In recent years, throughout the world, it has become painfully apparent that some priests within the Catholic Church have been exposed as active paedophiles. Initially, figures were considered to be relatively small but as has time has progressed the percentage has grown alarmingly. The United States has an appalling record, and indeed the Vatican requested urgent action from the U.S Bishops. In the UK we have a bad record also. When talking to some priests they seem to believe that concerns should be shown to the paedophile priests and less to the victim children. Personally, I am deeply disturbed by the Churches intransigent stance.

We must protect our children in all countries. The Catholic Church, like all religious denominations, have a duty and responsibility in this matter to report immediately to the police and social services of any priest who violates a child.

I am aware of this dreadful canker in our Church throughout the world including New Zealand, Australia, U.S, Canada, Ireland and the U.K.

It is very sad, yet the truth, that some human beings are like monsters and should not be allowed to be either priests or enter any seminary. Psychological profiles should not just be 2 or 3 hours but 6 or 7 weeks of observation of the full psyche and background of any potential seminarian. We must protect our young for they are our future.

I am not in any way meaning to be offensive to our Church or any other; and I am also not wishing to sound self-righteous but these issues, which are actively being pursued at this time, must be redressed.

I will finally note that the Archbishop of Westminster, UK, came over very poorly on a BBC evening programme recently. He was weak and ineffective. It was sad to learn that whilst he was Bishop of Brighton, UK, he allowed paedophile priests to continue in his diocese, i.e Father Hills who is now in prison and others.

"Suffer little children to come onto me for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

"If anyone hurts any of these little ones, it is better for him that he should be thrown into the sea."

These words of Jesus were applicable then as they are now.

Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 07, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Meaning no disrespect, sir, but you are a "Michael-come-lately."

This topic was talked to death in the first half of 2002 on this forum. Would you be willing to consult the forum's archives and read the old threads?

If so, please go to this page and scroll down to the category folders (for "Older Messages") at the bottom. You should be able to find many threads on this subject. They will help you to know that you have a partly correct and partly incorrect grasp of the situation. For example, there are surely problems, but someone (probably the media) have fooled you into believing that the problems are far worse and more numerous than is factual. As you'll learn from reading past threads, fewer priests than you suppose are guilty, and almost all of those that are guilty have done less serious things than you think.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2002.

John

Thank you for your comments. The media can certainly be very dangerous. However, surely any violation of a child cannot be accepted. I apologise that I have not read previous threads, it's just that I've only just discovered the forum yesterday. I will, however, read the previous articles. Thank you for responding.

Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 07, 2002.

In general I agree with your statements, but there are two points that should be clarified. First, although the secular press insists on speaking of "pedophile priests", there have been very few cases of actual pedophilia, which is defined as sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children. Nearly all the reported cases have involved misconduct with adolescent boys. Though the victims were legally juveniles, they were not small children, and the actions which were committed against them were clearly acts of homosexuality, not pedophilia. The press uses pedophilia as a smokescreen to gain the support of the masses, because they know that virtually everyone is against pedophilia, while a large percentage of the population is opposed to homosexual activity, especially with minors. Since the liberal secular press is openly pro-homosexual, they try desperately to avoid casting homosexuals in a negative light. So, when a man inappropriately fondles a 13-year old boy, they call him a pedophile, rather than what he obviously is - a homosexual preying on adolescents. No, I am NOT suggesting for a moment that all homosexuals abuse minors. But I am referring to those who do, and calling a spade a spade. Secondly, while it is true that the number of accusations has increased alarmingly, the number of priests who have actually been convicted of any wrongdoing is still very small; and most of the several hundred confirmed cases of homosexual abuse of boys have been committed by a handful of very sick men. As for the other hundreds of claims pending, the accused priests are all innocent until proven guilty. And, while I sure that some of them actually are guilty, I am also sure that there are those who would not hesitate to make false accusations if doing so would reap a double benefit - damaging the Catholic Church's image and putting some of the Church's money in their own pockets.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2002.

Michael:
You say, ''Figures were considered to be relatively small but as has time has progressed the percentage has grown alarmingly.'' --Is this hearsay or do you have access to the newer figures? I never knew there had been increasing numbers of ''pedophile'', i.e., homosexual and/or perverted priests.

You take this opportunity Michael, to call pedophilia a ''priests'' problem. But it is much more. If you kept up with world news over the last 5 years or so, it would be apparent to you. Pedophiles are active in many countries; and there is a burgeoning traffic in child abuse services all over the western world. Belgium was revealed as a country in which child abuse has reached widespread popularity among males perverts. Most of them are laymen and the Catholic Church is not a noticeable factor in their national disgrace. Whole planeloads of paying customers fly to eastern asian countries to pay for open child prostitution. So we can't label this evil simply as a priest problem.

You also state: ''Surely any violation of a child cannot be accepted.'' --Naturally, we all felt this way many months since. I hope you didn't think Catholics were excusing any offenders on account of their ''faith'' (whatever they claim to have), did you?

No one accepts it. Over many months now, we've had to tolerate daily Catholic Church bashing over this scandal. It's to be expected. The Church is aware of all responsibilities falling to her, don't worry.

Let's end by assuring YOU, and any others who may have an axe to grind; Catholics are supportive and compassionate for our many thousands of holy, pure priests. They share in the disgrace of evil men, not because they're guilty of any sin, but by association. It's grossly unjust and even sinful, to punish the innocent majority of these men. God will surely vindicate them in time.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 07, 2002.

italics off.

-- (rev@kgi.von), December 09, 2002.

off?

-- (dfe@lfk.boh), December 09, 2002.

Firstly I can't comment on all the views here but I would like to point out one thing.

Just because this issue was spoken about a while back doesn't mean that we can't speak about it again and again if necessary.

Some members of this forum would like "dirty washing" to be posted once and once only, that way they don't have to look at it, of course it also hides it from everybody else.

God Bless Freedom of Speech!

-- james Xwing (James_xwing@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

I mean no respect but homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults, not an adult and a minor.. I was of the opinion that this was a Catholic forum in which we discuss Catholic issues and not world issues. I remember the terrible things that happened in Belgium and how the hierarchy tried to cover the situation upa priest in his diocese who was passed from parish to parish because of his active paedophilia. The Cardinal and other religious leaders were fully aware of this man's activities, yet were quite happy for him to remain as a priest

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Dear Michael:
You made several statements I can only take as inflammatory. That's OK; just allow me to reply:

''But homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults, not an adult and a minor.''

Oh? Well, that's precisely the point I tried to make; the press called ALL the abuses pedophilia, when it was well-documented many of them were between adults. --Let's say young adults and old priests? Some went covered up for many years by homosexuals in their closets. --Be honest, a homosexual minor is not a child. A teenager might be a minor, legally. But many minors today are sexually active. Many homosexual minors. To want it both ways is intellectually dishonest. Not every victim was a child.

''--I was of the opinion that this was a Catholic forum in which we discuss Catholic issues and not world issues. (--So what? I can't put it in perspective?) ''. . . terrible things that happened in Belgium and how ''the hierarchy'' tried to cover the situation up (That's not a fact. Belgium wasn't a Church scandal.) It was a national scandal, Michael.

'' [A] priest in his diocese who was passed from parish to parish because of his active paedophilia.

Oh??? But, Michael: Only AFTER the facts came out was it known he was ACTIVE. He had received reprimands and counselling, before being reassigned. Not so smart maybe; but let's be honest! As for the Cardinal and other religious leaders [being] fully aware of this man's activities, --YOU shouldn't say that. You don't KNOW what they were aware of. ''Yet were quite happy for him to remain as a priest.'' If you think they were ''happy'' you're simply prejudiced against the Church. No one ever was ''happy'', and those priests were presumed to have repented of their sin.

That's why some were reassigned; and also to avoid scandal. A major mistake, I'm sure. Another mistake was Cardinal Law's very stupid reliance on the word of psychologists, counsellors, and other ''experts'' who pronounced these evil priests ''rehabilitated''.

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

Now; as to Jesus alone having ever been PURE; you're wrong. Not only was the Virgin Mary immaculate and pure, many saints during the history of our Church have been pure. Purity is a virtue; not the divinity you wrongly suppose. Many priests live absolutely pure lives. Maybe you're skeptical; but I'm here to CORRECT you, Michael. You ought to thank me; since you were speaking out in ignorance. Nobody likes to do that, and you shouldn't.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

With all due respect, the terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" have nothing to do with mutual consent, or lack thereof. A pedophile is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, specifically because they lack adult biological traits. If a heterosexual man molests a six year old girl - or a six year old boy - he is certainly a pedophile. However, if a heterosexual man seduces a 15 year old girl, he is operating from a very different psychological orientation than a man who molests a six year old. He is attracted to her specifically because she is past childhood, and possesses to some degree the biological attributes of a woman - even though she is legally a minor. I am not suggesting that either of these men is in any way justified in their heinous behavior, nor am I suggesting that the sin/crime of one is any more acceptable than that of the other. I am only pointing out that the underlying psychology is entirely different, and that the man who has relations with a teenage girl is not a pedophile, but simply an unscrupulous heterosexual, willing to satisfy his otherwise psychologically normal desires with an inappropriate partner, taking advantage of the naivety and consequent vulnerability of a very young woman. The same holds true for the homosexual side of the picture, which is why I said that most of the priests involved in sexual misconduct with minors are not pedophiles, but unscrupulous homosexuals. I do not say this in an attempt to mitigate in any way the culpability of the men involved. I only brought this up in the first place by way of indictment of the secular press, who intentionally make use of inaccurate terminology to divert attention from the plain truth - that homosexuality, a cause which they fully support and encourage, is fundamentally unwholesome, and that the tragic story of sexual abuse in the Church is a direct result of ordaining homosexual men.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

Eugene

In response the first point re "homosexuals is between 2 consenting adults, not an adult and child" wasn't aimed at you. If you read the letter properly you would see that was aimed at Paul. Anyway, to say a sexually active minor is homosexual is a ridiculous statement for you to make. Check the legal issues out, Eugene, if we want to be "intellectually" frank about it.

Of course Belgium wasn't a Church scandal. I know that. "Oh but Eugen" to use your expressions of anger, I also know the meaning of hierarchy in the English Dictionary. It doesn't just relate to Catholic clergy. Check your dictionary before making sweeping statements.

I accept your third point as you obviously know more on the subject than me.

The fourth part re purity. You might believe me to be ignorant but as they say, ignorance is bliss. What a ridiculous statement for you to amke. Jesus is most certainly pure and saints are holy people but not pure. You state that purity is a virtue which means behaviour showing high moral standards. In that case, and I know a lot of people will not like what I am about to say, but look at it from this point of view. Mary was indeed pure when Jesus was born. Jesus was conceived by immaculate conception. I have a great love for Jesus, Mary and Joseph but my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mary and Joseph had other children through normal means, which shows that she was also a normal mother like all mothers, in that respect. I apologise in advance if this causes offence to anybody, including you Eugene, I just believe that only Jesus was pure. And Eugene, get a dictionary. God Bless Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Thank you Paul for pointing that out! Actually, I thought that was already mentioned earlier or I would have put in my own 2cents. Fr. Benedict Groshel states the same thing. There is such an abuse of the term "Paedophilia", either out of ignorance of the definition, or as a direct means of belittling priest further. Paedophilia is an impulse, which causes one to be attracted to children (boys or girls) younger than the age of puberty. As I recall, most of the boys that were abused by Priests were over the age of 15! This would indicate a "homosexual" problem and not a paedophilia problem. Both are sinful, however, there is a difference. And the fact that the media can't get this fact correct would lead one (who has the presense of mind) to question their other "facts".

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.

Michael,
ou haven't a clue, either of Catholic faith, or of sin.

Every sin of the flesh is impurity. Purity in marriage isn't lost as a matter of intercourse. Licit sexual relations are absolutely PURE.

Mary didn't have even licit sexual relations. They wouldn't have made her a sinner. But she was preserved from all sexual contact. Even her divine Son's birth did not constitute a physical deflowering of her virginity. In no way at all was she later deflowered even in lawful marriage to her chaste husband.

Mary had long since dedicated her total perpetual virginity to God. We know this as a revealed truth; and it's supported countless times by the saints and Sacred Traditions; all with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Purity in saints (some priests are saints, Michael) is nothing that unusual. We know of many saints who kept their absolute chastity under holy vows. By the same token, many saints were married, and holy relations with a spouse does NOT make mean any impure action. Only in sin is there impurity. Sin makes a man impure, whether by indulging in sexual fantasy, entertaining impure thoughts, or actively looking for sexual excitement and/or illicit sex.

Learn all these things, Michael, before approaching this Catholic gathering to expound on your mistaken beliefs.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Like I said in my previous message I apologise in advance for any statements I made regarding the Blessed Mary. Are you capable of apologising or do you just believe that you are always right.... oh yes..get in the real world Eugene.

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Oh, Michael:

I missed one important point.

Jesus Christ was not conceived by ''immaculate conception.'' We say His birth is ''Virgin birth, that is --born of a virgin.

MARY, Our Blessed Mother is the Immaculate Conception. That's another, very beautiful subject I won't go into now. Do you have any ''dictionary'' definitions to give us? Start with TRUTH. I wonder if you ever learned to tell the truth?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Eugene Eugene Believe me. One day you will be judged. I thought you were intelligent. You are just a freak of nature. I won't be coming anymore to this forum. Not because you chased me away but because you are the biggest bigot living I have ever heard. I've read previous comments about you. You are a despicable, nasty human being. Think about it. You really give good, honest and graceful Catholics like seminarian and Paul a bad name. Start living properly Eugene and not in the last century. You are a very sad person and one day you will be judged because you are so self-righteous. Hide away from the truth, make excuses, try to mask you social inadeqecies with stupid, bigoted comments. All you are is a social inadequete who probably has major problems fitting in with real life, not just the internet. Good luck in your shallow and uneventful life. Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Michael is quickly unmasked. From that first sentence: ''--I am not in any way meaning to be offensive to our Church or any other; and I am also not wishing to sound self-righteous.''

To this: ''. . . freak of nature. --I won't be coming anymore to this forum. Because you are the biggest bigot living.''

your shallow and uneventful life try to mask your social inadeqecies with stupid, bigoted comments. My shallow and uneventful life, indeed.

Little detail in there: Michael suggests he has caught me hiding away from the truth, making excuses.

So-- Michael has a ''truth'' and where is it? What am I hiding from? I never denied our priests were not ALL pure. Not ALL innocent. Did I make excuses for them?

Oh, but if I say all the other priests and the other bishops, the Pope, deserve our loyalty and respect; that's bigotry???

Mighty fine reasonng, Michael. No wonder you're leaving, to return no more. Just as the baloney leaves the meat-grinder, all ground into mush.

Nasty, evil freak of nature! You dare contradict Michael the Urk Angel? You'll be judged, Eugene, just wait! Social inadequate!!! (Going to a Christmas party in San Francisco this weekend). Sorry, Michael. Uneventful life! (If you only knew! Haha!)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Eugene My word, you are so witty and funny. Why do you insist on pulling out only certain comments that I have made to use for your own use. You really are a pathetic man. I bet you will be the life and soul of the party in San Francisco. I'm going to bed now as it's late here in the UK. Please nobody take any interest in what I am saying now as this is for Eugine and I only. I am a trainee psychologist. I really sense that you are socially inadequete. Did you have a good childhood? And did your mother and father really call you Eugene? Or did you change it yourself by deedpoll? Goodbye

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

I hate to jump in, but for the sake of our Lurkers who might associate Catholicism with this kind of slop, please post your argumentations privately via email.

Thank you for your consideration of our other public friends.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.

Oh, Boy! I love the Brits! Dear Boy, Michael; please explain.

Why do you find me pathetic? You have my psychology deftly under your thumb. Could it be I'm so ''socially inadequate''? I have to attend the party; my lovely wife is invited. I love to be with her, pathetic wretch that I am!

I had a sad enough childhood. Not complaining, you understand? Yet, God is my bulwark and my Companion. How would my life be inadequate, I ask you?

Now; you ask: Why do you insist on pulling out only certain comments that I have made to use for your own use?''

Michael, I haven't forced you to make the comments; those that make you look helpless. You make comments calculated to present you as powerful, manly. '' You are a despicable, nasty human being. Think about it. You really give good, honest and graceful Catholics like seminarian and Paul a bad name. Start living properly Eugene and not in the last century. You are a very sad person.''

--And succeed ___ONLY___in exposing the emptiness of your apologetics. You can't win the debate, so you cast sand in the opponent's eyes! Then call ME pathetic!

About the Catholic Church you are totally at sea. In theology you are unaware of any truth. In sincerity, you are mediocre. And as a psychologist, you're learning more here in this forum than you already have at your books.

Learn some more, Sir. Read; but save your contributions until you acquire some experience among adults.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Dear Jake:
--''but for the sake of our Lurkers who might associate Catholicism with this kind of slop, please post your argumentations, etc.,

Were you speaking to me? Please be clear, say it without worry.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

I didn't want to use names, but yes, Eugene and Michael specifically. Generally, however, it would be nice if all of us would watch for this. We are warned in the Bible not to pursue worthless debates, like this one. And I would imagine it would be for this precise purpose.

Thank you for your concern.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.

Jake,
When Michael sees our side of the story, he may decide to quit. Or, he may ruin your peace of mind.

I'll be a voice for the Catholic faith. You may not care for that. But I have never gone private on email for anybody; because I'm honest and anything I write can be stated in public. It has no evil or secret content, so I don't have to hide it.

If I hear you correctly, you think it is casting our pearls before swine. Is this on the mark? My words, pearls? Lol!

My only advice to you, Jake, and with all due respect; --Cast your pearls where you please. My pearls are on the Internet for Michael, if he wants them. He came to the right place.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Dear Eugene

Hi! I think we should take one step back and be a little more generous with each other, on either side of the Atlantic.

We have differed on a number of issues but I understand today that the Cardinal of Boston is at the Vatican preparing to possibly step down. The paedophile priest issue continues to plague Boston as you know.

As this is a Catholic forum may I please widen this, somewhat. My father is deeply religious like yourself and having suffered from serious illness for many of his adult years wrote in 1989 to the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta and a remarkable correspondance followed, until just before her death in 1997.

He met her several times in Rome, London and Belgium. My mother, Doctor and others often accompanied him.

Miraculously, Mother Teresa touched my father in a very real way and he recovered, astounding the Doctors. Indeed his case was accepted by the Vatican, put forward as a miracle, but then finally accepted as a very strong 'favour'.

Since Mother Teresa's death, my father has visited Calcutta (Kolkata) on three occasions, taking joyful gifts from local people to Mother Teresa's first orphanage. Recently, our part of England responded to my mother and father's appeal for help, as a sort of birthday gift to celebrate Mother Teresa's beatification which is to be announced imminentely from the Pope. The response was 56 boxes and two tons of love - British Airways delivered it free of charge - Thank God.

I think also, again to widen the forum, our local parish priest is visiting Madras, India next year, to take part in an ecumenical gathering, like the Pope did in Assisi earlier this year with other world religious leaders.

The priest summed it up in a most beautiful way, when he said God was the first Echumist, so who are we to be any other?

God bless you, I have enjoyed our debates and in hindsight I may have been a little hasty in my criticism.

"Pax Vobiscum" - Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.

Thank you, Michael,
I'm very happy for your father, of course. I am more inclined to friendship than to animosity; I respond well to either.

When you enter the company of Catholics, it's wise to come prepared. The Church is HOLY, even though some of us don't seem to be. We can react too protectively if she's taken lightly. Someday I hope you'll be the one who defends the faith against petty offenses.

Your blessed ancestors all came from ancient Catholic stock, Michael. Britain is a holy country, watered by the blood of Catholic martyrs. I suggest you read the life of a great English martyr and saint-- Edmund Campion. He was a glowing example of Catholic honor and holiness. His life will help inspire you.

God's grace is close behind you, Mick. Hurry, or He'll catch you! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 10, 2002.