Catholic Church links gay men to paedophilia

[plekhanov]

I don't, you deliberately distort my meaning. The girls had sex education and were not innocent of the facts of life.

 

No way did I mean what you say.

How on earth do you figure that the girls Huntley murdered knowing about periods and so forth mean that they weren't innocent victims?

 

Contrary to what you seem to think innocence and ignorance are not the same thing.

[plekhanov]

The Catholic Church is actively fighting a bill in Connecticut which would allow elderly paedophile priests who for so long were shielded successfully by the Church from being held to account for their crimes.

 

Connecticut bishops fight sex abuse bill

 

Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

 

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

 

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

 

The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.

 

The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.

 

The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.

 

"The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving them access to the courts."

 

Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.

 

"They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar high," Bye said.

 

The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.

 

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

 

The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.

[purdyamos]

Exceptions would include anything that calls for the commandments to be broken.

 

Our parents also have to obey their parents.

 

Parents have a duty to their children and are honour bound to keep the commandments themselves.

 

Ephesians chapter 6 puts it better:

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Which is to love others as we love ourselves and that is what parents need to do, most do of course.)

 

I hope that helps.

 

Right, so if a parent sexually abuses their own child, that child still has to respect their parents because it's not against any of the ten commandants. Christianity sided with abusive parents in the seventies and eighties, and I still know of Christians who automatically side with parents in such cases. That's exactly how religious dogma rationalizes and protects evil.

 

I suppose you'd get round that argument by calling it adultery.

[Plain Talker]

How on earth do you figure that the girls Huntley murdered knowing about periods and so forth mean that they weren't innocent victims?

 

Contrary to what you seem to think innocence and ignorance are not the same thing.

 

Maybe Grahame wants us to go back to the days where some young women committed suicide when they were frighteneed by their periods starting, because they were so ignorant/ uninformed about what was going to happen, they thought the bleeding was something drastically wrong with them?

[Plain Talker]

Right, so if a parent sexually abuses their own child, that child still has to respect their parents because it's not against any of the ten commandants. Christianity sided with abusive parents in the seventies and eighties, and I still know of Christians who automatically side with parents in such cases. That's exactly how religious dogma rationalizes and protects evil.

 

I suppose you'd get round that argument by calling it adultery.

 

I'm sure that it would not have happened if the (often tiny) child had not seduced the parent, (she says, with no little scepticism).

 

(Sceptic mode off/

PT is actually a very rational person, who does not in any way believe that a child who is assaulted is in any way to blame for the assault on him/her)

[Grahame]

Right, so if a parent sexually abuses their own child, that child still has to respect their parents because it's not against any of the ten commandants. Christianity sided with abusive parents in the seventies and eighties, and I still know of Christians who automatically side with parents in such cases. That's exactly how religious dogma rationalizes and protects evil.

 

I suppose you'd get round that argument by calling it adultery.

 

Hello Purdy.

All abuse is wrong. The spirit of the Ten Commandants is about protecting the individual. The exception to the rule of honouring our parents would be if the child was made to do anything wrong and a parent committing adultery is certainly doing wrong.

 

The Bible comes out very strongly against fornication which includes any unlawful sexual intercourse and if a child is going to honour it's parents then they have to be worthy of honour and breaking the law and living a sinful life precludes them from being worthy of any honour.

 

I'm with you on that purdy, it is totally wrong.

[Alien]

Hello Purdy.

All abuse is wrong. The spirit of the Ten Commandants is about protecting the individual. The exception to the rule of honouring our parents would be if the child was made to do anything wrong and a parent committing adultery is certainly doing wrong.

 

The Bible comes out very strongly against fornication which includes any unlawful sexual intercourse and if a child is going to honour it's parents then they have to be worthy of honour and breaking the law and living a sinful life precludes them from being worthy of any honour.

 

I'm with you on that purdy, it is totally wrong.

 

 

Do you think it's abuse if your child does wrong and as a parent you do nothing about it?

[purdyamos]

Hello Purdy.

All abuse is wrong. The spirit of the Ten Commandants is about protecting the individual. The exception to the rule of honouring our parents would be if the child was made to do anything wrong and a parent committing adultery is certainly doing wrong.

 

The Bible comes out very strongly against fornication which includes any unlawful sexual intercourse and if a child is going to honour it's parents then they have to be worthy of honour and breaking the law and living a sinful life precludes them from being worthy of any honour.

 

I'm with you on that purdy, it is totally wrong.

 

You're not with me at all. I was talking about parents who abuse their own children which is not against any of the ten commandments in any way. If a child rejects their abusive parents (or any such official authority figure) it is they who have always been considered wicked. And are you using the words 'fornication' and 'unlawful sexual intercourse' to describe child rape? By your posting history I can easily imagine you think that if a child's abused they've been 'made to do wrong'. What are they 'doing wrong' though? The ten commandments don't say anything about protection, they're about blind obedience to authority.

 

What I'm getting at is that you keep making out that paedophile = homosexual, or that same-sex abuse is *worse* because that means *they must be gay*, but every time I ask you about the most common form of abuse, which is in the home by dad or uncle whoever, you dodge the issue or deliberately avoid answering the point made, or vaguely make it sound as if the child is implicated.

 

It is only since we became free from religious oppression that outrages of all these types are being tackled and seen for what they are, as well as those who persist in spouting the disturbing old attitudes. Twisting dogma into something that's not there doesn't work, your dogma created the culture in the first place. And there's still a lot of it about.

[happyhippy]

May I politely ask people to question on the relevant thread? Doing otherwise is almost mob rule, and we don't have that here. I know the topic is deeply personal to many of us, but please respect Forum rules.

 

Thanks to everyone.

[mr. pixel]

if a child is going to honour it's parents then they have to be worthy of honour

 

in other words.. be excellent to each other

 

the church abuses its power to keep the rabble in line...and you'd better fall in line, or the sky pixie will get you...but are the church to blame, not it's those pesky gays...