The Daily Catholic Priest

“Hear No Evil” Edition:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.  [...]

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

Hands up all Catholic Priests who haven’t molested any small boys.  Anyone?  Anyone??  Hello??!?

17 Responses to “The Daily Catholic Priest”


  1. 1 Luna Monday, March 29, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    /me raises a hand for her uncle and her other favourite priest and then thinks that it is very sad that she can only vouch for two.

    Seriously… when the pedophiles outnumber the non-deviant priests, it’s time to shut it down and start over again.

  2. 2 smelter rat Monday, March 29, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    Apparently it’s all an overblown (no pun intended) media conspiracy.

  3. 3 Jasper Monday, March 29, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    “Hands up all Catholic Priests who haven’t molested any small boys. Anyone? Anyone?? Hello??!?”

    Yes, I know many wonderful priests. Are you an anti-Catholic bigot?

  4. 4 Dr. Prole Monday, March 29, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Well I personally tend to be intolerant of organizations that systematically cover up the widespread rape of hundreds and hundreds of children over several decades. I think that’s reasonable.

  5. 5 Bleatmop Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 4:47 am

    There is nothing irrational about hating child molesters and the church that has covered for them for who knows how long. Thus bigot is not the appropriate word.

  6. 6 Reality.Bites Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Some Catholic priests molest girls – but the sexist structure of the Church gives them more unfettered access to boys.

    If you want to molest girls you become a Protestant “youth minister”.

  7. 7 Reality.Bites Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 6:55 am

    My general rule of thumb – most parents are driven crazy by their kids. If you find someone who wants to spend time alone with them and isn’t obligated to by virtue of being a close relative – be wary.

    You find a single man who instead of chasing adult tail 24-7 is “moral” and “good” and devotes himself to good works? You haven’t found someone good. You’ve found someone with deep problems.

  8. 8 hemmingforddogblog Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:22 am

    How fast would the Boy Scouts have been closed down if they had the problems that the Catholic Church has? Answer: They would be gone by now!

  9. 9 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Hands up all Catholic Priests who haven’t molested any small boys. Anyone?

    When the pedophiles outnumber the non-deviant priests, …

    If you want to molest girls you become a Protestant “youth minister[.”]

       You have GOT to be kidding me!  What a bunch of religion-hating claptrap!  These kinds of comments sound like tantrums thrown by brats who are ignorant of how to behave in a civilized (or civil) fashion.  These are hateful (as well as hate-filled) comments.  It is impossible to take seriously anyone who makes this kind of overheated, extremist assertion.

     

     

    Well I personally tend to be intolerant of organizations that systematically cover up the widespread rape of hundreds and hundreds of children over several decades.  I think that’s reasonable.

    As well you should be.  That is reasonable.  And to your credit, you are targeting the place where the blame belongs, rather than the vast majority who, like you and me, deplore these acts, and the cover given to them by the leadership. Amen!, in other words.

    There is nothing irrational about hating child molesters and the church that has covered for them for who knows how long.

    That is exactly right.  This, too, targets the perpetrators and those who have given them cover.

     

     

    Look: I oppose the Roman Catholic Church on theological grounds.  The entire concept of both Limbo and Purgatory are starkly antithetical to Christianity.  The idea that if you go to confession, then die you go to heaven, but if you die on the way to confession you have to spend some time in purgatory is false religion, and disgustingly shields the followers of such from the freedom that true Christianity provides.  The concept of mortal sins has no place in Christian doctrine.  I am not a catholic, and I have much against the church beside the leadership’s despicable, criminal behavior with respect to child molesters.

    But that does not negate the vast amounts of good things that have been done by Catholics.  Orphanages, hospitals, feeding the hungry, prison ministries (maintaining contact among family members, looking to the needs of prisoners when those needs are not provided for by the prison system), and on and on.  And the bratty statements quoted above were made by people who are at the very least aware of these things.

    The idea that the majority of catholic “priests” are perverts because of the focus on those who are perverts by the news media is lacking in sophistication in rejecting the attempted social engineering by the media.  It makes the spewers apparently ignorant of the concept of “manufacturing consent.”

     

     

    You find a single man who instead of chasing adult tail 24-7 is “moral” and “good” and devotes himself to good works? You haven’t found someone good. You’ve found someone with deep problems.

    Any single man who is not obsessed with sex, who is not a sex-crazed pervert, is not to be trusted?!?  You really need to seek professional help; I’m serious about this.  Your perspective on sexuality is not healthy.

  10. 10 JJ Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 11:11 am

    :roll: We’re better known for our sarcasm than our seriousness around here. You should know that by now, Brian! (wags finger scoldingly)

  11. 11 smelter rat Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Brian, the RC’s did away with the concept of Limbo some time ago. It was either that or cough up a lot of dough for a new addition.

  12. 12 Dr. Prole Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Brian if you don’t care for anti-religious snark and smart-assery, you might want to find another blog to hang out at.

  13. 13 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Dr. Prole,

        Taking umbrage at something that was said doesn’t cause me to “take all my marbles & go home.”

     

    Smelter Rat,

        That’s good to hear.  I’m all for a group which is thought of by those outside the pale as being Christian to make any moves toward orthodoxy, however small a step it might be.  Thanks for the info.

     

    JJ,

        Yeah, I do know that, but I didn’t want to take the chance that some of that was not.

        That having been said, some sarcasm is pernicious. Back in the 70’s I sometimes would tell jokes that relied on racial stereotypes. I always prefaced doing so with assertions that I was not racist (inasmuch as I was not, and am not).  Then I saw Gentleman’s Agreement, (©1947 20th Century Fox, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, John Garfield).  One scene in that movie really drove home for me how harmful that can be.  Since having seen that movie in about 1984 I have not done that, nor kept silent when someone else does.  I learned how important a role stereotyping (sarcastic or otherwise) can be in causing nearly unending harm.

        We (naturally) are not responsible for the behavior of others, but we most certainly are responsible for our own.

  14. 14 Dr. Prole Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Hey dude nobody told you to take your marbles and go home. My point was that you are likely going to “take umbrage”, as you like to say, with about 90% of everything said here.

  15. 15 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    I think we agree on that at least!

    But also, surely you know that suggesting that someone can go elsewhere is often a way of putting a suggestion/request that they do so.

  16. 16 Cornelius T.Zen Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Good morrow, all!
    Some of you may already be familiar with the Jesus and Mo strip.
    If the following offends anybody…you’re getting it…

    http://www.jesusandmo.net/

    Happy Easter and Blessed Passover all! – CTZen

  17. 17 johnffeury@gmail.com Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 9:07 am

    i did not encounter any corrupt priests as a child …but sadistic nuns thrashed me to the floor…as a six year old. What happened to love and compassion ? There is something profoundly wrong with some of these catholics …brides of christ ? I don’t think so .If Christ returned he would be horrified.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 618,122
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers

%d bloggers like this: