I have a few questions here. I know I could do my own research but will see if anyone else knows already.
My personal guess/prejudice is that of the men (and women) of the cloth who have ‘abused’ minors, a much larger percentage has been shielded and protected from legal action than in the populace at large. I know that there is a sex offender registry and it is public. As far as I know, few if any of the clergy are on such a registry…at least up until a few years ago. Bottom line, are clergy treated (in the USA) in an equal was as is the general populace? Thanks to any who respond in advance…who don’t use just opinions as I am. On Mar 27, 8:53 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 Mrz., 03:49, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote:> Don't accuse me > of McCarthyism, take me point by point. The fact is : > > The pope feels that betraying a baby-raper is worse than raping > > babies! His own judgements proclaim this! > > I'm not particularly interested in taking you point by point, when you > keep shouting the same point over and over again. But this short > exerpt illustrates what I want to say. > The phrase "baby-raper" is not accurate. There may have been a small > number of cases where priests were involved in the abuse of children > under three, but most of the children involved were older. This is not > to in any way justify what went on - I want this to be perfectly clear > - but it is a case of using pejorative language which is not accurate. > > I would welcome concrete references to statements by the pope which > concretely support this assertion. > . > > > > > In favour of church authorities?! You want people that defend this > > institution to be comfortable? "Condoms cause aids," "Protect the > > paedophile, not the victim," and disfiguring babies is ok and it's > > defenders need to be comfortable? > > No, I want to engage with them rationally and seriously and I want > them to do the same with me. Flaming is not a good means to this end. > > I think you need to understand the > > > difference between defending children and defending corrupt, archaic > > organisations that want to maintain power on the weight of some > > allowance for being spiritual. > > No fiddler, I don't "need" to understand this. I understand this very > well. But you're setting up a false dichotomy here. It's like saying, > "you need to understand the difference between eating pizza and > scratching your ass." It really just doesn't make much sense. > > There are no nuances here. Defending a > > > baby-raper is arguably worse than being a baby-raper. At the very > > least, they are the same if they allow a child to be molested and > > raped. > > This is another imprecise statement. I presume you are referring to > the actions/inactions of many church authorities with regards to > reports of priests abusing children. A heinous situation; the > situation which is coming to light, being discussed, criticised and - > in many cases (if often incompletely and unsatisfactorily) - being > acted on worldwide. > > I have posted on this issue in various fora online over many years. It > is an horrific subject and must be dealt with. Part of this means > discovering and disclosing what has happened, Another part is raising > the consciousness of it, both in society in general and also within > the Church (of which I was once a member but have not been for over > two decades). Ranting about it will only result in your not being > taken seriously. It may make YOU feel better, but that's about all. I > enjoy reading a good rant every now and again, but a good rant - as a > literary form - needs clearly conscious hyperbole, clever formulation > and a hint of self-deprecation, all of which I miss in yours. > > Francis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
