Pope thinks child buggery isn't so bad

[Animavore]

I always suspected Seth was a concern troll theist. I just never thought it was Catholic.

[Svartalf]

Well, I though *I* was the Catholic plant on these boards.

[Hermit]

Seraph has confused a letter Ratzinger released in 2001 that directed secrecy in the investigation of claims of child abuse, based upon the letter whose (AFAICT accurate) translation he has affixed above, with the material above it was based on. You can read about it here. Wikipedia uses that as a source for this comment:

Ratzinger's 2001 letter De delictis gravioribus clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations, as defined in the 1962 document Crimen Sollicitationis, into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse. This became a target of controversy during the sex abuse scandal.

Thanks, Schneibster. A year ago I did read the letter Ratzinger wrote in 2001 near the end of his 20 years as head of the CDF, and now conflated the two documents. The mistake Svartalf pointed out remains a mistake, though.

Having said that, Ratzinger's letter, available in full and translated into English, can be perused on the Vatican's site here. While it added to what was already said in the Crimens Sollicitationis, (such as two statutes of limitations,) it took nothing away from it. Of particular note is this reiteration: "Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret." Also noteworthy is that "Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away" is viewed as being of the same gravity as "the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years".

[Hermit]

Well, I though *I* was the Catholic plant on these boards.

Just goes to show how wrong you can be.

You never struck me as one. Just knowledgeable on matters Catholic.

[Animavore]

He's French. They are our Catholic brothers against the English blight

[tattuchu]

What Seth plays down, much to his discredit, is the systematic way the abuse was covered up, and the abusers protected, not just by a few rogue elements, but systematically, by the church hierarchy as a whole. It happened, Seth, and if you want to be in denial about it, then fuck off!

But Seth doesn't care about the topic, he's only here to argue.

You mean Persona Designate Seth. Don't don't about it as if it's a real person.

[Hermit]

OK, having spent more time reading on the Vatican's site, I found the following one and a half sentences that support the assertion that the Vatican is not fighting against involvement of secular authorities in sexual abuse of minors by members of its clergy. Here they are:

"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed." (Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations)

"...continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence." (Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics of Ireland)

It is empty, meaningless lip-service. The first one is plonked into the middle of detailed description of proper CDF procedure in its role as the court of canon law. The second one is likewise a verbal 12-word minnow lost in an ocean of 4662 other words. If the Vatican meant anything by them, you'd think they could be a little more specific. Neither hints at what stage the reports ought to be made, or by whom. Most of all, though, I could not find any repudiation of the secrecy provisions that have been insisted on before and after those two missives were published, nor any indication that a failure to keep the secret will no longer be followed by excommunication.

If the issue being discussed in the Pope's Pastoral Letter was not so tragic, his proposal of "some concrete initiatives to address the situation" would be laughable. Read them all, if you can:

• At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.
  
  Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
  
  I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).
  
  Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.
  
  I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.
  
  In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. “The priest”, he wrote, “holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods.” The Curé d’Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: “A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy.” Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry.

I bolded some of those "concrete initiatives to address the situation". Civil authorities played no part in any of them, and that does not surprise me at all. What we see is nothing but smoke, mirrors and lip-service.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What Seth plays down, much to his discredit, is the systematic way the abuse was covered up, and the abusers protected, not just by a few rogue elements, but systematically, by the church hierarchy as a whole. It happened, Seth, and if you want to be in denial about it, then fuck off!

But Seth doesn't care about the topic, he's only here to argue.

You mean Persona Designate Seth. Don't don't about it as if it's a real person.

That wouldn't be bad if he didn't consider us to not be real persons. I personally am not a handball court wall for him to batter at.

[Seth]

OK, having spent more time reading on the Vatican's site, I found the following one and a half sentences that support the assertion that the Vatican is not fighting against involvement of secular authorities in sexual abuse of minors by members of its clergy. Here they are:

"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed." (Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations)

"...continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence." (Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics of Ireland)

It is empty, meaningless lip-service.

And you think that's all anyone in the Catholic church hierarchy has to say about the matter? Please. What about all the millions of documents that you DON'T have access to? It's ludicrous to suggest that the sex abuse scandal has not been at the top of the list for both Vatican and US Bishops for more than a decade now. I've demonstrated that you have deliberately ignored the statements by the pope decrying the abuse and telling the Bishops that the church has much to do to both remediate and prevent such abuse. I point you to the very statements you falsely claim the Pope did not make, so you move the goalposts and say it's "lip-service" without acknowledging (again) the great strides the church has made in the last decade to make sure such things never happen again, not to mention the massive settlements with victims.

The first one is plonked into the middle of detailed description of proper CDF procedure in its role as the court of canon law. The second one is likewise a verbal 12-word minnow lost in an ocean of 4662 other words. If the Vatican meant anything by them, you'd think they could be a little more specific. Neither hints at what stage the reports ought to be made, or by whom. Most of all, though, I could not find any repudiation of the secrecy provisions that have been insisted on before and after those two missives were published, nor any indication that a failure to keep the secret will no longer be followed by excommunication.

And you think you are privy to private, internal church documents why, exactly? As for this excommunication threat, you have never proven that this is church doctrine in the first place, much less that it has never been rescinded in a document you haven't seen. Given the fact that you have been quite careless and cavalier in your use of papal documents, why should I believe you that this "policy" has not been reversed, or that it ever existed in the first place. I suspect that it's just another anti-Catholic lie planted by church detractors. Clearly the recent documents you provided do not support that claim at all.

If the issue being discussed in the Pope's Pastoral Letter was not so tragic, his proposal of "some concrete initiatives to address the situation" would be laughable. Read them all, if you can:

• At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.
  
  Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
  
  I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).
  
  Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.
  
  I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.
  
  In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. “The priest”, he wrote, “holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods.” The Curé d’Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: “A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy.” Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry.

I bolded some of those "concrete initiatives to address the situation". Civil authorities played no part in any of them, and that does not surprise me at all. What we see is nothing but smoke, mirrors and lip-service.

Again you falsely assume that these missives are the only correspondence or directives on the subject that exist. It's a church, so it's to be expected that the spiritual leader of the church would exhort his Bishops for a spiritual renewal and spiritual attention to the duties of the priesthood as PART of the program of restoring the reputation of and faith in the church.

This does not mean that there are not concrete secular procedures and practices that have been set in place to prevent further sex abuse. I've described one such procedure already: anyone who wishes to work with or even be present with children at church-sponsored or run activities who is not a parent MUST submit to a full criminal background check and attend training on child abuse prevention and reporting procedures. I myself had to go through this merely to be allowed to pick up my nephews from Sunday school.

Did the Pope write an encyclical or letter to the Bishops personally outlining the details of this program? Of course not. He's the spiritual leader of the church, not the Human Resources manager. But I assure you that directives, orders, procedures, plans and reporting requirements have been disseminated throughout the American Catholic church, and I'm certain to all other Catholic dioceses, archdioceses, and priests.

It's nonsense and balderdash to state that its "meaningless lip-service" when it's clearly not, which you would know if you'd actually bothered to find out the truth rather than trying to cherry pick and distort what the Pope has written on the subject.

You don't see the changes because you don't WANT to see them. This is because if you acknowledge the strides the church has taken to correct and prevent such abuse in the future, you won't have anything to fuel your bigotry.

[Seth]

Seraph has confused a letter Ratzinger released in 2001 that directed secrecy in the investigation of claims of child abuse, based upon the letter whose (AFAICT accurate) translation he has affixed above, with the material above it was based on. You can read about it here. Wikipedia uses that as a source for this comment:

Ratzinger's 2001 letter De delictis gravioribus clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations, as defined in the 1962 document Crimen Sollicitationis, into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse. This became a target of controversy during the sex abuse scandal.

Thanks, Schneibster. A year ago I did read the letter Ratzinger wrote in 2001 near the end of his 20 years as head of the CDF, and now conflated the two documents. The mistake Svartalf pointed out remains a mistake, though.

Having said that, Ratzinger's letter, available in full and translated into English, can be perused on the Vatican's site here. While it added to what was already said in the Crimens Sollicitationis, (such as two statutes of limitations,) it took nothing away from it. Of particular note is this reiteration: "Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret." Also noteworthy is that "Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away" is viewed as being of the same gravity as "the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years".

All of which relates specifically and ONLY to church canons and laws, not to secular law. Nothing in that statement prohibits or prevents any person required to report a crime to the police from doing so, or from assisting civil authorities in criminal cases, and the statements quoted elsewhere explicitly state that church authorities "shall continue" to cooperate with civil authority in criminal cases.

And as a matter of their religion, wrongfully disposing of the body and blood of Christ is indeed a grave sin. You make make light of it, but it's not up to you to determine church doctrine.

So, once again you are distorting and misinterpreting church documents that apply to church procedures for punishing and defrocking priests who commit "crimes" against the church as applying to the church's interactions with secular authorities, which is ignorant nonsense.

[Seth]

...the church has cooperated fully with criminal investigations and has defrocked those convicted.

Wherever it had no choice. Meanwhile, it keeps furiously working at putting hurdles in the way of the discovery and prosecution by secular authorities of the criminals among its ranks. This was made abundantly clear when a letter addressed to the Bishops by the Papal Ambassador to Ireland, Archbishop Luciano Storero, instructed them to withhold evidence or suspicion of child abuse from police on grounds of "serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature". This letter was an explicit rejection of the Irish Bishops' proposal for a new policy to make new policy the reporting of suspected crimes to secular authorities mandatory.

An in that letter, Storero points out that the issue of sexual abuse is being studied at higher levels at the Vatican, and that to accept a proposed document prior to the Holy See promulgating canonical regulations on the matter, would be premature and would be prejudicial against a Bishop who took unauthorized action according to the proposal. Therefore, the Bishops of Ireland are merely (and clearly) told that "the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed." There is NOTHING in that letter suggesting in ANY WAY that the Holy See was "rejecting" the Irish Bishop's proposals, it merely states that the proposal is a "study document" that cannot become canon law without the requisite review of the Vatican. Once again cherry-picked documents are presented and then cast in a false light. As you say, this letter is from 1997, and since that time the Vatican has taken many steps to resolve the matter. This letter only tells the Irish Bishops not to hare off on their own by trying to dictate Canon Law to the Vatican, nothing more.

Notwithstanding "a global study" taking place in the Vatican, "In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature." amounts to a rejection of the proposal by the Vatican.

That letter was written in 1997, and much has been said and written on the matter of paedophilia and rapes by Catholic clergy, and the Vatican's approach to the problem since then. Many of the utterances were soothing words, aimed at assuring the flock that the Vatican has changed its attitude. In an address to the Irish Bishops in 2006, for instance, the Pope commented on the sexual abuse by his clerics, exhorting the Bishops: "to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected". Nothing has changed, though.

This claim by you is complete nonsense, as many things have changed, including the child-safety and security policies of the church, from the top down.

In that letter the Pope said:

In the exercise of your pastoral ministry, you have had to respond in recent years to many heart-rending cases of sexual abuse of minors. These are all the more tragic when the abuser is a cleric. The wounds caused by such acts run deep, and it is an urgent task to rebuild confidence and trust where these have been damaged. In your continuing efforts to deal effectively with this problem, it is important to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected and, above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes.

You claim "nothing has changed," but this is patently not true.

In the context I used the expression, "Nothing has changed" refers to the Vatican's insistence of its clerics' standing above and beyond secular law. An exhortation to "cooperate with the civil authorities" does not amount to, nor imply, a direct and clear instruction for any member of the Vatican to report crimes committed by individuals among the clergy to secular powers. There never has been one up to this very moment.

Previous pontifical pronouncements about excommunicating anyone who dares to take matters of sexual abuse by the clergy to secular authorities have never been revoked to this day,

Prove it.

The matter of excommunicating is easy to prove. The relevant document is authored by Ratzinger himself and titled Crimen Sollicitationes. You can peruse its translation from its original Latin here.

Some pertinent points about the document:

• Ratzinger was the Cardinal in charge of that quaint Catholic institution colloquially known as The Inquisition at the time.
• The document is an official document by, and on behalf of, that institution.
• It is headed by this instruction: "To be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries." Published in 1962, it remained secret for many years.

Two excerpts from the document:

• 1. The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in a place] other than that [usually] designated for the hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession. [The object of this temptation] is to solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after [the note has been read] or whether he has had with [that penitent] prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring (Constitution Sacrum Poenitentiae, § 1).
• what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty.

These excerpts make two things abundantly clear: The crime discussed is sexual abuse by the clergy, and anyone found blabbing about an instance of such a crime publicly, be they perpetrators, victims or whoever else, will be excommunicated.

First, the "crime" spoken of in the first sentence is to "solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters" under the seal of the confessional, or in any way that might be presumed or thought to be a confession. It does not necessarily include any actual sexual contact, although it may, and it's not restricted to persons under 18, it applies to ANY such action under the seal and authority of confession. It's a grave canonical crime to violate the sanctity or privacy of the confessional, and even secular law makes priests immune from testifying about what they have heard in a confession.

The doctrine is intended to preserve the sanctity and secrecy of the confessional where there are allegations of impropriety by a priest, reserving the review of such incidents to the Vatican itself, so that the seal of the confessional, and the religious rights of the alleged victim, can be protected against "leaks" at lower levels of the hierarchy. This is intended to protect the VICTIM from having confessional secrets revealed locally as a part of a local church investigation. It's NOT intended to conceal evidence of criminal acts by priests, because as I have pointed out, the Pope himself commands cooperation with civil authorities in secular, civil criminal matters.

Nothing in the document prevents the reporting of actual sexual abuse by a victim, or by anyone else, including the Pope, to the police. No person that I know of has ever been excommunicated for reporting a priest's sex assault on a child (or anyone else) to the police. If you know of such a case, I'd be interested to hear about it.

If you are asking me to prove that the threat of excommunication has never been revoked, I am sure that on reflection you will see the idiocy of the demand. Do you expect me to point out every location of every document and every speech where no revocation took place?

No, I expect you to do a comprehensive and exhaustive examination of every document in the church's files and demonstrate that no revocation has taken place, since you are the one who refuses to accept that what the Pope, or someone else in the church, says about church matters, like preserving the secrecy of the confessional to protect the alleged victims against revelations of information told to a priest under that seal, perhaps by the priest himself as a method of blackmail, has nothing to do with secular law or the authority of church officials to report CRIMINAL ACTS (not confessional secrets) to the police.

It is an excommunicable church crime to so much as NOD if it "solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters." That's not a civil crime at all. If a penitent says "Father, I want you to screw me so I can have a holy baby," regardless of the age of the penitent, it's an excommunication offense for the priest to do ANYTHING that would advance that "impure" matter. At the same time, that statement, made under the seal of the confessional, is something that a priest must deal with, and keep sacrosanct even unto his death under torture. If he fails in that duty, and so much as nods in affirmation in a way that leads the penitent to believe he'll make her pregnant, and he (or anyone else) violates the seal, he IS EXCOMMUNICATED, automatically, without any further action because that statement by the penitent, and his response to it, is supposed to be inviolable.

But, if he actually screws her, that is a CIVIL crime, and it has nothing whatever to do with the confessional, and anyone is free to report it to police if it's a crime (because it involved a minor), and the church is not going to excommunicate anyone for reporting a criminal sexual assault, nor to my knowledge, has it ever done so.

So, once again you're blowing smoke by misinterpreting and misunderstanding church law and falsely conflating it with secular law.

I suggest it's more practical for you to point to locations where such revocations can be seen, and no, an exhortation to "continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence" does not amount to one such instance.

Of course it does. It's an express exhortation to cooperate with the police in civil criminal matters. However, if so cooperating requires violation of the seal of the confessional, the matter must be brought before the Vatican first, to ensure that the religious rights of the victim to secrecy in the confessional are maintained, as they must be by church law. A directive that subordinate personnel keep church secrecy does not bind the Pope or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or anyone at the Vatican from giving over any information it deems not subject to the seal of the confessional to the police for the purposes of criminal prosecution. Nor is a victim prohibited from bringing charges and testifying in civil court about what happened OUTSIDE the confessional.

I have snipped the rest of your post because I feel I have covered your claims and objections already.

Well, you've ignored them pretty nicely, and you've repeated the pattern of conflating the duty of church officials to cooperate with civil authorities, as specifically commanded by the Pope, and the doctrines of church canon law improperly, but that's about all.

Understand this: Church law CANNOT interfere with or prohibit a police investigation of criminal acts by anyone, from the local parish priest to the Pope himself, at least in the US. Secular authorities are under no obligation to respect church law EXCEPT for demanding revelation by a priest (but not the penitent) of secrets told in a confessional. Any other statements or evidence are open to civil authorities pursuant to a search warrant, just like any other document or testimony would be in civil courts.

Nor can a priest claim the protection of the letter you cite as a reason not to testify in civil court. Civil law overrules canon law in every instance (including the confessional exclusion, which is a precept of civil law subject to repeal by civil authority), and the Vatican knows this. If the Vatican chooses to excommunicate people for violating canon law because they are compelled to testify in a criminal or civil trial over child sex abuse, it can do so. But I don't believe it will, or has ever done so. If you have facts to disprove this claim, please present them.

[Seth]

I always suspected Seth was a concern troll theist. I just never thought it was Catholic.

I'm not Catholic. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™. I just happen to know a bit about Catholicism because I have family who are Catholics, and I object to them (and the many good priests and lay Catholics I know well) being tarred with the same brush that's used to legitimately tar criminal Catholic sex predators wearing vestments.

I'm completely down with locking up child sex predators of any stripe and throwing away the key...or cutting their nuts off and branding their foreheads with "CSP" for all the world to see.

But I take umbrage at having the entirety of one billion Catholics, almost all of whom are perfectly nice, ordinary, loving people who would never harm a child or anyone else thrown under the bus of anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred as so commonly happens in Atheist forums like this.

It's my experience that Atheists are some of the most pernicious and judgmental bigots that exist on the face of the planet, and most of their bigotry and hatred is misdirected and the result of gross and deliberate ignorance of obvious facts and the truth about Catholicism. No matter how many times one points to the good works of the Catholic church or the benign nature of the vast majority of Catholics, Atheist bigots take every opportunity to demean, disparage and slander every Catholic on the planet because of the heinous crimes of a few priests 50 years ago. All the while they have absolutely no outrage, and indeed will come to the staunch defense of public school teachers, who inflict sexual abuse on children literally MILLIONS of times more often EVERY YEAR than all of the priestly abuse in the last half-century combined.

This demonstrates an egregious amount of mindless, reasonless bigotry and hatred that I choose to challenge and expose.

[Schneibster]

Seth likes helping protect people who pork little kids.

[Seth]

Seth likes helping protect people who pork little kids.

Schneibster likes fucking 10 year old boys in the ass, and I'm not protecting him, so he's lying again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Taking the high road, chaps?