Actor Robin Williams riffed on Catholic priests as pedophiles on NBC's June 18 Tonight Show with Jay Leno, proving that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well and condoned among Hollywood's elite, and apparently among the liberal media as well. Williams essentially smeared all priests, ignoring the fact that 81 percent of the victims in the Catholic Church were males abused by priests and that more than 40 percent of these victims were males aged 11 to 14. The majority of the victims, according to the official reports on the cases, involved people who were past puberty, i.e., young teenagers.
On the show, Williams pretended to play a game where the pedophile is hidden under a cap (hat tip to the Catholic League). Said Williams: "Here we go. Find the priest, find the pedophile. Find the priest, find the pedophile. Here you go right now. Move 'em around, move 'em around. Oh, you found the pedophile."
Williams went on, placing his hand over his groin, saying, "Youhave to realize that if you are a Catholic priest, you have retired this. That's it--no more sex." Then Williams slammed confession. "But they are going to put you in a small, dark box and people are going to tell you the nastiest sexual stuff they have done.
Commenting on Williams' anti-Catholic bigotry being aired on a major network, Catholic League President Bill Donohue said: "Isiah Washington lashes out at one gay person in private and he is banished from 'Grey's Anatome.' Robin Williams lashes out all priests in public and he suffers no consequence. To top it off, Williams suggests that most molesting priests are pedophiles, when in fact they are homosexuals. But to make a joke about gay priests could get him into trouble. So it's better to lie. This is justice--Hollywood style."
Note: The John Jay Study (John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York) on the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church, as also noted in the National Review Board report, found that a majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.
Comments Policy
History repeats itself
June 20, 2007 - 11:44 ET by dagdaThis country has been anti-Catholic since its inception. Robin Williams is one in a very long line to denigrate the Catholic Church and its priests, bishops, cardinals and popes.
The attack here should be on the company who is marketing Williams' new film. Catholics have a lot of power, they just have to use it. When they started boycotting movies in the 30s, the movie industry decided to institute a code of conduct. However, boycotting the shows that put him on and give him a platform would not hurt.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I know I'm probably missing s
June 20, 2007 - 11:48 ET by mikejI know I'm probably missing something here, but I do disagree with Williams profiling rant of Catholic Priests, but in the post I'm confused by this sentence: "Williams essentially smeared all priests, ignoring the fact that 81 percent of the victims in the Catholic Church were males abused by priests and that more than 40 percent of these victims were males aged 11 to 14. The majority of the victims, according to the official reports on the cases, involved people who were past puberty, i.e., young teenagers."
I guess my question is, that means it's ok as long as they aren't children they are molesting? Like I said, I may be misreading this.
Semantics issue
June 20, 2007 - 11:57 ET by dagdaMost of the priests convicted were not pedophiles. They actually fit in the next category up, attracted to young adults (not children). Just the same, it is like convicting all teachers for the acts of a few teachers who have sexual contact with their students. We could play, find the pedophile teacher instead of find the pedophile priest. Actually, we should be playing find the homosexual pedophile priest. That would still have been inaccurate, but at least half right.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
The unspoken fact in all of
June 20, 2007 - 19:47 ET by motherbeltThe unspoken fact in all of this continues to be that the priests who molested the kids, be they children or teens, were 99.9 homosexuals. But it's not cool to be against homosexual sex, so they had to "transform" the sin into pedophilia, a perversion that everyone can denounce. How many cases of priests molesting girls have you heard about?????
Well there's that nasty Heste
June 20, 2007 - 19:57 ET by botgWell there's that nasty Hester Pryne(sp) case
Ah... (spoilers)
June 21, 2007 - 22:54 ET by Ole_SargeHester Prynne's lover Arthur Dimmesdale was a Puritan Minister... NOT a Roman Catholic Priest.
I had at least 8 possible incidents involving male teachers in the Public School System doing something that made me uncomfortable and thus I ensured I was NEVER alone with them. Girls and young women should never be in that position, fending off their teachers.
Never had that with a Catholic Priest, none ever said or did anything that would make me uncomfortable. Okay there was Father Trapp, whose "End of Days" homilies could rival that of any "Fire and Brimstone" Baptist Preacher on the "circuit."
The "End of Days" and stuff from St. John's Revelations never made me "comfortable."
It's bad enough when a man takes vows such as celibacy — abstaining from sexual activity (hetero or homo) for religious or spiritual reasons. As quoted in MANY places, the majority of incidents are between homosexual MEN and post pubescent young men, that may or may not have underlying homosexual orientation.
Which is the number 1 reason why the Boy Scouts (of ANY country) do not allow homosexual men to be leaders.
There is a HEAVY handed "Lavender Mafia" that exists in many seminaries in many countries today. Not men of "faith" rather, men that enable other men.
It was also a work of fiction
June 21, 2007 - 23:10 ET by botgIt was also a work of fiction.
The truth is that abusive priests are a very small minority but there has been covering up and we all know that God's judgement begins with his own house (my Father's house has many mansions)
I've also heard rumors of what you call 'Lavender Mafia' and deem it quite possible though where is the proof?
And the Boy Scouts? lets say there is a reason i no longer give to the United Way.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Evening bot...There are books
June 21, 2007 - 23:20 ET by bigtimerEvening bot...
There are books about the Lavender Mafia...
Google it.
Just a thought....
BT I'll live search itSupreme
June 21, 2007 - 23:25 ET by botgBT
I'll live search it
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I'm with you. Say what? I
June 20, 2007 - 12:12 ET by kathleenirishI'm with you. Say what? I am confused.
Hey, Robin, you are a bigot, first of all.
Do you give money to the ACLU, the biggest enablers of pedophiles and sex offenders, and the litany of liberal organizations that enabled serial sex offenders for generations? The fact that liberal judges still reign?
There are many, many pedophiles operating out there in such fields as education and human services, medicine, etc., etc. They're everywhere. There are at least 5 level three convicted sex offenders living in my small town. None of them are priests! Wow, huh? Catch NBC Dateline lately? It's just that it suits your agenda of hating Catholics and Catholicism to use the horrible abuse of children by priests to get on your soap box, you washed-up annoying overrated hypocritical alcoholic.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Here we go!
June 20, 2007 - 18:26 ET by USnotU.S.Here we go!
No, the argument is that the
June 20, 2007 - 12:38 ET by KC MulvilleNo, the argument is that the overwhelming majority of cases involved gay priests preying on boys. That suggests that the problem isn’t about the priesthood in general, or the sexual teachings of the church, or even celibacy … which is what Williams’ attacks and insults were all about. Instead, it means that the pedophile problem is overwhelmingly about gays in the clergy. Take away the homosexual cases, and the statistics show that sexual abuse is no more prevalent among priests than among any other demographic. Williams ignores that because he supports gays, and so he’s blaming anything and everyone else. It’s a complete cheap shot, but that's nothing new.
Of course, you always wonder about anyone who gets so angry at the church about sex. The church teaches that sex belongs within marriage. It’s one thing to disagree with that, but these guys don’t just disagree. They’re bitter and angry about it. It isn’t a rational dispute about theology. They get frothy when anyone suggests that they control their sex drive. That’s a sign of something personal.
I don't know about you, but I never blamed the church for not getting laid.
Dating in the 1960s
June 20, 2007 - 12:48 ET by dagdaYou did not date enough Catholic girls if you did not blame the Church for not getting laid. :)
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
It is becoming more and more
June 20, 2007 - 11:50 ET by HelenSIt is becoming more and more painful to watch Robin Williams. He used to be funny, now he's just tiresome and annoying. And embarrassing to watch.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
HelenS -I completely agree!
June 20, 2007 - 15:16 ET by drillanwrHelenS -
I completely agree! Nothing more ugly than a comic / comedian / whatever that has traded humor for for bitter self-righteous indignation ... and thinks it's comedy.
I agree also. Liberals are
June 20, 2007 - 19:51 ET by motherbeltI agree also. Liberals are simply not funny...they just try to mask their hatred as humor, and it shows. It gives them the opportunity to spew hate and then when someone complains, claim that it's all in fun. It's a typical liberal tactic. Like Michael Moore claims his movie is a "documentary". Then someone finds errors and he says it's comedy, how can comedy be right or wrong? Or he says it's opinion. Or satire. Or a combination of all of the above, a work of art.
A couple of things: 1) The
June 20, 2007 - 11:59 ET by TheGingermanA couple of things:
1) Fact: there has been, and will continue to be, a high incidence of Catholic Priests who abuse their positions and betray the trust of defenseless children (and older adolescents). Humor can be a useful technique for discussing uncomfortable topics. The Catholic Church absolutely cannot ignore this, and I believe that ridicule is one means to insure that something will be done about it. If the Church cleans up its act and the ridicule continues, then it it would become unjustified.
2) "Catholic League President Bill Donohue said: ... To top it off, Williams suggests that most molesting priests are pedophiles, when in fact they are homosexuals."
Uhhhh, fine. Priests like dudes. Doesn't the Catholic Church look down on that even worse than pedophelia? Either way, that's simply trying to gloss over the fact that Priests have gone after young children (as well as older adolescents) an inordinate number of times. A Priest (an adult) who molests defenseless children - I believe that fits into the definiton of pedophile. "Homosexual" and "pedophile" are not mutually exclusive.
You bring up an important poi
June 20, 2007 - 13:22 ET by KC MulvilleYou bring up an important point. Young girls are taught to be suspicious of sexual advances, but we never teach the same to boys. This leaves them vulnerable, and the pedophiles take advantage of that. Maybe we should start teaching boys some basic defense mechanisms.
On the other hand, I disagree with the phrase, "Priests like dudes." If you think the issue here is that the priesthood encourages pedophilia, you're mistaken. It doesn't, and the statistics show it. That isn't the problem. The problem is that we expect the Catholic church (rightly so) to act quickly to remove these guys when the abuse is made known. We expect priests to have better moral control than the average person, simply because with great power comes great responsibility.
}}----> Fr. Mulkahy's wife
June 20, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Cool ArrowDo you think Fr. Mulkahy's wife would be blind to her husband's predelictions?
Wouldn't he more likely find sexual gratification at home?
Wouldn't men with these leanings be less likely to find a home in the rectory (oh my) if heterosexual men were recruited rather than those willing to give up connubial bliss?
I'm just sayin...
I am 100% in favor of married
June 20, 2007 - 15:24 ET by KC MulvilleI am 100% in favor of married priests. In fact, if they dropped the celibacy rule, I'd go back. Within the hour. That having been said, I don't think the celibacy rule is really the problem with the pedophilic priests. It's like rape ... it sounds like it's about sex, but it isn't really about sex. Frankly, it isn't about homosexuality, either. I knew quite a few gay priests, and I'd trust my children around almost all of them (with maybe one or two exceptions). I'm not a psychologist, so I don't want to pretend that I know all the issues, but from what little I know, having more sex wouldn't solve that problem. The problem with the pedophile isn't lack of sex.
Priests get involved in people's spiritual life, and that leaves people vulnerable if the priest happens to be a predator. It isn't that the priesthood causes the predator in the first place, it just means that victims are less likely to resist him. Young boys don't defend themselves against priests like they would defend themselves against others.
That's all the more reason, however, why the church should act quickly when suspicions arise. You want to be fair to any priest accused falsely, but you can't use that as an excuse, either. Most dioceses and bishops get it. They move fast these days, as well they should.
}}----> KC, I didn't know
June 20, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Cool ArrowWere you a Priest?
Anyway, I think celibacy of itself attracted a group of abberants.
Yes, there are problems in other congregations, but they surface much more quickly due in part to there being a Mrs. in the picture.
I do not believe pedophiles are so readily attracted to other churches because heterosexuality and demonstration of that proclivity are required.
No, I left before being orda
June 20, 2007 - 15:55 ET by KC MulvilleNo, I left before being ordained.
Celibacy can be a great grace. I don't happen to have that grace, but I knew many in the priesthood who did. Most people think that since sex is natural, it can't be resisted, therefore it becomes a psychological neurosis and destroys the personality unless you satisfy it constantly. Well, it isn't.
}}----> KC would you have stayed
June 20, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Cool ArrowWould you have stayed but for the celibacy thing?
Could you have been a good priest with a wife at your side?
Married Priests (Roman Catholics)
June 21, 2007 - 23:04 ET by Ole_SargeThere are right now about 12 of them in the United States, 4 are Chaplains in the United States Military. All were "approved" by Pope John-Paul the Great.
All came into the Roman Church from OTHER Protestant Denominations. All were married at the time, and I think all were already Ministers too.
The two I know personally are former Lutherans. One had been a Lutheran Chaplain in the Army for something like a dozen years.
It's rare, but it is done once in a while.
Dear KC Mulville, the quest
June 20, 2007 - 15:59 ET by Michael ChapmanDear KC Mulville, the question of married priests is one of Church Law and not an infallible or unchanging teaching, although some theologians will make the argument that it is. The simple matter, though, is that the Law could be changed and priests could be allowed to marry. (I'm not saying it should be changed or that it would be a good thing to do---only that it can be changed.) Church leaders and the Pope would have to agree to change the law, as I understand it. In the early Church, not a few priests were married, as were---if I am correct----almost all of the apostles.
You are correct. There is not
June 20, 2007 - 17:14 ET by KC MulvilleYou are correct. There is nothing about the priesthood itself that demands celibacy. The Eastern Rites can get married (except where the majority follows the Latin rite). In fact, to argue that a married man can't be a priest is to argue that one sacrament (matrimony) invalidates another (holy orders), which is theologically absurd. Celibacy was only imposed for good in the 11th century (or thereabout), and that was because of the inheritance laws. Under those laws, the church property would pass to the oldest son on the death of the priest, and the parish could be out of luck.
OK, you've probably guessed that I've done a lot of studying on the issue...
Even though I'd love to have the rule dropped, I'm a loyal and faithful Catholic, and the law is still there. It's simply not my call. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it. The Catholic church is not my personal plaything, and the pope doesn't need my approval. I'm OK with that.
I didn't leave primarily because of celibacy. Like any divorce, there were a lot of issues there, and I was certainly no saint myself. But I left on good terms, with no felonies committed (not even a misdemeanor!), and now I'm happily married with four children. I think it shows that when it comes to what's best for me, God knows better than I do.
}}----> God Knows better
June 20, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Cool ArrowYou're right.
It's just my belief Paul spoke for God: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober
I quit the Church partially because I determined celibacy and enforced fasting as creating sins. Just my opinion.
I am 100% in favor of married
June 20, 2007 - 15:27 ET by KC MulvilleOoops - machine hiccup during the posting. Sorry.
I disagree. I believe the i
June 20, 2007 - 13:29 ET by jondelwicheI disagree. I believe the incidence of sexual predators is less in the priesthood than in the general population.
The big discussion about the age of the victim (remembering how outraged some groups were that the Boy Scouts didnt want homosexuals around young lads) relates to the fact I believe that over 80% of incidents were related to post-adolescent boys being targets, i.e homosexuality, not pedophelia. Either is awful, but it's a fact the politically correct fear: homosexual men have very unhealthy lifestyles, and indeed they seem to seek out minors at an alarming rate.
Yes, the priest scandal is and was awful, but perhaps there are jobs for which gay men should be excluded. The Robin Williams Hollywood types can't admit this, and I think that is the hypocrisy the defense league wants exposed.
}}----> Pedophile Dynamic
June 20, 2007 - 13:38 ET by Cool ArrowPedophiles were attracted to the priesthood and here's how.
}}---->Pedophile Priests again
June 20, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Cool ArrowHere's my 2 cents. And y'all can say what you want.
ALL CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM MORE THAN A GENERATION AGO.
Whether engaged in the activity or complicit in its being hidden. It's damnable.
That Robin Williams ridicules a few for the silence of the whole doesn't seem any different than lumping all of Germany together for the holocaust that resulted from rampant 'master race' driven antisemitism.
Now, have at it!
Riled One??
June 20, 2007 - 12:33 ET by florida_chadCome on now Cool Arrow - "All Catholic priests were aware..."
That is just not true. If it is please furnish the links that prove it. That is a comment the Riled One would make. I understand you don't like the church, and understand why, but spreading lies does not further your arguement. There are many, many catholic priests that are fine men and do not harm kids.
}}----> OK chad
June 20, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Cool ArrowOk, give me your ballpark estimate of how many God fearing priests were aware of the problem.
Your fallback must necessarily be 0% in that no God fearing man (priest or not) would keep silent.
No - you asserted that ALL pr
June 20, 2007 - 12:46 ET by florida_chadNo - you asserted that ALL priests knew. Not me. Its a silly statement that is obviously false. If its not false - prove it. 100%.
}}----> obviously false
June 20, 2007 - 13:00 ET by Cool ArrowIn the sense that the statement "All Americans know the WTC was attacked by Radical Islamists" you are right. My contention is obviously false. Many claim George Bush did it.
Check out www.bishopaccountability.org .
That should keep you occupied for a while though you will doubtless question the messenger rather than the message. Some surprise.
Cool Riled Arrow One
June 20, 2007 - 13:02 ET by florida_chadI will read the link tonight, when I have more free time. I did not question the messenger (you) I questioned the message (100% of priests knew). The message is false, and you know it.
chad...semantics
June 20, 2007 - 13:07 ET by LionKingChad...I think the operative word is aware...versus know, as in knowing of a specific case of abuse. It's kinda like everyone is aware that man is causing Global Warming, but for example, I do not know of a specific example of who or how. ;-)
}}----> Thanks, chad
June 20, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I'll concede "All" was intentionally used in place of "Most" for it's obvious polarity value.
I truly believe "most" is a slamdunk.
Certainly there was suspici
June 20, 2007 - 13:36 ET by lnthompCertainly there was suspicion, if not actual awareness, a generation and more ago. I can remember as a non-Catholic hearing jokes and stories about Priests and Altar-boys in the 1960's when I was growing up, and I believe there were movies depicting unhealthy relationships between Priests and Altar-boys back in the 1940's or 1950's, if not earlier. I would be willing to believe 100% of Priests at least knew that there was speculation, even if they discounted it as purely prurient rumor-mongering.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
}}----> lnthomp
June 20, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Cool ArrowWonder if any clues came through in the Confessional?
Nah, not a chance.
Robin Williams isn't ridiculi
June 20, 2007 - 12:33 ET by TheGingermanRobin Williams isn't ridiculing a "few for the silence of the whole," he is ridiculing the entire establishment for not only its silence but also the behavior of many of its members.
So you're upset because Wil
June 20, 2007 - 12:17 ET by balboaSo you're upset because Williams isn't statistically accurate in his spiel? Or that he didn't cite statistics? Come on....
B,The reason for the anger is
June 20, 2007 - 13:37 ET by BinxlyB,
The reason for the anger is that many openly liberal 'loudmouths' will only attack things they dislike when there is a problem. It is VERY true that the acts of certain priests are deplorable and most people, religious or not, will agree it MUST stop and we must convict these people who commit these heinous acts.
The issue of anger here, however, is that the liberals steer clear of their own 'pet causes.' I'm a libertarian so I believe homosexuals should be free to be with whomever they want, but when they want to explain homosexuality in *explicit detail* to my future children at an insanely early age (kindergarten) and not only condone it, but rather spend MORE time explaining homosexuality than heterosexuality and the family structure. Where's the outrage there?
There is none, that's why there is anger from the middle and right on this, You can't be a saint if you only want to save causes that are important to your agenda and ignore all others.
But he's a comedian. You do
June 20, 2007 - 13:49 ET by balboaBut he's a comedian. You don't have to be equal opportunity.
And everyone's big on _their_ causes.
Its funny that Robin can ju
June 20, 2007 - 12:19 ET by charlietexasIts funny that Robin can judge people, but can we judge him. Isn't he the man that cheated on his first wife with the babysitter?? Isn't that a sin? Buttt the liberal elite can say and do anything. What else is new??
}}----> Robin Williams
June 20, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Cool ArrowYou are correct charlie, and he was sued for transmitting Herpes to a woman. Good thing you mentioned that. Those pedophile priests are certainly vindicated by your observation.
It's comedy. He's a comedia
June 20, 2007 - 12:58 ET by balboaIt's comedy. He's a comedian. Comedians judge all the time, every time up to the microphone.
Sounds like the opposite si
June 20, 2007 - 12:20 ET by The Wicked ConservativeSounds like the opposite side of the Mel Gibson coin to me. I'm sure the media outcry will be along any minute to rebuke him...waiting.............still waiting..................won't be holding my breath.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
I am not condoning the abuse
June 20, 2007 - 12:22 ET by NCConservativeI am not condoning the abuse of children and am not satisfied with the Catholic church's response to that situation. Having deep family roots in Catholicism, I was disturbed by seeming lack of concern.
However, having said that, I believe the Catholic Church remains one of the few acceptable targets for bigotry and hatred with no societal repercussions.
In looking at Williams comments, if we switched out "priest" for "Muslim" and "pedophile" for "terrorist" the outcry would be deafening. What I am most annoyed with over this story is the complete double-standard that exists when it comes to bigotry and hatred of the Catholic faith.
Catholic bashing is no big deal while every other faith and religion seems to be covered by the umbrella of "tolerance."
It was a one-size-fits-all br
June 20, 2007 - 12:24 ET by stratmanIt was a one-size-fits-all brush that Williams painted Catholic clergy with.
How funny would it be to say:
- Find the Black, find the drug dealing gang banging criminal
- Find the Hispanic, find the illegal alien
- Find the German, find the nazi
- Find the Italian, find the coward
- Find the White American, find the small pox ladened blanket bearing oppressor
- Find the Asian, find the buck toothed baby bayoneting killer
Probably wouldn't have gone over quite so well for Robin despite being able to find examples of these stereotypes in history.
Robin Williams is a guilt-rid
June 20, 2007 - 12:36 ET by mattmRobin Williams is a guilt-ridden deviant who is trying to shift his guilt to others. He's also not funny.
I have never liked Robin Will
June 20, 2007 - 12:43 ET by bigtimerI have never liked Robin Williams....
I see he is desperate to try and keep some kind of a career going with the above diatribe...
....what a pathetic piece of work.
Williams last movie
June 20, 2007 - 12:50 ET by dagdaHis last movie tanked. You can only tank so many times before you have to take supporting roles again. Or you have to produce the movies yourself.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Hey Hi dagda!I am in between
June 20, 2007 - 15:39 ET by bigtimerHey Hi dagda!
I am in between working and posting here...sorry I missed you...glad to see ya here again in the last few days.
Someone should ask him abou
June 20, 2007 - 12:56 ET by FlashmanSomeone should ask him about his opinion on Muhammad being over fifty when he consummated his marriage to the 9 year old Aisha? How about a fatwa on you head Robin and a quick trip to CAIR to prostrate yourself before the altar of political correctness?
PS: It looks like Williams had no problem working for disgraced director Woody Allen.
Robin Williams used to be ent
June 20, 2007 - 13:53 ET by SnowWhiteRobin Williams used to be entertaining. He's not funny anymore. I married a Roman Catholic so I'm not against Catholics by any means, but I do believe the Church had to have known that sexual abuse was occurring. Why homosexuals and/or pedophiles become priests in the first place is beyond me, unless they think choir boys are easy prey, but I think it was a big mistake right from the start of the organization to forbid priests and nuns to marry. The Apostle Paul warned Timothy of this very thing in 1st Tim. 4:3. Celibacy should be a choice not a command. And, obviously these priests who abused children were not celibate. My husband has told me some stories of things which occurred in his home town Catholic Church, which I cannot even repeat. Now, if he as a young man knew some priests were doing bad things, surely those in charge must have known. (And it wasn't just homosexual activity, there was a priest that was openly 'playing games' with young woman. He got shipped off to a far away parish eventually.) It's very sad indeed that these evil men used what is supposed to be a holy institution to commit their heinous crimes.
Robin Williams Catholic Priest bashing
June 20, 2007 - 14:31 ET by connmanRobin Williams can still be funny at times, but he hasn't done anything good in a movie in a long long time.
The media bashes the Catholic Church constantly for two reasons. It's position on Abortion and Homosexuality. Two of the lefts most prized fighting causes. Period, the end!
I deplore any abuse of children and young adults and feel equally so about the church covering it up. However, when the RCC is involved the media will always pound the story ad infinutum. Never mindful of the fact that statisticly speaking Public school teachers abuse more children than Catholic Priests do, it's just not a cause that the media cares to expolit. Unless of course you are a young white hot blonde doing her male students. I have often wondered if some men enter the monastery hoping to seek and receive God's forgiveness for their immoral thoughts and that they can be healed. If so, it's not working so well and we can only hope that the church is truly working to eliminate problem priests.
Obviously, Williams figures a little controversial Catholic bash talk will get him the publicity he can't get from just pushing his boring movies.
I think that the media/libera
June 20, 2007 - 18:12 ET by QueenMumI think that the media/liberal establishment are afraid of the CC for more than its stand on abortion and homosexuality. The CC represents moral absolutes. Doesn't quite compute with the left's philosophy of moral relativism.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
The media and liberal establi
June 20, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Del DolemonteThe media and liberal establishment may be "afraid" of the CC but in fact the Democrats have run several CC candidates who have won their elections repeatedly. The Kennedy brothers come to mind, and Nancy Pelosi is as CC as they come.
Of course, all of the above are in safe Dem strongholds. And as I recall, the worst of the problems with the bad CC priests originated in Teddy Kennedy's own state. Gee, what a surprise.
DelYou discount the increasin
June 20, 2007 - 20:36 ET by botgDel
You discount the increasing movement in the CC to remove from membership those who continually espouse stands which are diametrically opposed to doctrine of the church (ex: abortion)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Correct me if I am wrong, b
June 20, 2007 - 14:40 ET by Conservative VoiceCorrect me if I am wrong, but the Priest or Nun can chose to be a priest, and quit anytime...so no one is forcing anything. And I don't care how long the person was deprived, it isn't an excuse.
As far as the Catholic Church not doing more to punish these Priests...I don't know what happens behind closed doors, but I know as a Church they tend to hold confessions private. A legal question is, should Priests notify the police after confessions? Why these Priests aren't excommincated I am not sure either, at the very least remove the person from having access to children. I also think it is wrong to paint every Priest as sex deprived sexual deviants out to get the boys in the choir.
Under all conditions, a pries
June 20, 2007 - 15:41 ET by KC MulvilleUnder all conditions, a priest who reveals anything in confession, even that the confession took place, is immediately in grave mortal sin, and subject to immediate dismissal, if not much worse. No priest is ever allowed to "break the seal" of the confessional, for any reason. No exceptions.
There is no magic formula for correcting the problem. It takes work. Superiors have to be diligent in communicating with every individual priest. Fellow priests have to be aware of the signs, and report honestly. And the general public has to know that even if the vast majority of priests are perfectly trustworthy, they shouldn't take anything for granted. These are priests, not saints.
}}----> I wonder
June 20, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Cool ArrowHow many Pedophile priests acted upon young boys' struggles with impurity as a result of what was learned in Confession. Certainly a lot of room for assessing weakness there.
I wonder also how much many good priests learned about the scope of the problem from confessionals.
Check out all the peds in our
June 20, 2007 - 15:55 ET by TruthMongerCheck out all the peds in our democrat run public school system...! Showing the Roman Catholic church how it's done right...
We will all know about this for decades...
...it was hard but I managed to get religion into it:)...
One slight problem with your
June 20, 2007 - 20:24 ET by Del DolemonteOne slight problem with your analogy, TM-most of the peds in the public schools seem to be relatively attractive young women. All of the peds in the CC are grumpy looking old men.
Well, since it's secret, who
June 20, 2007 - 16:16 ET by KC MulvilleWell, since it's secret, who can tell? The confessional really isn't the place for that kind of thing, anyway. The priest spends barely a fraction of the time in the actual confessional, especially since so few people go to confession. Come to think of it, though, maybe we should go back to having confessions in those cramped little boxes with the sliding windows ... there would be no room to do anything wrong.
This is the moral paradox i
June 20, 2007 - 16:00 ET by Conservative VoiceThis is the moral paradox in my question. Its similiar to ( though I think the priest or Bishop has higher ground ) doctor patient confidentiality. At what point does the person's confidentiality no longer supercede the safety of the community? Like if a serial rapist confesses each time, and confesses who they will do next, isn't there a moral obligation to protect the innocent?
}}----> moral obligation
June 20, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Cool ArrowThere is a sworn vow never to reveal in any way the contents of a Confession.
I don't know of a case throughout history when it has been broken
You'd cause far more problems
June 20, 2007 - 16:43 ET by KC MulvilleYou'd cause far more problems that you'd solve. You'd make every priest vulnerable to extortion, for one thing. After all, you can say anything to your psychologist or lawyer, but when you go into confession, you do it specifically to reveal your sins. That's guaranteed to invite extortion. Besides, should the priest reveal other sins? Should he tell the wife about her husband's adultery? Should he tell the teacher that the student's term paper was copied? It would never work. Besides, within the confessional, the priest must encourage the sinner to make amends. That's not to be taken lightly. After all, the reason the sinner is in the confessional in the first place is because he knows he's done wrong, and he wants to have the sin off his conscience. That's a powerful motivator.
If you forced a priest to break the seal, confession would stop overnight. At least with the secrecy, a priest has a fighting chance to encourage the sinner to make amends. Without the seal, you have no chance at all.
I have great respect for th
June 20, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Conservative VoiceI have great respect for the cloth...you are of course correct KC. I myself do not think I could carry that burden.
CVI certainly wasn't implying
June 21, 2007 - 00:50 ET by SnowWhiteCV
I certainly wasn't implying that ALL priests are sex-starved deviants looking to prey on choir boys. And I assume if any priest or nun wants to get out of their vows they should be able to. I just wonder why these men join the priesthood to begin with. There are other religious organizations whose members have been accused of abusing children as well, especially in schools where native children were forced to go to unlearn their native languages and culture. It took many years for the truth to come out about such abuses. It is sickening and astounding that those professing to be Christians could do such horrid things and then have it covered up for so long. I do applaud the RCC for it's stand on abortion and homosexuality as well as all other churches who do the same. I would be extremely disappointed if they did not.
They join because they beli
June 21, 2007 - 01:26 ET by Conservative VoiceThey join because they believe in the Catholic cause ( or do you mean the perverts? same reason why they become teachers ). And I wouldn't necessarily call learning English abuse...and you can say everything in school is "forced" education. Learning English doesn't unlearn their native language anymore does learning German or Spanish is school causes me to unlearn English, and it doesn't take away from their culture. Sheesh...learning English is now considered "horrid". And you were implying most are that way due to they being sex-starved...esp. in regards to youth. I don't drink...so does that make me more likely to get drunk? Don't do drugs either...so I'm now likely to get high? Sex isn't the same as having to eat or go to the bathroom. You can manage the urges...people have gone without sex their whole lives without any problems. If anything a person who is devoted to his cause doesn't find it to be much of a temptation.
BTW I'm not Catholic. I just think this idea that Most Priest go in to abuse kids is a sign you have been brainwashed by the media. Remember, the media likes to paint this picture because it undermines the message of the Catholic Church, and all Churches...because they are for homosexuality, abortion, etc.
CVI think you are misssing my
June 21, 2007 - 13:27 ET by SnowWhiteCV
I think you are misssing my point. I am refering to 'only' those priests (I believe I wrote "some" priests), who have abused children'. And I am not influenced by the msm against the RCC by any means. I have met priests who are absolutely annointed men of God. I pointed out what the scriptures say just because if you want to become a priest or nun you are forbidden to marry. That's not to say this turns them all into sexual predators. Or that they aren't free to leave the priesthood. So, then why did this happen & why did it go on so long? Maybe only God knows. The problem with the native boarding schools was not that they were taught the English language, but that they were beaten if they spoke their native language. Did you not know that? Many of the kids were sexually abused as well by so-called 'Christians' of other denominations. The bottom line is that children were abused by 'some' bad priests who misused their authority over their victims. Unfortunately there are people like Robin Williams who will make jokes about it. I don't think the victims are laughing.
BTW, I think Madame Jeanne Guyon was the one of the greatest Christians of all time and have read all of her available books. And I think St. Francis of Assissi was also one of the greatest and devoted Christians of all time. I'm not against anything but the evil people who abused children.
The continual bigotry against
June 20, 2007 - 17:53 ET by ahusserThe continual bigotry against the Catholic Church aside, I've read articles where some Catholic seminaries were clubs for homosexual men and that "straight" seminarians were hounded and ridiculed until they left, ultimately the priesthood becomes predominately homosexual and the church a haven for them with a clubby atmosphere. This probably explains the slow reaction and continual cover-ups towards these offenders. I would like to see the end of celibacy for priests.
ahusser: Just where did you f
June 20, 2007 - 18:01 ET by QueenMumahusser: Just where did you find these articles. I know it's anecdotal, but a young man of my acquaintance who was a homosexual was required to leave the seminary when he was found out. Don't know the details of how this came about.
It's a topic that's been beaten to death, but a pedophile and a homosexual are not the same thing. The recent scandals involving priests were cases of priests abusing young children. I'm pretty skeptical about this story of seminaries being some sort of "club" for gays. It shows a lack of perspective re: the child abuse cases. To say that the church would prefer that priests be gay is ludicrous and just about the most outrageous accusation I've yet heard against the Catholic Church.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
A pedophile can be heterosexu
June 20, 2007 - 18:20 ET by stratmanA pedophile can be heterosexual or homosexual in their deviant orientation. Just like an adult's prediliction for adult sexual partners, a pedophile can "swing" either or both ways as well with children. There is no one-size-fits-all.
QueenmumI apparently unleashe
June 21, 2007 - 01:15 ET by ahusserQueenmum
I apparently unleashed some kind of firestorm with my post especially with conservative guy below. I read the article many years ago during the priestgate period. I dont keep a running bibliography of the articles I have read. However I went to the web for assistance. I typed in homosexuality and seminaries and many articles and websites popped up. I went to one called staycatholic.com . This site had a 3 part series about the scandals which were very good it also dealt with the pedophile versus homosexual terminology and the MSM bias. Unfortunately I believe that staycatholic.com probably has an agenda to defend the and promote the Catholic faith. I was unable however to get the bona fides of the author of the article, John Burger. Burger did mention a book by a Michael Rose who apparently is a published conservative author who has written books about various facets of the Catholic church including the crisis' in the Catholic seminaries. I found a blurb about the book on Amazon.com. The reviews of the book are very enlightening. Here is the official Amazon editorial review:
Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
Written shortly before the current scandal broke upon the Roman Catholic Church, Rose's book seems almost prophetic as he documents the systematic rejection of pious, orthodox seminary applicants in many dioceses and the encouragement of questionable attitudes and agendas. Rose (Ugly As Sin), who was editor of St. Catherine Review for seven years, is the author of numerous articles, essays, and books that question the wisdom of contemporary liberal Catholicism. Here, he discusses the causes of the chronic priest shortage, including the misuse of psychological screening and what appears to be blatant discrimination against the kind of young men who were once considered ideal candidates for the vocation. He gives a disturbing glimpse behind the scenes that may go far in explaining the church's present difficulties. Based primarily on interviews, the book is carefully footnoted and contains a bibliography of sources cited and consulted. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this prominent topic, and for public and academic libraries. C. Robert Nixon, MLS, Lafayette, IN
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
"I've read articles&qu
June 20, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Conservative Voice"I've read articles" so it must be true...nevermind critically examining the articles to see if there is a hidden agenda...blantent lies and half truths to further an agenda.
ConservativeI didn't posit th
June 21, 2007 - 00:14 ET by ahusserConservative
I didn't posit that the article was true. But there was some anecdotal information out there that I related. I read the article many years ago. I don't keep running bibliographies of what I have read. I thought the blog would be of interest. I have no agenda. I do believe however that the media was biased portraying these basically homosexual priests as pedophiles which is a term normally reserved for the sexual molestation of the very very young as in small children. I am not defending the indefensible they should still be punished for their crimes and for their predation of the innocent. The reporting of these crimes, as I recall (IMO), seemed to be frenzied and strident. The bias against Catholics, priests, the Church and Christians in general is blatant in the MSM and continues as attested by the allowed rant by a comic.
didn't say you had the agenda
June 21, 2007 - 01:35 ET by Conservative Voicedidn't say you had the agenda ahusser, rather I was saying you must take what you read and critically examine it for agendas, because as you say, the MSM has an agenda. I've done enough social work in my life to know that sexual molestation happens in all walks of life groups and creeds. They would have an argument if they proved that the priests caught are at a higher percentage among priests compared to the number caught against the total population (ie were significantly higher than the norm). It isn't true, or we would hear it...but they certainly imply it.
I've heard it from several Priest Friends
June 21, 2007 - 23:13 ET by Ole_SargeI've heard it from several Priest friends, who, by the way were friends before they became priests. No, never dated or otherwise had a "relationship" with them.
There were/are a few Dioceses that DO NOT TOLERATE even the appearance of "something" going on. In those, many priests either were told to leave, or left on their own. A few went to "communities" where they would have no contact with possible victims.
}}----> Sexual misconduct
June 21, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Cool ArrowMisconduct occurs in other churches, it's true. The difference has been that a preacher who crosses the line gets hung out to dry publicly when exposed. This has never been true of the CC until recently.