Newest Members
Green_Lantern, Safe11ride, WillWins, neophiliac, Jerone
12118 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
archie chisholm (61), Carlos418 (37), courtney (52), kurotake (55), lostsoul (63), Lukesgirl (28), michael banks (2014), Steffon (42)
Who's Online
4 registered (Cam76, Jas52, 2 invisible), 73 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12118 Members
73 Forums
62512 Topics
438095 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#387083 - 02/24/12 02:02 PM Bill Donohue on FOX
Still Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/16/07
Posts: 6317
Loc: 2 NATO Nations
Fox News had Bill Donohue in-studio to tear apart another group. His presence on Fox national News buys this guy the public legitimacy we always knew he had.

For those of you who don't know or remember what he does to Boy CSA victims:


Please see: Catholic League

_________________________
Jesus Loves The Hell Outta Me!

Still's Globs

New Video

Top
#387087 - 02/24/12 02:26 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
JustScott Offline
Greeter Emeritus
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 2568
I know you can't judge a book by his cover.... but dang is it just me or does that photo scream that he's a nasty danger to kids everywhere!?


Top
#387089 - 02/24/12 02:33 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: JustScott]
KMCINVA Offline
Greeter
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 08/31/11
Posts: 1433
Read the article--it makes me sick--total denial and probably he has a few skeletons in his closet that he is hiding. If he sees little wrong in what happened-then I would not let any child,no matter age under his watch. just plain sick and no wonder we have children and adults suffering from the abuse--continued ignorance.



Edited by KMCINVA (02/24/12 03:35 PM)

Top
#387137 - 02/24/12 10:50 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
Foul!

If you're going to quote only snippets of an article, you are not providing accurate information.

I am Catholic, and I am weary of my church being torn apart by people who insist on distorting what is said. HERE is the entire text and the link that will take you to the Bill Donohue article.

Please, please show others the justice you wish society to apply toward male survivors: The majority do not go on to abuse young boys. Yet, a great majority of pedophiles DO have a history of CSA. Likewise, the majority of Catholic priests have never harmed a child. Yet, the whole of the Catholic church is painted as a lair of pedophiles and demons. Fair is fair, people!

Furthermore, out of a sense of compassion for Catholic survivors of CSA, please speak only well-informed words about our church and our faith. Many survivors here are Catholic. One's faith/Higher Power is an important tenant of recovery. You ostracize a significant portion of your brothers, and may jeopardize their healing by perpetrating misinformation and hatred toward an entire body of people due to the actions of some.

Please read on...


http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4108

Email | Bill Donohue's Ad in NYT
Posted at: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:13:39 AM
Author: Michael O'Loughlin

Today's New York Times includes a full-page ad from Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Donohue addresses the ongoing clergy sex abuse scandal, and blames gay men and a hostile media for distorting the truth and attacking the church. The full text of the ad, a letter from Donohue entitled "Straight Talk and the Catholic Church," follows:

When the Boston Globe exposed massive wrongdoing in the Boston Archdiocese in 2002, Catholics were understandably angry. And when more horror stories surfaced elsewhere, we were furious. But now our anger is turning on those who are distorting the truth about priestly sexual abuse. That some are exploiting this issue for ideological and financial profit seems plain.

Every time a new wave of accusations surfaces in one diocese, not coincidentally we see a spike in accusations in other dioceses. What is not often reported is that the vast majority of new accusations extend back decades. For example, for the first quarter of this year, 80 percent of the cases of alleged abuse involve incidences that occurred before 2000.

In March, an 80 year-old man came forward in St. Louis claiming he was abused 70 years ago by a priest who has been dead for a half century. This is not an anomaly: the same phenomenon has happened in other dioceses. Unfortunately, too often bishops have been quick to settle, thus inspiring more claims. When $225,000 is dished out to a Michigan man who claims he was abused in the 1950s by a priest who died in 1983—and the diocese admits the accusation is unsubstantiated—it encourages fraud.

A common belief, fostered by the media, is that there is a widespread sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church today. The evidence is to the contrary: In 2004, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice issued its landmark study and found that most of the abuse occurred during the heyday of the sexual revolution, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. What we are hearing about today are almost all old cases. To wit: from 2005 to 2009, the average number of new credible accusations made against over 40,000 priests was 8.6. This is a tribute to the reform efforts that have taken place: 5 million children and 2 million adults have gone through a safe environment program. Indeed, there is no religious, or secular, institution that can match this record, either in terms of the low rate of abuse or the extensiveness of a training program.

Penn State professor Philip Jenkins has studied this problem for years. After looking at the John Jay data, which studied priestly sexual abuse from 1950-2002, he found that “of the 4,392 accused priests, almost 56 percent faced only one misconduct allegation, and at least some of these would certainly vanish under detailed scrutiny.” Moreover, Jenkins wrote that “Out of 100,000 priests active in the U.S. in this half-century, a cadre of just 149 individuals—one priest out of every 750—accounted for over a quarter of all allegations of clergy abuse.” In other words, almost all priests have never had anything to do with sexual molestation.

The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.

When the National Review Board, a group of notable Catholics, issued its study in 2004, the team’s chief, attorney Robert S. Bennett, said that “any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.” One of the members, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins, has said that “This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it’s not being discussed.” By the way, the figures after 2004 haven’t changed—eight in ten cases involve homosexuality. Worldwide, the Vatican estimates that 60 percent of the cases are same-sex, 30 percent are heterosexual and 10 percent involve pedophilia.

Though the data belie the conventional wisdom, it’s hard to break stereotypes. The assault on priests as child abusers has become a staple in the arsenal of Jay Leno, Bill Maher, Denis Leary, George Lopez, “The View” panelists, and others. So it is hardly surprising to learn that a stranger approached New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan at the Denver airport last month saying, “I can’t look at you or any other priest without thinking of a sexual abuser.” Indeed, most priests I know do not dress in priestly garb when traveling—they’ve had to deal with similar instances.

Why are priests being singled out when the sexual abuse of minors among other segments of the population is on-going today? According to Virginia Commonwealth University professor Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading education expert on this issue, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” We know from the work of Jenkins, and others, that there is no reason to believe that the rate of abuse is higher among Catholic priests than among the clergy of other religions. Moreover, there has been a slew of stories over the past few years detailing the extent of this problem in the Orthodox Jewish community; some rabbis still insist that sexual abuse cases should be handled internally. No wonder Jenkins maintains, “As a result of the furious investigations of the past decades, and particularly the John Jay study, the U.S. Catholic clergy are now the only major group on the planet that has ever been subjected to such a detailed examination of abuse complaints, using internal evidence that could not have come to light in any other way.”

It would be nice if we could all get on the same page regarding the proper remedies. But just three months ago, Federal District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein took a “compassionate” view toward a man found guilty of collecting thousands of explicit pictures of children, as young as three, that he downloaded from a child porn website. Weinstein slammed existing legal penalties for the crime, saying, “We’re destroying lives unnecessarily. At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

How often has the Church been ripped for following the advice of psychiatrists who thought they could “fix” molesters? To be sure, that was the zeitgeist several decades ago, as virtually every institution and profession can testify. Indeed, the punitive approach so favored today would have been cause for condemnation at that time had it been followed. Interestingly, a report on this situation in Ireland correctly concluded that had more bishops followed canon law, instead of seeking a more “compassionate” strategy, much of the problem could have been avoided.

The real damage done by the therapeutic approach is that it fostered the phenomenon of reassigning priests after they were treated. The exact same thing happened in the teaching profession. Indeed, moving treated teachers to new school districts is so common that it is called “passing the trash.” While moving treated priests to new parishes is no longer tolerated, the New York Times found that the practice of moving abusers around who work in New York’s state-run homes is commonplace.


Mandatory reporting of sexual crimes is not uniform in law or practice. In New York State, several attempts to blanket the clergy and other professionals have been met with resistance. Not by the bishops—but by Family Planning Advocates (the lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood) and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). Planned Parenthood counselors routinely learn about cases of statutory rape; mandatory reporting would obviously work against their clients’ interests. Even where mandatory reporting is law, such as in the state-run homes, it is seldom followed (more than 95 percent of the time the authorities are not contacted).

Calls for suspending the statute of limitations have regularly been made. But even if one sets aside the fundamental due process reasons why such laws exist, what is most disturbing about this issue is that they almost never apply to public employees. Unless explicitly stated, laws that revise the statute of limitations leave untouched those in education: they are protected by “sovereign immunity,” making transparent what the real goal is—“getting the priests.” And when proposed changes apply to teachers, in every state where this has happened, teachers’ unions and school superintendents have organized to register their objections. Why, then, should bishops who protest these revisions be criticized for doing so?

When the bishops met in Dallas in 2002 to consider reforms, panic gripped the conference. If there was one cleric who saw what the rush to judgment would do to the rights of priests it was the late Cardinal Avery Dulles. Sadly, events have proven him right. Quite frankly, it is more acceptable in our society today to defend the rights of Gitmo detainees than Catholic priests.

Grand juries are launched with the specific directive of investigating “sexual abuse of minors by individuals associated with religious organizations and denominations,” but then quickly evolve into the single-minded pursuit of priests; in Philadelphia, those who initially reviewed the accusations weren’t even called to testify. The unseemly practice of attorneys searching for new “victims” in bars and prisons is a disgrace. Just as sick is the sight of attorneys advertising for alleged victims of priests, but refusing to represent those abused by others. It has gotten so bad that dioceses are now being sued for “wrongful death” in cases where an alleged victim kills himself after his accusation was found wanting. And when AP runs a story on the “scandal” of allowing ex-priests to go unmonitored—as if someone is monitoring non-priest abusers—the bias shines through.

There is a huge difference between an accusation, a credible accusation, a substantiated accusation and a finding of guilt. But not when it applies to priests. I once had a female reporter lambaste me in my office when I expressed my opposition to proposals calling for all dioceses to publish the names of accused priests. I then asked her for her boss’ name and phone number. Startled, she asked why. “Because I want to press charges against you for sexually harassing me,” I intoned, “and then I want to see your name posted on your employer’s website.” She got the point.

BishopAccountabilty.org is accessed by reporters and lawyers for information on priestly sexual abuse, though the standards it uses cannot pass the smell test. It admits that the database “is based solely on allegations reported publicly” and that it “does not confirm the veracity of any actual allegation.” Swell. Furthermore, it says that “If an individual is ‘cleared’ or ‘exonerated’ by an internal church investigation and/or a diocesan review board decision, the individual remains in the database.” Ditto for cases where a priest faces an allegation for an act which occurred after he left the Catholic Church; even lawsuits against the dead are listed. There is no other group in the U.S. which is subjected to such gross unfairness. No wonder wildly exaggerated claims have been made based off of such collected “evidence.”

Perhaps no reform made in Dallas has proven to be more intrinsically dangerous than demands for “zero tolerance.” It all sounds so macho, but priests on the ground know first-hand what it means. Obviously, there should be no wiggle room in the most serious cases, but when priests are sued for “emotional” abuse, or violating “boundary issues,” the door is left wide open for exploitation. Dulles got it right when he said that “A priest who uttered an inappropriate word or made a single imprudent gesture is treated in the same way as a serial rapist.” Even worse, we now have the specter of a priest being suspended because a woman heard a kid in a playground call him a pedophile; she promptly called the cops. Joe Maher, president of Opus Bono Sacerdotii, a group that monitors the incidence of falsely accused priests, says that “at least a thousand priests…have been removed and remain out of public ministry because of unproven accusations.”

Because the Catholic Church is often criticized for not following a “zero tolerance” policy, the Catholic League did some investigation of its own. Here’s what we found. Almost every media outlet, teachers’ union and religious organization we examined does not have a “zero tolerance” policy in place for sexual misconduct (or any other offense). The few that do make no mention of mandatory reporting.

These organizations are not wrong for not having the same kind of policy that the Catholic Church has. The New York Times seems to understand this matter when applied to schools. In an editorial titled, “The Trouble With ‘Zero Tolerance,’” it noted that schools which have adopted these policies have created conditions where children are being “arrested for profanity, talking back, shoving matches and other behavior that would once have been resolved with detention or meetings with the students’ parents.” The NYCLU agreed saying, “De facto zero tolerance causes wrongful arrests, searches and suspensions of students in too many of the city’s neediest schools.” Yet as recently as April 2, the Times issued another editorial insisting the bishops follow this flawed policy.

No amount of reform will ever satisfy some. Attorneys like Jeffrey Anderson, and his well-greased friends at SNAP, a professional victims’ group, are dogmatic in their convictions; their hatred of the Catholic Church is palpable. Similarly, when others tell the bishops we’re going to “sue the s*** out of you,” and are informed that the goal is to put an “out of business” sign in front of every parish, school and charitable center, it is evident that the Church needs to fight back with greater vigor.

What accounts for the relentless attacks on the Church? Let’s face it: if its teachings were pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-women clergy, the dogs would have been called off years ago.

The British atheist Richard Dawkins is no fan of Catholicism. But he is honest enough to say that the Catholic Church “has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America.” Now if Dawkins gets it, why can’t others?

Bill Donohue
President
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387138 - 02/24/12 11:00 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: herowannabe]
Still Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/16/07
Posts: 6317
Loc: 2 NATO Nations
I'm not pissing on the Catholic church at all. Its Bill Donohue whom I have to issue with.

Quote:
The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.



“more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.”

....and that means what??? to whom????

Quote:
By the way, the figures after 2004 haven’t changed—eight in ten cases involve homosexuality. Worldwide, the Vatican estimates that 60 percent of the cases are same-sex, 30 percent are heterosexual and 10 percent involve pedophilia.


WTF does this mean to the 40 yo out on the 20th-floor ledge? Good Lord!!!


"True Mr Jones, you got raped, but we don't technically call it "rape." We prefer to label you "homosexual." And homosexuals can't be "raped." Its a well- known fact! Even the Penn State Professor said so. But DO feel free to jump.

If Fat-Ass Donohue has testicle-one, he'll show up at John Jay this year. But he won't, as he NEVER allows or publicly responds to rebuttal or challenge.

_________________________
Jesus Loves The Hell Outta Me!

Still's Globs

New Video

Top
#387140 - 02/24/12 11:14 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
This was provided by Ken Singer on a MS forum post. Technically, Bill Donohue is correct according to DSM dx criteria for a pedophile. This is a fact Bill Donohue felt the need to bring to attention as Catholic priests as a whole are being labeled as "pedophiles", which by DSM criteria is not an accurate term.

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
(cautionary statement)

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

Quote:
WTF does this mean to the 40 yo out on the 20th-floor ledge? Good Lord!!!

"True Mr Jones, you got raped, but we don't technically call it "rape." We prefer to label you "homosexual." And homosexuals can't be "raped." Its a well- known fact! Even the Penn State Professor said so. But DO feel free to jump.


WTF does it mean to a man who may be wrongly accussed of being a pedophile? What did it mean to you in your own judicial lynching?

Nowhere in this article was "rape" replaced with "homosexual". The two are even interchangeable. Please re-read!





Edited by herowannabe (02/24/12 11:22 PM)
Edit Reason: Added copy/paste because I don't know how to do two quotes in one action... duh! :(
_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387141 - 02/24/12 11:14 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
Still Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/16/07
Posts: 6317
Loc: 2 NATO Nations
Originally Posted By: Robbie Brown
I'm not pissing on the Catholic church at all. Its Bill Donohue whom I have to issue with.

Quote:
The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.



“more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.”

....and that means what??? to whom????

Quote:
By the way, the figures after 2004 haven’t changed—eight in ten cases involve homosexuality. Worldwide, the Vatican estimates that 60 percent of the cases are same-sex, 30 percent are heterosexual and 10 percent involve pedophilia.


WTF does this mean to the 40 yo out on the 20th-floor ledge? Good Lord!!!


"True Mr Jones, you got raped, but we don't technically call it "rape." We prefer to label you "homosexual." And homosexuals can't be "raped." Its a well- known fact! Even the Penn State Professor said so. But DO feel free to jump.

If Fat-Ass Donohue has testicle-one, he'll show up at John Jay this year. But he won't, as he NEVER allows or publicly responds to rebuttal or challenge.


Uncle Bill is an amature at the true game of Definition-Shuffle. If Ted Kennedy were still warm, he could give him some real pointers on smoke and mirror deployment.

_________________________
Jesus Loves The Hell Outta Me!

Still's Globs

New Video

Top
#387147 - 02/24/12 11:35 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
Okay...so you have a personal dislike for Bill Donohue. Why use him or snippets of his article to trash the Catholic church? Where in the article is he wrong? Where is he lying? Robbie, as an author yourself, surely you know I could take any of your articles and post snippets of them to make you look like anything I want to portray you as.

This IS pissing on the Catholic church, and some posters are right there to join in. One poster pointed to the photo of Donohue, which was obviously chosen as it is unflattering. It perfectly compliments the intention of the half-assed, distorted, hatefilled article you posted. Do we REALLY want to label someone by their photo? Really? Do we REALLY want to vilify an entire segment of people by the actions of some?

C'mon! Surely we are better than this?

_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387199 - 02/25/12 10:44 AM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: herowannabe]
KMCINVA Offline
Greeter
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 08/31/11
Posts: 1433
I believe one of the major flaws of the article and the report was the definition of pedophilia--it defined victims under the age of 10. Per the report 23% were 10 or younger but the clinical definition of pedophilia is 13 or younger and the number grows to 60%. Thus Donohue talks about the clinical definition and throws out less than 25%. The report or whoever elected to redefine the age for pedophile activity. I believe 60% vs the less than 25% is a material distortion of the nature of the activity. In addition, many dioceses have destroyed records, Curtis of the Bridgeport Diocese in CT readily admits he destroyed the records, and this is the same Diocese Egan later headed as Bishop.

Donohue is doing a disservice to the victims and blatantly uses self defined terms to argue a case without merit or fact.


Top
#387200 - 02/25/12 10:48 AM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: KMCINVA]
JustScott Offline
Greeter Emeritus
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 2568
The man blatantly protects an organization at the expense of children. Period. That's why this kind of thing triggers people here. He's making excuses, blaming the victim and trying to discredit those that have been hurt.

Catholic or not, many within the organization have blatantly protected those that should not have been and have as was pointed out, even gone so far as to destroy evidence in order to protect not innocent children, but monsters hiding as priests.



Edited by JustScott (02/25/12 10:48 AM)

Top
#387207 - 02/25/12 11:47 AM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: JustScott]
Treehugger75 Offline


Registered: 02/08/12
Posts: 158
Loc: Ontario Canada
"What accounts for the relentless attacks on the Church? Let's face it: if its teachings were pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-women clergy, the dogs would have been called off years ago."

I believe thats why you're still being HOUNDED!

_________________________
I will never ALWAYS be right, I wasn't wrong, I am whats left.

Top
#387208 - 02/25/12 11:48 AM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: JustScott]
westchesterguy Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 421
Loc: Westchester County NY
in my view.... look, this is the MS forum, right?

so, yeah, wtf, i think we have every right to drive an agenda now and then.

not that i'm saying robbie did. but all in all, the premise of how the catholic church does everything (seemingly so) in its power to minimize what has happened and continues so to do - is beyond disgraceful and it is counter to christianity.

or... we wouldn't have stories such as this:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/Cathol...-139129294.html

nonetheless, i also agree with that herowanabee is saying.

it is important to understand and review the data. indeed only a fringe group of priests have molested boys and girls. thank god only a fringe. however that fringe group had its own support -- the larger and bigger catholic secret. and, in my view, bill donohue is part of that support, he empowers that support. how many priests stayed mum when they found out their pal, or lover, was molesting kids?

no one can answer that hero -- and someone should. someone must.

my theory... the gay priests have been held hostage by the pedophile priests over the years through simple blackmail.

break that cycle, by embracing good gay men and women, and i think this issue will be resolved.

_________________________
Jeff

Top
#387212 - 02/25/12 12:30 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
“at least a thousand priests…have been removed and remain out of public ministry because of unproven accusations.”


The Catholic church has paid out millions of dollars to victims- some whose cases were substantiated, some whose cases could NOT be substantiated.

In the meantime, a HUGE proactive education program has been implemented, whereby children AND any adult that has any interaction with kids (priests, nuns, lay teachers, sports coaches, Sunday school teachers, office workers, janitors, etc.) MUST complete. I have completed this program, and can attest to the sincerity of the church's intention to protect the most precious of God's creation: children.

Where is this massive cover up? The male survivors who've come forth with accusations of abuse have been not only believed, but the church did provide the proof that these boys were likely abused just as they claim by opening the records that track an individual priest's record of being sent for treatment, reassigned, etc. Surely, you know that without the church's cooperation many of the allegations may have been thrown out??? But in the vast majority of cases, the church has accepted responsibility and has made financial restitution as well as putting in place safeguards to make children safer.

Have you ever seen a fender bender involving a public transportation bus? Ironically, a bus carrying three people suddenly has pedestrians jumping onto the bus before the police arrive in order to take part of the windfall financial settlement that's sure to come.

Positively, without question, many, many children have been abused by members of all kinds of organizations, including the Catholic church, which it has acknowledged! But how many priests have been unfairly and falsely accused of a crime that carries the horrific, life-altering stigma of sexually abusing a child?

While we care for the survivors, we must keep our heads firmly attached and be personally responsible to see that justice, not lynchings, prevail.

How does an organization, which has...

- clearly demonstrated empathy for victims, has implemented safety/awareness programs to protect children

- has proactively (though unfairly) removed priests from service for simply being accused

- has paid out millions of dollars in restitution

- has offered public apology for its ignorance in handling abusive priests (though it handled them exactly as was prescribed by society at that time!)

...protect itself when the tide turns from justice to lynching?

Who is protecting innocent priests from being publicly declared "guilty" until proven innocent?

How does the church protect itself from relentless demonization so that its members do not in the end lose their faith and the very place of worship they need and love?

Please. Instead of participating in the unproductive hate, please offer suggestions for what more the church can do??? Please.

Thank you for the respectful dialog. It's appreciated! Truly!

herowannabe

_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387217 - 02/25/12 01:01 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: herowannabe]
KMCINVA Offline
Greeter
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 08/31/11
Posts: 1433
I was, not really sure what I am now, a Catholic. But as I heal I have trouble comprehending the hypocrisy of the church towards the abuse. Their apologies are vague and superficial. Recently Egan seemed to retract prior apologies. I am from the Bridgeport Diocese and when I learn records were destroyed, priest moved from parish to parish, and insincere recognition of the abuse that destroyed so many lives. I can cry when I think of myself and the abuse and to learn what they did to hide it. How many others were hurt. I have guilt that maybe not only I but my younger brother may have been abused--his life was always shattered, no focus, unhappy, distrustful--he lived a very unhappy life and died young. I will never know but will be haunted by this, and if I had said something would nothing have happened to others. So I can not sympathize with the church or its bishop--own what happened and stop dancing around it.

It is not hate that bothers us, it is the lack of compassion and understanding. Are there people trying to collect--probably--but I think each and every victim would be far happier to have the life they deserved and not destroyed by those pompous bastards. I know not all are guilty and there are priests who understand--in my SNAP group we have a priest in the group--he was a victim and still became a priest. But as years past like many of us, he could no longer hide it. He received a substantial settlement from his Diocese in MA. He has said--they could have all the filthy money back if he could have his life back. Money does not give life to the victims but helps with therapy but the memories and pain is never lost. I would love to hear the church acknowledge the effects on the victim and acknowledge their lives were never to be whole.



Edited by KMCINVA (02/25/12 01:06 PM)

Top
#387221 - 02/25/12 01:06 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
Quote:
...it is important to understand and review the data. indeed only a fringe group of priests have molested boys and girls. thank god only a fringe. however that fringe group had its own support -- the larger and bigger catholic secret. and, in my view, bill donohue is part of that support, he empowers that support. how many priests stayed mum when they found out their pal, or lover, was molesting kids?

no one can answer that hero -- and someone should. someone must.


I can't answer that, Jeff. I can't answer it with any more clarity than any survivor can answer why their own family members, neighbors, teachers, physicians, etc., didn't DO something, didn't believe the child, didn't recognize the long-term damage done to the child.

Why didn't the abused child's parents call the police? Why didn't they get the abused child professional counseling? Why didn't they alert the media? Why didn't they sue the church? BECAUSE NONE OF US "GOT IT". We were all ignorant of information we now have.

In years past- and still to this day- our society thinks pedophiles can be "fixed". It's what many have referred to as the "dirty little secret". It's a horrific state of mind that not only individuals are in, but society as a whole.

In his article, Bill Donohue stated correctly, that the church followed the at-the-time professional advice and sent accused priests away to treatment facilities, then removed them from the defiled parish to another for a clean, healthy, all-better-now start. Though the practice, it is now understood, was ineffective and oftentimes resulted in continued abuse, the church did take action and did invest financially in an attempt to "fix" the offender. By moving the priest to another parish, it was hoped the abused child would better "forget" the abuse. No one understood the long-term help that child would need. We find ourselves on this very board to learn what was not known just a decade ago.

There was no malice in the church's actions: it was what professionals prescribed. There was no mandatory reporting to legal entities. Because of the scandal, for which the church has become the poster boy, society is waking up. However, the pendulum has swung from secrecy and fatally flawed methods of action to vilifying and painting an entire organization as evil. The pendulum will balance out, but only if clear heads prevail.



Quote:
my theory... the gay priests have been held hostage by the pedophile priests over the years through simple blackmail.

break that cycle, by embracing good gay men and women, and i think this issue will be resolved.


I'm not sure I'm reading your words as they are intended, so forgive me if I've misunderstood your point, Jeff. The church DOES embrace good gay men and women! There is NO sin in being created homosexual! ALL are God's creation and ALL are respected and loved. I don't know how to "prove" that to non-Catholics, but it is what the Catholic church believes and teaches and that can be verified by calling a local Catholic diocese and asking to speak to a priest or anyone on staff who is knowledgeable about church teachings (not everyone on the payroll is Catholic).

It breaks my heart that this myth is perpetuated because it keeps many gay souls separated from faith...needlessly.

Again, thank you for the dialog. It is a gift (though frustrating) to be allowed to disuss this hot button topic. I hope I'm lighting a candle as opposed to starting a fire that will burn someone.

God Bless!
herowannabe

_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387223 - 02/25/12 01:21 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: Still]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
(((KCMINVA)))

Here's just one such apology, straight from the Pope, where the buck stops:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ireland_en.html

_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387366 - 02/26/12 11:18 AM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: herowannabe]
westchesterguy Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 421
Loc: Westchester County NY
hero, there are multiple issues and i agree it is complicated. for the hundreds here touched in one way or another by the catholic church, we likely have hundreds of different stories and examples. i would hope some are positive.

just from my childhood this is how the priest issue played out. i don't recall silence.

one young, very good looking priest in his mid-20s, whom we all liked in the next parish, secretly was seeing a 19 yr old woman in the next county. when rumors began and his pastor confronted him about this in 1977... he left the priesthood. and by golly that "former priest" is still married to that woman and they have three grown kids! in my view - totally kosher all around. no harm done.

also, in my view, the church lost. they lost a true leader, a genuine man, someone who -- you know what i think -- would have exposed pedophile priests even though at the time it was forbidden to speak against fellow priests. but, simply because the church won't permit priests to have a life and marry - he moved on.

but do you know what else we know today -- 30yrs on? that same pastor harbored another priest, who replaced the shameful young gun, who was molesting teen boys in dana point. pastor now dead and the priest escaped to mexico in 1990s when the charges surfaced, where i understand he was promoted to a mnsgr.

second issue. my own priest. i liked him, he was a good man, i thought - until he begged and pleaded with my parents to not press charges against the ped who molested me and my sister. my parents were stunned by that request, but ignored the advice.

later, come to find out, the priest was hooked up with yet another priest in a nearby parish who was molesting kids. and it was that priest who was in partnership with my ped. so, it makes sense why our priest called for forgiving and forgetting. he couldn't risk news getting out that he was gay....he was on the career path of bishop. but that did not happen. he is now dead.

i have met a dozen or so catholics in my lifetime who were involved with the priest abuse scandal. none of those parents sat still. i was collaborating with chicago's v.o.c.a.l. (the linkup) in mid90s. they could be s.n.a.p. now, not sure to be honest. why would these orgs need to exist anymore...rather than grow in numbers?

i have read comments from this sitting pope. its true he seems genuinely caring about the victims he has met.

but nothing he does seems to fix or address this issue appropriately:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/catholic-church-gay-priests-exposed

and

http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-church-sf-disinvites-gay-clergy-204657248.html

but leave it to a nun!!! :-) a good lady and sister jeannine gramick to fight that church against all odds.

why on earth isn't that church full of sister jeannines?

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/decade-after-defiance-jeannine-gramick-hopeful-ever

new ways ministry
http://www.newwaysministry.org




_________________________
Jeff

Top
#387382 - 02/26/12 02:08 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: westchesterguy]
herowannabe Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/01/11
Posts: 386
Loc: USA
Hi Jeff-

I guess I'm a little confused by your post as I'm not quite sure how it applies to the sex abuse crisis within the church. I'm sorry that I'm likely not seeing your message as you intend it!

What my heart speaks to me as I read it and the articles you've shared is:

- The priesthood is reserved for men who choose celibacy. The reason for this is based on Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:32-35), and in Jesus' example of celibacy.

No priest is surprised by this rule five years after his ordination; it is well-known and is a matter of the highest discernment during the man's priestly education prior to his ordination.

Do all priest's succeed in chastity? Do all non-priests??? Of course not. However, that failure is not a verdict of the rule of celibacy; it's a failure of the man who is a sinner just like the rest of us.

My husband is not a priest and was welcomed to my body anytime the spirit moved us. Yet, he went outside of the sacramental requirements of our holy state of marriage, just like a priest may go outside of the sacramental requirements of his holy state of priesthood. Should the requirement of sexual faithfulness in marriage be thrown out as "unsuccessful" since so many fail in upholding it? I think not. The same is true for celibacy.

For those men and women who are NOT called to priesthood as their call to ministry does not also call them to celibacy, the church has many ministries available: deacons, missionaries, lectors, Eucharistic ministers, teachers, etc. The truth is, that all human beings are called to ministry- we're just not all called to celibacy.

________________________________________________________________

- The church can't make it any clearer that it does NOT condemn homosexuality. That is obvious as your second article highlights the large, active, publicly visible gay community within the San Francisco church, Most Holy Redeemer.

Likewise the church does NOT condemn my husband for having been an adulterer. Also likewise, the church does NOT condemn a priest who leaves the priesthood because of the rule of celibacy.

What the church condemns are ACTS outside of a sacramental union. Those sins can be forgiven with a repentant soul; however, the rules can't be changed to accomodate one's desire for his sinful behavior to be justified and validated (ala King Henry XIII).

If the gay community at MHR church is, in fact, a community that visibly and publicly strengthens each other in their celibacy, and affirms each other's worth in God's eyes and in the eyes of His church, then that is a holy and beautiful thing.

However, if that gay community comes together visibly and publicly to drive their agenda- for the church to disregard God's commands and the bible's instruction in order to accomodate their personal preferences and/or to relieve them of the restraints God allows in their lives, then it is not good.

There will never be a resolution to this because God's word is His word and the bible says His word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Sorry married men/women, you can't f*** around on your spouse. God's word disallows it.

Sorry ordained priests, you can't f*** around or take a spouse because you are already married to the Church. God's word disallows it.

Sorry homosexual brothers and sister, you can't f*** around or take a spouse because for some reason known only to God, you were created as a special sign to the world. You've been annointed to be a special sign of acceptance of God's word- even when it is excruciatingly hard. Because it IS so hard, your faithful service to His word will be all the more powerful.

________________________________________________________________

- Sr. Jeannine states: “When we started this work, only 20 percent of Catholics believed in equal rights for gays and lesbians,” Gramick said. “Now it’s over 73 percent. . . . The church is moving.”

No, good Sister, the church is not moving, society is moving. What exactly is it that she claims 73% of Catholics agree with? Exactly what "equality" is she referring to?

As an American Catholic, I would rail against civil laws that treat another with injustice due to his/her sexual orientation. Civil society should follow the laws of liberty and justice for all. Jesus taught, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's. Clearly, there's a huge difference in God's laws/justice and society's laws/justice.

The Church is bound to follow God's laws. It is not our right as a society to demand God's laws be changed to accomodate society's notions of right/wrong, fair/unfair. Nor can our personal notions demand that change.

________________________________________________________________

- The article continues about Sister Jeanine Gramick: "So, these days, when Gramick is asked what the church believes, she always tells the person what the majority of the members of the Catholic community believe, rather than the teachings of the hierarchy".

Danger. Danger. Danger. Hitler's society a believed the Jews were a pox on the face of humanity and deserved to be removed. Years later, society was horrified to learn that Hitler's "removal" of the Jews was actually extermination.

There is grave danger in allowing personal convictions to sway in the breeze. That doesn't mean Catholics should be stupid sheep, but in matters of spirituality, interpretation of>
_________________________


For I know the plans I have made for you. Plans to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11


Top
#387392 - 02/26/12 04:36 PM Re: Bill Donohue on FOX [Re: herowannabe]
westchesterguy Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 421
Loc: Westchester County NY

terry i understand what you typed.

i do not understand how a celibate priest can molest a boy and the solution is to sneer and conclude that "oh, well that priest needs to go to confession for engaging a 17yr old boy."

i do not understand when men (generic gender) decide they speak for and act fully in proxy to god. i would understand if men acted as servants of god and left the judgement up to him...and only him. this is how i believe the episcopal church has approached the topic.

we aren't talking about murder or abortion or insider trading.

we are talking about two people who want to spend their lives together in the eyes of god. if two gays wish to marry in the church and do so living fully committed and monogamously through marriage of 50 years, that those men acting as servants shall embrace the love between two males as they would a male/female and let god "give those men" hell upon death (or not). for it isn't up to us to "judge love" here....i remember the bible said that too! lol.

crime - different story. gays aren't criminals for falling in love -- in my view.

i do understand celibacy and i do understand committed relationship of man and woman through marriage. i personally agree that sex before marriage is wrong and should be absolutely frowned upon by society. can't explain that to a survivor though... that is the wicked and most cruel part of all. we lost our choice to be virgins. we lost our choice to experience many "firsts."

speaking from the gay p.o.v. i would encourage my gay son (if i had one) to wait, wait, wait and be very picky on his choice for a lifetime partner. i don't care he is gay... i care he is happy and meets a partner who worshiped him. lol.

i also understand the "concept" of god creating gays for some unknown reason so they can live out their 70 years without ever experiencing a kiss or the emotion of love of another living soul that is taken for granted by males towards females. so, another cruel joke for a priest to molest a young gay guy who follows that teaching? a 12 or 16 yr old young gay gets kissed, fondled, penetrated by the parish priest (whom the kid might even find attractive or likable) and that same kid is forever told he must remain celibate because god said gays must be. meanwhile that priest keeps on going....

thought god wasn't cruel. but, then again what did god gain while sitting up there and watching the kid get raped without tossing a lightening strike down on the priest? yea, blasphemous likely, but that point is still open for debate.

now, lots of this comes down to personal interpretation. not one of us alive today - no matter how smart or accurate he thinks he knows language from years pre-zero b.c. to 200 a.d. the bible as it stands today is only "in theory" what we assume was meant to be at the time of writing. i mean come on folks... we used to call a "fag" a cigarette. are any of you going to sit here and tell me a book written 2,000 years ago has every single word translated into 19th/20th century language along with cultural nuances?

:-) sorry, you'd lose that battle. i wouldn't believe you. just as the english language today will be long forgotten and irrelevant in year 5,000. that is how things evolve in communication.

_________________________
Jeff

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  Chase Eric, ModTeam 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.