brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/12/89)
Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? Bishop Smith: Shocking. They boy was only 11 years old. Murhpy: Shocking. Smith: What can we do? We can't excommunicate him. Murphy: No, that would get in all the papers. We'll do what we always do. Smith: Newfoundland? Murphy: Newfoundland. Smith: They'll do no damage there. ----- Think about it. What other reason can there be? I mean 18 priests and brothers in a province with 600,000 people? 18 gay, non-celibate, pedophile RC priests & brothers? No offense to Newfoundlanders, but it doesn't seem you've been treated well. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) (08/12/89)
In article <3984@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? I was waiting for someone to comment in a sarcastic way on one of the greatest human tragedies of our time. Brad, you didn't disappoint me. Your comments are shallow, uncaring and show a callous disregard for the feelings of both pedophile and victim. > Smith: What can we do? We can't excommunicate him. Your implied assumption that somehow the church is responsible for a priest's behavior simply perpetrates the myth which fuels pedophilic bahavior. The myth is: "I am not responsible for my behavior. I am this way because of.....(my parents, my situation, the anger others arouse in me, the sexual arousal in me WHICH I CAN'T CONTROL)..... > Murphy: No, that would get in all the papers. We'll do what we always do. The fact is neither the community, the family, the church, the school, the law, has yet figured out how to deal with this problem. It has always been with us, it only surfaced as a high profile crime in the last decade or so. Everybody wants to hide the problem. Mainly because most of us don't know how to deal with our own feelings of sexual dominance over another human being and the surfacing of a problem close to us makes us ashamed. So we cover our feelings up with anger, belligerence, flippancy, etc. Why should the Roman Catholic Church be singled out simply because the media decides for our benefit that the crime in a religious context makes great headlines? The fact of the matter is, several hundred arrests are made, charges laid and convictions obtained every year in every province. Only a small number involve the RC clergy. Many of the people are in trust positions with children. Yet they don't get national headline attention. (No, I'm not a Roman Catholic). I would bet that the situations that are revealled every year only involve the tip of the iceberg. Obviously I don't have many statistics. But I do volunteer prison work and the numbers are far greater than any that get reported in the press! > Smith: Newfoundland? Brad, this is not only a crime, it is also a SOCIAL PROBLEM. Much like the history of Alcoholics Anonymous which dealt with alcoholism when it was still taboo to talk about it in our western society. It is also a VALUE PROBLEM that arises from our incapacity to discipline (O, O, a bad word!) ouselves in our endless searching for sensual gratification and our insistence that children, from the time time they are conceived in a mother's womb, are disposable pieces of property, to be aborted at will and to use to satisfy our own needs whenever we, in society, see fit. > Murphy: Newfoundland. > > Smith: They'll do no damage there. Oh, brother. I'm assuming that you're trying to be funny, so I'll make no comment about how pedophelic behavior causes damage everywhere. > Think about it. What other reason can there be? I mean 18 priests and > brothers in a province with 600,000 people? 18 gay, non-celibate, pedophile > RC priests & brothers? > > No offense to Newfoundlanders, but it doesn't seem you've been treated > well. I don't know how you expected the RC church to deal with it in any different way given the potentially explosive reaction from society. Tell me Brad, do you have any dark secrets that would turn off your employer, friends, family, etc., if you were to reveal them? Ever have any 'unacceptable' thoughts? Huh? Here's my suggestions for dealing with this problem: 1) Everybody in Canada, start to talk openly about this problem. Let both victim and pedophile know that you are a caring, supportive person who will stick with them through all the trauma and hurt of a police investigation, a trial and a possible jail sentence; 2) Contact your local mental health authorities and see if you can get a support group started for pedophiles where they can come and honestly talk about their loneliness (a trademark of the behavior), their anxieties, and how to find a way out of a behavior in which they feel trapped. (You'll likely only be able to deal with pedophiles who are the subject of a police investigation because the current laws now make you liable to criminal prosecution if you do not immediately report any suspected pedophilic behavior to the police or child welfare authorities). 3) Get a victim into therapy immediately, and go with them if necessary to ensure that they have the proper support to deal with their hurt, and their now problematic view of human relationships. If not, this will cause them great pain in later life when everything has cooled off and they are left with the memories. In addition, the police and crown prosecutors will often not be very helpful. You have to remember that their job is to get a conviction, not be supportive. They may create immense pressure on the victim to testify, and this will add to the trauma. 4) Write to your MP and urge them to get the police and courts to back off a little in their relentless pursuit of "justice". Not every situation has to be handled by a jail sentence and the laws should allow judges a little more leeway in how they can deal with this problem. For example, if someone is seeking counselling and help already, a jail sentence can often cause more grief and pain to both the victim and the pedophile, particularly in family situations. This problem is a great human tragedy. It needs clear and sober thinking. Not sarcasm and flippancy. Put your money where your m**** is! :-) ____________________________________________________________________ |* email : jhp@apss.ab.ca (uunet!utai!alberta!ncc!apss!jhp) | |** mail : 10320 - 146 St. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5N 3A2 | |*** ph : (403) 451-7151 | --------------------------------------------------------------------
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (08/14/89)
In article <1479@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >In article <3984@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >> Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? >I was waiting for someone to comment in a sarcastic way on one of the greatest >human tragedies of our time. Brad, you didn't disappoint me. Your comments are >shallow, uncaring and show a callous disregard for the feelings of both >pedophile and victim. And I was waiting for someone to come to the Church's defence, feeble defence that it is... >Your implied assumption that somehow the church is responsible for a priest's >behavior simply perpetrates the myth which fuels pedophilic bahavior. Church leaders are granted special standing in their community, in some cases wielding more power than politicians. And unlike any politician, they also are respected because of their ethical judgement. The Church has decreed that its priests are indeed morally superior to the common man, and are capable of such self control that they are expected to maintain the unnatural state of forced celibacy for the rest of their chuch careers. >The fact is neither the community, the family, the church, the school, the law, >has yet figured out how to deal with this problem. I was under the impression that there is still a kind of statutory rape law, that it is illegal to have sex with someone younger than N years regardless of the circumstances or consent. Certainly pornography featuring minors is treated with more contempt than that of adults only. >Why should the Roman Catholic Church be singled out? 1) Because the Roman Catholic Church is the only Western religion which unnaturally forces celibacy upon its leaders; 2) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than other religions, believes that sexual union is only for the purpose of procreation, and still believes homosexuality (sodomy) to be a sin against God; 3) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than any other religion, loves to instruct the world on such proper sexual conduct; >Brad, this is not only a crime, it is also a SOCIAL PROBLEM. In this situation, it is even more than that. It is a matter of corruption. Not financial, but moral corruption of leaders who are given special responsibility, such as running schools, because of their perceived moral judgement. >It is also a VALUE PROBLEM that >arises from our incapacity to discipline (O, O, a bad word!) ouselves in our >endless searching for sensual gratification and our insistence that children, >from the time time they are conceived in a mother's womb, are disposable pieces >of property, to be aborted at will and to use to satisfy our own needs whenever >we, in society, see fit. Oh, brother. Please give more detail about the connection between the abortion issue and these priests' actions, or their church's subsequent conduct regarding them. These men have *betrayed* the church's disciplince regarding 'sensual gratification', in four different ways: a) They had sex. Period. (Vow of celibacy, remember?) b) They had homosexual sex. c) They had homosexual sex with minors. d) They had homosexual sex with minors without consent. If so many of the leaders can crack, how are laypeople expected to follow the discipline, or even believe it useful? If anything, the church's lack of response to this issue may *hurt* its moral credibility in the future when dealing with unrelated issues like abortion. The media loves this for the same reason it loves the Pete Rose gambling scandal, the tribulations of Jim Bakker, or the current revolving door of politics in Japan. Popular heroes and leaders are given special moral status (and sometimes paid handsomely) because of what they represent. People love to watch the fall of those who don't live up to the expectations - especially those whose position exists *because* of their morals. Pete Rose also has a sickness, which and has (in the minds of some) tarnished the reputation of his entire sport. That hasn't kept the Johnny Carsons of the world from getting lots of monologue mileage out of it. These priests have embarassed their church and humiliated their communities. They deserve whatever they get - maybe more. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Director & editor, /usr/group/cdn Canadian Football League: 8 teams, two with the same name.
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (08/15/89)
In article <1479@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: <In article <3984@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: <> Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? <I was waiting for someone to comment in a sarcastic way on one of the greatest <human tragedies of our time. Brad, you didn't disappoint me. Your comments are <shallow, uncaring and show a callous disregard for the feelings of both <pedophile and victim. Fuck the pedophile; he lost all of my sympathy when he did the deed. On the other hand, Brad shows great concern for the victim, and wonders whether this wasn't done deliberately. <> Smith: What can we do? We can't excommunicate him. <Your implied assumption that somehow the church is responsible for a priest's <behavior simply perpetrates the myth which fuels pedophilic bahavior. The myth <is: "I am not responsible for my behavior. I am this way because of.....(my <parents, my situation, the anger others arouse in me, the sexual arousal in me <WHICH I CAN'T CONTROL)..... "Jesus died for your sins. Make it worth his while." fortune -o. The church specifically encourages the view that an individual is not responsable for their actions, so long as they seek forgiveness (via the church, of course). The church may not think so, but I hold them responsable. <> Murphy: No, that would get in all the papers. We'll do what we always do. <The fact is neither the community, the family, the church, the school, the law, <has yet figured out how to deal with this problem. It has always been with us, Sure we have; put the pedophiles in jail, simple! <it only surfaced as a high profile crime in the last decade or so. Everybody <wants to hide the problem. Mainly because most of us don't know how to deal <with our own feelings of sexual dominance over another human being and the <surfacing of a problem close to us makes us ashamed. So we cover our feelings <up with anger, belligerence, flippancy, etc. Why should the Roman Catholic <Church be singled out simply because the media decides for our benefit that the <crime in a religious context makes great headlines? Because the RC Church takes great pains to lecture the rest of society on proper moral conduct while protecting incredibly corrupt individuals, placed in a position of power and trust, within their organization while attempting to transfer blame to the victim. Not even Clifford Olsen tried to claim that his victims asked for it. <The fact of the matter is, several hundred arrests are made, charges laid and <convictions obtained every year in every province. Only a small number involve <the RC clergy. Many of the people are in trust positions with children. Yet <they don't get national headline attention. (No, I'm not a Roman Catholic). <I would bet that the situations that are revealled every year only involve the <tip of the iceberg. Obviously I don't have many statistics. But I do <volunteer prison work and the numbers are far greater than any that get <reported in the press! <> Smith: Newfoundland? <Brad, this is not only a crime, it is also a SOCIAL PROBLEM. Much like the <history of Alcoholics Anonymous which dealt with alcoholism when it was still <taboo to talk about it in our western society. Alcoholism is a (relatively) victim-less crime that dammages it's carrier mor than anyone else; comparing the two is not valid. < It is also a VALUE PROBLEM that <arises from our incapacity to discipline (O, O, a bad word!) ouselves in our <endless searching for sensual gratification and our insistence that children, <from the time time they are conceived in a mother's womb, are disposable pieces <of property, to be aborted at will and to use to satisfy our own needs whenever <we, in society, see fit. In my experience, children are generally treasured in any civilized western society. That's what child-labour laws, pedophile laws, children's aid societies, etc. are all about. I don't see any connection between favouring abortion rights (which I personally do) and de-valuing children. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the Archbishop of whatever in Nova Scotia seems to have been the first to come out in favour of pedophilia, and I doubt that he favours abortion. In fact, it seems to me that he values un-born children MORE that the living ones. <> Murphy: Newfoundland. <> <> Smith: They'll do no damage there. < <Oh, brother. I'm assuming that you're trying to be funny, so I'll make no <comment about how pedophelic behavior causes damage everywhere. Brad is quite aware of the dammage. He is making a cynical statement about how much the church elders care about the people of Newfoundland; i.e. they don't give a fuck. <> Think about it. What other reason can there be? I mean 18 priests and <> brothers in a province with 600,000 people? 18 gay, non-celibate, pedophile <> RC priests & brothers? <> <> No offense to Newfoundlanders, but it doesn't seem you've been treated <> well. <I don't know how you expected the RC church to deal with it in any different <way given the potentially explosive reaction from society. How about, excommunicate the priests responsible, turn them over to the police, hang them out to dry, and make sure they never get a chance to do it agian from a position of publicly recognized authority? Nah, better cover it up instead, wouldn't want the pleebs to clue in that we can make mistakes. < Tell me Brad, do <you have any dark secrets that would turn off your employer, friends, family, <etc., if you were to reveal them? Ever have any 'unacceptable' thoughts? Huh? Unnacceptable thoughts are completely different from unacceptable actions. That's why civilized countries only have action-police (they bust you for bad things that you do) and the the RC church has thought-police (in the form of confessional priests) who make you feel guilty for having thoughts that the church finds 'unnacceptable', regardless of what the rest of society thinks of such thoughts, or the disgusting concept of thought-police. <Here's my suggestions for dealing with this problem: <1) Everybody in Canada, start to talk openly about this problem. Let both < victim and pedophile know that you are a caring, supportive person who will < stick with them through all the trauma and hurt of a police investigation, a < trial and a possible jail sentence; RC Church authorities implementation of this: cover up the crimes of the pedophile & ship him off to some place that has never heard of him (where he can do it again with impunity) and make the victim feel guilty for 'consenting' to the act at the age of seven. Terrific support group. <2) Contact your local mental health authorities and see if you can get a < support group started for pedophiles where they can come and honestly talk < about their loneliness (a trademark of the behavior), their anxieties, and < how to find a way out of a behavior in which they feel trapped. (You'll < likely only be able to deal with pedophiles who are the subject of a police < investigation because the current laws now make you liable to criminal < prosecution if you do not immediately report any suspected pedophilic < behavior to the police or child welfare authorities). This is a good idea. <3) Get a victim into therapy immediately, and go with them if necessary to < ensure that they have the proper support to deal with their hurt, and their < now problematic view of human relationships. If not, this will cause them < great pain in later life when everything has cooled off and they are left < with the memories. In addition, the police and crown prosecutors will often < not be very helpful. You have to remember that their job is to get a < conviction, not be supportive. They may create immense pressure on the < victim to testify, and this will add to the trauma. So does pressure from a bishop telling the victim that it is his fault. <4) Write to your MP and urge them to get the police and courts to back off a < little in their relentless pursuit of "justice". Not every situation has to < be handled by a jail sentence and the laws should allow judges a little more < leeway in how they can deal with this problem. For example, if someone is < seeking counselling and help already, a jail sentence can often cause more < grief and pain to both the victim and the pedophile, particularly in family < situations. Bullshit. Serious crimes like this do not deserve kid gloves. The mindset of "he didn't really mean it, and he's getting help" lead to exactly the same problems that women face with regard to rape; the offender is treated kindly, and the victim is made to feel like they are on trial. Instead of backing off on prosecuting these cases, they should be persued to the full extent of the law, or the problem will just persist and grow, as perpetraitors get the idea that a 'sincere' appology is a free ticket to another crack at the lads. <____________________________________________________________________ <|* email : jhp@apss.ab.ca (uunet!utai!alberta!ncc!apss!jhp) | <|** mail : 10320 - 146 St. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5N 3A2 | <|*** ph : (403) 451-7151 | <-------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) (08/16/89)
In article <28367@watmath.waterloo.edu>, sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: > Fuck the pedophile; Go ahead. Maybe YOU'LL end up in jail. > On the other hand, Brad shows great concern for the victim, and > wonders whether this wasn't done deliberately. Stop. You're breaking my heart! You wouldn't know concern if it hit you in the face. > "Jesus died for your sins. Make it worth his while." > fortune -o. Is this the Bible that you're quoting? Or do you know? Or do you care? In fact, do I care? > The church specifically encourages the view that an individual is not > responsable for their actions, so long as they seek forgiveness (via > the church, of course). The church may not think so, but I hold them > responsable. Is that so? It's been a long time since you've gone to church. Obviously. The one I go to (not Catholic) in fact does hold the view that people are responsible for their own actions. Isn't that great? And forgiveness is not just a way to avoid that responsibility. > <> Murphy: No, that would get in all the papers. We'll do what we always do. > <The fact is neither the community, the family, the church, the school, the law, > <has yet figured out how to deal with this problem. It has always been with us, > > Sure we have; put the pedophiles in jail, simple! These are the views of a simpleton! Surely you're not one of THOSE, are you? > Alcoholism is a (relatively) victim-less crime that dammages it's > carrier mor than anyone else; comparing the two is not valid. You are uninformed! Check with your local government alcoholism foundation (or your local Catholic Church) :-) > In my experience, children are generally treasured in any civilized > western society. That's what child-labour laws, pedophile laws, And what experience might that be? Are you a social worker, or a doctor, nurse, teacher? I'd be interested in knowing from where you obtained your experience - I hope it was a lot better source than your information! > children's aid societies, etc. are all about. I don't see any > connection between favouring abortion rights (which I personally do) > and de-valuing children. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the No, I didn't think you would......... > Archbishop of whatever in Nova Scotia seems to have been the first to He was a bishop. In Halifax. Read the paper. > come out in favour of pedophilia, and I doubt that he favours abortion. > In fact, it seems to me that he values un-born children MORE that the > living ones. Quote, please? I didn't hear him say that and I obviously read the article in greater detail than you did. > Brad is quite aware of the dammage. He is making a cynical statement > about how much the church elders care about the people of > Newfoundland; i.e. they don't give a fuck. Oh, so now you're defending Brad? Isn't it funny how the uninformed always run in packs? > "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." > -Lazarus Long I tire easliy reading garbage. So I'll just say that your signature says it all about your value system. No wonder you don't like the church, sheeesh!
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) (08/16/89)
In article <619057392.19843@telly.on.ca>, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > And I was waiting for someone to come to the Church's defence, feeble > defence that it is... Why is it whenever you try to have an open discussion on a subject involving the christian faith, someone always has to start talking like a nerd. "Look, a CHURCH lover! Spank, spank, spank. Ooohhh!" "Thank goodness for the RIGHT WING POLICE. They will make sure that NOONE gets to defend anything to do with that....that....that....(sputter, choke)...CHURCH! > >Your implied assumption that somehow the church is responsible for a priest's > >behavior simply perpetrates the myth which fuels pedophilic bahavior. > > Church leaders are granted special standing in their community, in some > cases wielding more power than politicians. And unlike any politician, > they also are respected because of their ethical judgement. So are parents. So are teachers. So are social workers. So are the police, in fact. So are emus. When's the last time you saw an emu in the national headlines? Or a parent? Or a teacher? Or a social worker? Or a cop? Pedophiles come from EVERY walk of life. Or didn't you know? Huh? > The Church has decreed that its priests are indeed morally superior to > the common man, and are capable of such self control that they are DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT DECREE? (Definition - Decree - Something WRITTEN DOWN as a law, tradition or rule). > expected to maintain the unnatural state of forced celibacy for the rest > of their chuch careers. Baloney says I. The priesthood is like any other vocation in one respect. You can leave it if you so choose not to be celibate. No, I think you are treating this issue with as much superficiallity as the rest of the issues we are discussing here. > >The fact is neither the community, the family, the church, the school, the law, > >has yet figured out how to deal with this problem. > > I was under the impression that there is still a kind of statutory rape > law, that it is illegal to have sex with someone younger than N years > regardless of the circumstances or consent. Certainly pornography Now isn't that interesting. The law! Well, there was a law against abortion also until several months ago when the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down and left the country in one mell of a hess regarding the issue. The law, sir, is not infallible. In fact, many times it is dead wrong! > 2) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than other religions, > believes that sexual union is only for the purpose of procreation, and > still believes homosexuality (sodomy) to be a sin against God; Sorry, homosexuality and sodomy are not the same thing. You can have sodomy between a male and a female. Homosexuality is a sin against your own life. A sin in which you put your own life at risk, (and the live of others whom you may never see, may never know). If we follow the thinking that has been going on in this discussion, LET'S PUT GAYS (who engage in sexual activity) IN JAIL! Now there's a solution! In fact, since you might spread herpes by heterosexual contact, let's PUT THEM IN JAIL TOO! In fact, LET'S PUT EVERYBODY IN JAIL! Just think of the money you'd save society. No more trials! No more lawyers! No more juries! Wow. Whaddya think of that solution? Forward thinking, eh? Pretty soon most of our society will be in jail anyhow if we continue to treat social problems as criminal matters. Then we can give up medicare, defence, unemployment insurance, and ice cream cones! We can send all our money to the jails! We can raise funds to support our jails! We can form "Friends of the Jail System" Societies. We can drop all educational support for children. But it won't matter, because WE'LL ALL BE IN JAIL! > 3) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than any other religion, > loves to instruct the world on such proper sexual conduct; Yes, and from what I see of the world's current sexual conduct, it appears that nobody has been listening anyhow, so why make such a big deal about it? > >Brad, this is not only a crime, it is also a SOCIAL PROBLEM. > > In this situation, it is even more than that. It is a matter of > corruption. Not financial, but moral corruption of leaders who are given > special responsibility, such as running schools, because of > their perceived moral judgement. A John Bircher. Gawd, I thought you guys were extinct now. > >It is also a VALUE PROBLEM that > >arises from our incapacity to discipline (O, O, a bad word!) ouselves in our > >endless searching for sensual gratification and our insistence that children, > >from the time time they are conceived in a mother's womb, are disposable pieces > >of property, to be aborted at will and to use to satisfy our own needs whenever > >we, in society, see fit. > > Oh, brother. Please give more detail about the connection between the > abortion issue and these priests' actions, or their church's subsequent > conduct regarding them. Read this article. It starts ten lines above this point! > If so many of the leaders can crack, how are laypeople expected to > follow the discipline, or even believe it useful? If anything, the > church's lack of response to this issue may *hurt* its moral credibility > in the future when dealing with unrelated issues like abortion. In fact, what has happened makes me believe in the church even more! It's filled with HUMAN BEANS! Struggling, hurting, masses of humanity. Just the people who belong there! Mind you, there are those who don't belong there - these are the self-righteous, the strong, those "who have no need of a physician..." Like us, y'know! :-) > The media loves this for the same reason it loves the Pete Rose gambling > scandal, the tribulations of Jim Bakker, or the current revolving door > of politics in Japan. Popular heroes and leaders are given special moral > status (and sometimes paid handsomely) because of what they represent. > People love to watch the fall of those who don't live up to the > expectations - especially those whose position exists *because* of > their morals. The media loves this because it sells papers, period! > Pete Rose also has a sickness, which and has (in the minds of some) > tarnished the reputation of his entire sport. That hasn't kept the Johnny > Carsons of the world from getting lots of monologue mileage out of it. Oh yeah. The Reverend Jimmy Carson. Pastor of the late night television evangelists. Listen to him! He'll not lead you astray. Two broken marriages and earnings in the six figure range. But he speaks the truth! The church doesn't, but HE IS INFALLIBLE! Wow! > These priests have embarassed their church and humiliated their > communities. They deserve whatever they get - maybe more. If you don't like the church, why do you care? Don't you think they have humiliated themselves also, just a little bit? Don't you think that if they could stop their bahavior, they would? Instead of speaking from the back of a very high horse, why don't you go down to your local prison - they have one in your community. Go in and meet some of the inmates. In fact, go into the protective custody unit. MAYBE YOU'LL MEET A SEX OFFENDER! Sit down and talk to him/her. The first thing that will strike you is the fact they are human! Just maybe you'll come out of there a little more informed.
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (08/17/89)
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >> Brad is quite aware of the dammage. He is making a cynical statement >> about how much the church elders care about the people of >> Newfoundland; i.e. they don't give a fuck. >Oh, so now you're defending Brad? Isn't it funny how the uninformed always run >in packs? You're seriously suggesting that Brad was **not** making a sarcastic comment? That the Catholic church doesn't protect their priesthood with something approaching apoplectic anger whenever they're complained about? To use the traditional epithet: "no referent" --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
nollaig@yunexus.UUCP (Nollaig MacKenzie) (08/17/89)
Could this now go to alt.flame, or talk.bizarre?
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (08/18/89)
*** WARNING: This piece is mostly flame. I deal with the content of the original posting under separate cover. Maybe. *** In article <1482@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >In article <619057392.19843@telly.on.ca>, I wrote: >> And I was waiting for someone to come to the Church's defence, feeble >> defence that it is... >Why is it whenever you try to have an open discussion on a subject involving >the christian faith, someone always has to start talking like a nerd. I invite the readers of this to determine the nerd quotient here. Exhibit 1: >"Look, a >CHURCH lover! Spank, spank, spank. Ooohhh!" Exhibit 2: >"Thank goodness for the RIGHT WING POLICE. They will make sure that NOONE gets >to defend anything to do with that....that....that....(sputter, >choke)...CHURCH! Exhibit 3: >In fact, LET'S PUT EVERYBODY IN JAIL! Exhibit 4: >Oh yeah. The Reverend Jimmy Carson. Pastor of the late night television >evangelists. Listen to him! He'll not lead you astray. Two broken marriages >and earnings in the six figure range. But he speaks the truth! The church >doesn't, but HE IS INFALLIBLE! Wow! Exhibit 5: >A John Bircher. Gawd, I thought you guys were extinct now. The defence rests. Lots of neat, logical points raised here, eh? Perhaps if more effort was spent on logic and less on poor sarcasm, you'd have a point to make. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Director & editor, /usr/group/cdn Canadian Football League: 8 teams, two with the same name.
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (08/18/89)
In article <1482@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >In article <619057392.19843@telly.on.ca>, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >> >Your implied assumption that somehow the church is responsible for a priest's >> >behavior simply perpetrates the myth which fuels pedophilic bahavior. >> >> Church leaders are granted special standing in their community, in some >> cases wielding more power than politicians. And unlike any politician, >> they also are respected because of their ethical judgement. >So are parents. So are teachers. So are social workers. So are the police, >in fact. Parents, teachers, police officers or social workers are not spiritual leaders as a career. They don't go to theological schools, have people attend mass weekly to hear their sermons, get time on Vision TV or claim the one and only Truth. Further, the job of police is to enforce the (however motivated) laws made by others, not to apply their own judgement. Only the Clergy get to call themselves God's own ambassadors on Earth. I believe this in itself has a very strong connotation and can be quite intimidating. >When's the last time you saw an emu in the national >headlines? Or a parent? Or a teacher? Or a social worker? Or a cop? If a teacher was found to be having sex with a student, that teacher would be immediately booted and that teacher's career would be shot. Forever. AND it would attract plenty of attention, ESPECIALLY if the school board tried to cover it up or silently transfer the teacher to another school. Two Toronto policemen have been recently forced to resign over having sex with a woman while on duty. That made plenty of headlines. Don't know about emus. >> The Church has decreed that its priests are indeed morally superior to >> the common man, and are capable of such self control that they are > >DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT DECREE? (Definition - Decree - Something WRITTEN >DOWN as a law, tradition or rule). They are allowed to take confession and determine penance. They are allowed to celebrate mass. They are the principles of Catholic schools. They are leaders of the Church and, as such, Men of God. They are considered morally superior in that they have a mandate to teach their morals to the masses, and even convert non-believers to those views. Every priest is a person but not every person may be a priest. About a half of the population is arbitrarily denied even the ability to try for the priesthood because of gender. >> expected to maintain the unnatural state of forced celibacy for the rest >> of their chuch careers. >Baloney says I. The priesthood is like any other vocation in one respect. You >can leave it if you so choose not to be celibate. But I don't HAVE to leave *any other* profession just because I choose not to be celebate. >> I was under the impression that there is still a kind of statutory rape >> law, that it is illegal to have sex with someone younger than N years >> regardless of the circumstances or consent. Certainly pornography > >Now isn't that interesting. The law! Well, there was a law against abortion >also until several months ago when the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down >and left the country in one mell of a hess regarding the issue. Your opinion, not The Only Truth (TM). There is a substantial number of people in this country who believe that not only did the Supreme Court action *clear up* a mess, but that no abortion law is even necessary. >The law, sir, >is not infallible. In fact, many times it is dead wrong! It is, however, better than anarchy. It is also better than submitting to the will of those who believe they are divinely inspired to tell us whether abortion (among other things) is right or wrong. >> 2) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than other religions, >> believes that sexual union is only for the purpose of procreation, and >> still believes homosexuality (sodomy) to be a sin against God; > >Sorry, homosexuality and sodomy are not the same thing. You can have sodomy >between a male and a female. Homosexuality is a sin against your own life. A >sin in which you put your own life at risk, (and the live of others whom you >may never see, may never know). Long before AIDS the RC church would not allow gays to be priests. What kind of sin was being gay, before AIDS? >If we follow the thinking that has been going on in this discussion, LET'S PUT >GAYS (who engage in sexual activity) IN JAIL! I'm sure someone could find a quote in the Bible to justify this. The Church certainly would throw in jail mothers who induce abortions. After all, the RC Church does have a history in which the mere 'crime' of blasphemy could be punished by death... >> 3) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than any other religion, >> loves to instruct the world on such proper sexual conduct; >Yes, and from what I see of the world's current sexual conduct, it appears that >nobody has been listening anyhow, so why make such a big deal about it? The whole point of this thread is that one better have one's own house in order before telling everyone The Right Way. >> In this situation, it is even more than that. It is a matter of >> corruption. Not financial, but moral corruption of leaders who are given >> special responsibility, such as running schools, because of >> their perceived moral judgement. >A John Bircher. Gawd, I thought you guys were extinct now. Pardon? How about logic rather than insults... >> If so many of the leaders can crack, how are laypeople expected to >> follow the discipline, or even believe it useful? If anything, the >> church's lack of response to this issue may *hurt* its moral credibility >> in the future when dealing with unrelated issues like abortion. > >In fact, what has happened makes me believe in the church even more! It's >filled with HUMAN BEANS! Struggling, hurting, masses of humanity. ...that just happen to believe that their views on creation, abortion, birth control, education, etc. should be the policies of society at large, whether or not the majority agrees with them. (I.E. if you don't believe in abortion, don't have any. But don't force me to agree with you by making laws limiting MY choice...) >Just the >people who belong there! Mind you, there are those who don't belong there - >these are the self-righteous, the strong, those "who have no need of a >physician..." Like us, y'know! :-) I take this without sarcasm. >> Pete Rose also has a sickness, which and has (in the minds of some) >> tarnished the reputation of his entire sport. That hasn't kept the Johnny >> Carsons of the world from getting lots of monologue mileage out of it.[ >Oh yeah. The Reverend Jimmy Carson. Pastor of the late night television >evangelists. Listen to him! He'll not lead you astray. Two broken marriages >and earnings in the six figure range. But he speaks the truth! The church >doesn't, but HE IS INFALLIBLE! Wow! What point are you making? I was referring to your claim that the Church was being singled out as the brunt of cruel jokes. >If you don't like the church, why do you care? Because my tax dollars are paying for church-run schools and hospitals, operated based on morals I may not agree with; Because the airwaves are bombarded with preachers telling me how to run my life and those of others; Because in day-to-day life, I cannot avoid the church or its value system. >Don't you think they have >humiliated themselves also, just a little bit? Not enough to resign. Have they no sense of pride? >Don't you think that if they could stop their bahavior, they would? If they had any sense of dignity they would withdraw from similar positions of authority. Or the Church should deny such authority until they have received adequate therapy. >Go in and meet some of the inmates. In fact, go into the >protective custody unit. MAYBE YOU'LL MEET A SEX OFFENDER! Sit down and talk >to him/her. The first thing that will strike you is the fact they are human! I think there are those who believe that one who has victimized a child in they way that they have is less than human. The damage they have done is worse than a vandal, and as bad as any drug pusher. In my limited study of history I learned that the Catholic Church has been known for its intolerance of conflicting ideologies (inquisitions, Crusades, pogroms, complacency during the Holocaust, etc.) Even in modern times, the Church certainly doesn't appear very tolerant of other views. Given its wishes, I'm sure the Church would have Henry Morgentaler in jail by now. Now members of the clergy are on the receiving end, we're expected to show compassion. Hmmm. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / Director & editor, /usr/group/cdn Canadian Football League: 8 teams, two with the same name.
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (08/18/89)
In article <1482@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >"Thank goodness for the RIGHT WING POLICE. They will make sure that NOONE gets >to defend anything to do with that....that....that....(sputter, >choke)...CHURCH! Say what? The right wing is usually composed of christians (like Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Ronald Reagan . . .) and the left that attacks the church (secular humanists). It's only us libertarians that attack the church while (wrongly) being tarred as right-wing. You missed the point. >> Church leaders are granted special standing in their community, in some >> cases wielding more power than politicians. And unlike any politician, >> they also are respected because of their ethical judgement. > >So are parents. So are teachers. So are social workers. So are the police, >in fact. So are emus. When's the last time you saw an emu in the national >headlines? Or a parent? Or a teacher? Or a social worker? Or a cop? >Pedophiles come from EVERY walk of life. Or didn't you know? Huh? I don't know where emus come into this, but the rest of these people are HUNG OUT TO DRY when they commit such an offence. That is the point that evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) is trying to make when he talks about people granted special moral status in our society. All of the above people have special status and privileges, along with which they get special responsibilities. That's what all the fuss is about, the priests violated their special trusts, and are now being held responsible. >> expected to maintain the unnatural state of forced celibacy for the rest >> of their chuch careers. > >Baloney says I. The priesthood is like any other vocation in one respect. You >can leave it if you so choose not to be celibate. No, I think you are treating >this issue with as much superficiallity as the rest of the issues we are >discussing here. Read the text: 'rest of thier church careers'. Evan states the facts precisely. >Now isn't that interesting. The law! Well, there was a law against abortion >also until several months ago when the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down >and left the country in one mell of a hess regarding the issue. The law, sir, >is not infallible. In fact, many times it is dead wrong! What does the striking down of an un-constitutional and grossly unjust law have to do with anything in this discussion? >> 2) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than other religions, >> believes that sexual union is only for the purpose of procreation, and >> still believes homosexuality (sodomy) to be a sin against God; > >Sorry, homosexuality and sodomy are not the same thing. You can have sodomy >between a male and a female. Homosexuality is a sin against your own life. A >sin in which you put your own life at risk, (and the live of others whom you >may never see, may never know). So homosexuality is a sin. Wonderful; and you accuse me of being right-wing. Homosecual acts are not inherently dangerous, but sodomy is; however, sodomy with a condom is about as safe as a sexual act can get. Check out the RC position on condoms; they're a sin, too. >> 3) Because the Roman Catholic Church, more than any other religion, >> loves to instruct the world on such proper sexual conduct; > >Yes, and from what I see of the world's current sexual conduct, it appears that >nobody has been listening anyhow, so why make such a big deal about it? Where have you been? The current social trend is towards safe-sex--i.e. use a condom. Again, check out the RC position on condoms; if the world listened to the RC church on this point, it would be a much poorer place. >> Pete Rose also has a sickness, which and has (in the minds of some) >> tarnished the reputation of his entire sport. That hasn't kept the Johnny >> Carsons of the world from getting lots of monologue mileage out of it. > >Oh yeah. The Reverend Jimmy Carson. Pastor of the late night television >evangelists. Listen to him! He'll not lead you astray. Two broken marriages >and earnings in the six figure range. But he speaks the truth! The church >doesn't, but HE IS INFALLIBLE! Wow! Again, you miss the point. The idea is that very high people who stoop very low become the butt of humour. No one claims that Carson speaks the truth, just that he is a popular cynic. Ad homenim arguments don't cut it; critisize the content, not the person. >> These priests have embarassed their church and humiliated their >> communities. They deserve whatever they get - maybe more. > >If you don't like the church, why do you care? Don't you think they have >humiliated themselves also, just a little bit? So what. > Don't you think that if they >could stop their bahavior, they would? Not in the least, that's why I want them in jail for a long time, and stigmatized for life. > Instead of speaking from the back of a >very high horse, why don't you go down to your local prison - they have one in >your community. Go in and meet some of the inmates. In fact, go into the >protective custody unit. MAYBE YOU'LL MEET A SEX OFFENDER! The reason that I want these guys in jail is so that I never have to meet them. Get a clue. > Sit down and talk >to him/her. The first thing that will strike you is the fact they are human! The first thing that the other inmates discover is that these guys are the scum of the earth (which the rest of us already know). That's why they are in protective custody, because they aren't even fit company for criminals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long