roman Catholic Church itself which governs it, but there are also stark differences between institutions that have the wisdom to render up this sort of behavior to judgement by the proper authorities, and institutions which have a very well-established pattern of not only refusing to render their outliers up for justice, but refusing to recognize why this is wrong.

In other words, the problem with Catholicism as a whole is far more institutionalized, far more systemic, than it is with the public school system. The public school system doesn't have too many administrators who are complicit in these sorts of incidents...

...excepting Joe Paterno, I know.
 
2012-08-30 10:20:49 AM  
Headline is semi-accurate.

Hell, I know boys who'll fark anything.

Anything
 
2012-08-30 10:20:53 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Teens are aggressors. That's fact.
It's up to adults to be adults and nip that shiat in the bud instead of succumbing.
That's also fact, and more important.


dafuq
 
2012-08-30 10:36:56 AM  

The One True TheDavid: The My Little Pony Killer: St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: Any Fark Christians here to speak out against this guy? No?

Would you settle for an agnostic saint?

Good enough for me. I'm just noting that this is a really good thread for the usual "I'm a Christian, but this guy totally disgusts me" crowd to make an appearance.

I'm an atheist, and I don't give a damn. In the first place it is possible that "[in a] lot of the cases, the youngster - 14, 16, 18 - is the seducer." I seduced a few older men when I was a teenager; they weren't Catholic priests but then I moved in a very non-Catholic world. And whatever grave hormonal disorders some Farkers might suffer from, most of us guys stopped being little boys before we got to be "14. 16, [or] 18."

Should priests be mindful of their vows and not partake with a sexually developed person of either sex, regardless of who's the seducer? Yes, of course: vows, like other promises, should be kept whever possible; if you don't mean to keep it or can't try very hard to then don't make the vow. But I'm not going to get very upset about "abuse" of somebody who in most of the world is old enough to get married and in most cases is mature enough to knock females up.

If it's okay for your average "14, 16, 18" year guy old to consensually fark a buxom "hottie" teacher then it's also okay for him to consensually get it on with a Catholic priest. Even if the priest is male too.


That's why this guy threw out those ages to make his argument - to make it sound better. 18 is legal everywhere and as long as it is consentual and not coerced, it's fine and no one cares, priest or not. 16 is legal in many states, so same deal. 14 is illegal. Period. I don't care if it is a mature 14 year old. An adult has no business being with 14. Bad.

He threw out those ages here, 14, 16, 18, but the truth is, the priests he is talking about have been accused of molesting 8, 10, 12 etc. Just like Sandusky whom he defends. He feels the same way about the little ones, but he is smart enough to know he could never get away with saying so.
 
2012-08-30 10:39:27 AM  

blahpers: If and when theist's beliefs ceased having deleterious effects on atheists (and even other theists), I will have some sympathy for your argument. Even if that ever happened, though, many Fark atheists have some background in science and/or philosophy, and such folk are naturally inclined to seek truth (and, consequently, to correct falsehood).


If you were really smart, you'd realize that faith is not based on logic or "truth" and is just a belief system that you can't argue with--the beauty of religion is that it never has to be "proved." it's built right into the system.

So give it up. "Correcting falsehood" might sound all noble to you, but do you really care about what those losers believe? Or does it have a lot more to do with proving something about yourself? I'd be willing to bet that it has a lot more to do with your own ego, than any altruistic notion to save the world from religious foolishness.
 
2012-08-30 10:44:26 AM  
i.huffpost.com
So, did you smack dat @55, or did you grab it?
 
2012-08-30 10:54:09 AM  

cryinoutloud: If you were really smart, you'd realize that faith is not based on logic or "truth" and is just a belief system that you can't argue with--the beauty of religion is that it never has to be "proved." it's built right into the system.


So, I guess that makes centuries and billions of people who have argued with Religious types over the matter of truth pretty damn stupid.

Kinda shocking considering how many of those people rank in our history books as being very intelligent and visionary in their respective eras, but okay.


And before you get indignant, I get what you're saying. However, as "the faithful" and "the athiests" are both subsets of "human beings", there's an understandable tendency to believe that common ground can be found, despite different views on things.

It might not always be justified in every case, but it's something I can completely understand in people.
 
2012-08-30 10:57:53 AM  

cryinoutloud: blahpers: If and when theist's beliefs ceased having deleterious effects on atheists (and even other theists), I will have some sympathy for your argument. Even if that ever happened, though, many Fark atheists have some background in science and/or philosophy, and such folk are naturally inclined to seek truth (and, consequently, to correct falsehood).

If you were really smart, you'd realize that faith is not based on logic or "truth" and is just a belief system that you can't argue with--the beauty of religion is that it never has to be "proved." it's built right into the system.


It is an argument worth attempting nonetheless.

So give it up. "Correcting falsehood" might sound all noble to you, but do you really care about what those losers believe? Or does it have a lot more to do with proving something about yourself? I'd be willing to bet that it has a lot more to do with your own ego, than any altruistic notion to save the world from religious foolishness.

Prove . . . what? Hey, I have to live on this rock too. Altruism doesn't need to enter into the picture at all. Falsehood, as a rule, is ultimately harmful to everyone, including me. Therefore, I combat it. If that means there's something wrong with my ego, I don't want it fixed.
 
2012-08-30 11:00:43 AM  
Pressed for clarification, the New York State-based religious leader explained that kids looking for father figures might be drawn to priests to fill a hole.

Exactly.
 
2012-08-30 11:03:00 AM  
thepigskindoctors.com
You can't have a Pedo thread without Penn State!
 
2012-08-30 11:38:58 AM  
The great part is these people are lecturing the rest of us non-stop on the issue of sexual morality.
 
2012-08-30 12:38:41 PM  
namegoeshere:

14 is illegal. Period. I don't care if it is a mature 14 year old. An adult has no business being with 14. Bad.

So you go by the law instead of biology. Too bad you need The Authorities to think for you: physical maturation you can see for yourself, the legal age of consent you have to look up.


He threw out those ages here, 14, 16, 18, but the truth is, the priests he is talking about have been accused of molesting 8, 10, 12 etc. Just like Sandusky whom he defends ...

Congratulations, you're a mind-reader. And you're a genius too: I didn't know Sandusky was a Catholic priest, which is what the article was about, but somehow you tracked down his ordination papers.
 
2012-08-30 12:39:11 PM  

miss diminutive: Godscrack: Crazy old fool. They should lock him up.

That might not be the punishment we think it is.

Exile him to the island of Lesbos instead.


Then you'd have straight dudes fiddling boys just to get sent to Snapper Island.
 
2012-08-30 12:48:51 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Dear Catholic Church:

STOP IMITATING THE F*CKING ANCIENT WORLD


[4.bp.blogspot.com image 436x435] 


We have new standards now.


At least the ancients could open up a can of whoop-ass on Persians or Gauls. People's grandmas could thrash most RC priests.
 
2012-08-30 01:04:29 PM  

The One True TheDavid: namegoeshere:

14 is illegal. Period. I don't care if it is a mature 14 year old. An adult has no business being with 14. Bad.

So you go by the law instead of biology. Too bad you need The Authorities to think for you: physical maturation you can see for yourself, the legal age of consent you have to look up.


He threw out those ages here, 14, 16, 18, but the truth is, the priests he is talking about have been accused of molesting 8, 10, 12 etc. Just like Sandusky whom he defends ...

Congratulations, you're a mind-reader. And you're a genius too: I didn't know Sandusky was a Catholic priest, which is what the article was about, but somehow you tracked down his ordination papers.


The same article also features him defending (well, at least sympathizing with) Sandusky. It isn't exactly a non sequitur to bring him up.
 
2012-08-30 01:10:30 PM  
The ubiquity of this type of person is part of the reason I'm no longer a x-tian. That, and the whole fairy tale- level dogma.
 
2012-08-30 01:13:56 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh:
jso2897:
I have no opinions about what "sides" faith possesses. As far as I am concerned, you can believe whatever you want - and if you have the decency to keep it to yourself, and not try to force it on me, we'll get along famously.

That is precisely, functionally, how I operate. I don't care, however, if they try to share their beliefs. It can be interesting to listen to sometimes. I just care if they try to force me to conform to them in whatever way.





Exactly! As an atheist I do find it interesting to learn about different religions and talk to people about their beliefs. I don't seek religous conversation, but if they bring it up I'll participate. Christians are always surprised to find I have read the bible.

I have talked to many people from different faiths about their religion.....Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Taoists, yet somehow Christians are LITERALLY the only ones who chastise, question and even berate you for not believeing what they believe.

Not all christians do this...but in my life, all who have looked down on me becasue of my beliefs have been christian.
 
2012-08-30 01:23:26 PM  

ShannonKW: Here's a thread full of condemnations, furious calls for barbaric punishment, dogmatic claims, black-and-white attitudes, and herd thinking -- some of it the evident result of glossing over an entire page of text to find a line to justify it all. The people doing this are apparently atheists.

The interview itself is characterized by open-mindedness, reluctance to condemn, objectivity, forgoing of moral absolutes, and willingness to make concessions to human nature. This person is a Catholic priest.

It's quite a spectacle to see secular humanism transformed into the demon it was conceived to fight. Friedrich Nietzsche was right.


Perhaps you're missing the differences between not being Christian, being atheist, and being a secular humanist.

That being said, the anger is there because the Catholic hierarchy has systematically protected and enabled priests who molest children. I'd be surprised if that doesn't make you a little angry as well. While I don't agree with the folks suggesting some pretty heinous stuff themselves, their anger is not misplaced.

As for the "open-mindedness, reluctance to condemn, objectivity, forgoing of moral absolutes," fark it. When the problem is a reluctance to punish child molesters, what is needed is MORE condemnation. That being said, given the responses in this thread, maybe some "willingness to make concessions to human nature" would be nice. The priests who are molesting children are people who have done something terrible and likely unforgivable. (No, I don't believe in forgiveness. That's for Christians. But I ain't going to rule out moving on and looking to the future.) A key point is they're people, and they need help. SO HELP THEM!!! What the church has done lately helps nobody.

As for the fact that he seems to be a decent person who likely misspoke and doesn't really mean what he said, that great. But I ain't giving someone extra credit for being a decent person. Even if he's a Catholic priest, because I don't believe that being a priest makes someone a bad person. Mind you, I also don't believe it makes them a good person.

In short, you're trying to get a reaction by condemning those who are angry about the actions of the Catholic Church, so here's a reaction.
 
Displayed 50 of 277 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report