Conference back40::soapbox

    400 million dollars they've spent on civil suits; hundreds of priests
    charged and removed from authority.
    
    I agree with Greeley; we'll see many more victims come forward.
    
    Put their stories here.
    
    DougO

    dougo,
    
    any way you can tone down the shouting in notes like .0. its hard on
    the eyes man.

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 89.0                      priestly pedophilia                     2 replies
SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto"    160 lines  21-NOV-1994 19:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          date=11/21/94
          type=current affairs feature
        number=3-19938
         title=u-s bishops grapple with sexual abuse by priests
        byline=terri keefe
     telephone=401-7444
      dateline=washington
        editor=nancy smart
    
    intro:   roman catholic bishops from across the country gathered
             here in washington last week for a four-day conference
             [editor's note:  november 14-17].  among other issues,
             including public policy debates on treatment of the
             poor, the u-s bishops grappled with a sensitive internal
             issue that has become increasingly public:  that of
             child sexual abuse by catholic clergy.  the bishops
             handed down a new set of guidelines directing local
             parish groups or dioceses to respond less defensively to
             abuse victims.  but not everyone is pleased.  terri
             keefe reports on reaction to the bishops' first major
             report dealing with priests and pedophilia:
    
    
    text:    how widespread is the problem of sexual abuse by clergy?
             several sociologists have ventured estimates but there
             is no hard data, according to bishop john kinney of
             bismarck, north dakota.  the chairman of the bishops'
             committee on sexual abuse says his panel has no clear
             picture of the extent of past pedophilia among priests.
             nevertheless, bishop kinney says church leaders are
             committed to preventing future incidents:
     
    tape:    cut one --  kinney   :18
             "one case of a priest abusing a child is one case too
             many, as far as the church is concerned. //opt//  what
             i'm concerned about is making sure that we do everything
             that we can to assure as far as is humanly possible that
             this never happens again."  //end opt//
      
    text:    bishop kinney's committee reviewed the policies of most
             catholic dioceses and identified key areas that must be
             addressed when a charge of sexual abuse is made:
    
    tape:    cut two -- kinney   :17
             "during the course of the coming year, our committee is
             going to be dealing very directly with how the church in
             our country needs to relate to victims, especially on
             the local level.  so, much of our emphasis will be on
             ministry in relationship with victims and with families
             of victims and with victimized parishes."
    
    
    text:    among other recommendations, the bishops' report says
             that allegations of abuse should be handled promptly and
             that the alleged offender should be relieved from
             ministerial duties.  in addition, the report calls on
             the church to cooperate with official investigations and
             legal proceedings.   but while some observers commend
             the bishops' reforms,  they also say the guidelines are
             much too late in coming.  new orleans journalist jason
             barry conducted a major study of priests and pedophilia:
    
    
    tape:    cut three -- barry   :29
             "it's quite a sad statement on catholicism that the
             hierarchy -- the bishops, the leaders of the church --
             have been so slow in acknowledging a problem that has
             had a terrible and devastating impact on so many
             thousands of catholics in this country.  //opt// i think
             it's a scandal that has been tearing at the central
             nervous system of the institution for quite some time
             now, and although the reforms are encouraging, it's
             going to be a long time before we're able to see
             whether, in fact, they are put in place on the local
             level."  //end opt//
     
    
    text:    although the formal guidelines are new, jason barry says
             that over the past decade, hundreds of priests have been
             removed from positions of authority in the church
             because of abuse allegations.  many have been prosecuted
             and many have been held accountable in civil suits which
             have cost the chuch more than four hundred million
             dollars.
    
    
             meanwhile, outside the washington hotel where the
             bishops met, two victims' advocacy groups applauded
             those dioceses that have made progress in dealing fairly
             and openly with allegations of abuse.  but the
             chicago-based survivors network of those abused by
             priests, or snap, says such dioceses are rare. (opt) the
             snap organization named six dioceses it called "the most
             dangerous in america" for victims of sexual abuse by
             priests.  in those church jurisdictions -- including
             chicago, kansas city and santa fe -- the group says
             church officials have responded to victims with
             litigation rather than therapy.  in some cases, snap
             claims, bishops have kept accused priests in active
             ministry and verbally attacked victims or their
             families.  (end opt) thirty-eight-year-old david
             clohessy is national director of the survivors' network:
    
    tape:    cut four -- clohessy   :20
             "i was abused from roughly age 12 through 15, in the
             diocese of jefferson city, missouri.  our local parish
             priest took me on out-of-town trips repeatedly and
             molested me.  and when i finally was able to go to the
             diocese and tell what happened, i felt i was really
             brushed off."
    
    
    text:    david clohessy says the rebuff he got from the church
             left him no choice but to file a lawsuit against the
             priest who abused him and against the bishops who he
             says did nothing to prevent it.  according to the
             director of the snap network, roughly 400 similar
             lawsuits have been filed nationwide.  in only three or
             four of them, says david clohessy, has a judge or jury
             exonerated the priest.
    
    
             //opt//  father andrew greeley, a catholic priest and
             professor of sociology at the university of chicago,
             also has written extensively about the problem of clergy
             sexual abuse.  father greeley says the problem is
             unlikely to be resolved soon because there is too great
             a backlog of abuse in catholic parishes and schools.  in
             the months and years ahead, he writes, more victims will
             certainly come forward.  //end opt//
     
    
             in his prepared remarks to the conference of catholic
             clerics, bishop john kinney acknowledged that sexual
             abuse by priests is a critical problem for the church.
             like society at large, he says, the catholic church is
             just beginning to understand the complex nature of
             pedophilia and how to treat it:
     
    tape:    cut five -- kinney  :29
             "when this began popping up and surfacing eight, ten
             years ago, people thought, perhaps this is an isolated
             issue, and it was only upon reflection that we realized
             that what we are facing is not something that happened
             just in one diocese or in another diocese, but was an
             issue that was being faced by our whole society.  and so
             i think all of us have learned, sure we have made some
             mistakes in the past, but we want to make sure that we
             are addressing the issue now."
    
    text:    bishop john kinney of north dakota is chair of the roman
             catholic bishops' committee on sexual abuse and chief
             editor of the recently released report, "restoring
             trust," which outlines guidelines for dealing with cases
             of alleged abuse.  (signed)
    
    21-nOV-94 5:22 pm est (2222 utc)
    nnnn
    
    Source: Voice of America

    
    wonder if this is the latest in anticlerical pogroms
    a la Mexico or Republican Spain?

DougO,

How about posting the story about the mayor who was just convicted
of pedophilia yesterday.  BTW, was he a Democrat?

/john

	John, you know you crack me up. He starts a topic on priestly
pedophillia. Something that has been going on for a long time, and something
that they are now addressing. I would think you would be happy that they are
finally addressing the problem and doing something about it. I thought the
article itself was very possitive because they are trying to stop it. To me
that says a lot.


Glen

Note 89.3 by ROWLET::AINSLEY 
    
    >>< Gene, how's this... >-
    
    thanks bob. it was giving me a headache.

    John, I didn't see the clip on mayoral pedophilia, but that would go in
    a different topic anyway.  This topic is for the victims of priests and 
    their institutions.
    
    Gene, sorry about the uppercase, its all that some wire services offer. 
    I'll see if I can torture the editor into performing the lowercase
    trick next time.
    
    DougO

>    Gene, sorry about the uppercase, its all that some wire services offer. 

I'm not doubting that this is what they claim, but in this day and age I'd
find it pretty unbelieveable that this is a technical constraint.

    RTw  11/27 1319  Prosecutor studies Irish child sex abuse file

    By Martin Cowley

    LONDONDERRY, Northern Ireland, Nov 27 (Reuter) - Police in Northern
    Ireland said on Sunday that the public prosecutor is studying files on
    claims of extensive child sexual abuse in Londonderry, the province's
    second city.
    
>    The city's Roman Catholic bishop also said on Sunday that a priest was
>    at the centre of separate child sex abuse claims, unconnected with the
>    alleged paedophile ring.

>    It is the second such complaint to hit Ireland's Catholic church
>    recently, following a scandal which helped bring down the Dublin
>    government two weeks ago.
   
    Britain's Observer newspaper on Sunday reported the child abuse probe,
    allegedly involving up to 100 children, and quoted an unidentified
    official source as saying it was the biggest child sex abuse
    investigation in Britain.

    Northern Ireland police sources said on Sunday that a file was sent
    recently to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
   
    A special team of investigators probed claims relating to some 80 to
    100 children but official sources were unable to say how many were
    victims.
   
    Police and social workers said they working together on extensive
    investigations of "serious allegations of child sexual abuse" centred
    on a Londonderry public housing estate. The claims relate to a period
    of several years.

    Three men are in custody pending court hearings. Sources close to the
    investigation say they expect more people will be charged.
    
>    Reporting the claims against the priest, the Observer quoted the family
>    of the alleged victim as saying she was eight years old when the
>    alleged abuse occurred in 1989. Police are aware of the claims but have
>    not launched a formal investigation.

>    Bishop Seamus Hegarty told reporters he would be prepared to meet the
>    family of the alleged victim. Denying that the family had been
>    neglected by church authorities, he said that priests informed the
>    police as soon as they knew of the allegations.

>    The priest involved in the allegations is a member of a religious order
>    and has since returned to a monastery in the Republic of Ireland.

>    Two weeks ago a row about the way the Irish attorney-general handled
>    extradition requests in the case of Catholic Father Brendan Smyth,
>    wanted on child sex abuse charges in Northern Ireland, led to the
>    government's downfall.

>    Smyth is serving a prison term for abusing children in Belfast.

    REUTER

    AP 29 Nov 94 17:20 EST V0180
 
    Copyright 1994. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
 
    BELFAST, Northern Ireland (AP) -- The head of Ireland's Roman Catholic 
    Church said he feels betrayed by child-molesting priests and denied the
    church  tries to cover up molestation. 

    His remarks came in response to molestation charges against several
    priests  recently. 

    "We are humbled by the whole experience," Cardinal Cahal Daly said in a 
    radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. in Belfast. 
    "Everybody has been betrayed, we've been betrayed, bishops have been 
    betrayed. We put trust in people. They abused that trust," he said. 
  
    Ireland's government collapsed when a coalition partner pulled out this 
    month, complaining it failed to turn over a priest wanted for
    child-molesting  in Northern Ireland. The priest returned to Northern
    Ireland voluntarily and  is serving a 4-year prison sentence. 

    Northern Ireland police revealed last week they are investigating
    another  priest accused of molesting a girl. He is living at an abbey
    in southeast  Ireland, where authorities have promised to cooperate
    fully. 

    Daly, trying to dispel complaints the church wants to suppress sex
    abuse  allegations, said more incidents would surface "because we are
    dealing now  with cases going back 10, maybe 15, 20 years. But they
    should be reported and  they should be dealt with." 

    The Rev. Cyprian Condon, president of Ireland's National Conference of 
    Priests, said the church needed to be "much more open and much more up
    front  about these things." 

    Speaking in Dublin, Condon said it now seemed to be "open season on the 
    church," but added that the church had a real problem. 

    "There is a necessity now for the church to handle the matter
    differently,"  he said. "Words like 'pedophile priest' have practically
    gone into the lexicon  of the language." 

    The Irish Times of Dublin reported Tuesday that police are
    investigating  allegations that a religious brother sexually abused a
    50-year-old mentally  ill woman at a home in County Cork, southwest
    Ireland. 

    Four other Catholic clerics have appeared in court this year on
    sex-crimes  charges, including a brother from Northern Ireland who
    admitted molesting  three 11-year-old girls and Belfast priest charged
    with molesting boys aged 9  to 15. 

    Daly denied the church tried to protect clergy who molest children. 
    "The church has no desire to cover up or shelter or shield anybody," he 
    said. "They should be handed over to the authorities. Once substantial
    cases  are verified and known to be substantial, the police should be
    informed." 

    .1:
    
    Speak up, man!
    
    Dick

    you must have missed .11 and .12, Dick.  So many priests - so little
    time.  but I'll do my best.
    
    DougO

re .14

What, you grew up in Ireland?

/john

    I`ve noticed suprisingly little about this in the newspapers here in
    the UK. I knew there was a breakdown in the coalition Govt,but it
    never really said why. In fact,there`s never any criticism of the 
    Catholic church,but plenty on the Protestant Church.
    
    Is it per chance because Rupert Murdoch is a Catholic?
    

   <-------re.
    
    Ooops there it is! shocka locka, Ooop there it is, BOOM shocka locka.
    
    
    

	Do we have a topic on falsely accused priests?

ME

    No. 
    
    Thomas a'Becket 

    A recent television news program made the case that Father Manning,
    of Woburn, I think, may have been wrongly accused by an aggressive
    district attorney.
    
    Evidently, the priest had been rough-housing (in my view,
    inappropriately) with an 11-year old boy, but nothing happened
    beyond this.
    
    The priest was acquitted. 
              

I'm sure DougO will be in ecstasy all night if he heard the news report
that was just on the NBC Nightly News.

A Roman Catholic Diocese in the Southwest (New Mexico?) has just put
_all_ of its property up for sale to pay for these lawsuits.

/john

Not to worry. It's the Christmas season. The parishoners will be consumed with
goodwill and ante up the mortgage to retain the property and restore it to the
diocese without nary an Apostles' Creed dropped in the process.

Watch and see.

The NBC report said "sell", not "mortgage".

I don't know what they mean.

/john

Well - I used the term "mortgage" loosely to indicate that they'd re-buy/retain
it by coming up with the necessary funds.

Actually, the more I think about it, is there something that should be more
appropriate than for the assets to be on the block?

    .14:
    
    My expectations are met.  Just make sure you wear safety goggles, OK?
    
    Dick

	Hey, isn't there a priest-get-over-raping-children center down there in
New Mexico? 

I believe you're correct, Glen.  That's the place
Father "What's Under My Cassock" Porter went for
rehabilitation.

joanne

    > I'm sure DougO will be in ecstasy all night if he heard the news
    > report that was just on the NBC Nightly News.
    >
    > A Roman Catholic Diocese in the Southwest (New Mexico?) has just put
    > _all_ of its property up for sale to pay for these lawsuits.
     
    Contrary to what some people believe, "ecstasy all night" is seldom
    the end product of seeing justice served, but only comes to those
    who wait ;-).  And I missed the report, but I'll check the newswires
    for more info later.
    
    DougO

The NBC story was extremely misleading.  (Deliberately so?)

The Archdiocese of Santa Fe is selling a retreat house and the 70 acres
of surrounding property to the Norbertine Order (a group of Roman Catholic
monks) who plan to establish a monastery on the site.

/john

    
    >Norbertine
    
    named after Norbert I presume?

    So I'm given to understand that this is an in-house property-for-cash
    swap, so the ArchDiocese can pay off its pedophile lawsuits while the
    Church, through another order, maintains control of the property.  The
    only thing that makes me happy is that victims get restitution.  Though
    if the property transfer gets taxed I'd crack a smile at that, too ;-).
    A far cry from an entire night of ecstasy, John, I'm so disappointed.
    
    DougO

I still don't understand what the point of concern was regarding the issue,
other than to chain yank.

Is there a feeling that it's inappropriate that the church should have to ante
up to settle some of these matters? Should there be wailing and gnashing of
teeth because of this "misfortune" that "befell" the church? /john?

Is the tort law system in the United States out of control?

Is the media out of control?

The NBC report said "sell _all_ of their property".

The NBC report was wrong.

/john

> The NBC report was wrong.

Am I mistaken, or was that unknown when you originally posted the matter?

| <<< Note 89.36 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| Is the tort law system in the United States out of control?


	Once they do away with them lemmon onezzzz and maybe the orange onezzzz
it won't be out of control...

re .37

When I originally posted the matter, the only information I had was
the NBC report.

/john

Which gets back to my original question -

Was it improper that the Church should have to divest itself of some assets
in order to defend/settle some of these issues? I'm not interested in looking
at the matter as a "serves 'em right" issue, but I'm curious as to why it
wouldn't be appropriate, if in fact that's what you were intimating?

    
    
    
    Because the Church is the people and not the clergy which presides over
    the Church.  The priest or whoever it was who commited the crimes
    should be punished to the full extent of the law if found guilty.
    
    
    Mike   

Well, I wouldn't be at all adverse to the Church disavowing any connection
to an accused pedophilic priest, but that's apparently not what's widely
happening if they're funding defenses and settlements. It would appear
by that association that they are somehow retaining some legal responsibility
rather than separating themselves. Perhaps even because the particular priests
_are_ innocent. But if they remain involved in that fashion, shouldn't
their assets be at risk just as would yours or mine in a similar situation
regarding a family member for which we went to bat?

    
    
    So, if we supported a family member accused of a crime, or a friend,
    our assets would be thrown into the ring as fair game?  I'm not saying
    that everything is honkey dorey with the church, Jack.  There are a
    some bad apples just as there are throughout society and these people 
    should pay for any crimes which they commit.  The heirarchy of the
    Church is in a very sticky situation when these cases arise.  I do wish
    they would come out strongly against these crimes ESPECIALLY when their
    own are involved.  
    
    
    Mike

>I do wish they would come out strongly against these crimes ESPECIALLY
>when their own are involved.  

Your wish has been granted.

>    So, if we supported a family member accused of a crime, or a friend,
>    our assets would be thrown into the ring as fair game?

Well, the fact of the matter is that if you chose to support a family
member and thereby choose to mount a defence, your assets may be at risk,
Mike. Legal aid and settlements aren't free and the money has to come
from somewhere. One is normally willing to risk it if they either believe
in the innocence or see it to be less costly to settle than allow the
courts to take the matter in tow.

My point was simply that IF the Church decided to fund the defense or
settlement of issues regarding the clergy, then the Church should fully
expect to bear the expense of that action. If the cost associated with
doing that was the risk of property/assets, so be it. What I was reading
in /john's original posting, and I could easily be mistaken, was a plea
that the Church should be admonished of their responsibility to respond
financially for matters to which they voluntarily submitted (i.e. mounting
a defence). I don't see that as being reasonable and was curious as to
whether or not that was the intent.

    
    I see what you're saying Jack.  This is definitely a sensitive issue.
    I guess it goes back to the things we see every day.  Spill coffee on
    your lap, sue the company that made it.  If an employee of a corporation 
    acts improperly, sue the corporation.  Going to where the big money is. 
    It seems that people don't want to see justice done any longer, they
    just want a fast buck.  Perhaps these people equate cash with justice,
    which I don't.
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    ffor years New Mexico was the recipient of priests who got themselves
    into trouble in other places.  These priests were treated in a retreat
    near jemez NM, and after they were considered "rehabilitated" they were
    assigned parish duties in New Mexico.  Until about 5 years ago, people
    had been told the Jemez retreat was for treating alcoholism, so it was
    logical to believe the only problem the priests had was a tendency to
    hit the communion cup a little hard.  Only recently had it come out
    that the diocese in NM had been deliberately hiding the fact that these
    priests had been sheperding their young members of the flocks
    indecently.
    
    In this case, I do believe the diocese was "at fault" and should have
    been sued.
    
    meg

    Of course they're at fault.  The whole bloody institution's at fault
    for the problem, how they've handled it, how they've protected
    the offenders, violated the trust of their flocks, broken state and
    federal law, stymied investigations, pressured parents, and in general,
    behaved abominably to protect a bunch of flaming pedophiles.
    
    Tell us something we don't know.
    

    AP 6 Feb 95 0:52 EST V0518
 
    Copyright 1995. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
 
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Four Catholic priests have been removed from their 
    parishes and assignments in the Washington area after admitting they
    sexually  abused the same altar boy during the 1970s, The Washington
    Post reported. 

    Churchgoers in five parishes where the priests had served learned the
    news  at Mass on Sunday when priests read a letter from Cardinal James
    Hickey, the  paper said in Monday's editions. 

    One of the four also admitted to abusing a second youth from 1988 until
    two  years ago, according to the report. 

    Monsignor William Lori, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, told
    the  Post it was the first time the archdiocese has dismissed so many
    priests for  pedophilia. 

    The church contacted the Post before the announcements and arranged an 
    interview with the paper and one of the victims as part of an effort to
    deal  with the sensitive topic openly. 

    The priests were identified as the Rev. Thomas Schaeffer, 69, who was 
    removed last month as chaplain at Carroll Manor nursing home in
    Hyattsville,  Md.; the Rev. Alphonsus Smith, 70, pastor at St.
    Bernardine of Siena Roman 

    Catholic Church in Suitland, Md., since 1989; the Rev. Edward
    Pritchard, 50,  who last served as associate pastor at St. Mary's
    Church in Northwest  Washington, and the Rev. Edward Hartell, 58,
    pastor at the Shrine of St. Jude  in Rockville, Md., for the last
    several years. 

    The former altar boy, now a 34-year-old professional living in the 
    Baltimore area, requested anonymity. He said he was 11 or 12 when
    Schaeffer,  then pastor at St. Matthias Roman Catholic Church in
    Lanham, Md., gave him a  job in the rectory answering telephones after
    school. 

    The victim told the Post that Schaeffer would take him to his bedroom
    in  the rectory or to a classroom in the parish's school where they
    would engage  in mutual masturbation and oral sex. 

    In 1974, according to Lori, Schaeffer was transferred to another parish
    and  replaced by Smith, who also abused the boy until he was about 17.
    During  Smith's tenure, according to Lori and the victim, the boy also
    was sexually  abused on one or two occasions by Pritchard, then the
    church's associate  pastor. 

    One evening in the rectory, the victim said, he was molested in Smith's 
    bedroom by Hartell, a visiting pastor. 

    "It was very confusing," the victim said, "because part of it doesn't
    feel  bad, but then you realize way back in your head there's something
    wrong here,  so you kind of disassociate yourself while it's
    happening." 

    The former altar boy began having marital problems a few years ago and 
    sought therapy. He contacted Lori last month and they met Jan. 19 for
    nearly  two hours. The next day, Lori called all four priests into his
    office, one at  a time, and confronted them with the allegations. All
    four admitted that they  had abused the boy. 

    Lori said he asked each if there were other victims, and Smith admitted
    to  having a five-year sexual relationship with a youth from Our Lady
    of Sorrows  in Takoma Park, Md., beginning in 1988. 

    At the cardinal's request, Lori immediately asked the priests to
    resign. 

    Two days later, they were on their way to four separate treatment 
    facilities at undisclosed locations. In a column to be published in the 
    Catholic Standard this week, Hickey said, "I can never again place them
    in  ministry." 

    3 Priests Charged With Child Sex Abuse 

                                           
    Landover, Md. 

    Three Roman Catholic priests were arrested yesterday and charged with
    sexual child abuse during the 1970s. Prince George's County police say
    the priests turned themselves in after being advised that there were
    warrants against them. 

    Father Alphonsus Smith, 70, was charged with abusing two youths in 1975
    while assigned to Saint Matthias Church in Lanham. Father Edward
    Pritchard, 50, was charged with abusing one youth in 1974 and another
    in 1976 while assigned to Saint Matthias. Father Edward Hartel, 58, is
    charged with one count of abuse while visiting the church in 1975. 



    DAY: THURSDAY 

    DATE: 2/16/95 

    PAGE: A3 

    2/16/95 , San Francisco Chronicle

    Aren't they protected by the statute of limitations?

| <<< Note 89.51 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Aren't they protected by the statute of limitations?

	There SHOULD be NO statute of limitations for that

    I agree but aren't they still protected by the statute of limitations?
    

          Push for Major Shift in Church Policies on Sex Abuse

    What:   Five molestation victims will demand a radical
             restructuring of Catholic Church policies on sexual
             abuse by priests at a news conference immediately prior
             to a meeting with five bishops on the National
             Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on
             Sexual Abuse.
    
    When:  2:30 p.m. Sunday, February 19
    
    Where: On the sidewalk directly in front of the State Plaza
            Hotel, 2117 E Street NW in Washington, D.C.
    
    Why:   Victims maintain Catholic leaders should stop trying to
            investigate abuse accusations and rely on law
            enforcement
    
    Background:
    
    The victims will meet with a panel of bishops from Texas, Florida,
Minnesota, Tennessee and North Dakota from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m., and will demand
that every American bishop
    
    -- call police first when abuse allegations surface (rather than
        begin a church-controlled probe)
    
    -- provide SNAP with names of all priests who have been convicted
        of, pled guilty to, or been deemed guilty of abuse by church
        officials
    
    -- abolish church-sponsored toll-free abuse reporting hotlines,
        and
    
    -- sign a pledge to not publicly attack victims by suing them and
        releasing personal information about them
    
    Also present will be two victims whose perpetrators are still active
    priests despite a financial settlement following civil litigation and a
    videotaped confession.
    
    The victims (from Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, California and
    Pennsylvania) are members of a 2,100-person nationwide Chicago-based
    support group called SNAP.  Last fall, at the NCCB meeting in
    Washington, the group released a report on the six worst dioceses in
    America in terms of how abuse victims are treated.
    
    CONTACT:  Barbara Blaine, Laura Barrett, or David Clohessy of SNAP,
    202-842-1020, or 312-483-1059.
    
    -0-                        2/19/95
    
    /PRNewswire -- Feb. 19/

Sounds reasonable to me. A pedophile scum is a pedophile scum regardless
of occupation, and should be dealt with by law.

However, I wonder if "making demands" of Bishops will be particularly
fruitful. They tend to, how shall I say, have selective listening skills.

    AP 30 Mar 95 21:03 EST V0570
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Allegations that the head of the country's
    Roman Catholic Church sexually abused a pupil more than 20 years ago
    have thrown Austria's church into a crisis. 

    In predominantly Catholic Austria, Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer is the
    third most-important figure, after the president and the president of
    parliament. 

    Reports of the alleged scandal have caused a sensation, filing the
    headlines of major newspapers. 

    In a report published Monday by the magazine Profil, Josef Hartmann, a
    37-year-old former seminary student, alleged that Groer, then a
    religion instructor, abused him repeatedly in the early 1970s. 

    Another magazine, News, on Thursday cited claims by former boarding
    school pupils that Groer had molested boys. But it said a majority of
    Hartmann's former schoolmates from Hollabrunn, about 38 miles north of
    Vienna, whom it interviewed said they didn't know anything about
    possible sexual abuse. 

    The 75-year-old cardinal, whose formal offer to retire last year has
    not been accepted by the pope, has kept silent and kept out of public
    view. 

    Hartmann told Austrian radio and television that he decided to go
    public after a recent statement by Groer that those who abuse children
    would not "inherit heaven." 

    Monsignor Franz Merschl, chairman of the priests' council of the Vienna
    archdiocese, said he was "outraged and dismayed" by the unsubstantiated
    charges against Austria's top church official. 

    Bishop Kurt Krenn also strongly defended Groer -- even though he could
    succeed the cardinal. 

    But other clerics demanded that Groer answer the charges. 

    "We want to hear a clear word from the mouth of the archbishop that
    Hartmann's accusations are incorrect," said Bruno Primtshofer, head of
    the Institute for Church Law at Vienna University's Theology Faculty. 

    Gerwin Komma, head of the Jesuit Order in Austria, added that
    "declarations of solidarity won't do." 

    
    how many does that make so far Dougo?

    known to the world or known only to their victims?
    
    either number is huge, of course.
    
    DougO

Yep.  It was supposed to premier on Good Friday, but Disney changed the date
because of protests.

    Disney isn't the distributor, Miramax is.  Disney spokespeople refer
    all questions on protests about "Priest" to Miramax.
    
    Not having seen the movie yet, I dunno if it could explain all of the
    reasons why so many priests are being exposed as pedophiles.  First of
    all, why do so many commit the crime?  Secondly, why are so many being
    exposed now, often decades after the crimes?  The movie explains this?
    
    Well, if/when I see it, I'll bring these questions up again, here.
    
    DougO

    From what I've seen in reviews, pedophilia isn't part of the movie.

>First of all, why do so many commit the crime?

First of all, percentage-wise, less priests commit the crime than

	fathers
	boy scout leaders
	uncles
	high school teachers

It gets more news because we expect better of the priests.  And we should
expect better of them.  And we should expect more honesty from DougO than
he showed in the statement I quoted above.

/john

>First of all, percentage-wise, less priests commit the crime than
>
>	fathers

But aren't all priests fathers?

	John, how come if you know % wise they commit fewer rapes of kids than
any of the other catagories you listed, how come you couldn't list the actual
%'s themselves?

	It's easy to say they commit fewer, but I think it's harder to list how
many they do commit. 

Glen

    
    RE: .65
    
    >   -< You ALWAYS leave out key points.... >-
    
    Sorta like you in the Gun Control note??
    

| <<< Note 89.66 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!" >>>


| >   -< You ALWAYS leave out key points.... >-

| Sorta like you in the Gun Control note??

	Gee Andy, I talked about my opinion, about what I believed to be true.
I did not talk about %'s and such. John did though.

    One will permit oneself a few chuckles to have been maligned for
    insufficient 'honesty' by one who frequently defends the practises of
    organized religion.
    
    Yeah, John.  *right*.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 89.68 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

John can be accused of many things, I suppose, but never that I've seen 
could he be accused of dishonesty.

You really got a hair across your arse about religion, don't you, DougO?

Tom

    You will note, Tom, that I was responding to the charge, not making
    one.
    
    DougO

    And now, for a return to topic:
    
    RTw  04/10 1410  Reuters World News Highlights
    [...]

    VIENNA - Austria's Roman Catholic Church, already battered by
    allegations of sexual abuse against its primate, received a further
    shock when another priest admitted a similar charge.

Was the primate involved in monkey business?

    
    <--- :-) !!!
    

>>    havung fun, dougie?

	or having fung?

    So who's asking?  .75 is gone.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Me Doug, it was me.  Having fun yet?  Why the vendetta against the
    church?  There is a lot of good done by said church.  There is bad in
    every aspect of our existence, if you choose to focus on that you end
    up being a miserable SOB.  Seek out the good and life is fairly
    pleasant.
    
    
    
    Mike

    vendetta?
    
    Is it a vendetta when I criticize congress, the press, the president,
    or any other social institution when I find them at fault?
    
    the church deserves no kid glove treatment, and gets none; and given
    that their past practises have tended to exacerbate rather than address 
    the problems THEY KNEW ABOUT, their victims are still coming forth, still
    being found to have experienced trauma, pain, and suffering at the
    hands of the trusted officials of that institution.  Decades of abuse
    are being documented.  Shall we sweep it all under the carpet so in
    centuries hence future apologists for the church can claim it never
    happened?  Like the witchcraze?  
    
    Thank you no, Mike, I'll hold the institution accountable.
    
    DougO

    	Probably your son will be doing the same regarding the feminist
    	movement of the late 20th century.

    
    
    No, I don't ask you to sweep these things under the carpet, Doug.  All
    I ask is that you are fair about the treatment.  That one priest who
    rescued kids from the street (I can't remember his name at this time). 
    What he did to 2 pr 3 of those kids were wrong, but what he did for the
    thousands of others that he took out of the danger of the street was
    not.
    
    
    Mike

    
    Um...was it Father Bruce, Covenant House?
    
    I see where you're coming from, Mike, but when we talk about other
    'criminals', do we say, for example, "well, he was good to thousands of
    people, he just killed one or two, let's be fair"?  "He did business
    with a hundred banks, he just robbed one or two, let's be fair"?  I
    don't think we do.  

    
    
    I don't see it as the same thing, Deb.  As I said, what he didn was
    wrong, thing is he saved thousands of others from self destructing. 
    What he did gave his whole effort a bad name.  There were others
    involved in the effort, does what he did take away from what these
    other Catholic members of different orders did?  The media was never
    there to cover the kids they saved, I wonder why that was?
    
    
    
    Mike

    	That's not newsworthy, Mike.
    
    	Pain is news.

re: Mike
>						There were others
>    involved in the effort, does what he did take away from what these
>    other Catholic members of different orders did?

Absolutely not. And I would hope no one would try to make a case otherwise.
And I don't think anyone here has.

>    What he did gave his whole effort a bad name.  There were others
>    involved in the effort, does what he did take away from what these
>    other Catholic members of different orders did?  The media was never
>    there to cover the kids they saved, I wonder why that was?

Covenant House got lots of good press in its heyday.  I suspect some of
it has to do with how media-savvy the principals in these organizations are.

    
    
    I didn't say that anyone was or wasn't making that case.  Thing is, it 
    still isn't spoken of much.  I know good news don't sell, but the way 
    I see it by only speaking of the negative doesn't leave much room for 
    the whole thing to be viewed as anything but negative.
    
    
    Mike

I dunno, Mike. I thnk most people can retain a distinction between the
bad things people do on a personal level and the good things that their
organization have accomplished.

    It's a betrayal of such a large magnitude. You earn the trust of people
    by doing good, then you flush it all with one act of betrayal.
    
    Glenn

    AP 13 Apr 95 13:09 EDT V0964
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The Vatican appointed a deputy Thursday to
    Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, a move apparently aimed at easing him into
    retirement following allegations he sexually abused minors. 

    The government of the heavily Roman Catholic country was quick to
    approve Pope John Paul II's action. "A period of uncertainty and
    speculation has come to an end," said Chancellor Franz Vranitzky, who
    had urged the church last week to settle the controversy. 

    The pope named Christoph Schoenborn, 50, as archbishop-coadjutor with a
    right of succession to Groer, who serves as archbishop of Vienna.
    High-ranking church officials are almost never fired. 

    Groer was named cardinal in 1986. He applied for retirement last year
    when he turned 75, but the pope left him in his post. 

    Last month a weekly newsmagazine published charges from a former
    seminary student that Groer, as a religious instructor in the early
    1970s, had abused him repeatedly. 

    Austrian media carried additional accusations from other former
    students, most of them unnamed. 

    Groer, Austria's most senior Catholic cleric, stepped down as head of
    the national bishops' conference last Thursday, just two days after
    being re-elected to the post. On Friday, he issued a statement
    rejecting the charges against him as defamatory. 

    The weekly News on Thursday said Groer himself requested a coadjutor,
    and would retire to a Benedictine monastery during the summer. 

New York Rabbi denied bail in fondling case

LOS ANGELES - A Hasidic Jewish rabbi from New York accused of fondling a
teenage girl on a flight from Australia to Los Angeles was denied bail on
Friday by a judge who deemed him "a danger to the community."

U.S. Magistrate Corolyn Turchin ordered Rabbi Yehudah Friedlander, charged
with sexual abuse over the incident aboard the flight from Melbourne,
Australia, on Wednesday, held in federal prison until a hearing scheduled
for next Tuesday.

Friedlander, 44, who had accompanied his sect leader, Rabbi Israel
Grunwald, on a trip to Australia to lecture Jews on sexual morality, was
arrested along with Grunwald by airport police at Los Angeles and handed
over to the FBI.

Friedlander allegedly put his hands down the 15-year-old's panties during
an incident in which both Jewish religious leaders were said to have
fondled the American teenager, who was travelling on her own.

Grunwald, also 44, has been charged with the lesser offence of abusive
sexual conduct for allegedly cupping the girl's breasts in his hand and was
freed on Thursday on $10,000 bail.

Grunwald, an Orthodox Hasidic Jew who is a leader of the Pupa Hasidic sect
and heads the Kehilas Joseph congregation in the New York City borough of
Brooklyn, faces up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

Friedlander, Grunwald's assistant, faces up to 15 years in prison and a
$250,000 fine if convicted.

Friedlander was denied bail because of a previous sexual abuse charge
leveled against him in New York state. Judge Turchin, in denying him bail,
said she wanted more details on the New York case.

Los Angeles attorney Mitchell Egers, hired by the rabbis to defend them,
called the girl's allegations "ridiculous."

    The Electronic Telegraph  Thursday 15 June 1995  Home News

    Church 'will not hide abuse'

    By Richard Savill, Irish Correspondent

    CARDINAL Cahal Daly, the Roman Catholic Primate of All Ireland, said
    yesterday that there was no "safe haven" for child sex abusers within
    the Church. His remarks followed the disclosure that he had held
    discussions with two senior RUC detectives conducting a widespread
    investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse involving clergy
    in the province.

    The move comes in the wake of recent allegations, all denied, that the
    sexual activities of priests had been covered up by the Church to
    protect its image.

    It was disclosed yesterday that Cardinal Daly recently met RUC
    detectives in Northern Ireland on his own initiative and had pledged
    the Church's full co-operation with any investigation.

    Details of the meeting emerged on the day that an alcoholic paedophile
    priest was jailed for seven years at Belfast Crown Court for sexually
    abusing young boys at an isolated cottage where he plied them with
    drink.

    Fr Danny Curran, 45, sat with his eyes closed and head bowed as Judge
    Tony Hart told him he had abused his trust and betrayed his clerical
    colleagues. Curran admitted 13 offences over a four-year period between
    1990 and 1994.

    A priest in the St Paul's parish of west Belfast, Curran took the boys
    to his cottage at Tyrella Beach, near Downpatrick, Co Down, where he
    abused them after heavy drinking sessions.

    Neither should they be given a "safe haven."
    
I Timothy 4:1
NOW the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I Timothy 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I Timothy 4:3
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe an know the
truth.

    So, God gave us pork then told us not to eat it then changed his mind.
    
    8^/

    Two former Boy Scout leaders charged with raping scouts

    (c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

    (c) 1995 Associated Press

    CRANSTON, R.I. (Jun 15, 1995 - 20:42 EDT) -- Two former Boy Scout
    leaders have been charged with raping two scouts at a camp, and police
    said Thursday they believe more boys were victimized.

    At a news conference, police said they heard stories this week of
    underage drinking, pornographic movies and sexual assaults dating back
    to 1981 at the Champlin Scout Reservation.

    "This will be a long and involved investigation," Chief Augustine
    Comella said. "A lot has gone on at the camp over the years."

    The 385-acre reservation, once the site of a logging mill, is owned by
    the Boy Scouts and used by troops for weekend and day outings. Boys
    stay there with troop leaders, camping, hiking and sleeping in tents or
    in two cabins in the woods.

    Former scoutmasters Kenneth Gaspar, 37, of Cranston, who faces one rape
    count and Paul Tondreau, 48, of Coventry, who faces two rape charges,
    were also camp masters who would assist other scout troops during
    outings.

    Tondreau, a carpenter at a hospital, was arrested Monday. Gaspar, a
    computer maintenance man for a cable television company, was arrested
    April 12. He previosuly was barred from the Boy Scouts last year when
    he was convicted of molesting a 12-year-old boy and given a 30-year
    suspended sentence.

    Both are being held without bail.

    A 25-year-old man whose allegations helped lead police to Tondreau and
    Gaspar said he believes, based on what he has seen and heard, that the
    two assaulted at least 20 boys.

    The man said that Tondreau would scare boys by telling them he was a
    Vietnam veteran who had violent flashbacks while sleepwalking and that
    he "could lash out at any time and kill you."

    The man said Tondreau would "sleepwalk" into his tent at night and rape
    him.

    The man said he was assaulted nearly 40 times over three years,
    starting when he was 14. Gaspar and Tondreau have been "playing in my
    head night and day" ever since, he said.

    The man, who remains active in and supportive of the Boy Scouts, said
    he told no one about the abuse until three years ago when he realized
    it was ruining his marriage. He went to police Friday.

    The police chief said there is no indication the Boy Scouts knew
    anything about any sexual assaults.

    "The Boy Scouts is a wonderful organization; you just hate to see
    people like this, preying on children and using the Boy Scouts to do
    it," Comella said.

    Lyle Antonides, scout executive of the Boy Scouts' Narragansett
    Council, said whenever charges are brought against a scout leader, the
    person is removed from the organization.

	Why is it under this topic????

    They had aspirations for the priesthood.

    
    That's a lot of hot air, methinks 8^).

i agree deb

    
    
    So ask the mods to move it!
    

    
    Oh, NOW you LIKE the mods!
    
    
    
    ;^)

    >    So, God gave us pork then told us not to eat it then changed his mind.
    
    I'm not totally convinced He changed His mind as far as our Hebrew brethren
    (God's chosen) are concerned.  For Gentiles, it's another matter.
    
    Mike

                <<< TALLIS::SYS3$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CELT.NOTE;1 >>>
                               -< Celt Notefile >-
================================================================================
Note 14.102                        Irish Humor                        102 of 105
IRNBRU::HOWARD "Lovely day for a Guinness"           27 lines  17-JUL-1995 06:52
                            -< priestly humour.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "....Father Michael was walking thru the forest when he heard someone
    call....
    
    Hey Father..Father!..
    
    ..he looked around but he couldn't see who called and so started
    walking again and the call came again..
    
    Hey Father..Father!..
    
    Father Michael looks down and sees this frog looking up at him....
    
    'Did you just call out my name?....  
    
    'Yeah, it was me' said the frog....
    
    'How come you can speak?...Father Michael asked the frog....
    
    'Well I'm a 9 year old boy really, and the only way that I can be
    turned back into a boy is if I sleep at the end of someone's bed for a
    night'....said the frog....
    
    ....so after some convincing Father Michael agreed to let the frog sleep at
    the end of his bed that night, and sure enough next morning a naked 9
    year old boy was lying at the bottom of Father Michael's bed....

    ....and that, your honour, concludes the case for the defense.... 

<---I could almost see that happening.....

    The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 9 August 1995  Home News

    Priest faces sex assault charges

    By Richard Savill, Irish Correspondent

    A CATHOLIC priest was sent for trial at Belfast Crown Court yesterday
    charged with indecent assault involving eight children over a 15-year
    period.

    Father Brendan Smyth, 68, a priest of the Nobertine Order, based at
    Kilnacrott, Co Cavan, appeared before Belfast Magistrates' Court to
    face 16 charges. It is alleged that most of the offences took place in
    Belfast and at Kircubbin, Co Down between 1974 and 1989.

    Smyth was remanded in custody.

    Outside the court, his solicitor, Denis Maloney, called for an "urgent
    conclusion" to the case.

    He said: "Justice and truth require urgent and expeditious attention to
    these charges. Justice delayed is justice denied both to the defendant
    and also to the alleged victims. An urgent conclusion of this matter
    must take place.

    "The defendant is most anxious, and has been at all stages, to have
    this investigation concluded. Those are my instructions from him. He
    has co-operated fully with regard to the matter."

No correllation between the two.  The incidence of pedophilia is just as
high among married clergy, sadly.

And higher among married non-clergy, btw.

/john

    Did someone want to see Catholic bashing?  Too bad this is just a
    straight news piece, that's as close as we get.  More criminal activity
    by priests comes to light in Ireland.
    
    DougO
    
    RTw  10/09 1427  Irish priest charged as sex abuse cases soar

    By Carmel Linnane

    DUBLIN , Oct 9 (Reuter) - A priest appeared in court on Monday accused
    of indecently assaulting women in the latest in a series of cases
    involving Ireland's Roman Catholic church.

    William Bernard Gallagher said nothing during the preliminary hearing
    at a court in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, into eight charges of
    indecent assault some 30 years ago. His trial starts next month.

    His case coincided with a report by Dublin's Rape Crisis Centre saying
    the number of child and sex abuse distress calls jumped sharply last
    week following further relevations of clerical and other child sex
    attacks.

    "Last week we had 67 first-time callers, victims of sexual abuse. That
    is an increase of 21 percent on the previous week," the centre's
    director, Olive Braiden, told Reuters.

    Of these, three males and four females said they were sexually abused
    by priests, said Braiden, whose voluntary organisation is financed
    privately and with state aid.

    She added that said the number of sex abuse reports to the centre rose
    every time a new sex scandals broke in the media.

    Ireland's Roman Catholic Church, reeling from a wave of scandals, took
    centre stage last week when it said a priest paid compensation to a
    young altar boy he had sexually abused.

    The Dublin Diocese said in a statement the priest paid a total of
    56,000 punts ($90,300) to a man, now aged 33, whom he sexually abused
    in the 1970s.

    It was the latest scandal to tarnish the church's name and police say
    they are investigating new allegations of priestly misconduct across
    the island.

    Dublin Archbishop Desmond Connell sent a letter of pastoral concern to
    be read at all masses on Sunday apologising to those abused and
    admitted that the church's response on the issue had "at times fallen
    short of what would now be required."

    REUTER

    
    
    I feel sorry for you DougO, having to carry around the hate and
    bitterness for so long.  I guess you posting these things is theraputic
    for you.
    
    
    Reminds me of a story of two monks walking along in silence.  Tehy come
    across a lady who is nicely dressed and trying to figure out how to
    cross a stream without ruining her atire.  The first monk picks up the
    woman and carries her across and then rejoins the other monk on their
    journey.  About an hour later the silence is interrupted with the
    second monk saying to the first monk, "How could you have done that,
    pick up a woman like that, surely that was improper".  The two are
    still walking along and the first monk say to the second, "I put that
    woman down nearly an hour ago, why are you still carrying her around?"
    
    Here's hoping you find peace, Doug.
    
    
    Mike

    I don't need half so much peace as do the victims of those priests,
    Mike.  pray for them.
    
    DougO

    
    
    DougO,
    
    
    THe vast, vast, vast majority of Priests don't do this type of thing,
    DougO.  How come it's okay for you to broad brush them, but you get all
    huffy if someone does it to NOW?
    
    I've prayed for those people already Doug.  Thanks for the suggestion
    though.
    
    
    Mike

    I don't mind Doug posting this kind of news. It's a matter of trust,
    responsibility and hiding behind the cloth. Some of the actions of
    priests have been unconscionable. Particularly egregious, in my view,
    are those who knew that wrongdoing occurred but did nothing to stop it.
    Like a priest walking in on another priest behaving indecently with a
    small boy. And walking back out. Sorry, but that doesn't cut the
    mustard in my book. Perhaps the media coverage of these crimes will
    create an atmosphere in the Church where the hierarchy will reconsider
    the issues of celibacy and marriage in an age when the human failings
    of priests which come at a cost to innocent people can no longer be
    swept under the rug. Of course, DougO's preoccupation with these
    matters makes one wonder whether he has personal knowledge of such
    improprieties or if some other motivating factor is present.

    I think that what DougO's reasons for posting it can remain anonmous,
    but I think that it's great that we can post this kind of news. I think 
    we all need to be a bit mindful of our surroundings, and yes, our
    parish and it's so called priest. 
    
    (note before)
    Because we don't hear about other priest that do this heinous crime,
    doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Some people just don't come forward.
    It's just another way for the catholic church to turn it's back on its
    parish and parishoners. I have no respect for a church that sweeps this
    type of behavoir under the preverbial alter. I remember many a priest
    acting inappropriately when I was younger. I also remember nuns that
    used to use corpral(sp) punishment, that was not tolerated by my
    parents and we all were promptly removed and the nuns promptly reported
    and it promptly happened again and again...they were not repremanded. 
    This was years ago....so how long do you think this "heinous" crap has
    been going on....recently???? NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
    

    
    I don't think it's fair to charcterize DougO's interest in this issue
    as a "preoccupation".  It's been two months since his last post in this
    topic.  I can think of several people who might more accurately be
    described as "preoccupied" with Waco or Ruby Ridge or Bill Clinton or
    firearms or Democrats in general or the IRS or the BATF or OJ Simpson
    or fellow noters or...
    
    Everyone's got their own interests.
    

    DougO:
    
    Isn't it annoying when one is misunderstood?

>>    <<< Note 89.112 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA fighting for our RIGHTS" >>>
>>    DougO.  How come it's okay for you to broad brush them, but you get all
>>    huffy if someone does it to NOW?

	Where did he "broad brush" them?

    Hi Di!

	Jack, are you really misunderstood????

    
  |   Perhaps the media coverage of these crimes will
  |   create an atmosphere in the Church where the hierarchy will
  |   reconsider the issues of celibacy and marriage in an age when the human
  |   failings of priests which come at a cost to innocent people can no longer be
  |   swept under the rug.
    
    i hope they do.  in prison, men who would otherwise be
    heterosexual resort to homosexual activity.  i find it hard to
    believe that similar circumstances in the priesthood doesn't
    foster such pathologies.  
          

    Yes, I am Glen.  You people don't understand because my ability to
    think critically far exceeds the intellectual level of some of the 
    blokes in this conference!

>    Yes, I am Glen.
    
    I thought you were Jack. 

    
    
    Come one, Di.  It's no secret how Doug feels on these matters, it would
    be one thing if he was fair and unbiased about the issue and gave
    credit where credit is due, but that does not happen.  
    
    
    Mike

    ((cough))
    

    
    
    Jaysus, prophead, you know what i meant........
    
    
    Mike

    Of course, Mike... but <<gotcha>>  :-)
    

    
    
    You done did at dat, DrDan.......

    Mike, Di asked you where I 'broad brushed' any priests.  Your response
    didn't address that question.  You said:
    
    > Come one, Di.  It's no secret how Doug feels on these matters, it
    > would be one thing if he was fair and unbiased about the issue and 
    > gave credit where credit is due, but that does not happen.
    
    My focus in this topic is the documentation of a series of terrible
    crimes.  Before this note, I'd entered 23 others- and more than half
    were simply news articles.  This, pilgrim, is 'credit where due.'
    
    Your attempts at determining my motives were wrong in .78, as I told
    you in .79- and you're wrong again in .110, wherein you decry my hate
    and bitterness.  I'm documenting the crimes, Mike- the need for which
    was apparent even to you when you wrote .41.  Back then, you said "The
    priest or whoever it was who commited the crimes should be punished to
    the full extent of the law if found guilty."  I'm even willing to go
    further, speaking of credit due- the American Catholic Bishops, having
    finally issued a direct policy statement in the last few years that the
    church will no longer shield the miscreant priests, no longer interfere
    in police investigations, no longer move suspects out of state, will
    now focus on supporting and helping the victims instead of denying
    their pain and thereby increasing it- all of these aspects of the new
    policy are appropriate.  They've been a long time coming.  And they've
    come about mainly because news stories like the ones I post have caused
    so much pain and misery for the church hierarchy that they had to take
    such steps- had to face the extent of the problems and address them.
    I know that even admitting the need for such a policy was excruciating-
    that the church has to admit that the scope of the problem with its
    most highly trusted officials, the priesthood, required such a policy-
    and it took courage.  In the face of the dozens of stories, with the
    evidence of hundreds if not thousands of victims, they finally realized
    they had no other reputable course of action.  This, Mike, is credit
    where it is due.  So I'll keep posting such news stories, until there 
    is no longer any need for such pressure on the hierarchy.  You'll just
    have to live with it.
    
    DougO

    
    
    I wouldn't expect anything different, Doug.  Who started this topic? 
    Why wasn't the articles posted in the news briefs or in a topic on
    child molestation?  Why weren't other denominations included in the
    title?  You have yet to write anything good that a church or a priest
    does, why is that?  Could there be an agenda at work here?  
    
    I don't know what your beef is, Doug.  The fact is that the incidents
    of priests molesting children is very low (and yes, one is too many),
    lower than that of laypeople.  Yes, when it happens, it is horrible and
    I feel bad for the victims of the molestation but a few bad apples
    don't spoil the bushel.
    
    Mike
    
    

    >Why wasn't the articles posted in the news briefs or in a topic on
        child molestation? 
    
    Why do 550+ other topics exist in soapbox?  because, as with this one,
    their authors decided to focus on a particular issue.  That's why.
    
    >Why weren't other denominations included in the title?
    
    I'm not averse to including news articles about the pedofilia of other
    religious authorities.  Strangely enough, I don't think any of the
    dozen articles I've seen since the basenote was posted mentioned any
    others, though, so the title seems apropos.  And the alliteration
    makes it a more effective title.  Got a suggestion for a better title
    that will still retain the focus?
    
    > You have yet to write anything good that a church or a priest
    > does, why is that?
    
    In .128, I just described what I think is good about the policy the
    American Catholic bishops put out, wrt this issue.  Wrt other issues,
    they aren't included in the focus I've chosen for this topic.
    
    > Could there be an agenda at work here?
    
    You betcha.  My agenda is to focus on a series of terrible crimes, to
    provide continued scrutiny of the institution that permitted them and
    shielded the perpetrators for so long.  Got a problem with that?
    
    > a few bad apples don't spoil the bushel.
    
    Left in there they will- and its no secret anymore that they were left
    in there for decades in this country.  Continued scrutiny may prevent
    it from being allowed to happen again.  You're just gonna have to live
    with it.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 89.128 by AXPBIZ::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I'm even willing to go
>    further, speaking of credit due- the American Catholic Bishops, having
>    finally issued a direct policy statement in the last few years that the
>    church will no longer shield the miscreant priests, no longer interfere
>    in police investigations, no longer move suspects out of state, will
>    now focus on supporting and helping the victims instead of denying
>    their pain and thereby increasing it- all of these aspects of the new
>    policy are appropriate.  
    
>    So I'll keep posting such news stories, until there 
>    is no longer any need for such pressure on the hierarchy.  You'll just
>    have to live with it.
    
    	Based on the first statement, it seems that there is no longer
    	any need for such "pressure".

           <<< Note 89.130 by AXPBIZ::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I'm not averse to including news articles about the pedofilia of other
>    religious authorities.  Strangely enough, I don't think any of the
>    dozen articles I've seen since the basenote was posted mentioned any
>    others, though, so the title seems apropos.  
    
    	Stick your head in some different ostrich holes and maybe
    	you'll find some outside your vendetta focus group.
    
>    And the alliteration
>    makes it a more effective title.  Got a suggestion for a better title
>    that will still retain the focus?
    
    	Disguising Doug's Vatican Vendetta by bulleting Priestly Pedophilia.
    
    	Gets your alliteration and the truth all in one.
    
    	BTW, pedophilia is never a priestly thing to do.
    
>    You betcha.  My agenda is to focus on a series of terrible crimes, to
>    provide continued scrutiny of the institution that permitted them and
>    shielded the perpetrators for so long.  Got a problem with that?
    
    	Find us some permitting and shielding in the present tense,
    	and you'll have something.

<---i can't believe he said that..... guess he doesn't read his own notes....

Well, how 'bout this one, if you want one:

	The Episcopal bishop of the Navajoland Area Mission was
	involved in a scandal with several Native American Minors
	about three years ago.

	Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning suspended him for two
	years and then reinstated him.

	This is consistent with the liberal sexual agenda that
	Browning, Spong, Shaw, Harris, and others have been pushing
	in the Episcopal Church.

/john

re:           <<< Note 89.131 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	Based on the first statement, it seems that there is no longer
>    	any need for such "pressure".

The problem, Joe, is that as long as there continue to be past cases
brought to light, or new cases occurring, it would seem that the
sleazeball priests involved deserve to be brought to public attention.
Not because they are representative of their church, but because they
are the antithesis of what they should stand for, and what people normally
expect of men in their position. And, when people express a desire that
the cases SHOULDN'T be exposed and publicized, it tends to lead others
to believe that the actions might really BE sanctioned.

These men are scum. Period. Any "good" that they may have done by virtue of
their vocation would appear to be nullified by the heinous nature of their
perversions. So why not have their sorry butts out for appropriate
treatment? It's no reflection on the better folks, is it?

    >> until there is no longer any need for such pressure on the hierarchy.
    
    >   Based on the first statement, it seems that there is no longer
    >	any need for such "pressure".
    
    Too bad you skipped all the expository material in between the two
    quotes you extracted.  It discussed how they'd avoided admitting the
    problems for decades, until the news stories finally provoked enough
    public outrage that they had to respond.  It seems obvious that the
    church needs quite a bit of prompting to do the right thing.  The need
    for scrutiny and pressure remains.  Live with it.
    
    DougO

    >   Stick your head in some different ostrich holes and maybe
    >	you'll find some outside your vendetta focus group.
    
    Too rich.  This from the guy who admitted he accepts censorship in his
    main local newspaper because he trusts their editorial agenda.  You
    presume to criticize my news sources?  (*chuckle*)
    
    >    BTW, pedophilia is never a priestly thing to do.
    
    Very good, Joe.  You'll understand just why it needs to be exposed,
    and why the institution that shielded it for so long must be taught
    the costs in public outrage of their mistakes.
    
    >   Find us some permitting and shielding in the present tense,
    >	and you'll have something.
    
    I don't tend to spend much time with priests.  Do you imagine that all
    of the pedophiles hidden within the church have been exposed?
    
    Watch this space.  I'll let you know what turns up.
    
    DougO

    	Tut tut.  What a bitter human bean.  :^(

    That looks to be as much of an admission of debate-a-torial defeat as
    we are likely to see In Our Time.
    
    From the sidelines, this is Dan, relishing this apparent milestone.
    
    Back to you, DougO...
    
    |-{:-)
    

    	Debate?  Doug has practically ignored what has been said,
    	instead choosing to defend his anti-Catholic bigotry.  I
    	am not the only one pointing it out, so I find it unfair
    	for you to assume that I am the one "debating" him.
    
    	Bigotry is bigotry, even if it is directed at a group that
    	is socially acceptable to target.  Doug is welcome to hide
    	behind concern over an historically dark side of that 
    	organization, but even by his own admission they have made 
    	the changes he said they should.  Continuing to beat the 
    	same horse merely adds evidence of his obvious vendetta and 
    	little more.

	Joe, it is better to make sure it never reverts back to the old ways. I
mean, you cry over and over how things used to be so good before..... this is
just an example that they weren't all quite so good. 

	But if you believe that shaming someone is good to prevent them from
doing something bad again, then you should welcome DougO's notes in here. Maybe
these people will be shamed into stoping? So.... do you believe that shaming
someone to stop the bad actions is good?


Glen

    stoping????? :')
    
    
    
    There were a lot of things good from times gone by, Glen.  Your (as
    well as others) attempt to say that we have to bring back the bad along
    with the things which were right, is a fallacy.
    
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 89.143 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA fighting for our RIGHTS" >>>

| There were a lot of things good from times gone by, Glen. Your (as well as 
| others) attempt to say that we have to bring back the bad along with the 
| things which were right, is a fallacy.

	Mike, those things were thought as good. Do you really believe that all
the things that you might think are good are going to be seen that way by
others? How do you prevent the bad from coming back when we will never agree on
what is good/bad as a people? 


Glen

    	re .142
    
    	Continuing to shame them after they have changed is not good,
    	Glen.

    We'll have to tell DougO to lay off the priestly pedophilia charges
    then, since that never happens any more.  Whew, wotta relief.  
    

    
    Noone said they don't happen any more, DrDan.  Thing is, the reporting
    by Doug has been one sided for a long time and I decided to call him on
    the carpet for it.  He is letting human failings cloud his view on the
    whole issue of the Clergy.
    
    Mike

    
    But that's the TOPIC, Mike - priestly pedophilia.  It's like airline
    crashes.  You only hear about the ones that crash, not the ones that
    stay up and deliver their passengers safely.  And there are a lot more
    that stay up than crash.
    
    You can't fault DougO for reporting on the topic.  If you have articles
    that address the topic in a positive way, post them!
    
    

  .148  hear, hear.

    
    
    Yeah right.  The topic title shows the bias that exists wiht Doug to
    begin with.
    
    Mike 

    
    Mike,
    
    Cops do a lot of good on a daily basis.  But somehow, all we hear in
    here are the `bad cop' stories.
    

    
    BIAS?  Mike, come on!  It's a fact, it has to be talked about.  It can't 
    be swept under the rug!
    
    There ARE members of the clergy that are abusing children!  The topic
    title is accurate!  What's wrong with discussing it?  Nobody has
    suggested that EVERY SINGLE priest, rabbi, and pastor is doing it! 
    Nobody has suggested that there are NO non-clergy who are abusing
    children!
    
    

    
    
    You don't see bias, I do.  It's what I've deduced from being around
    this forum for a while and seeing what the basenoter's  opinions are 
    on the subject.  People are entitled to have their opinion, it's okay 
    with me that you don't agree with me, I am just stating what I see.  
    
    Mike

    An example:
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 89.14        priestly pedophilia (bishops, too - see .134)        14 of 153
SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto"      4 lines   1-DEC-1994 11:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    you must have missed .11 and .12, Dick.  So many priests - so little
    time.  but I'll do my best.
    
    DougO

   .153 So you _would_ like to see it swept under the rug, Mike?
	Or you'd be happier if several other people were making
	the postings along with DougO?

    The obsession with a tiny fraction of the total issue belies an
    interest in the general issue and points clearly towards another
    motivating factor for the postings. If he were merely interested in
    pedophilia by authority figures of a religious stripe, we'd expect to
    see some reports of the episcopalians, baptists, etc who've done the
    same thing. The focus on the RC church leads one to believe that the
    thrust of the postings isn't to shine light on pedophilia so much as
    bash one particular church (that just happens to have a contrary morally
    absolutist position on one of Doug's favorite issues.)

    
    another one:
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 89.34        priestly pedophilia (bishops, too - see .134)        34 of 156
SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto"      8 lines   7-DEC-1994 16:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So I'm given to understand that this is an in-house property-for-cash
    swap, so the ArchDiocese can pay off its pedophile lawsuits while the
    Church, through another order, maintains control of the property.  The
    only thing that makes me happy is that victims get restitution.  Though
    if the property transfer gets taxed I'd crack a smile at that, too ;-).
    A far cry from an entire night of ecstasy, John, I'm so disappointed.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Also see .59, .61 and .68 for others.
    

   .156  oh good grief.  the topic is "priestly pedophilia" - that's
	 what it's about!  that's what is being exposed!  so what?
	 what in tarnation hill is the problem?

    
    
    I won't answer such a foolish question Lady Di, besides, I have answered 
    it before in this string.
    
    
    Mike

   .160 I guess it sort of needs no answer anyways.

    
    It shouldn't need an answer for anyone who has read what I have
    written.
    
    

    Don't sweat it, Di, Deb- as usual, they'd prefer to shoot the
    messenger, question his motives- rather than examine the news.
    
    I started this topic to provide a FOCUS on the topic.  I've seen these
    kinds of reports for years, yet nobody ever used to do any more than
    moan, tsk, tsk, and press on with that year's version of the OJ trial. 
    Seems some folks don't *like* a focus.  MikeW has been obsessed with
    me, and chides me for noting these abuses, nearly every time.  He
    enjoys pointing out my previous notes, as if they show bias; one could 
    as easily point out his.  I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
    
    What I won't do is stop reporting such news when it comes to light.
    And as I previously said, Mark, that includes abuses from *all*
    religious authority figures, Episcopalians, whoever.  Whatever news I
    find.  Enjoy.
    
    DougO

    >What I won't do is stop reporting such news when it comes to light.
    >And as I previously said, Mark, that includes abuses from *all*
    >religious authority figures, Episcopalians, whoever.
    
     I'm sure it just _seems_ as though the frequency with which I see
    notes in here of cases involving Roman-Catholics that I've seen/heard
    externally is much greater than the frequency that you report cases I
    hear externally of other denominations...

    marc,
    
    No one is stopping you from putting in those reports as well.

    
    
    And the rush of new cases that Doug predicted early in this string
    never materialized......

    
    	What's wrong with starting a "Good religious figures" note to
    	use for the happy stuff?
    

    > I'm sure it just _seems_ as though the frequency with which I see
    > notes in here of cases involving Roman-Catholics that I've seen/heard
    > externally is much greater than the frequency that you report cases I
    > hear externally of other denominations...
    
    I never claimed my news sources were perfect nor that I can monitor
    everything they provide.  As with most people I know there's far too
    much out there clamoring for my reading time and I *never* think I'm as
    well-read as I would like to be.  So if you'd care, for whatever your
    reasons, to assist in the news reporting when I miss a report you see,
    please jump right in. 
    
    >the rush of new cases that Doug predicted 
    
    predicted?  you mean this?
    
    .1> I agree with Greeley; we'll see many more victims come forward.
    
    I didn't say they'd come in a rush.  And we have seen many more.
    And we will continue to see them.  And some of us will continue to
    report them, and others will no doubt downplay the significance.
    Go ahead, watch more of my predictions come true.  In fact, I know
    you'll help (guess with which part?)
    
    DougO

    .166
    it seems to me that there IS a LARGE problem amongst priest and there 
    fetish with many of our little ones and some of our past little ones. 
    If you are not interested in what could happen to YOUR little ones or 
    YOUR nieghbors little one, I suggest "next unseen" but DougO has valid
    concerns and it is also been expressed by more than DougO that this is 
    a problem with RC church and sweeping it under the rug. 
    If you can find the other denominations of religion that have the same
    problem, you might want to post them. Maybe we don't hear as much
    because there ISN'T as much, or maybe because they are prosecuted and
    not "hand slapped" and sent to another church. 
    
    I suggest next unseen for you GRANPA::M, it just doesn't seem right you 
    should be subject to reality so often....
    
    

    
      Will somebody please explain why "pedophilia" isn't a foot-fetish ?
    
      bb

    
    
>      Will somebody please explain why "pedophilia" isn't a foot-fetish ?
    
    
    	Same reason a pediatrician isn't the same thing as a podiatrist.
    ;*)
    
    
    

    >>	Same reason a pediatrician isn't the same thing as a podiatrist.
    
    That's right... a pediatrician is someone who comes over to your
    house and installs your encyclopedia.
    
    Chris

| <<< Note 89.145 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| Continuing to shame them after they have changed is not good, Glen.

	I agree with the above. But seeing it is still going on, and DougO is
not printing the same stories, then you should be happy that he is printing the
new cases, right? Because maybe these people will change. 



Glen

| <<< Note 89.159 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| what in tarnation hill is the problem?

	Milady.... where is Tarnation Hill?

       <<< Note 89.163 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
    
>    What I won't do is stop reporting such news when it comes to light.
>    And as I previously said, Mark, that includes abuses from *all*
>    religious authority figures, Episcopalians, whoever.  Whatever news I
>    find.  Enjoy.
    
    	Ah, but back in .130 you claim that you have not found other
    	instances.  In reality they are in the news just as frequently
    	for other denominations.  When challenged on your statement,
    	all you can do is pick on my local paper and its apparent
    	censorship.  Obviously it censors far less that your news 
    	sources do if I can readily find evidence contrary to what
    	you find.  You'd rather pick the selected scabs and foster 
    	the bleeding.  I see no interest from you in healing.
    
    >    Enjoy.
    
    	I'll bet you enjoy this, Doug.  You have the nerve to invoke
    	moderator action when I suggest you demonstrate anti-Catolic
    	bigotry, yet you fully tell us you enjoy focusing on the few
    	at the expense of the many.  It's bigotry when I highlight
    	the extremes of the gay community, or when someone else
    	highlights the extremes of some racial minority, but you cry
    	foul when someone skewers you with what you are doing here.
    	This topic is not an isolated case.  Your history is telling.	
    	Your indignance when confronted with it is transparent.

>>	Milady.... where is Tarnation Hill?

	;> i don't know - it's what my father used to say because there was
	   no swearing allowed in our house.

Naturally there are going to be more reports about Roman Catholics than
about Episcopalians; there are more Roman Catholics in Boston than
Episcopalians in the whole country (even though half the Supreme Court
is made of of at least nominal Episcopalians).

Stories like the one about the Bishop of the Navajoland diocese or
the Episcopal priest in Lincoln who was convicted of raping his
adopted daughter 842 times (did his wife know what was going on?)
hardly ever make the papers.

/john

                   <<< Note 89.173 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	I agree with the above. But seeing it is still going on, and DougO is
>not printing the same stories, then you should be happy that he is printing the
>new cases, right? Because maybe these people will change. 

    	Scum will always exist.  Doug's issue (so far) was that the Church
    	did not handle the problems properly, and that was an accurate
    	observation.  But by his own admission (.128) the Church has made 
    	the changes he's calling for.
    
    	When Doug can provide us with examples where the Church is failing
    	to stick to the proclaimed changes, he'll have a legitimate beef
    	with respect to this issue he takes against the Church.  What he's 
    	doing now is ripping the gauze off of a healing wound, and he tells
    	us that he enjoys it.  And with his quip of "so many priests, so
    	little time ... I'll do my best", (.14) he is clearly intent on 
    	smearing the many with the sins of the few.
    
    	Defend that if you must, Glen, but I would expect you to be smart
    	enough not to associate yourself with that.

| <<< Note 89.177 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| ;> i don't know - it's what my father used to say because there was no 
| swearing allowed in our house.

	Then it must be a nice place then. I'll book my next vacation there. I
hope it's by the water! 


Glen

| <<< Note 89.179 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Scum will always exist.  

	Yes, it will.

| Doug's issue (so far) was that the Church did not handle the problems 
| properly, and that was an accurate observation. But by his own admission 
| (.128) the Church has made the changes he's calling for.

	But it continues to happen. So maybe there are other things that need
to be addressed that we aren't seeing right now? While new cases are happening,
there is nothing wrong with them being reported.

| When Doug can provide us with examples where the Church is failing to stick to
| the proclaimed changes, he'll have a legitimate beef with respect to this 
| issue he takes against the Church.  

	If it is still happening, then maybe not all of the churches that make
up the Church are following the correct steps. OR, like I said, maybe the
Church, along with us, are not seeing something. 

| What he's doing now is ripping the gauze off of a healing wound, and he tells
| us that he enjoys it.  

	I didn't get the impression that he said he enjoys it. And I didn't get
the impression he was ripping any gauze. You have admittied that this was/is a
problem (pedophillia). If you are thinking in the past sense, then you have to
admit that you are wrong. Why can I say that? Because new cases keep happening. 

| Defend that if you must, Glen, but I would expect you to be smart enough not 
| to associate yourself with that.

	It's easy to defend, Joe. 100 kids were molested (read .11, which Doug
also quoted in the same note [.14]). A lot of kids, Joe. I can see why he said
what he did. 



Glen

    
    
    
    RE: .169  Thanks for the suggestion, but I will stick around to point
    out what I see is a vendetta and to point out that perception (as in
    your "seems to me" sentence) ain't always reality.  Thanks for your 
    concern.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
>>    RE: .169  Thanks for the suggestion, but I will stick around to point
>>    out what I see is a vendetta...

	oh goodie. ;>

	Didn't Robert Blake play Vendetta?

    Glen, my one-word 'enjoy' was sarcasm, but Joe has ever been a bit
    short on reading skills.  Let him stew.
    
    One wonders how the responsible leaders can make open and heartfelt
    apologies, as below, when the followers in here seem to have such
    trouble with even reading the news reports.
    
    Enjoy.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Cardinal apologizes for Catholic church's handling of sex abuse


    (c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
    (c) 1995 Associated Press

    MAYNOOTH, Ireland (Oct 11, 1995 - 17:36 EDT) -- The leader of Ireland's
    3.5 million Roman Catholics apologized Wednesday for a series of cases
    in which priests molested children.

    Cardinal Cahal Daly pledged church leaders would now be required to
    report priests or other church officials to police "where there is
    reasonable cause to suspect that child sexual abuse may have occurred."

    "To all victims and their families and friends, we express in the name
    of the church our most humble apology for the hurt caused to them,"
    Daly said.

    Daly made his apology after Ireland's 34 Catholic bishops met to
    discuss how to respond to sexual scandals. They met in this town west
    of Dublin, where the church established its first seminary for priests
    in 1798.

    Critics have condemned the church's failure to crack down on child
    molesters, noting that priests in many cases have been transferred to
    other parishes rather than reported to civil authorities.

    In recent weeks, more than a half-dozen priests have appeared in courts
    in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, charged with molesting
    children. Some of the alleged offenses date to the 1960s.

    Daly said he was "deeply ashamed" by some priests' behavior.

    "We are conscious, however, of the real possibility of false
    allegations and of the devastating consequences they have for the
    innocent," he said.

    "We must never forget that offenders, too, are members of our church
    family," he said. "They, too, need and will receive our pastoral
    concern and care."

>>    "We must never forget that offenders, too, are members of our church
>>    family," he said.

	...except in Soapbox. ;>

    
    
    .182  yup, 100 kids, but wasn't it just one priest?
    

                   <<< Note 89.182 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| Doug's issue (so far) was that the Church did not handle the problems 
>| properly, ...
>
>	But it continues to happen. 
    
    	Show me where it (mishandling of pedophilia cases) continues
    	to happen.

>	If it is still happening, then maybe not all of the churches that make
> up the Church are following the correct steps. OR, like I said, maybe the
> Church, along with us, are not seeing something. 
    
    	.186 should tell you that you are making poor "ifs" here.

| <<< Note 89.189 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >	But it continues to happen.

| Show me where it (mishandling of pedophilia cases) continues to happen.

	You know, Joe.... this has got to be one of the most pathetic attempts
you have ever made. Go read the chunk you cut off.



Glen

    	I don't see anything in the rest of .182 that addresses the
    	mishandling of pedophilia cases.

    	I've been informed by Doug that I misspoke in .176.
    
    	He's not threatening moderator action.  He's threatening
    	personnel action.
    
    	Sorry, Doug.  I've explained myself.  If you can't answer to
    	my statements except to have them censored, then I suppose
    	that Dan should redirect .140 to you.

    .188
    
    So how many priest do you want? Isn't one priest ruining ONE childs
    life enough. How scary can that be if ONE priest can manipulate 100
    children. Seems to me that faith is put in our religous leaders, and 
    they resort to abusing our children. They take that holy trust and 
    distroy it. Rethink the situation, put your daughter or your
    grandaughter in the hands of a priest that was moved 3000 miles from
    the last church, "for unknown reasons". Is that safe enough for you?
    Would you allow your child to be anywhere near this NEW priest? 
    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 89.191 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| I don't see anything in the rest of .182 that addresses the mishandling of 
| pedophilia cases.

	I suppose that seeing the cases still continue, that maybe we aren't
seeing something has nothing to do with it. You know, the part you ommitted...

    
    
    RE: .193  Here's a free clue.  Go back and read what I have written on
    the subject and then get back to me.

    
    RE: .193  My kids have been taught very well what to do in molestation
    situations.  They also know that if the person threatens them or their
    family with physical harm to not worry about it.  I tell them that
    Daddy has much bigger guns than the other people have (and then showed
    them) :').
    
    
    Mike

    Boston Globe 10/16/95    pg. 4
    
    Parish welcomes suspended priest
    
    Chicago - Hundreds of parishioners cheered and applauded yesterday as a
    priest who was suspended for molesting two boys nearly 20 years ago
    signed a new covenant with Holy Angels Church and returned as its
    pastor. "To receive that kind of support, it is overwhelming," the Rev.
    John Calicott said afterward. Calicott became the first Roman Catholic
    priest in Chicago and one of few in the nation to return after being
    suspended for allegations of sexual abuse. He asked for forgiveness and
    promised to continue therapy and be monitored by an adult whenever he
    is with children. After Mass, Calicott said he never admitted being a
    child molester or a pedophile, only that "something occured that should
    not have ocurred." (AP)

	I wonder what he meant by, something occured that shouldn't have"? I
wish he had stated that. Oh well.




Glen

    
    
    I wonder why you didn't focus on the fact that he was forgiven and returned
    to the flock... oh well...
    

    Good name for it, the flock...  Talk about liberal sheep, sheesh.  You
    have known sex offenders and those merely suspected of it being turned
    into pariahs but since they are not people of the cloth that is okay? 
    This person should not have been alowed to return IMO.  Where is the
    justice in that?  

>                   <<< Note 89.198 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
> I wonder what he meant by, something occured that shouldn't have"? I
> wish he had stated that. Oh well.

He meant he wasn't responsible.

    
    	Tom, you mean the devil made him do it?
    

| <<< Note 89.199 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

| I wonder why you didn't focus on the fact that he was forgiven and returned
| to the flock... oh well...

	Let's say someone commits a crime. Others had forgiven that person. But
that person has never admitted that they did the crime accused of. That person
really did commit that crime. Has that person done what they should have? 

	I can't say he is or is not guilty. He says he did not admit to
committing the crime he was accused of, but that things were done that should
not have been. Had he said what was done, then it would be clear to know if
those who forgave him weren't fooled. I can't commend others actions if they
were fooled into it. That's why I stated I wished he had said what was done. It
brings closure to the story being told. The way it is now, it's left hanging
with no ending.


Glen

    assist would be a better word.

| <<< Note 89.201 by EST::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>

| He meant he wasn't responsible.

	Tom, thanks for clarifying it a bit. Now you knew this was coming....
how do you know that? :-)

    
    re: .200
    
     With all due respect, you seem to be saying you know a hell of a lot
    more that the "hundreds" who welcomed him back. 
    
    Most people (Catholics included) are pretty much up on being
    informed... especially when they take an active interest in their
    church, school, local government.. etc. I would think they would be the
    best judges of who to accept and who to allow to return... no?
    

    re: .203
    
    Oh.. you mean like Mike Tyson?????
    

    It is baffleing(sp) me that because he is a priest we accept what he
    says is the truth...so why not accept what the child molester Mr. Caron
    here in NH didn't REALLY do anything while sitting in a preschool
    school yard. So if you're a priest it's ok to molest children and go
    to a different parish, but if your a regular guy with a pediophile
    complex, you're TRIED in the media, and oh well, you go to JAIL for 
    your crime...or a crime the public has ACCUSED you of... I think
    "Tooky" from the daycare center would have like that kind of
    consideration.........
    
    
    OH, By the way
    
    Doesn't matter how much you teach your children, an adult they are
    suppose to trust can manipulate them into doing just about anything,
    escpecially if they are of the holy cloth, police man or anyone else we
    teach our kids it's safe to talk to...So your guns are bigger, bet they
    have a bigger cell for you too, but not for the kind priest they just 
    reassigned, see you go to jail, the priest goes to another town......
    
    

> Tom, thanks for clarifying it a bit. Now you knew this was coming....
> how do you know that? :-)

Well, obviously I don't.

"Something occured that should not have occurred."

Not "I was a pedophile, I'm cured now."
Not "I made mistakes, but it won't happen again."

I'm sure you see how this shifts blame from himself to an intangible
"something".

                     <<< Note 89.208 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>

>    school yard. So if you're a priest it's ok to molest children and go
>    to a different parish, 
    
    	There is more to the story than what was posted.
    
    	The priest has been through therapy.  He has been certified not 
    	to be a pedophile.  (I don't have details beyond that assertion 
    	made in the newspaper report I read.)  But in spite of that 
    	certification, he is not allowed to interact with children without 
    	another adult in attendance.  His past history will be public 
    	knowledge to any future parish he gets assigned.
    
    	I don't see how his treatment is any different from any other
    	"regular" pedophile.

| <<< Note 89.207 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

| Oh.. you mean like Mike Tyson?????

	There is a good example.

| <<< Note 89.209 by EST::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>


| I'm sure you see how this shifts blame from himself to an intangible 
| "something".

	Tom, I can see that it COULD shift the blame. But he wasn't clear
enough to make that any sort of fact.


Glen

| The priest has been through therapy.  

	Tom..... this might put holes in your theory.

| He has been certified not to be a pedophile. (I don't have details beyond that
| assertion made in the newspaper report I read.)  

	Joe, what paper did you get this information from?

| But in spite of that certification, he is not allowed to interact with 
| children without another adult in attendance. His past history will be public
| knowledge to any future parish he gets assigned.

	Did he do any jail time? 

| I don't see how his treatment is any different from any other "regular" 
| pedophile.

	Did they state why no jail time happened? That would help us determine
whether or not more than just his treatment is the same as any "regular"
pedophile.


Glen

    
    re: .213
    
    >Joe, what paper did you get this information from?
    
    
    Funny.... I don't ever recall you asking DougO this question about any
    of his numerous posts...
    
    
    Hmmmmmmmmm.....
    

    
    I assume he was convicted and punished for his crime, and
    that he served his punishment. If then, I don't see
    anything wrong with his returning to society and the work
    for which he was trained.

    -b

| <<< Note 89.214 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>


| Funny.... I don't ever recall you asking DougO this question about any
| of his numerous posts...

	Cuz he got it from the net???? :-)  Andy, his replies usually have
where he got it from listed. Like AP, etc..... 


Glen

    	What do you mean by that, Glen?

    Joe, GREAT NOTE!

    
    
    RE: .208  Actually, I told them the gun comment because, from what I've
    read, these people use fear to shut the kids up.  At the age my kids
    are, I am hoping that the threat will be useless if they know that
    Daddy has big guns too.  Unorthodox, yes, but if it eases their fears
    and lets them come to me should something like this happen, it will be
    worth it.
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    Good idea Mike... It helps to get down to their level of thinking
    sometimes...
    

    > Funny.... I don't ever recall you asking DougO this question about any
    > of his numerous posts...
    
    .0>     Source: Voice of America
    .11>    REUTER
    .12>    AP 29 Nov 94 17:20 EST V0180
    .49>    AP 6 Feb 95 0:52 EST V0518
    .50>    2/16/95 , San Francisco Chronicle
    .54>    /PRNewswire -- Feb. 19/
    .56>    AP 30 Mar 95 21:03 EST V0570
    .72>    RTw  04/10 1410  Reuters World News Highlights
    .90>    AP 13 Apr 95 13:09 EDT V0964
    .92>    The Electronic Telegraph  Thursday 15 June 1995  Home News
    .106>    The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 9 August 1995  Home News
    .109>    REUTER
    .186>    (c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
    
    Maybe Glen doesn't ask for my sources because I try hard to attribute 
    them as a necessary part of the information I try to convey.  The
    implications of the obvious contrast with people who don't are left 
    as an exercise for the reader.
    
    DougO

    
    There are no "implications".... only in some people's tiny, conspiracy
    laden brains...
    

<----great note!

| <<< Note 89.217 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| What do you mean by that, Glen?

	Joe..... will you be telling us what paper you got your info from?

    	Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph.
    
    	Why do you ask?

	cuz I wanted to know??????

    (c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co. (c) 1995
    Associated Press
    
    (Oct 24, 1995 - 23:24 EDT) -- After a decade in which the sins of
    pedophile priests placed their church on the defensive, U.S. Roman
    Catholic bishops are issuing a forceful pastoral message that condemns
    the sexual abuse of children.
    
    The bishops, whose church lauds the sanctity of family, declared sex
    abusers must be held accountable for their actions, even if it means
    breaking up families to protect children at risk.
    
    The Associated Press obtained a copy of the document Tuesday; it is to
    be formally released Thursday.
    
    In the statement, the bishops acknowledge their own vulnerability and
    damaged credibility concerning pedophilia. For years, abusive priests
    traditionally received counseling but then were sent on to new
    parishes, where more abuse sometimes occurred.
    
    While forgiveness is often seen as charitable and Christlike, all acts
    of child sex abuse are morally evil and only God can absolve abusers,
    the bishops say in "Walk in the Light: A Pastoral Response to Child
    Sexual Abuse."
    
    "We emphasize that the community, including the family, needs to call
    the abuser to accountability," the bishops said. "We need to say:
    Abusive behavior is wrong and we will hold you accountable for it."
    
    The statement, developed by the National Conference of Catholic
    Bishops' committees on Marriage and Family and on Women in Society and
    in the Church, was approved by the church's 50-member Administrative
    Committee. It will be distributed as a booklet to churches, parochial
    schools and church day-care centers.
    
    No one has been able to come up with solid numbers on clerical
    pedophiles, but experts from every faith say the problem exists in all
    religions and denominations.
    
    "Whenever people, especially men, have authority over children, there's
    some percentage of sexual abuse going on," said the Rev. Jim Poling, a
    Presbyterian psychotherapist and author of "The Abuse of Power: A
    Theological Problem."
    
    In one of the most recent examples, four Catholic priests in
    Washington, D.C., were arrested in February and charged with sexual
    abuse. One of them, the Rev. Thomas S. Schaefer, was sentenced last
    week to 16 years in prison for molesting altar boys in Washington and
    Maryland over three decades. A second is to be sentenced in December,
    and the two others go on trial soon.
    
    Because of such cases, the organized groups of victims and the Catholic
    church's own sheer size and number of priests, it is the 60
    million-member church that has seemed especially mired in the murk of
    pedophilia.
    
    Before making their statement, the bishops debated whether Americans
    would see them as having the credibility to address child sex abuse,
    say people involved in developing the statement.
    
    They decided that child sex abuse thrives on silence and that their
    voices were needed to pierce the victims' isolation, said Dolores
    Leckey, executive director of the Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women
    and Youth.
    
    "You've got to bring things to light. That's the Gospel, isn't it?" she
    said.
    
    The pastoral statement acknowledges the "havoc and suffering" caused by
    those within the church.
    
    "We are compelled to speak, even knowing that the Church carries a
    heavy burden of responsibility in the area of sexual abuse," the
    bishops said.
    
    "We state firmly and clearly that any act of child sexual abuse is
    morally evil. It is never justified," they said.
    
    Addressing an issue of special concern to victims, the bishops
    emphasized that abusers need to suffer the consequences of their
    actions; they urged church workers to become familiar with civil
    reporting requirements as well as church policies.
    
    The healing of victims comes first, the bishops said, even at the cost
    of dividing families to remove abusers.
    
    "You can't keep them intact at the cost of children being abused,"
    Bishop John J. Snyder, chairman of the Committee on Women in Society
    and in the Church, said Tuesday.
    
    The church should offer physical safety and help to survivors of abuse,
    the bishops said, and raise awareness of the issue in homilies and
    religious education programs for parents and children.
    
    Sister Mary Ann Barnhorn of Boston, who first suggested a statement on
    sexual abuse as a member of the bishops' Advisory Council, said she
    admires the bishops for speaking out on a subject that hits home hard.
    
    "The message of the immorality of child sexual abuse needs to be heard
    in so-called 'good' Catholic homes," she said.
    
    Advocates for victims were more tentative in their support.
    
    "When it comes to sexual abuse, the church has been so heavily steeped
    in denial that anytime they address the issue it's a step forward,"
    said David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused
    by Priests. "It's refreshing to hear some degree of remorse on the part
    of the church."
    
    But both he and Poling said the bishops' words need to be followed up
    by actions making sure abusers face serious consequences.
    
    "Confessing our sin is just the first step," Poling said.
    

    Amazing that it's taken THIS long for the church to accept
    responsibility for sweeping this problem under the rug. The last line
    really shakes me up...."confession is the first step"....how about 
    prison...serving time...losing the job as a priest...As soon as the 
    "religious figure" commits the crime, he is part of the general public
    and should be treated as such, with no acceptions or special
    circumstances...
    

    
    
    Perhaps you need to reread where they spoke of what should happen.  
    
    It has been acknowledged before, and remember, the cases are still few
    and far between (although, as I have said before, one is too many).
    
    
    

                     <<< Note 89.229 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>

>    responsibility for sweeping this problem under the rug. The last line
>    really shakes me up...."confession is the first step"....how about 
>    prison...serving time...losing the job as a priest...
    
	Well, maybe you should have done more than read just the last
    	line.  From the article:

.228>    In one of the most recent examples, four Catholic priests in
>    Washington, D.C., were arrested in February and charged with sexual
>    abuse. One of them, the Rev. Thomas S. Schaefer, was sentenced last
>    week to 16 years in prison for molesting altar boys in Washington and
>    Maryland over three decades. A second is to be sentenced in December,
>    and the two others go on trial soon.

    Maybe you should read my reply a bit better....I can't believe they
    have waited THIS LONG........................
    And the last line should shake you all up.....so they'll make the ones
    that get CAUGHT criminally responsible, and they'll keep the ones that 
    don't get caught, as long as they CONFESS....
    
    Maybe you shouldn't read INTO my reply as much as READ my reply..
    

    
    
    And you're talking about people reading into things??????? 
    Interesting.

But they haven't "waited this long."

This is not the first response.  They have previously dealt with the
issue of their own employees.

This particular action is broader, and applies to all persons, not
just those in holy orders.

This applies to the fathers, the mothers, the teachers, the day care
workers, the boy scout leaders, etc.

/john

    re .234
    
    You mean like the "treatment center" in the Jemez mountains in NM,
    where "alcoholic" priests retreated and then were set loose on small
    parishes throughout NM.
    
    Give the record on treating pedophiles and what happened in rural NM
    and CO from these "recovering alcoholic" priests, I didn't consider
    that anymore than caring for one's own.
    
    meg

    Meg,
    
    You are right on target.  Saw a show earlier this week about a
    priest in Chicago who had been removed from the pulpit for "sexual
    misconduct".  The church higher-ups and the priest refuse to give
    details.  He was sent off to one of these treatment centers and
    after 6 months they're allowing him to return to his original
    parish.  He must have another adult present any time he's around
    a minor, but this is the only restriction placed on him.  There was no
    indication that he should continue therapy whatsoever.
    
    Film clips indicated that he was welcomed back with open arms and
    great enthusiasm by the members in his parish.  His only comment to
    the press was "one incident of sexual misconduct does not a pedo-
    phile make".  My impression was that he was unrepentant and clueless.
    
    A member of the audience asked why he was able to avoid be charged
    by the police when a man who with just about any other profession
    would probably be behind bars.
    
    Can't remember the priest's name, but I gather this incident got 
    quite a bit of publicity in the Chicago area.
    

    	re .236
    
    	See .197

    The action taken by the Church to release a pamphlet for education,
    encouraging lay workers to familiarize themselves with the procedures
    for reporting to civil authorities, and acknowledging that protecting
    the children takes precedence over concern about breaking up the
    abusive family situation, is all to the good.
    
    The actions of church apologists in here who wallow in denial and
    refuse to face the continuing necessity that even those bishops have
    faced- that they themselves must pierce the veil of silence- is
    unfortunately predictable, and all to the bad.  Mike, Joe, John, I
    personally have no doubt that if the church wasn't absolutely, firmly
    convinced that this action was absolutely required, they wouldn't have
    taken it.  Further apologetics from the likes of you is pathetic and
    inspires disgust.
    
    DougO

Mark 9:42  
    And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,
 it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were
 cast into the sea.
    
    I think priests need to be empowered (Acts 1:8) by the Holy Spirit to 
    overcome these obstacles and the hurdles Paul talked about in Romans 7.  
    I also believe the Bible forbids those that prevent marriage (1 Timothy
    4:3).
    
    Mike

	Mike, should that apply to everyone, or just the ones who decide to be
a priest?

    Read the context of the verse and you'll have your answer.

	You mention priests only.......

    See title of string!!

	Mike mentioned priests only.... bishops are in the title, not mike's
reply.....

    	re .240
    
    	It applies to "whosoever".  Mike is addressing priests specifically
    	because that is the context of this topic.

	I'd rather have Mike answer, if ya don't mind. I did ask what he meant,
not what you thought he meant.

    
    Why don't you just hold your breath then??
    

| <<< Note 89.247 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

| Why don't you just hold your breath then??

	For you????? Sure...... I'll start when I die.

    	What do you mean by that, Glen.

1 Timothy 
4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
 depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
 devils;

4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
 iron;

4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
 created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
 truth.

4:4  For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be
 received with thanksgiving:

4:5  For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Of course, Mike Heiser is just going out on another one of his completely
ignorant and misinformed tirades against the Roman Catholic Church yet
again.

In the letter to Timothy, Paul was speaking against certain gnostic sects
which were forbidding marriage -- for everyone.

The Roman Catholic Church has done no such thing.  The Roman Catholic
Church holds marriage in very high esteem, comparing the relationship
between husband and wife to that between Christ and the Church.

However, in Western European society, the Roman Catholic Church has determined
that those people who wish to enter the priesthood should not be married.
This is in no way related to the letter to Timothy, but rather related to
a conflict between the responsibility a parish priest has to his job and
the responsibility a husband has to his family.

The Roman Catholic Church has many married priests.  Priests in the Eastern
Roman Catholic Churches are permitted to be married.  And Anglican priests
in the United States who are married are permitted to serve as Roman Catholic
priests if they come into communion with Rome.

Yet again, Mike Heiser demonstrates that he can quote words from the bible
but does not understand what they mean or the background behind them.

/john

    John, 
    
    
    On a serious note, 
    
    
    Are there REALLY married priest...? I thought that a priest was married
    to the church that is why they wear a ring on the right hand fourth
    finger??
    

Yes, there are really married priests.

Exactly as I said.

/john

	Thanks for the clarification, John.

>However, in Western European society, the Roman Catholic Church has determined
>that those people who wish to enter the priesthood should not be married.
>This is in no way related to the letter to Timothy, but rather related to
>a conflict between the responsibility a parish priest has to his job and
>the responsibility a husband has to his family.
    
    Explain how 1 Timothy 4:3 and what the RCC does is different and by what 
    authority they forbid priests to marry.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

*Explain 1 Timothy 4:3

This is a specific text written to a specific people about a specific
known problem.  It applies to Gnosticism forbidding all marriage.  This
is known from the historical records of the time.

Verse 3 forbids declaring marriage to be bad.  Verse 4 provides the
context and thereby influences the meaning of verse 3.  You must learn
to read in context and with a knowledge of what was going on at the time.

*what is different about what the RCC does?

The RCC agrees with and teaches 1 Timothy 4:3 as part of the basis of
its strong support of marriage and the family.  The RCC does not have
a doctrine which forbids marriage.

There is no Roman Catholic doctrine which forbids the ordination of
married men.  There are married Roman Catholic priests -- two kinds:
(1) those in the Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Churches and (2) those
who have come in from the Anglican Communion.

For example, in the Ukraine, priests (except for monks in the
priesthood) are likely to be married.

In the United States, there are close to 100 married priests who left
the Episcopal Church and are now functioning as Roman Catholic priests.
One of these is Fr. Hawkins, the Pastor of The Church of St. Mary the
Virgin (Roman Catholic) in Arlington, Texas, who led his entire Episcopal
congregation, building and all, across the Tiber.

*by what authority does the RCC forbid priests to marry

It is a condition of employment in the Western Roman Catholic Church,
(and not in the Eastern Roman Catholic Church), which can be rescinded
for a just cause by the local bishop in accordance with guidelines and
procedures agreed upon by the rest of the bishops in communion.  The
current guidelines ("The Pastoral Provision") apply to Episcopal priests
who decide that Rome is home, and are fairly narrowly drawn.

Being a priest is not a right, it is a calling.  If you'd rather be married,
then maybe you aren't called and you should get another job.  Teach, or work
in a homeless shelter, or write.  Do some or many of the parts of a priest's
job except for presiding at the Eucharist.  And get paid better wages in the
process.  All of those jobs pay better than being an RC priest and most of
them have better hours.

It's that simple.

/john

>*Explain 1 Timothy 4:3
>
>This is a specific text written to a specific people about a specific
>known problem.  It applies to Gnosticism forbidding all marriage.  This
>is known from the historical records of the time.
>
>Verse 3 forbids declaring marriage to be bad.  Verse 4 provides the
>context and thereby influences the meaning of verse 3.  You must learn
>to read in context and with a knowledge of what was going on at the time.
    
    How does this apply to us today?  Remember the rules: Observation (What
    does it say?), Interpretation (What does it mean?), and Application.

>*what is different about what the RCC does?
>
>The RCC agrees with and teaches 1 Timothy 4:3 as part of the basis of
>its strong support of marriage and the family.  The RCC does not have
>a doctrine which forbids marriage.

>In the United States, there are close to 100 married priests who left
>the Episcopal Church and are now functioning as Roman Catholic priests.
>One of these is Fr. Hawkins, the Pastor of The Church of St. Mary the
>Virgin (Roman Catholic) in Arlington, Texas, who led his entire Episcopal
>congregation, building and all, across the Tiber.
    
    100 out of how may RCC priests in America?

>*by what authority does the RCC forbid priests to marry
>
>It is a condition of employment in the Western Roman Catholic Church,
>(and not in the Eastern Roman Catholic Church), which can be rescinded
>for a just cause by the local bishop in accordance with guidelines and
>procedures agreed upon by the rest of the bishops in communion.  The
>current guidelines ("The Pastoral Provision") apply to Episcopal priests
>who decide that Rome is home, and are fairly narrowly drawn.
    
    You just said it isn't forbidden, yet what you describe here and below 
    is virtually the same thing.

>Being a priest is not a right, it is a calling.  If you'd rather be married,
>then maybe you aren't called and you should get another job.  Teach, or work
>in a homeless shelter, or write.  Do some or many of the parts of a priest's
>job except for presiding at the Eucharist.  And get paid better wages in the
>process.  All of those jobs pay better than being an RC priest and most of
>them have better hours.
    
    Such a calling is not greater or lesser than that of a pastor or
    minister, the demands are just as great, yet many of them still 
    successfully fulfill their callings.

    Finally, some official church documents disagree with what you say
    here.  The "Code of Canon Law" calls marriage a "scandal" for a priest,
    but has no such harsh words for other sins that priests experience such 
    as child molestation, incest, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. 
    I've never seen record of a priest being excommunicated for these sins,
    but 1,000s have been excommunicated for the "scandal" of getting
    married.  It was as late as 1073-85 (Pope Gregory VII) that it was
    accepted for popes and priests to be married.  Rome was just as famous
    for its brothels back then.  
    
    Mike

>The "Code of Canon Law" calls marriage a "scandal" for a priest

Quote it.

>but 1,000s have been excommunicated for the "scandal" of getting
>married.

Name one, and prove that he was excommunicated, and not simply fired
from his job.

/john

>>The "Code of Canon Law" calls marriage a "scandal" for a priest
>
>Quote it.
    
    I'll give you the version of the source so you can quote it:
    
    James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, eds., "The
    Code of Canon Law," (Paulist Press, 1985) Canon 1364.

>Name one, and prove that he was excommunicated, and not simply fired
>from his job.

    Feel free to look up Dr. Batholomew F. Brewer.

This reply is from Eric Ewanco:

> The "Code of Canon Law" calls marriage a "scandal" for a priest, but has
> no such harsh words for other sins that priests experience such as child
> molestation, incest, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality.   I've
> never seen record of a priest being excommunicated for these sins, but
1,000s have been excommunicated for the "scandal" of getting married.  

It is clear that your understanding of Canon Law is defective.

What is scandalous, my friend, is not marriage, but that a man would
break his solemn and lifelong vows to God and church to remain celibate.
 _That_ my friend, is scandalous, just as scandalous as if a married
person tried to marry somebody else.  Not scandalous because marriage is
bad, but because it violates a solemn vow.

The Code of Canon Law does not cover moral issues, only juridical ones:
it is a law document, and since marriage falls under church law, it
discusses it.  However, while it may not name these other sins by name,
it certainly demands, implicitly, that they be punished.

Finally, to complete my analysis of your gross and unjust perversion of
Catholic law, excommunication is not the punishment for a priest getting
married. If a priest is honest and patient and humble, he may submit a
request for laicization and be given a dispensation to leave the
ministry and even to be dispensed from the vow of celibacy in order to
be married.  This, of course, again is shameful because it reneges on a
solemn vow, but it can be done and leave the man in good standing with
the church.  However, a priest who decides arbitrarily to flee from his
vows and commitments and abandon the priesthood without permission and
marry without a dispensation is automatically excommunicated because he
has acted dishonestly and irresponsibly and in no way exhibits Christian
virtue by what he does.

As for you, may I remind you of the standards of speech and truth
demanded of us by the Gospel, and may you remember that for every word
we say we will have to give an account for before Almighty God.

# __   __                    Eric Ewanco 
# IC | XC                 eje@world.std.com
# ---+---           http://www.wp.com/Eric_Ewanco
# NI | KA   Software Engineer, Xyplex -- Littleton, Mass.

    >What is scandalous, my friend, is not marriage, but that a man would
>break his solemn and lifelong vows to God and church to remain celibate.

    Then what about the popes and priests who participated in marriage
    before the RCC implemented celibacy?  Peter, who you claim to be your
    first pope, was married as well.

    What about the popes and priests who kept the Roman brothels in
    business during their vow of "celibacy"?  

    	"Popes had mistresses of 15 years of age, were guilty of incest and
    	sexual perversions of every sort, had innumerable children, were
    	murdered in the very act of adultery [by jealous husbands who found
    	them in bed with their wives]...In the old Catholic phrase, why be
    	holier than the pope?"

    Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy" (Crown
    Publishers, 1988, pp. 396-397.

    	"The history of celibacy makes for reading so black...A large part
    	[of it] is the story of the degradation of women...Ivo of Chartres
    	(1040-1115) tells of whole convents with inmates who were nuns only in
    	name...[but] were really prostitutes."

    	"The fact is that priestly celibacy has hardly ever worked.  In the
    	view of some historians, it has probably does more harm to morals than
    	any other institution in the West, including prostitution...The proof
    	of the harm done by celibacy comes not from bigoted anti-Catholic
    	sources; on the contrary, it includes papal and conciliar documents and
    	letters of reforming saints.  They all point in one direction: far from
    	being a candle in a naughty world, priestly celibacy has been more
    	often than not a strain on the name of Christianity."

    Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy" (Crown
    Publishers, 1988, pp. 395-396.

This reply is from Eric Ewanco:

>     Then what about the popes and priests who participated in marriage
> before the RCC implemented celibacy?  Peter, who you claim to be your
> first pope, was married as well.

What about them?  So what?

Celibacy, as the present Holy Father has taken great pains to emphasize,
is an ECCLESIASICAL DISCIPLINE of the church, which it is free to
change.  It was not universally imposed throughout the Latin Church
until about the 8th or 9th century.  It is not imposed on the Eastern
Churches of the Catholic Church -- you will find married Catholic
priests in Ukraine and the Middle East and other Eastern Catholic
territories. You will find married men who have converted from
Anglicanism who are ordained in the United States.   I don't see a
problem here.  There is no great revelation in the fact that Peter (and
a great number of other Popes) was married.

Let me use an analogy.  Now, when Prohibition was imposed, did that make
all those before Prohibition who drank alcohol criminals, because of the
newly imposed laws of prohibition?  Or, conversely, was the law of
Prohibition invalidated because the Founding Fathers drank?  Of course
not! Such an argument is absurd.  Laws come and laws go.  People are
judged under the laws in force at the time.


>     What about the popes and priests who kept the Roman brothels in
> business during their vow of "celibacy"?  

What about them?  Yes, they were wrong, they were sinful.  The whole
situation is phenomenally shameful and an embarassment to the church. 
Yet, what a revelation: Human beings sin!  Peter denied the Lord three
times.  Does this invalidate the whole Christian church?  Corruption
exists in every age, even in the church.

Luther, who had taken a vow of celibacy, committed fornication with a
nun.  Does that invalidate the Protestant Reformation?

I don't understand why you think your ad hominem attacks make any
difference whatsoever.  "If we say we are without sin, we are liars, and
the truth is not in us."  If you think you can discredit someone's
beliefs by pointing out their sins, I have news for you: you are worse
than the hypocrites Jesus denounced.


# __   __                    Eric Ewanco 
# IC | XC                 eje@world.std.com
# ---+---           Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc.
# NI | KA                  Littleton, Mass.

Who the hell is Eric Ewanco and why is he participating in this discussion?

A former noter, well-qualified to answer Mike Heiser's baloney.

    There are many ex-RCC priests who don't consider it "baloney."  It's
    the very hypocrisy that contributed to them leaving.

    	Hypocrisy is often in the eye of the beholder.
    
    	There are many current Roman Catholic priests who converted
    	from other religions -- many times attracted by the very things
    	with which you take issue, Mike.  I don't see how posting 
    	dueling anecdotes will serve any purpose here...

re: nobody in particular

    From the recent notes in this topic, it's nice to know that the
    "one truth" is plain for all to see.

\john

    
    
    Glad you saw it, John.  Now that you know that I am HIm, please send me
    all your money and all your belongings.  You will feel so much better
    after you do.
    
    
    Mike

     Lawrence School Official Pleads Innocent To Additional Sex Charge

     Associated Press , 11/03

     LAWRENCE, Mass. (AP) - Lawrence High School assistant principal Glen H.
     Mohika pleaded innocent Friday to another charge that he molested a
     student.

     Mohika was arraigned in Lawrence District Court on one charge of
     indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, said Steve O'Connell,
     spokesman for the Essex County District Attorney's office.

     Prosecutors allege that Mohika placed his hand on the genitals of a
     13-year-old public school student in January or February of this year.
     The student, who was wearing clothes at the time of the alleged
     episode, was a participant in a program called ``Esteem'' that Mohika
     advised, O'Connell said.

     Mohika faces arraignment Tuesday on an identical charge in Haverhill
     District Court. Essex County Assistant District Attorney Kim Carnevale
     said that Mohika allegedly pressed himself against the same youth while
     on an Esteem outing at a bowling alley.

     Mohika is already facing charges of molesting a 16-year-old.

     Lawrence District Court judge Barbara Pearson denied Carnevale's
     request Friday to increase Mohika's bail by $10,000.

     As of Friday afternoon, Mohika had been unable to post the $15,000 bail
     set earlier this week, O'Connell said.

     Pearson ordered Mohika to stay away from the alleged victim and from
     Lawrence High School. She also ordered him to surrender his passport.

     Mohika pleaded innocent Wednesday to charges of indecent assault and
     battery, assault with intent to rape and performing a lascivious act on
     the 16-year-old. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted on
     those charges.

     Those charges stem from an alleged attack on the 16-year-old after a
     high school football game on Oct. 20, first in Methuen, then at an
     Interstate 93 rest stop in Salem, N.H., and again in a restroom at the
     Rockingham Park Mall in Salem.

     New Hampshire authorities have issued a fugitive warrant seeking to
     prosecute Mohika in that state.

     Mohika, who has been suspended without pay from his job at Lawrence
     High, has a wife and five children.

     AP-DS-11-03-95 1556EST

    
    > Mohika was arraigned in Lawrence District Court on one charge of
    > indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, said Steve O'Connell,
    > spokesman for the Essex County District Attorney's office.
    
    
    	Maybe the kid told him he had just turned 14, so the guy figured
    	he was OK.
    

 Mr. Mohika is a former Digital employee, with whom I used to work.  We (several
 other Digital employees) took a couple business trips to Puerto Rico back 
 in the good old days (tm).




 Jim

     More Charges Pending Against Westboro Man Charged With Assaulting Child

     Associated Press , 11/03

     WESTBORO, Mass. (AP) - A 17-year-old youth pleaded innocent in Westboro
     District Court on Friday to 19 counts stemming from the alleged
     molestation of children aged between 6 and 11.

     Wayne McLaurin had been arrested Oct. 20 and charged with assault and
     indecent assault and battery on a child under age 14. He had been held
     in the Worcester County House of Correction in lieu of $2,500 cash
     bail.

     On Friday, McLaurin was arraigned on five counts of indecent assault
     and battery on a child under 14, five counts of assault with intent to
     rape, three counts of rape of a child with force, three counts of
     committing an unnatural act with a child under 16 and three counts of
     assault and battery, for allegedly molesting six children.

     The Westboro youth was ordered held on $100,000 cash bail and sent to
     Bridgewater State Hospital for evaluation, said Elizabeth Stammo, a
     spokeswoman for the Worcester County District Attorney's office. A
     pretrial conference was scheduled for Nov. 22.

     A court psychologist said McLaurin has a history of treatment for
     mental problems.

     Judith Pruitt, McLaurin's mother, said her son was arrested at her
     home. She said he had been treated at a state mental hospital, but had
     not been diagnosed with a specific psychological problem.

     ``They don't know what his problems are. He won't talk,'' she said.
     ``There's something they think happened to him as a baby and he's
     holding back and not talking about it.''

     Pruitt said she doesn't know whether her son is guilty.

     ``Part of me doesn't believe he's guilty, part of me doesn't know - why
     would the kids lie?'' Pruitt said.

     Westboro police Detective R. Charles Boone said police and school
     officials have scheduled a public meeting for Monday on protecting
     children from such attacks.

     ``People are angry,'' Boone said. ``All of a sudden, they're going this
     is Westboro. Well, guess what? We're just like everybody else.''

     AP-DS-11-03-95 1831EST

    re .272
    
    How nice that they go ahead and charge those not covered by the cloth.  
    This has been done for the last decades.
    
    Still waiting to find out what they church is going to really do about
    children assaulted by "treated priests" who were put back in parishes,
    because they had "alcohol problems" in the southwest.
    
    I can't help but feeling defensive when a priest touches my daughters
    when I am at shrines in the southwest  I feel dirty, at times, because
    I dont know if he has been at the "wonderful" rehab center in NM.
    
    meg
    meg

     Recaptured Child Molester Sentenced After Four-Month Disappearance

     Associated Press , 11/04

     CANADAIGUIA, N.Y. (AP) - A recently-recaptured pedophile who took off
     for four months just before he was to be sentenced for child
     molestation has been sentenced for sodomizing a young boy in another
     case.

     Patrick Distaffen meekly apologized on Friday as he was given a 2-to-6
     year sentence in Ontario County Court for second-degree sodomy of a
     youth during a fishing trip in Bristol.

     The 39-year-old will serve the sentence concurrently with a 9 1/3-to-28
     year sentence imposed by a Monroe County Court judge for another
     molestation, in accordance with a plea bargain made before his July
     escape.

     An international search was launched for Distaffen when he jumped bail
     a few days before sentencing. He was released from custody after Monroe
     County Court Judge William Bristol granted his request to spend the
     July 4th weekend with his elderly parents at their home in suburban
     Rochester before sentencing. The home was being watched by private
     guards at the time.

     He was recaptured in Lyndonville in Ontario County last month at a
     hotel where he had been staying at for 2 months.

     Distaffen, who is suspected of molesting up to 33 boys, has been at the
     Elmira Correctional Facility since his recapture. He will return to
     Ontario County Court on Wednesday to be arraigned on a charge of
     second-degree bail jumping in connection with the escape.

     AP-DS-11-04-95 1850EST

    One wonders just how far John Covert will go in his attempt t take this
    topic off track.  Arguing about RCC celibacy rules with Heiser, posting
    Ewanco's ravings, and now posting news articles about other offenders.
    
    Just to keep him on track...
    
    DougO
    -----
Ex-California Priest Faces Molest Charges

A Roman Catholic priest who once served in Sonoma County waived extradition
proceedings in Chicago yesterday and agreed to return to California, where he
faces 17 counts of child molestation.

The Rev. Gary Timmons was arrested Tuesday night at his home in Chicago by
local police and Sonoma County Sheriff's Detective Roy Gourley.

Timmons, 55, is being held in Chicago on $750,000 bail. He is expected to be
returned to Santa Rosa in the next few days, according to Sonoma County
sheriff's Lieutenant Mike Brown.

Brown said Timmons faces felony counts involving ``various sex crimes,''
including lewd and lascivious acts, oral copulation, and sodomy, all with
children under 14.

Brown said the arrest was based on complaints from three men who said Timmons
molested them as minors. The acts, Brown said, took place at church camps and
in the rectory of St. Eugene's Church in Santa Rosa. Timmons was the founder
and counselor at Camp St. Michael in Mendocino County and was, most recently,
pastor of St. Bernard's Church in Eureka.

Timmons was relieved of his church duties nearly two years ago and sent to work
and study at Chicago's Institute for Spiritual Leadership. A woman who answered
the phone there yesterday declined to discuss Timmons' case or to say whether
he is still affiliated with the institute.

    SF Chronicle, Thursday, 2 Nov 95

    
    
    One wonders about DougO's motives too at times...
    

     Grand jury indicts school official

     Boston Globe, 11/09

     SALEM - An Essex County grand jury returned a five-count indictment
     yesterday against a Lawrence High School assistant principal accused of
     molesting two teen-age boys.

     Glen Mohika, 45, of Lawrence, was charged with three counts of indecent
     assault and battery and one count each of committing an indecent act
     and assault with intent to rape.

     Three of the charges involve the alleged molestation and attempted rape
     of a 16-year-old boy Oct. 20 in Methuen.

     One of the remaining charges stems from the alleged fondling of a boy
     in January, while Mohika was running a special program at the Leonard
     School. The final charge alleges he fondled the same 13-year-old boy in
     Haverhill on a field trip Feb. 14.

     Each of the charges of indecent assault and battery carries a maximum
     10-year prison sentence. Mohika was being held yesterday at the
     Middletown jail on $25,000 bail. He was scheduled to be arraigned today
     in Salem Superior Court.

     This story ran on page 15 of the Boston Globe on 11/09.

     Sex Offender Pleads Guilty to Second-Degree Murder Of 4-Year-Old

     Associated Press, 11/13

     BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (AP) - A repeat sex offender who has served prison
     time for three separate attacks pleaded guilty on Monday in connection
     with the abduction, sexual assault and slaying of a 4-year-old girl.

     George Miller Sr., 58, faces 25 years to life in prison when he is
     sentenced Dec. 8 for pleading guilty to second-degree murder in the
     slaying of My Ly Nghiem, who was abducted from her apartment complex in
     Binghamton last June.

     ``I smothered her to death. I had her down. She was screaming. I put my
     hand over her mouth. Then she stopped,'' Miller told Broome County
     Court Judge Martin Smith.

     My Ly's mother, Loan, a Vietnamese immigrant who came to the United
     States a year before her daughter's birth, was overcome with emotion
     during Miller's appearance and had to be escorted out of the courtroom.

     The case gave momentum to efforts in New York state to enact a
     community notification bill that would allow the public to gain access
     to the records of convicted sex offenders. The bill was passed earlier
     this year by the state Legislature and signed into law by Gov. George
     Pataki during the summer.

     ``Today's guilty plea by My Ly Nghiem's killer reminds us that we must
     take every possible step to protect our children from sex offenders,''
     said Pataki said on Monday. ``My Ly's murder, at the hands of a
     convicted sex offender, was a tragedy that no family should have to
     endure.''

     Miller was the caretaker in the building where My Ly lived when she
     went to visit a 4-year-old friend who lived in a neighboring apartment.

     The 3-foot tall, 35-pound girl was last seen talking to Miller outside
     the apartment building. Police found her body June 13 in a field near
     Montrose, Pa.

     Miller has a lengthy criminal history. He spent seven years in jail for
     attempted rape following an attack on a 12-year-old girl at a
     Binghamton city park in 1968. He also served time in New Jersey for
     attempted rape, and in 1992, he was paroled from the Retreat State
     Correctional Institute at Hunlock Creek, Pa., after serving nearly five
     years for interfering with the custody of children, a felony.

     In that crime, he was accused of kidnapping a 7-year-old boy and his
     5-year-old sister in 1984 and sexually assaulting the girl.

     Outside the courthouse, Ms. Ly said through an interpreter that the
     only punishment she thought acceptable for Miller was execution.

     When asked if there was anything she would say to Miller, she replied:
     ``Why, why did you kill my daughter?''

     AP-DS-11-13-95 2136EST

    > One wonders just how far John Covert will go in his attempt to take
    > this topic off track.  Arguing about RCC celibacy rules with Heiser,
    > posting Ewanco's ravings, and now posting news articles about other
    > offenders.
    
    There he goes again [.277, .278].  Transparent tactic, John.  You just
    don't want to face the title, do you?  Go start a general sex offender
    note, or your agenda will remain oh so plain.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Kinda like yours, eh Douglas?

    back to challenging my motivations because you can't challenge my
    facts, eh Mike?
    
    DougO

    	re .-1
    
    	So doesn't that same shoe fit you and your complaint about John?

    except that my facts are on topic and his aren't, you mean?  
    
    DougO

    	Sure.  And "on topic" is purely to promote your agenda, which
    	is the shoe I'm talking about, and the one you accuse John of 
    	wearing.
    
    	So your precious topic gets ratholed.  What else is new?  I've
    	seen ratholes that were far more off-topic than what John is
    	posting.  Grow some skin.

    right back to challenging my motivation because you can't challenge my
    facts.  next?
    
    DougO

     Boston Man Convicted Of Raping His 5-year-old Godson

     Associated Press, 11/14

     BOSTON (AP) - A man was found guilty Tuesday of raping his 5-year-old
     godson while the boy was in his care last spring.

     A Suffolk Superior Court jury found that Richard Frederick, 28, was
     guilty of raping the boy during a three-week period last April and May,
     prosecutor Ursula Knight said. The victim reported the assault to his
     mother on May 11.

     After three days of deliberation, however, the jury failed to agree on
     one count of indecent assault and battery on a child and acquitted
     Frederick on a second count.

     Frederick, who had known the child's father for more than 10 years and
     his mother for more than six years, was caring for the boy at
     Frederick's mother's apartment at the time the rape occurred.

     Frederick was ordered held without bail until his sentencing, which was
     scheduled for Nov. 30.

     AP-DS-11-14-95 2010EST

    Was this man a priest?

     Ex-Teacher's Lawyers Ask Dismissal Or Reduction Of Pornography Charges

     Associated Press, 11/14

     DOVER, N.H. (AP) - Lawyers defending a former Massachusetts prep school
     teacher facing nearly 600 child pornography charges have asked a judge
     to either dismiss the case or drop some of the counts.

     One of the 15 motions filed Monday in Strafford County Superior Court
     asks to dismiss all charges, 11 ask that certain indictments be
     eliminated and three request specific wording be struck from the
     indictments.

     David Cobb, 59, of Gilford, has been indicted on one count of attempted
     sexual assault and 595 child pornography charges stemming from alleged
     incidents this summer in Farmington and Rochester.

     The pornography charges are further divided into 191 felonies and 404
     misdemeanors. The felonies concern an alleged Aug. 17 incident in which
     prosecutors said Cobb showed pornographic photos to a 13-year-old boy.
     The misdemeanor indictments state that Cobb possessed similar photos in
     Farmington on Aug. 22.

     Cobb's lawyers ask that all indictments be dismissed, arguing the grand
     jury ``could not have given proper review to each and every indictment
     in this case.''

     Cobb's lawyers also want jurors released from their oath of secrecy so
     they may be interviewed about the proceedings.

     Further, they ask for a hearing to throw out the indictment for
     attempted sexual assault because it does not state what sexual contact
     Cobb allegedly was going to subject the victim to, according to the
     motion.

     Similarly, in other motions, Cobb's lawyers state the indictments for
     possession and exhibition of child pornography do not tell Cobb what
     material he allegedly possessed and showed.

     Other motions question whether possession or exhibition of each picture
     should constitute an individual charge. Because all 191 felony charges
     refer to the same time and place, and all 404 misdemeanor charges refer
     to a separate time and place, there should be only two charges instead
     of 595, said one of Cobb's lawyers, Phil Utter.

     ``If someone had a magazine with 1,000 pictures in it, is that 1,000
     offenses or just one?'' he said.

     Cobb's trial is scheduled to begin March 18.

     Utter said he plans to ask the court to suppress evidence.

     Police also linked Cobb to incidents in Salem 12 years ago and Lebanon,
     Maine, eight years ago, in which youths were lured into sexual
     situations.

     Cobb is free on $200,000 bail, half of which was paid for with the deed
     to his Middleton home.

     He was fired Sept. 1 from Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., where he
     had taught English for 27 years.

     AP-DS-11-14-95 1916EST

    Was this man a priest?

    
    
    
    Doug, 
    
    
    Why is the note restricted to Priests?  Why isn't it open to all
    members of clergy from different denominations?  Why isn't it just a
    molestation topic?  You speak of agendas, you're the one with an
    agenda.
    
    Mike

	Mike, the topic has been open this way for a year now. Why are you just
now saying something....;-)  It would be easier to have one molestation topic 
than several. That is unless people want to talk in detail about specific case,
and you have 2 or 3 of those cases going on all at once..... that could be the
only major downfall I could see with this.



Glen

    
    I hereby request that the name of this topic be changed to
    "Pedophilia and Sexual Assault". The discussion is not limited
    to Priests, it no longer has much to do with priests, and I
    think in the interest of "valuing differences" that no note
    should infer a direct association between sexual assault and
    the Catholic Church. Knowing that DougO is a fair man who would
    never consider making a biased and unfounded attack on any
    group of people, I'm sure that at the earliest opportunity,
    he will comply with my humble request. Of course, I am also
    aware of the tireless hours Doug contributes in service to
    the company, and it may be that he does not immediately have
    the time to address my concerns. Therefore, it may be necessary
    to ask the moderators, admittedly overburdened themselves, to
    assist our esteemed colleague in correcting this oversight.

    -b

    Is this man a priest?
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Father Timothy

    
    	RE: .292 [Brian]
    
    	So you're saying we should alter the meaning of the note's sub-
    	ject, based on misuse over time?
    

    
    Any minute now the Right Honorable Mr. DougO will do the
    instinctively correct thing and change this note's title.
    I know it...
    
    -b

    
     I'll hold my breath.
    
      bb

    
    I'm going to join you bb and hold my breath too, because
    I _KNOW_ that DougO will do the right thing.
    
    -b

    
    
    Maybe if his cronies will let him have the .300 snarf????
    

    <---- How goes the breath holding?

    if you expect Doug to change the title, you are out of your mind. And
    I'm not gonna do it, either.

    
    No, I'm not out of my mind at all. While I was raised Roman
    Catholic, I have stated many times that I no longer consider
    myself a Catholic. Yet, I can understand why someone would
    be offended by a note with a title that suggests that pedophelia
    is limited to Catholic priests. I understand why someone would
    take offense because I have had close dealings with literally
    hundreds of RC priests, including conversations on the subject
    of human sexuality, and yet have never been molested or
    raped by a priest. Since pedophelia is clearly not the norm,
    it is, of course, grossly unfair to suggest otherwise. I
    stand firm in my defense of DougO as a righteous man who
    made a minor and unintentional mistake that can be easily
    corrected, and I continue to believe that as a righteous man
    he will, in fact, correct it.

    -b

    
    	We have a "News briefs" topic and a "Wacky news briefs" topic.
    
    	Why can't we have a "Pedophilia" and a "Priestly pedophilia"
    	topic?
    

	Wouldn't that be a, "Wacky Pedophilia" and a Priestly Pedophilia"
topic?
    
    

    
    I respectfully disagree with Brian.  This topic is specifically about
    pedophilia in the clergy (altho I must say I didn't read 'priestly' and
    referring to Roman Catholics only, I thought of it as all clergy).  If
    we change this title simply to "pedophilia", we'd have to change a lot
    of specific titles in this file just to be fair.
    
    

    i don't go for political correctness.  the name should
    remain the same.

    
    Well, aside from some minor pagan sects and possibly Buddhists
    in bad martial arts TV shows, the only religion that I know
    of that calls its clergy "priests" is the Catholic church.
    If "Clergy Pedophilia" is the intent then even that is better
    than "Priestly Pedophilia"...

    -b (Turning blue, but still secure in his evaluation of Mr. DougO)

    
    > i don't go for political correctness.
    
    Nor I.
    
    However, I interpret PC as more of an attempt to REMOVE the
    truth from language. For example, calling myself "visually
    challenged in my left eye" is PC, because, in fact, I'm as
    blind as a bat.
    
    There's nothing truthful in the statement that priests are
    more likely to molest children than lay people, so changing
    the title of the topic to something that does not target
    a particular religious group is not PC.
    
    -b

    brian!  breathe!  breathe!

    
    
    Brian is making a lot of sense...
    

    .307
    
    |    There's nothing truthful in the statement that priests are
    |    more likely to molest children than lay people,
    
    a devout young catholic man finds himself irresistably attracted
    to young boys...or guys his age.  but definitely not to women.
    he is tortured by his desires.  he is ashamed.
    
    where to turn?  his church will take him in.  he decides to 
    become a priest.  the woman problem is gone.  the temptation
    remains.
    
    i wouldn't be surprised if there's a greater number of pedophiles
    concentrated in one very small population.
    

    
    Stranger things have happened... :-)
    
    -b

    > i wouldn't be surprised if there's a greater number of pedophiles
    > concentrated in one very small population.

    Not to sound particularly pedantic, but do you have any data which
    suggests this is true?

    Although it is anecdotal evidence, I am not exaggerating when I say
    I have had contact with hundreds of RC priests. I have never had
    any bad experiences (of a sexual nature).

    As a somewhat humorous anecdote, I remember running into my
    parish priest, naked, in a steambath at the YMCA. I was 10
    or 11 years old. I was a bit red-faced, but he was cool about
    it. I think we talked about the Red Sox... :-)

    -b

    |Not to sound particularly pedantic, but do you have any data which
    |suggests this is true?
    
    Nope.  I said I wouldn't be surprised.
    
    I have a little story to share...when I was around 12 we were
    hanging out in front of a church and we asked an older kid who
    went to the church about a building off to the side.  And he
    told us that was the rectory where the priests lived.  And he
    told us never, never to go into the building for any reason.  We
    thought that was kinda weird.  He wouldn't say anything else
    on the subject.  

> I think we talked about the Red Sox... 

Why? Where was he wearing them, Bri?

    > I have a little story to share...when I was around 12 we were
    > hanging out in front of a church and we asked an older kid who
    > went to the church about a building off to the side.  And he
    > told us that was the rectory where the priests lived.  And he
    > told us never, never to go into the building for any reason.  We
    > thought that was kinda weird.  He wouldn't say anything else
    > on the subject.  
    
    And, without further information, it's hardly fair to conclude
    anything else either.
    
    But aside from the fact that SOME priests have molested children,
    I believe the numbers suggest that the rate of pedophila is
    higher among the population at large (Mr. Covert? You have
    anything to add?) My point is being lost in the shuffle here...
    the note title may or may not intentionally be hurtful, but
    there are those who are none the less hurt by it. It is a simple
    change, no great matter of principle and simply the right thing
    to do.
    
    -b

    
     >There's nothing truthful in the statement that priests are
     >more likely to molest children than lay people, so changing
     >the title of the topic to something that does not target
     >a particular religious group is not PC.
    
    I don't think anyone has suggested that priests are more likely to
    molest children than lay people.  It's simply the focus of the topic -
    clergy who molest children.
    
    The focus of the topic "Bilingual Education" is about just that -
    _bilingual_ education.  It shouldn't be changed to "Education".  We
    shouldn't change "UN Hostages" to just "Hostages".  With me?
    
    

   <<< Note 89.316 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries" >>>

>    I don't think anyone has suggested that priests are more likely to
>    molest children than lay people.  
    
    	Actually I think priests are more likely to lay people than
    	molest children.  Eventhough a sin is a sin, when the other
    	party is a willing participant and old enough to know better,
    	it is the lesser of two evils.
    
    	I still believe that either situation is the exception to the
    	rule of priestly celibacy though.

Is that a straight line, or a deliberate misinterpretation?

    
    I was wondering that myself 8^).
    
    

    
    	Joe's usually not that funny, so I think it was a misinterpret-
    	ation.
    

I'm still wondering, anyway.

    I think the topic should retain its title. This has been a real big
    problem in Canada, particularly in Quebec. Priests have done these
    things which is worthy of note as these things should have never ever
    happened.

    > With me?

    No. Here's why:

    > I don't think anyone has suggested that priests are more likely to
    > molest children than lay people.  It's simply the focus of the topic -
    > clergy who molest children.

    Notice the title. It is not "clergy pedophilia" it is "priestly
    pedophilia". As I mentioned before, the term "priestly" suggests
    (to me) Roman Catholic; it doesn't say "vicar pedophilia", "rabbi
    pedophilia", "reverend pedophilia", "person of the cloth pedophilia".
    It says priestly pedophilia. Among thousands of cases of pedophilia,
    priests are singled out.

    In the absence of other notes to discuss this topic, the note
    has attracted articles on pedophilia by non-clergy. To not change
    the topic suggests to me that the author would prefer to offend
    Catholics; that the purpose of the note is not to discuss pedophilia,
    but to rub the Catholic's noses in it. Even though I no longer
    consider myself a Catholic, I certainly understand, and even
    agree with, those who would interpret the title this way. I am
    not the only who has questioned the nature of the note; it is
    not like I am asking the note be deleted, or that discussion of
    any particular topic be suppressed or any number of other issues
    of censorship. I am requesting that the author of the base note
    take stock of the message and change the title. A simple request,
    made as politely as I possibly can.

    -b

I think /john will concur that the clergy of the Church of England are known
as priests.

But, then, he'll also concur that the Church of England is Catholic.

Damn those nuns who taught me that the Episcopals were nothing more than
worthless Protestants.

    Priests take a vow of celibacy. That means they're not to have sex.
    These men are supposed to be examples and many have not been. None of
    these bad stories should ever have happened.

    
    
    
    RE: .310  But the numbers prove you are wrong.  Accept it......

    >the author would prefer to offend
    >Catholics; that the purpose of the note is not to discuss pedophilia,
    >but to rub the Catholic's noses in it. 
    
     I sincerely believe this to be the case. I like DougO, I think he's a
    great guy and all, but he's really got a thing about the Catholic
    Church (I think mostly due to the Pope's adamant stand against
    abortion, but I'm speculating) and I really believe that he intends to
    offend in this topic. Everyone's got their own bugaboos- this just
    seems to be his. He won't change the title, because it'll then lose the
    insult value towards an institution that he despises. This is a
    political thing, as near as I can tell, as well as a personal thing.

	While I'm sure to get slammed for this.....but has anyone bothered to
ask DougO why he won't change the topic's name instead of telling everyone what
the possible reasons are, or kissing his butt in hopes that he will change the
topic title? 

	DougO.....is there a reason you will not change the title? There, I
asked.



Glen

    
      {gasp}
    
      bb

    Girl, 11, Testifies Father Watched, Urged on Rapist

    By John Milne, Globe Staff, 11/16 

    The 11-year-old girl sat straight up on two telephone books yesterday.
    She clutched a stuffed puppydog in her left hand and told the court how
    her father knelt by the bed and encouraged another man who was raping
    her two years ago. 

    The girl, a key witness in the Suffolk Superior Court rape trial of her
    father and Dexter Pratt, 23, of Dorchester, testified that while she
    was being raped at age 9 her father ``held my legs'' because ``I kept
    trying to get away and my head kept hitting the side of the bed.'' 

    When it was over, she testified, her father ``said that he was sorry
    and he didn't know what got into his mind.'' 

    But, as Judge Margaret A. Hinkle and the jury listened, the child said
    that on at least one other occasion the father allowed another adult
    into her bed, although no sexual assault took place. 

    The name of the girl's father is not being published in order to shield
    her identity. 

    Another witness at the trial, Emmitt Bridgewaters, testified that the
    girl's father had offered him $200 to have sex with the child on March
    26, 1994. 

    Bridgewaters, choking up on the witness stand as he described the
    event, said he refused. 

    He testified that in the girl's bedroom the girl's father offered the
    child for sex, saying he would masturbate during the act. Meanwhile the
    girl, her head buried in her pillow, was crying, ``Daddy, don't. Daddy,
    please, don't!'' 

    The next day, Bridgewaters said, he told police and agreed to telephone
    the father again while police listened. During that conversation,
    Bridgewaters testified, the father raised the price he would pay
    Bridgewaters for having sex with his daughter to $300. 

    This story ran on page 41 of the Boston Globe on 11/16. 
                                                            

    
    
    I think I'm going to be ill.

	Some people are sick, while others just don't have a word to describe
them....

    that guy's got a weird set of family values.

    Is that man a priest?

 I am quite familiar with another case, quite similar to this one and the
 long lasting effects on the victim.



 
 Jim

    Brian, Mark, Glen, others who have asked politely -
    
    Please acknowledge that the topic title and my motives have been
    repeatedly attacked previously.  For my previous responses, see,
    among others, .163 and .168.  The topic title was changed to add the
    parenthetical note - and as people actually *reading* the topic might
    remember, I've always indicated that this note is for all such cases
    related to abuse by religious authorities - of whatever denomination.
    One should note, however, that it is ONLY the Catholic Church that has
    a history of decades of COVERING UP the problem and thereby propagating
    it, as offenders were discreetly moved to other dioceses and thereby
    enabled to continue their abuse.  The subtle focus conveyed by the
    title, though not solely about the Catholics, is therefore appropriate,
    in my eyes.  This is soapbox, I'll emphasize it as I see fit.
    
    Mark, your speculation is particularly unwelcome- you should know that
    my opposition to the political institution known as the Catholic Church
    stems from its long history of abuses- from the burning of hundreds of
    thousands of women as "witches" in the Middle Ages in their bid to
    maintain social control, through the forced conversion and later
    torture for heresy of Jews in other inquisitions in their bid for
    further political control and to acquire wealth, through what I see as
    their subtle program of indoctrination and behavior control through
    induced guilt for ordinary human longings such as sexual desire,
    also as part of their bid for social control - all of these I see as
    crimes and abuses against humanity, a vast political effort mounted
    under cover of religious authority; playing on people's fears of the
    unknown.  It is insidious, and the pope's opposition to abortion is 
    only a small part of it.  You, I had expected to recognize this before.
    
    DougO

    
    RE .330

    What a sickening story. If the charges prove correct, it is
    one of the cases where I can say without any remorse whatsoever
    that I would personally be willing to pull the trigger on
    the gun that should be placed on the back of his head...

    Other than that, I've said my piece about this topic's title.
    I have asked that the title be changed and I've gone out of
    my way to be courteous. There is nothing more for me to say.
    So far my request has been ignored, but in all sincerity, I
    do believe that the author of the base note is listening and
    will eventually conclude that however he feels about the
    RC church itself, there is no reason to belittle the religious
    beliefs of others.

    -b

    I'll take it that .337 was written before the noter saw .336.
    
    DougO

    
    Yes, that is correct Doug. Thank you for your response.
    
    It appears that we will have to agree to disagree.
    
    -b

    	Well, I would expect to see Suzanne here on Doug's case (if she
    	is going to be consistent) telling him that once he's been told
    	something he is doing/saying is offensive, he should change it.
    
    	But certain knives only cut one way I guess.

    Not that being told you were offensive ever stopped *you*, Joe.
    
    DougO

    This has nothing to do with belittling the beliefs of others. It has
    everything to do with exposing the criminal actions of men who are
    known as priests. If these men had been true to their calling and
    service, this topic would not exist.

    
    
    Was that our sermon for the day from Father Timothy???
    

    
    Uncle!
    
    -b

    re .343
    
    Go away my son, you bother me.
    
    Father Timothy

    re .275 - followup on Father Timmon's extradition to Sonoma County:
    
    DougO
    -----
    Molest Suspect Doesn't Enter Plea 
    
    Santa Rosa -- A Catholic priest charged with molesting boys at a church
    camp in the 1970s refused to enter a plea yesterday, saying the statute 
    of limitations had expired. 
    
    The Rev. Gary Timmons, 55, was arrested last month in Chicago on 17
    felony counts arising from complaints by two men who said he had assaulted 
    them as juveniles between 1971 and 1978. 
    
    In all, 20 men have publicly accused Timmons of molesting them as
    children, and 10 have filed lawsuits against the priest and the Roman 
    Catholic Church. 
    
    Defense attorney Theodore Cassman of Emeryville said the charges
    against his client should be dropped because they go back two decades. 
    Somoma County Municipal Court Judge Robert Dale set a hearing on the 
    issue for November 28. 
    
    Timmons, a North Coast priest for more than 25 years, has denied any
    wrongdoing, but authorities said his diary contains an entry admitting 
    he is a child molester. 
    
    SF Chronicle, Thursday 16 Nov 95

    .340
    
    joe's getting downright hysterical about this whole situation,
    wot?

    	
    	Bonnie, are you saying he's acting like a woman ?
    

    well, if acting like a woman means emotionally irrational over
    something, yes.  he just can't seem to let go of this suzanne
    thing.

    
    re: .349
    
    Bonnie,
    
    See 507.711
    
    

    > joe's getting downright hysterical
    
    testerical.  nnttm.
    
    DougO

    
    >  > joe's getting downright hysterical
    
    > testerical.  nnttm.
    
    >DougO
    
    
    See 583.32
    

    Suz....seems you're more like by Andy today than I. You're sooo lucky!

    Andy is seeming a bit testerical today, too.
    
    DougO

    	Too bad for you that you'll never be accused of it, DougO!

    
      DougO accused of priestly pedophilia ?  Never.
    
      bb

    
    
    Naaahhh... DougO's just bitchy today...
    

    
    
    >Suz....seems you're more like by Andy today than I. You're sooo lucky!
    
    
    I wuv you Gwenny Poo!!!
    

    thcream.

icth thcream?

    I dunno, you tell me.

    
    <-----
    
    he might if you were a priest...
    

<--he is

>               <<< Note 89.301 by MPGS::MARKEY "Fluffy nutter" >>>

> Yet, I can understand why someone would
> be offended by a note with a title that suggests that pedophelia
> is limited to Catholic priests. 

	anyone who interprets it like that is either a moron or in need
	of a remedial reading course, at the very least.

	i would have been severely disappointed if DougO had changed the
	title.  good goin', DougO.  totally amazed by your position on
	this, Brian.

    
    Lady Di, The title seems rather glib to me. Priestly Pedophilia.
    Bishops too. See note blah blah blah. And we're having a special
    this week. Nuns and farm animals, starting at entry xxxx.

    I'm pretty sure I'm not a moron (yep, Mensa card has my name on
    it) and my reading comprehension is fine. But thanks anyway for
    a nice swift kick in the ribs after I already bowed out of the
    discussion! :-) :-)

    -b

    .364 >good goin', DougO.  totally amazed by your position on
          this, Brian.
    
    'Twas amusing, quite, but tooToo transparently manipulative...
    
    ... and in honor of Brian's silliness, I shall further broaden the
    pedophiliac spectrum.  I can't wait to see the swift accretion of news
    stories in the new basenotes I plan to post...  It won't be more than a
    day until they all have 366 entries, like this one.
    
    .NOT.
    
    |-{:-)
    
    

>               <<< Note 89.365 by MPGS::MARKEY "Fluffy nutter" >>>

>    I'm pretty sure I'm not a moron (yep, Mensa card has my name on
>    it) and my reading comprehension is fine. 

	I wasn't referring to you, Mensa Man, rather to the phantom
	readers whom you're apparently concerned might not be able
	to fathom the language as readily as can someone as gifted 
	as, well, you for instance.


>    But thanks anyway for
>    a nice swift kick in the ribs after I already bowed out of the
>    discussion! :-) :-)

	Well sorry, but since I've been in a class this week, I
	haven't been able to respond in a timely fashion. 

	SHHHHEEE'SSSS BAAAACCCCKKKKK!!!!!!!   I missed ya!

SOME CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST COUPLE ACCUSED OF CHILD MOLESTATION

By SCOTT SUNDE

and NEIL MODIE

c.1995 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

WATERVILLE, Wash. - A Douglas County judge Thursday gave partial vindication
to the defendants in a child molestation case that has attracted national
attention, including scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department.

The good news for East Wenatchee preacher Robert Roberson and his wife,
Connie, came Thursday before they put on the stand the first of a parade of
defense witnesses to rebut sex abuse accusations against them.

Just before the defense began presenting its case, Superior Court Judge T.W.
Small dismissed one charge against each of the Robersons that alleged they
molested their daughter, now aged 5, in 1993 and 1994. Small ruled that
prosecutors didn't provide enough evidence for the jury to consider the
charges.

The final prosecution witness Thursday was the 13-year-old foster daughter
of Wenatchee, Wash., police Detective Robert Perez, whose work in dozens of
sex abuse investigations has come under fire.

Under gentle cross-examination by defense attorney Robert Van Siclen, the
girl's recollection of events expanded from a few incidents to a scenario
that had as many as 20 children being molested in the basement of Roberson's
church.

The girl's testimony was contradicted by her 15-year-old brother, one of
several children called to testify for the defense.

"No, I never saw anything happen," the girl's brother said on the stand.

As the trial was getting underway here Thursday, Attorney General Janet Reno
announced in Washington, D.C., that her department's Civil Rights Division
had completed its review of allegations that dozens of Wenatchee-area child
molestation cases were the product of overzealous investigators and
prosecutors.

Conclusions of the review weren't released, however, because Reno said she
has more questions about it.

In another strange twist, Paul-Noel Chretien, a Justice Department attorney,
said he had offered to assist in the Robersons' defense. He would have taken
time off from his job to do it, he told the Post-Intelligencer.

But Van Siclen said Thursday he declined Chretien's offer.

"I didn't need any help. I have far more experience in this kind of case
than he has," Van Siclen said during a recess in the Robersons' trial.

Chretien didn't dispute Van Siclen's account, although he had earlier told a
reporter that he had decided not to get involved in the Roberson case
because of a scheduling conflict.

Chretien wrote an article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal attacking what
he termed the "series of bizarre prosecutions" in Wenatchee.

Reno said she hadn't known of Chretien's feelings about the case and would
look into whether he can get involved without causing a conflict of interest
with the Justice Department, The Associated Press reported.

Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern said Reno allows department lawyers
"to donate their time to help others as long as what they are doing doesn't
conflict with anything in the Justice Department."

The Robersons are the most recent in a string of defendants in dozens of
child molestation cases brought in Chelan and Douglas counties.

The prosecution case against the Robersons was built mainly on testimony by
five children, including the couple's daughter, who recanted earlier
statements that her father had sexually abused her.

While dismissing the charges involving the Robersons' daughter, Judge Small
rejected defense attorney requests to dismiss two other charges concerning
the other children, saying enough evidence had been presented for the jury
to evaluate. Connie Roberson now faces six remaining charges of molestation
or rape and Robert Roberson nine.

The testimony of Perez's foster daughter was answered by defense testimony
from several of the children who were, according to the girl, involved in
the sex abuse at the church.

Teenager after teenager, testifying for the defense, denied that the alleged
abuse had taken place. They said no sexual abuse occurred at the Pentecostal
Church of God House of Prayer, where they attended Sunday services and other
events several nights a week. Roberson is the church's pastor, though he is
not ordained.

Detective Perez and his wife also have been foster parents of the girl's
11-year-old sister, whom the Robersons are also charged with sexually
abusing. But the girl, who has been a prime accuser in several cases, has
been unable to testify for medical reasons in the Robersons' case.

Perez, whom the defense is expected to call as a witness next week, has
received the repeated backing of police officials, but critics say the
detective is a rogue cop. He has been vindictive, focusing his investigation
on those who questioned his work, including the Robersons, critics say.

And they have accused him of coercing confessions from adults and
threatening children to make disclosures or asking leading questions to
create allegations.

Perez's 13-year-old foster daughter began her testimony under the
questioning of Deputy Prosecutor Eric Biggar. In one- or two-word replies,
she made these allegations:

The Robersons sexually abused her, her sister and the couple's daughter in
the church basement. The couple abused the same children in the bedroom and
guest room of their East Wenatchee home, the girl said.

Van Siclen pointed out to the girl the allegations she made in a previous
interview. By the end of cross-examination, the girl had incorporated what
she had said in the previous interview and alleged that on Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday nights and Sunday mornings, children and adults would
meet in the church's sanctuary for a song.

Then they would go to the church's basement. Adults would order the children
to remove their clothing. The adults would tie the children's feet and hands
with rope and cover their mouths with tape. The children would lie down,
then men and women would assault them.

"Most of the kids who attended the church had to go through this - is that
what you're saying?" Van Siclen asked.

"Uh-uh (yes), the 13-year-old replied.

She gave much the same scenario for what happened in the Robersons' home -
sex involving large numbers of adults and children, who were bound and
gagged.

The girl frequently looked at the floor as she discussed her allegations,
occasionally fidgeting with a necklace or shielding her eyes with a hand.

Prosecutors declined to question her a second time after her
cross-examination had ended.

The teens who testified for the defense said they were at the church the
same nights and days that the girl said the group sex occurred. Several also
worked on the church's food bank.

People who used the food bank had free run of the church. The church itself
has a back door that is never locked, they said.

Robert Roberson rarely attended Wednesday night Bible study or Thursday and
Friday night youth events, Kristal Hames testified. Roberson was usually
busy delivering food to needy families, Hames, 19, said.

    Former Mormon Church radio host sentenced to prison for molesting girl
    
    By Robert Gehrke, Associated Press, 02/04/97; 07:17 
    
    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A former host of a Mormon Church radio program
    has been sentenced to one to 15 years in prison for sexually abusing a
    14-year-old girl he met at church. 
    
    Lloyd Gerald Pond, 51, pleaded guilty in November to felony forcible
    sexual abuse, a charge reduced from forcible sodomy. A judge sentenced
    him to prison on Monday, rejecting a recommendation that Pond be given
    probation. 
    
    As part of a plea bargain with Pond, prosecutors had agreed not to
    oppose probation, the sentence the defense attorney had recommended.
    The move sparked complaints Pond was getting a break because of his
    affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
    
    State Judge Robert K. Hilder insisted on a jail sentence. 
    
    ``This is not a crime of opportunity,'' but one that took months and
    years to accomplish, the judge said. 
    
    The girl's family said they were surprised by the sentence. 
    
    ``I thought this was going another way from all the indications,''
    their lawyer, David Isolm, said Monday. ``Until five minutes ago, when
    the sentence was imposed, we'd been disillusioned with every aspect of
    this.'' 
    
    The victim told police that Pond, a church acquaintance, had offered to
    help her with a modeling career when she was 11, and had paid her for
    phone sex, photographed her in progressively revealing clothing, and
    then tricked her into performing a sex act. 
    
    Pond was host of the church's ``Times and Seasons'' weekly national
    radio program, which promoted Mormon values and addressed social
    issues. The church fired him in November. 

    Wonder if Steve Leech agrees with his moral code.

i wonder if he will tell us what made him go wrong?

One to 15 years?  Isn't that a rather wide range?

    Glenn:
    
    It only further proves that man is inherently...you know....

    
    	... a lover of seatless bikes?
    
    	No, probably not.  I never was very good at this guessing stuff.
    

    > a lover of seatless bikes?
    
    Pedalophile.

    >It only further proves that man is inherently...you know.... 
    
    Then why aren't we all doing...you know....?

    Too much splunge leads to dancing, that's why.

    The splunge dance! Can you show me how it's done??  ;)

    Yes, yes I can. It would trouble you, I think.

    If it's splunge, I know that I would enjoy it!

| <<< Note 89.379 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

| Pedalophile.

	How do you keep doing this??? Man.... you're too funny for words!

you do the splunge dance to the song.... Y.M.C.A. which is why it is troubling.

    vomit

"would not oppose probation"? how magnanimous of the
defense.

they should go jail with this scumbag just on the
principle of absurdity for lessening the crime's
disgust.

    Greetings all,
    
    I am a Mormon and boy its a shocker to see this guy get arrested and
    convicted. I'm glad he's off to the slammer. In my old age I've found
    we Mormons are no different than any other group of people. In our
    local congregation we had a fellow who was arrested for molesting his 
    children. In hindsight it had all the classic symptoms of a abuser.
    Large family, everyone had emotional problems and a wife with like a
    legendarily low self image. The only thing I can garner from this as
    positive is that I know there is a real God that will hold him
    accountable for his actions. Tragically the guy has convinced himself
    that though he's done awful things it wasn't that bad. 
    
    Fred 

    Fred, yes, from a human perspective it is a shocker to see a spiritual
    leader get arrested and convicted.  It is an unfortunate slap in the
    face for the local assembly.  
    
    Of course at the same time, just as the weakness of David, Solomon,
    Moses, and many others, it stands as a testimony that self redemption
    is a lost cause and that as the Psalmist stated, "There is none
    righteous, no not one."  
    
    -Jack

    re: .389
    
    Am I alone in feeling like I ran out or breath reading that paragraph?
    
    Was this indeed "breathless prose"?

	Luckily there was an oj note afterwards to bring your breath back, eh?