Catholic Church links gay men to paedophilia

[Plain Talker]

Looks like it is the councils and the police both.

 

"The fifth family to be moved from the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth went into temporary council accommodation following a seventh night of marches during which 300 screaming demonstrators converged outside the homes of people they believed were paedophiles. After meeting Portsmouth council officials and police officers, protest leaders agreed to hand the local authority a list of child sex offenders they believe were living on the estate. But it emerged that they were only handing over names of 11 of the 20 men on their list because they could not be "100 per cent" sure they were all paedophiles."

 

Look at all the paedophiles on one estate alone. The numbers of paedophiles worldwide in the Catholic church must pale into insignificance if this is the ratio of paedophiles in the population. You should be looking at the whole picture and accept the fact that social workers, councils, and police are also moving people to places they are not known as well.

 

If you continue to focuse on only one group then that is prejudice and as a bigot is defined as someone who is " blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion that is intolerant toward others" then you need to accept that the description of "prejudiced bigots" applies to many of the posters on here.

 

http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/judge_lets_paedophile_who_suffered_go_free_1_1_1_1

 

You really aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

You bring up the Paulsgrove estate incidents:- now if you remember, cast your mind back to what happened on that estate about six or so years ago...

 

The pitchfork wielders, and the torch-bearers ran rampage, attacking anyone and everyone they even suspected of being a paedophile.

 

Many innocents were attacke:-, it said, in the article, that 20 names were handed over. BUT!!! and here's the rub,

 

they were only handing over names of 11 of the 20 men on their list because they could not be "100 per cent" sure they were all paedophiles."

 

Which says it all really. You are citing this case as proof. Some idiots riot, on a housing estate, because they THINK that person X is a paedophile. No proof, just "We think he is, so he must be!"

 

There's chuff-buggar all proof, grahame. It was all in the minds of the baying mob. Many, indeed, probably most of those people attacked by the baying mob were innocents, believed to have been paedophiles but weren't.

 

You really really exasperate me, with your silliness, grahame. I can't believe that you have cited such rubbish as "proof".

 

I can prove that the moon is made of cheese, you know.

 

Yeah. I can.

 

Just look here, at this... I went to Waitrose supermarket, this afternoon, and bought half a pound of Wensleydale. There's the proof. If the moon were not made of cheese, how could I have bought the cheese from Waitrose?

 

What do you mean, ridiculous?

 

Eh? How can it be ridiculous? I have the proof right here. Just like you have the proof there from that ridiculous cite.

 

edit, apologies and slight correction, the stuff from Paulsgrove happened in the summer of 2001, I thought it was later, in about 2003/4. I note my slight error in date, but point out that even though the date was out, the premise and the incidents there were not fallacious. They really happened

[Grahame]

You really aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

You bring up the Paulsgrove estate incidents:- now if you remember, cast your mind back to what happened on that estate about six or so years ago...

 

The pitchfork wielders, and the torch-bearers ran rampage, attacking anyone and everyone they even suspected of being a paedophile.

 

Many innocents were attacke:-, it said, in the article, that 20 names were handed over. BUT!!! and here's the rub,

 

 

 

Which says it all really. You are citing this case as proof. Some idiots riot, on a housing estate, because they THINK that person X is a paedophile. No proof, just "We think he is, so he must be!"

 

There's chuff-buggar all proof, grahame. It was all in the minds of the baying mob. Many, indeed, probably most of those people attacked by the baying mob were innocents, believed to have been paedophiles but weren't.

 

You really really exasperate me, with your silliness, grahame. I can't believe that you have cited such rubbish as "proof".

 

I can prove that the moon is made of cheese, you know.

 

Yeah. I can.

 

Just look here, at this... I went to Waitrose supermarket, this afternoon, and bought half a pound of Wensleydale. There's the proof. If the moon were not made of cheese, how could I have bought the cheese from Waitrose?

 

What do you mean, ridiculous?

 

Eh? How can it be ridiculous? I have the proof right here. Just like you have the proof there from that ridiculous cite.

 

edit, apologies and slight correction, the stuff from Paulsgrove happened in the summer of 2001, I thought it was later, in about 2003/4. I note my slight error in date, but point out that even though the date was out, the premise and the incidents there were not fallacious. They really happened

 

So are you making excuses for the paedophiles or those who attacked them or both?

[sccsux]

You may have made a good point there, perhaps you should be blaming the police for failing massively in their duty for years and years, in all the countries around the world.

 

Maybe so. But only if the catholic church had reported the priests when the abuse was first reported to them, instead of covering it up. As they didn't (report it to the police) then the blame lies squarely with the church's hierarchy.

[Grahame]

Maybe so. But only if the catholic church had reported the priests when the abuse was first reported to them, instead of covering it up. As they didn't (report it to the police) then the blame lies squarely with the church's hierarchy.

 

Out of all the thousand who alleged they were interfered with, how come not one of them (apparently) went to the police?

 

It just seems a it odd to me.

 

Or are you alleging the church bribed the police as well?

[Karis]

The abused rarely go to the Police. There's nothing weird about that.

 

I don't know the statistic, but only a tiny percentage of rapes are reported to the Authorities.

[Grahame]

The abused rarely go to the Police. There's nothing weird about that.

 

I don't know the statistic, but only a tiny percentage of rapes are reported to the Authorities.

 

You read about rapes in the newspapers, but I wouldn't know the percentage I agree. But even so with the numbers involved I can't believe the police didn't get to know about it.

 

Added.

 

About 40% of rapes are reported to the police.

 

"Reporting to Police

 

* 60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

* Reporting has increased by 1/3 since 1993."

 

"At least 47,000 adult women are raped every year in the UK." Not one by a paedophile priest.

[plekhanov]

Out of all the thousand who alleged they were interfered with,

And you disgusting attempts to deny, mitigate and distract from the Christian enabled rape of children continues.

 

There is nothing "alleged" about the abuse, thousands of children definitely were abused courts and official enquiries have determined that.

 

how come not one of them (apparently) went to the police?

 

It just seems a it odd to me.

 

Or are you alleging the church bribed the police as well?

Some of them did, many however had such misplaced faith in the church that they initially reported the abuse to priests, bishops... who then did everything they could to silence them.

 

It takes courage for child abuse victims to tell even a single person, telling a 2nd after the first has tried to silence them is all the harder.

[plekhanov]

The following is from a letter from a Canadian Bishop to a Vatican official concerning their attempts to prevent a paedophile priest from being brought to justice:

 

 

When Fr. Prince was first proposed for his present position in Rome (on the recommendation of the now Archbishop T. Franck), I explained to the then Archbishop Jose Sanchez (now Cardinal Sanchez), in his capacity as Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, that, while the charge against Fr. Prince was very serious, I would not object to him being given another chance since it would remove him from the Canadian scene.

…

Recently it has been brought to our attention that there was not one but four or five victims in all (all minors who talk freely among themselves about their involvement with Fr. Prince), and that several lay people of the Wilno-Barry's Bay area, as well as a number of priests of the Deanery of Barry's Bay are aware of these unfortunate events… any papal recognition or promotion would surely result in animosity and "admiratio", along with other possible ramifications.

…

The victim assured Monsignor Barry [the Vicar General] that he would not lay any charges (although his counsellor strongly advised him to do so), unless he learned that Fr. Prince was victimizing other individuals and that appropriate steps were not bring taken by his superiors to obviate this possibility through counselling and supervision.

 

Consequently, Your Excellency, the scenario which exists today is considerably different from when I first spoke with Archbishop Sanchez. At that time we were under the impression that the incident was isolated, in the distant past, and there was little or no danger of any scandal ever emerging.

 

However, the knowledge and extent of Fr. Prince's previous activity is now much more widespread among both the laity and the clergy than previously existed. Hence, were he to be honoured in any way it could easily trigger a reaction among the victim(s), or others who are aware of his previous conduct, and this would prove extremely embarrassing both to the Holy See and to the Diocese of Pembroke, not to mention the possibility of criminal charges being laid and a civil lawsuit ensuing

...

One redeeming factor is that it would appear that the victims involved are of Polish descent and their respect for the priesthood and the Church has made them refrain from making these allegations public or laying a criminal charge against a priest. Had this happened elsewhere there would be every danger that charges would have been laid long ago with all the resultant scandal. Unfortunately one priest, who was talking with one of the victims who partially revealed. Fr. Prince's activity while living with him in Ottawa, has been somewhat indiscreet in his comments about Fr. Prince, and has had to be cautioned by the Vicar General in this respect.

...

I regret both the length and contents of this letter, Your Excellency, but when there is so much at stake for the Church in general and the diocese in particular, given the adverse climate we are currently experiencing, any promotion for Fr. Prince, even for a Papal Honour, but most especially for the Episcopate, would have horrendous results and cause immeasurable harm. All of the Bishops of Ontario who are aware of this situation (and there are several) would most certainly agree with my assessment in this regard.

…

However, as previously mentioned, a promotion of any kind would indicate to the victim that he is being further victimized and hence we could anticipate that a charge would be laid and a public trial would follow. This has been the pattern which has been followed in recent event s of a similar nature and it is a situation which we wish to avoid at all costs.

 

 

In this case as in many others the deeply indoctrinated victims trusted the Church to act and it let them down. As can be seen from the letter the only concern is to stop the priests crimes becoming known to the public or the police. They are willing to give a paedophile who's lying to them about the abuse "another chance" and would like to promote him but a scared to do so as it may cause the victims to go public.

 

So do explain to us Grahame how did the police "fail to do their duty" in this case?

[Grahame]

And you disgusting attempts to deny, mitigate and distract from the Christian enabled rape of children continues.

 

There is nothing "alleged" about the abuse, thousands of children definitely were abused courts and official enquiries have determined that.

 

 

Some of them did, many however had such misplaced faith in the church that they initially reported the abuse to priests, bishops... who then did everything they could to silence them.

 

It takes courage for child abuse victims to tell even a single person, telling a 2nd after the first has tried to silence them is all the harder.

 

You admit some of them did report it to the police. That's good. I presume the priests were tried by the courts in the usual way and if guilty were sentenced appropriately?

[plekhanov]

"At least 47,000 adult women are raped every year in the UK." Not one by a paedophile priest.

1. Paedophiles tend not to rape adults
   
2. How do you know none of those 47,000+ women were raped by priests?