John Paul II's pedophile priests abuse hearing hinges on memory, time

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei who has a battalion of members who are lawyers and judges are working 24/7 to persuade - the courts to count as nothing - the past memories and experiences of the thousands of victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com and God's Rottweiler www.pope-ratz.blogspot.com

But John Paul II will always have the Achilles Heel of his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army which will cost him his canonization to sainthood.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090821/NEWS02/908210340/Priest+abuse+hearing+hinges+on+decades-old+memory

Priest abuse hearing hinges on memory, time

By Robert King
Posted: August 21, 2009

* Read Comments(32)

John Doe RG, as he is known in court papers, always struggled with trusting people. Personal relationships usually lasted no more than a year. His second-guessing of his bosses sent him hopping from job to job.But it wasn't until 2003 that his therapist asked him a question that would unravel his life and rattle the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis: "Do you have any sexual abuse in your past?""I sat there for a second and it was like a light switch went on," he said in an interview with The Indianapolis Star. "I just remember staring at the bookcase in front of me. I said, 'Yeah, there was an incident with a priest.' "

That memory, unlocked after lying dormant since the mid-1970s, is the subject of a court hearing today in Marion County that will prove critical to the course of John Doe RG's lawsuit against the archdiocese -- a somewhat unusual claim in Indiana because it is based on what psychiatrists refer to as "repressed memories."
The Star generally does not identify victims of sexual assault.

Normally, cases of childhood abuse must be filed by a victim's 20th birthday. But Judge David Dreyer must decide whether to grant an exception for John Doe RG, who filed his at age 40, based on the argument that he had no memory of the abuse until he was 38.

Attorney Patrick Noaker, representing John Doe RG, says the statute doesn't apply when a victim recovers his memory of childhood abuse later in life. He says his client had a two-year window to file the case from the time he recovered the memory, a deadline he beat by three days.

Attorney Jay Mercer, representing the archdiocese, says there's not enough scientific consensus about the concept of repressed memories to grant such an exception to the statute of limitations.

Repressed-memory cases are relatively rare in Indiana, said Henry Karlson, an emeritus professor of law at Indiana University. But state courts have recognized the phenomena and allowed it to be used as a basis for staying, or extending, the statutes of limitation.

John Doe RG, a former altar boy at St. Andrew Catholic Church, said memories came back to him of a priest named Harry Monroe, who John Doe RG says sexually abused him in the church rectory and on camping trips.

Monroe was assigned to parishes in Indianapolis, Terre Haute and Tell City from 1974 to 1984. The lawsuit John Doe RG filed in 2005 was the first of 13 that alleged Monroe was a child molester and that the archdiocese either neglected to protect children or, in some cases, kept the abuse hidden from public view.

Monroe was never prosecuted, because the criminal statutes of limitations had expired. Now out of the priesthood and living in Tennessee, he admitted in a deposition that he sexually molested at least five of the 13 boys who brought allegations. He wouldn't rule out others but said he couldn't remember. One of the cases he wouldn't confirm was that of John Doe RG.Of the 13 lawsuits, John Doe RG's is the only one to involve repressed memories.

To support their positions in the case, both sides have secured Harvard University experts to testify.

The archdiocese has turned to Dr. Harrison Pope, a professor of psychiatry who asserts, according to court documents, that there are serious questions about repressed memories in the scientific community and that there is a lack of consensus on the disorder, which some say is overly diagnosed.

John Doe RG has turned to Dr. James A. Chu, an associate professor of psychiatry, who says the only doubters of repressed memory are those who work in laboratories and aren't treating patients. Among clinicians, he said, there is no real debate. And although there's no biological test for the accuracy of a recovered memory, his experience with those that can be verified has been that they are amazingly accurate.

Until John Doe RG filed his suit, there had been no publicity about Monroe's abuse.

Yet Noaker said the memory he retold bore strong similarities to the dozen cases that would follow -- abuse that took place on camping trips and in St. Andrew's church rectory. His mother also remembered John Doe RG going on camping trips with Monroe.

The recovery of the memories in 2003 sent John Doe RG's life into a tailspin.

Over the course of eight sessions, he said, he began remembering bits and pieces of the abuse.

Throughout his life, he's had an aversion to baby powder. John Doe RG remembered Monroe using baby powder during one of their encounters. Memories came back in other settings, too, even during sex. Things got so bad that John Doe RG, now a 44-year-old business executive who lives out of state, found himself sobbing at his desk at work during the middle of the day.

"At that point, the lid was off Pandora's box," John Doe RG said. "And I looked inside."In today's hearing, the archdiocese isn't challenging the truthfulness of John Doe RG, just his legal claim.

Mercer said the legal avenues that typically allow a case to go forward so long after the normal statute of limitations has expired don't apply here. He said discovering the abuse late in life has been rejected in Indiana courts as a reason to allow a case involving a childhood injury to go forward. And Mercer said the church can't have concealed information about abuse that the plaintiff didn't remember for 28 years.

Finally, he said John Doe RG waited almost two years to file his lawsuit after recovering his memory. Mercer said Indiana courts require cases to be brought in a "reasonable" amount of time. And some courts have said waiting even 13 months is too long to be "reasonable."

That, said Noaker, the attorney for John Doe RG, is going to be up to the judge to decide.

Comments


jstempko wrote:
They need to weed out the sex perverts BEFORE they go to the seminary. It's a hard life to give up women but they should not turn to little boys.

If found suspicious the Archbishop should fire these guys BEFORE they cause trouble - Multi-Million dollar lawsuits.

Same thing for Nuns.
8/23/2009 8:24:13 AM
They need to weed out the sex perverts BEFORE they go to the seminary. It's a hard life to give up women but they should not turn to little boys.

If found suspicious the Archbishop should fire these guys BEFORE they cause trouble - Multi-Million dollar lawsuits.

Same thing for Nuns. jstempko



They need to weed out the sex perverts BEFORE they go to the seminary. It's a hard life to give up women but they should not turn to little boys.

If found suspicious the Archbishop should fire these guys BEFORE they cause trouble - Multi-Million dollar lawsuits.

Same thing for Nuns.jstempko


otherview2 wrote:
As a victim of sexual abuse by a priest in the Catholic church some 30 some years ago (and I remember all of it) for me to blame my successes and/or failures on what happen since then I believe is wrong. I am accountable for what I did with my life after the abuse. For me to sue the church for what happened that far back in my life for me would be a selfish act of greed and revenge. Where do the Gospel and the word of God fit into this? “For if you forgive people their trespasses [their reckless and willful sins, leaving them, letting them go, and giving up resentment], your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6: 14)”.

If they are still molesting children, I agree they need to be stopped but to seek revenge on those from year gone and make the whole church suffer is also wrong. Remember it is God who is the final judge and who has the final judgment on all involved in this matter.


8/22/2009 11:10:08 PM
As a victim of sexual abuse by a priest in the Catholic church some 30 some years ago (and I remember all of it) for me to blame my successes and/or failures on what happen since then I believe is wrong. I am accountable for what I did with my life after the abuse. For me to sue the church for what happened that far back in my life for me would be a selfish act of greed and revenge. Where do the Gospel and the word of God fit into this? “For if you forgive people their trespasses [their reckless and willful sins, leaving them, letting them go, and giving up resentment], your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6: 14)”.

If they are still molesting children, I agree they need to be stopped but to seek revenge on those from year gone and make the whole church suffer is also wrong. Remember it is God who is the final judge and who has the final judgment on all involved in this matter.

otherview2


As a victim of sexual abuse by a priest in the Catholic church some 30 some years ago (and I remember all of it) for me to blame my successes and/or failures on what happen since then I believe is wrong. I am accountable for what I did with my life after the abuse. For me to sue the church for what happened that far back in my life for me would be a selfish act of greed and revenge. Where do the Gospel and the word of God fit into this? “For if you forgive people their trespasses [their reckless and willful sins, leaving them, letting them go, and giving up resentment], your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6: 14)”.

If they are still molesting children, I agree they need to be stopped but to seek revenge on those from year gone and make the whole church suffer is also wrong. Remember it is God who is the final judge and who has the final judgment on all involved in this matter.

otherview2


JustTheFactsLady wrote:

Replying to TomDunwurkin:

Replying to SarahTX2:
You'd have less raped children if you got rid of the Priests. What a connundrum!

ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish.



A former Pastor of mine once said "That being the Vicar of Christ thing, is a bit**" :)
8/22/2009 8:40:55 AM

Replying to TomDunwurkin:

Replying to SarahTX2:

You'd have less raped children if you got rid of the Priests. What a connundrum!

ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish.

A former Pastor of mine once said "That being the Vicar of Christ thing, is a bit**" :) JustTheFactsLady

Replying to TomDunwurkin:

Replying to SarahTX2:

You'd have less raped children if you got rid of the Priests. What a connundrum!

ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish.

A former Pastor of mine once said "That being the Vicar of Christ thing, is a bit**" :)JustTheFactsLady


AnotherSurvivor wrote:
I am also a survivor of priest sexual abuse, and a "John Doe" that has come forth legally. I wish it were easy for me to convey the intense importance of what is occurring right now with the clergy sexual molestation is this country, its laws, and here specifically, Monroe. There is so much incredible fear, confusion with disbelief, mistrust and utter disorientation from clergy sexual molestation that the mind is just left betrayed and so mistrusting that any person, even yourself can barely, if at all, cognate. It is all too surreal to express in any cogent fashion. I hope the courtswill not focus on distractions and outdated laws. I hope the medidcal community will listen to reality. I hope sexual predetors learn that they and the churches that harbor them are held accountable and prosecuted. I want the public to be more aware and sensitive to this crisis, and that other survivors of molestation find a way through this fight towards a peace. Thank you for letting me speak.
8/22/2009 12:23:19 AM

I am also a survivor of priest sexual abuse, and a "John Doe" that has come forth legally. I wish it were easy for me to convey the intense importance of what is occurring right now with the clergy sexual molestation is this country, its laws, and here specifically, Monroe. There is so much incredible fear, confusion with disbelief, mistrust and utter disorientation from clergy sexual molestation that the mind is just left betrayed and so mistrusting that any person, even yourself can barely, if at all, cognate. It is all too surreal to express in any cogent fashion. I hope the courtswill not focus on distractions and outdated laws. I hope the medidcal community will listen to reality. I hope sexual predetors learn that they and the churches that harbor them are held accountable and prosecuted. I want the public to be more aware and sensitive to this crisis, and that other survivors of molestation find a way through this fight towards a peace. Thank you for letting me speak. AnotherSurvivor



I am also a survivor of priest sexual abuse, and a "John Doe" that has come forth legally. I wish it were easy for me to convey the intense importance of what is occurring right now with the clergy sexual molestation is this country, its laws, and here specifically, Monroe. There is so much incredible fear, confusion with disbelief, mistrust and utter disorientation from clergy sexual molestation that the mind is just left betrayed and so mistrusting that any person, even yourself can barely, if at all, cognate. It is all too surreal to express in any cogent fashion. I hope the courtswill not focus on distractions and outdated laws. I hope the medidcal community will listen to reality. I hope sexual predetors learn that they and the churches that harbor them are held accountable and prosecuted. I want the public to be more aware and sensitive to this crisis, and that other survivors of molestation find a way through this fight towards a peace. Thank you for letting me speak.AnotherSurvivor


TomDunwurkin wrote:

Replying to SarahTX2:
You'd have less raped children if you got rid of the Priests. What a connundrum!

ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish.

SarahTX2 wrote:
ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish.
8/21/2009 3:29:58 PM
ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish. SarahTX2


ChiefRose 2000,

How selfish of you. Given a choice between assisting raped children or having your parish, you'd keep your parish. If all the parishioners of Little Flower think like you, we can only hope and pray that your dreadful parish gets closed one way or another. And let's really hope you don't have a school in your predator-friendly parish.SarahTX2


TomDunwurkin wrote:
Well written and to the point. The problem lays within the problem.

The institutional Roman Catholic Church should be beyond counting the financial costs that both justice and charity demand of them. Because they did not follow CANON LAW, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW in the past they are going to have to pay now in all ways.

Dioceses across the country are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars to PR spin firms, lobbyists, and the church lawyers belonging to the prestigious law firms those dioceses have retained for years. Just look at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. More than that, it has been my experience in talking with hundreds of victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their families that money has always been found to enable predatory priests in their perfidy,facilitate criminal acts, obfuscate the truth, while conspiring to harass and intimidate them.


[/QUOTE]

8/21/2009 1:07:17 PM
Well written and to the point. The problem lays within the problem.

The institutional Roman Catholic Church should be beyond counting the financial costs that both justice and charity demand of them. Because they did not follow CANON LAW, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW in the past they are going to have to pay now in all ways.

Dioceses across the country are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars to PR spin firms, lobbyists, and the church lawyers belonging to the prestigious law firms those dioceses have retained for years. Just look at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. More than that, it has been my experience in talking with hundreds of victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their families that money has always been found to enable predatory priests in their perfidy,facilitate criminal acts, obfuscate the truth, while conspiring to harass and intimidate them.


[/QUOTE]
TomDunwurkin


Well written and to the point. The problem lays within the problem.

The institutional Roman Catholic Church should be beyond counting the financial costs that both justice and charity demand of them. Because they did not follow CANON LAW, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW in the past they are going to have to pay now in all ways.

Dioceses across the country are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars to PR spin firms, lobbyists, and the church lawyers belonging to the prestigious law firms those dioceses have retained for years. Just look at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. More than that, it has been my experience in talking with hundreds of victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their families that money has always been found to enable predatory priests in their perfidy,facilitate criminal acts, obfuscate the truth, while conspiring to harass and intimidate them.


[/QUOTE]
TomDunwurkin


SMPTURLISH wrote:
The institutional Roman Catholic Church should be beyond counting the financial costs that both justice and charity demand of them. Because they did not follow CANON LAW, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW in the past they are going to have to pay now in all ways.

Dioceses across the country are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars to PR spin firms, lobbyists, and the church lawyers belonging to the prestigious law firms those dioceses have retained for years. Just look at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. More than that, it has been my experience in talking with hundreds of victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their families that money has always been found to enable predatory priests in their perfidy,facilitate criminal acts, obfuscate the truth, while conspiring to harass and intimidate them.



8/21/2009 12:47:27 PM
The institutional Roman Catholic Church should be beyond counting the financial costs that both justice and charity demand of them. Because they did not follow CANON LAW, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW in the past they are going to have to pay now in all ways.

Dioceses across the country are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars to PR spin firms, lobbyists, and the church lawyers belonging to the prestigious law firms those dioceses have retained for years. Just look at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. More than that, it has been my experience in talking with hundreds of victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their families that money has always been found to enable predatory priests in their perfidy,facilitate criminal acts, obfuscate the truth, while conspiring to harass and intimidate them.


SMPTURLISH


The institutional Roman Catholic Church should be beyond counting the financial costs that both justice and charity demand of them. Because they did not follow CANON LAW, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW in the past they are going to have to pay now in all ways.

Dioceses across the country are already paying hundreds of millions of dollars to PR spin firms, lobbyists, and the church lawyers belonging to the prestigious law firms those dioceses have retained for years. Just look at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. More than that, it has been my experience in talking with hundreds of victim/survivors of sexual abuse and their families that money has always been found to enable predatory priests in their perfidy,facilitate criminal acts, obfuscate the truth, while conspiring to harass and intimidate them.


SMPTURLISH


SMPTURLISH wrote:

The institutional church has failed miserably to protect children in the past by operating beyond the pale of both charity and justice while they would have us believe now that they are operating under the ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY they promised in 2002.

However, their ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY appear to be highly selective.

Many dioceses still refuse to list the names and locations of convicted, known or credibly accused priests of their dioceses or of the religious orders who operate in the diocese at their pleasure.

They refuse to support LEGISLATIVE REFORM that would better protect all children by completely removing ALL STATUTES OF LIMITATION going forward in regard to childhood sexual abuse AND providing for a civil window of at least two years for bringing forward previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse BY ANYONE!
8/21/2009 12:46:17 PM


The institutional church has failed miserably to protect children in the past by operating beyond the pale of both charity and justice while they would have us believe now that they are operating under the ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY they promised in 2002.

However, their ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY appear to be highly selective.

Many dioceses still refuse to list the names and locations of convicted, known or credibly accused priests of their dioceses or of the religious orders who operate in the diocese at their pleasure.

They refuse to support LEGISLATIVE REFORM that would better protect all children by completely removing ALL STATUTES OF LIMITATION going forward in regard to childhood sexual abuse AND providing for a civil window of at least two years for bringing forward previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse BY ANYONE! SMPTURLISH



The institutional church has failed miserably to protect children in the past by operating beyond the pale of both charity and justice while they would have us believe now that they are operating under the ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY they promised in 2002.

However, their ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY appear to be highly selective.

Many dioceses still refuse to list the names and locations of convicted, known or credibly accused priests of their dioceses or of the religious orders who operate in the diocese at their pleasure.

They refuse to support LEGISLATIVE REFORM that would better protect all children by completely removing ALL STATUTES OF LIMITATION going forward in regard to childhood sexual abuse AND providing for a civil window of at least two years for bringing forward previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse BY ANYONE!SMPTURLISH


SMPTURLISH wrote:
IT WAS DONE IN DELAWARE AND IT CAN BE DONE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.

Too many church leaders are trying to squirm out of their responsibility by hiding behind laws that have been woefully inadequate to protect of children to begin with, that they did not observe in a timely fashion anyway, and now have the chutzpah to cite the same laws in order to escape responsibility.

JUSTICE LIKE CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME. IT DOESN'T STOP THERE BUT IT SURE DOES START THERE.

The Holy See was an original signatory to the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.

Isn't it time to start acting as if this document were believed? Or is it still the same old -

DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO?

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
8/21/2009 12:45:23 PM

IT WAS DONE IN DELAWARE AND IT CAN BE DONE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.

Too many church leaders are trying to squirm out of their responsibility by hiding behind laws that have been woefully inadequate to protect of children to begin with, that they did not observe in a timely fashion anyway, and now have the chutzpah to cite the same laws in order to escape responsibility.

JUSTICE LIKE CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME. IT DOESN'T STOP THERE BUT IT SURE DOES START THERE.

The Holy See was an original signatory to the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.

Isn't it time to start acting as if this document were believed? Or is it still the same old -

DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO?

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com SMPTURLISH


nathanial66 wrote:
If all the child molesting Catholic Priests were rounded up, there wouldn't be enough Catholic Priests left to "head" the Catholic Churches!!
8/21/2009 12:43:08 PM
If all the child molesting Catholic Priests were rounded up, there wouldn't be enough Catholic Priests left to "head" the Catholic Churches!! nathanial66



If all the child molesting Catholic Priests were rounded up, there wouldn't be enough Catholic Priests left to "head" the Catholic Churches!!nathanial66


TomDunwurkin wrote:
It is the entire Church and everyone that tithes the Catholic church, you can include everyone the gives in any monetary way to the Church. Much of it is all funnelled to defending the thousands, (yes, thousands over the years) of "men of the cloth", that have use religion and their position in the church to abuse mankind. I've said it before and it still stands - there are millions of Catholics who blindly go through life, without lifting their voice to this poisoning of their own denomination. They believe throwing money at the church will buy their place in heaven. Been there, done that, I know! Millions of Catholics who spend their hour or two in church each week, only to leave and cuss at the driver in the lot in front of them and talk about the woman in the next pew who's dress was too short.

DO NOT CONNECT THESE FIENDS with Christianity. They themselves continue to pave their way to their own reward. Can I get another Amen?
8/21/2009 12:35:33 PM

It is the entire Church and everyone that tithes the Catholic church, you can include everyone the gives in any monetary way to the Church. Much of it is all funnelled to defending the thousands, (yes, thousands over the years) of "men of the cloth", that have use religion and their position in the church to abuse mankind. I've said it before and it still stands - there are millions of Catholics who blindly go through life, without lifting their voice to this poisoning of their own denomination. They believe throwing money at the church will buy their place in heaven. Been there, done that, I know! Millions of Catholics who spend their hour or two in church each week, only to leave and cuss at the driver in the lot in front of them and talk about the woman in the next pew who's dress was too short.

DO NOT CONNECT THESE FIENDS with Christianity. They themselves continue to pave their way to their own reward. Can I get another Amen? TomDunwurkin


It is the entire Church and everyone that tithes the Catholic church, you can include everyone the gives in any monetary way to the Church. Much of it is all funnelled to defending the thousands, (yes, thousands over the years) of "men of the cloth", that have use religion and their position in the church to abuse mankind. I've said it before and it still stands - there are millions of Catholics who blindly go through life, without lifting their voice to this poisoning of their own denomination. They believe throwing money at the church will buy their place in heaven. Been there, done that, I know! Millions of Catholics who spend their hour or two in church each week, only to leave and cuss at the driver in the lot in front of them and talk about the woman in the next pew who's dress was too short.

DO NOT CONNECT THESE FIENDS with Christianity. They themselves continue to pave their way to their own reward. Can I get another Amen?TomDunwurkin


Helpmeagain wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church may be the only institution in history to have survived such a pervasive culture of abuse, cover-up and denial! It's especially distastful because the very men that have ruined so many lives have used religion, Christianity and a previously good reputation to perpetrate their dirty deeds. When will people wake up and realize that the highest levels of the church in Philly, Boston and possibly Indianapolis have looked the other way while lives have been ruined? It's immoral and likely criminal!
8/21/2009 11:29:06 AM

The Roman Catholic Church may be the only institution in history to have survived such a pervasive culture of abuse, cover-up and denial! It's especially distastful because the very men that have ruined so many lives have used religion, Christianity and a previously good reputation to perpetrate their dirty deeds. When will people wake up and realize that the highest levels of the church in Philly, Boston and possibly Indianapolis have looked the other way while lives have been ruined? It's immoral and likely criminal! Helpmeagain



The Roman Catholic Church may be the only institution in history to have survived such a pervasive culture of abuse, cover-up and denial! It's especially distastful because the very men that have ruined so many lives have used religion, Christianity and a previously good reputation to perpetrate their dirty deeds. When will people wake up and realize that the highest levels of the church in Philly, Boston and possibly Indianapolis have looked the other way while lives have been ruined? It's immoral and likely criminal!Helpmeagain
User Image
jarfrank wrote:

Replying to indybski:

Replying to jarfrank:

faith.



So, married men never cheat? Never break their vows? Never abuse young boys? No, marriage for Catholic priests to avoid abuse is not logical.

1st Corinthians - chapter 7 - look it up. My comment has nothing to do with adultery, that is a separate issue. Sure there are men out there that are married and are pedifiles. However, the abuse to young boys seems to be very problematic for the catholic church. #1 The problem has been identified - priest have been malesting and abusing young boys. #2 A possible solution - allow priests to be married. The bible tells you that it is extremely difficult to not have a mate - this (among other bible verses) makes my argument extremely logical. The church used to allow its priest to be married.

8/21/2009 11:13:48 AM

Replying to indybski:

Replying to jarfrank:

faith.

So, married men never cheat? Never break their vows? Never abuse young boys? No, marriage for Catholic priests to avoid abuse is not logical.

1st Corinthians - chapter 7 - look it up. My comment has nothing to do with adultery, that is a separate issue. Sure there are men out there that are married and are pedifiles. However, the abuse to young boys seems to be very problematic for the catholic church. #1 The problem has been identified - priest have been malesting and abusing young boys. #2 A possible solution - allow priests to be married. The bible tells you that it is extremely difficult to not have a mate - this (among other bible verses) makes my argument extremely logical. The church used to allow its priest to be married.
jarfrank

Replying to indybski:

Replying to jarfrank:

faith.

So, married men never cheat? Never break their vows? Never abuse young boys? No, marriage for Catholic priests to avoid abuse is not logical.

1st Corinthians - chapter 7 - look it up. My comment has nothing to do with adultery, that is a separate issue. Sure there are men out there that are married and are pedifiles. However, the abuse to young boys seems to be very problematic for the catholic church. #1 The problem has been identified - priest have been malesting and abusing young boys. #2 A possible solution - allow priests to be married. The bible tells you that it is extremely difficult to not have a mate - this (among other bible verses) makes my argument extremely logical. The church used to allow its priest to be married.
jarfrank

User Image
SNAPnetwork wrote:
Fourth, if (& that’s a big IF) any parish is closing anywhere that's in any way connected with pedophile priests & complicit church officials, it's the pedophile priests & complicit church officials who are the cause, not the brave victims who are coming forward to seek justice, expose predators, protect kids, & make the church a more healthy & safe institution.

Fifth, all kinds of "older cases" come before courts these days. Under President George W. Bush, the US Dept. of Justice set up a special task force to investigate & pursue criminal charges against racists in the deep South who hurt civil rights volunteers in the 1950s & 1960s. More than a dozen such criminals have been convicted. So let's not assume that criminals who conceal child sex crimes can't, or shouldn't, be subject to criminal probes.

David Clohessy, National Director, SNAP-Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, 7234 Arsenal Street, St. Louis MO 63143, 314 566 9790 cell, SNAPclohessy@aol.com, SNAPnetwork.org
8/21/2009 11:12:40 AM

SNAPnetwork wrote:
Let's clear up a few myths here.

First, some parishes in Boston are closing. But it's because of declining attendance, fewer priests, “white flight,” suburban sprawl, & many other sociological & demographic factors that pre-date & are independent of the church’s on going clergy sex abuse & cover up crisis.

Second, Catholic officials are incredibly secretive about church wealth & finances. So bishops can claim their costs are increasing for ANY reason & there’s no independent oversight that can prove or disprove what they’re saying.

Third, the overwhelming majority of clergy sex abuse settlements are covered by insurance policies that bishops have paid for decades ago.
8/21/2009 11:11:33 AM
Let's clear up a few myths here.

First, some parishes in Boston are closing. But it's because of declining attendance, fewer priests, “white flight,” suburban sprawl, & many other sociological & demographic factors that pre-date & are independent of the church’s on going clergy sex abuse & cover up crisis.

Second, Catholic officials are incredibly secretive about church wealth & finances. So bishops can claim their costs are increasing for ANY reason & there’s no independent oversight that can prove or disprove what they’re saying.

Third, the overwhelming majority of clergy sex abuse settlements are covered by insurance policies that bishops have paid for decades ago. SNAPnetwork


Let's clear up a few myths here.

First, some parishes in Boston are closing. But it's because of declining attendance, fewer priests, “white flight,” suburban sprawl, & many other sociological & demographic factors that pre-date & are independent of the church’s on going clergy sex abuse & cover up crisis.

Second, Catholic officials are incredibly secretive about church wealth & finances. So bishops can claim their costs are increasing for ANY reason & there’s no independent oversight that can prove or disprove what they’re saying.

Third, the overwhelming majority of clergy sex abuse settlements are covered by insurance policies that bishops have paid for decades ago.SNAPnetwork


hrhhrh wrote:
Regarding repressed memory: I have a friend who was raped and molested by his father, the organist and other members of the choir at St Paul's Cathedral in Pittsburgh, when he was a toddler. He had no memory of this until about age 40 when he saw a fact-based movie of a boy (Steven Stayner) who was kidnapped by a pedophile and kept prisoner for seven years. Then, horrific images and memories began to emerge, causing him unspeakable suffering and pain. No therapist was involved until some years later. The memories emerged without coaching of any kind.

In the intervening years he has learned much about his father, the organist and others involved. He has no doubts about what happened and who did those monstrous things to him.

I have know him since he was a college student. He was living a happy, successful life until he saw that movie. Since then, he has become a physical and emotional wreck. My heart bleeds for him.

Repressed memory IS real.
8/21/2009 11:08:56 AM
Regarding repressed memory: I have a friend who was raped and molested by his father, the organist and other members of the choir at St Paul's Cathedral in Pittsburgh, when he was a toddler. He had no memory of this until about age 40 when he saw a fact-based movie of a boy (Steven Stayner) who was kidnapped by a pedophile and kept prisoner for seven years. Then, horrific images and memories began to emerge, causing him unspeakable suffering and pain. No therapist was involved until some years later. The memories emerged without coaching of any kind.

In the intervening years he has learned much about his father, the organist and others involved. He has no doubts about what happened and who did those monstrous things to him.

I have know him since he was a college student. He was living a happy, successful life until he saw that movie. Since then, he has become a physical and emotional wreck. My heart bleeds for him.

Repressed memory IS real. hrhhrh


Regarding repressed memory: I have a friend who was raped and molested by his father, the organist and other members of the choir at St Paul's Cathedral in Pittsburgh, when he was a toddler. He had no memory of this until about age 40 when he saw a fact-based movie of a boy (Steven Stayner) who was kidnapped by a pedophile and kept prisoner for seven years. Then, horrific images and memories began to emerge, causing him unspeakable suffering and pain. No therapist was involved until some years later. The memories emerged without coaching of any kind.

In the intervening years he has learned much about his father, the organist and others involved. He has no doubts about what happened and who did those monstrous things to him.

I have know him since he was a college student. He was living a happy, successful life until he saw that movie. Since then, he has become a physical and emotional wreck. My heart bleeds for him.

Repressed memory IS real.hrhhrh


wowww wrote:
There is much MISINFORMATION from bloggers here from not actually reading what others have said or telling mistruths. For the person responding to letting priest marry, NO ONE mentioned anything about marriage to cover up abuse. T the person who said thousands of priests have abused is not true either. There have been many cases, but exaggerating facts is a lie. For the nut who suggested the "victim" is being abused by the Church (3 decades later no less) for not paying restitution is a result of irrational thinking that revenge will in some way make things better. I say to those who have zero involvement whatsoever, YOU seek a form of therapy to resolve whatever drives your need to feel so emotionally attached to something that doesn't involve you. How "devout" of a Christian can you really be and be a member of any religion, Catholicism not withstanding and make hateful comments you've made?
8/21/2009 10:57:19 AM

There is much MISINFORMATION from bloggers here from not actually reading what others have said or telling mistruths. For the person responding to letting priest marry, NO ONE mentioned anything about marriage to cover up abuse. T the person who said thousands of priests have abused is not true either. There have been many cases, but exaggerating facts is a lie. For the nut who suggested the "victim" is being abused by the Church (3 decades later no less) for not paying restitution is a result of irrational thinking that revenge will in some way make things better. I say to those who have zero involvement whatsoever, YOU seek a form of therapy to resolve whatever drives your need to feel so emotionally attached to something that doesn't involve you. How "devout" of a Christian can you really be and be a member of any religion, Catholicism not withstanding and make hateful comments you've made? wowww


There is much MISINFORMATION from bloggers here from not actually reading what others have said or telling mistruths. For the person responding to letting priest marry, NO ONE mentioned anything about marriage to cover up abuse. T the person who said thousands of priests have abused is not true either. There have been many cases, but exaggerating facts is a lie. For the nut who suggested the "victim" is being abused by the Church (3 decades later no less) for not paying restitution is a result of irrational thinking that revenge will in some way make things better. I say to those who have zero involvement whatsoever, YOU seek a form of therapy to resolve whatever drives your need to feel so emotionally attached to something that doesn't involve you. How "devout" of a Christian can you really be and be a member of any religion, Catholicism not withstanding and make hateful comments you've made?wowww


wowww wrote:
Frankly, the Church should NOT be liable for actions of renegade priests decades after the fact. I question the motive(s) after 3 decades in this case of filing a lawsuit (and waiting until 3 days before the end of the 2 year statute of limitations to do so is really suspect). I also question statute of limitation laws that give one person a different set of limitations than another for the same acts. Evil is a two way street evidently.
8/21/2009 10:43:20 AM

Frankly, the Church should NOT be liable for actions of renegade priests decades after the fact. I question the motive(s) after 3 decades in this case of filing a lawsuit (and waiting until 3 days before the end of the 2 year statute of limitations to do so is really suspect). I also question statute of limitation laws that give one person a different set of limitations than another for the same acts. Evil is a two way street evidently. wowww



Frankly, the Church should NOT be liable for actions of renegade priests decades after the fact. I question the motive(s) after 3 decades in this case of filing a lawsuit (and waiting until 3 days before the end of the 2 year statute of limitations to do so is really suspect). I also question statute of limitation laws that give one person a different set of limitations than another for the same acts. Evil is a two way street evidently.wowww

indybski wrote:

Replying to jarfrank:

This is why catholic priests should be allowed to marry. God intended us to have a mate - not doing so can lead to this behavior. The catholic church should reconsider its policy - several hundred years ago priests could marry.

How terrible that "the archdiocese isn't challenging the truthfulness of John Doe RG, just his legal claim." Also that this priest has confessed to molesting children but since the victims are adults the statue of limitations has expired. There is something fundamentally wrong with how the system treats these victims. I'm sure it isn't a easy to come forward as a victim in these situations. I'm not catholic, but I consider myself a Christian. It's stories like this that can make non-believers very skeptical of the Christian faith.


So, married men never cheat? Never break their vows? Never abuse young boys? No, marriage for Catholic priests to avoid abuse is not logical.
8/21/2009 9:42:38 AM



indybski wrote:
The "Church", with a capital "C", in Roman Catholic terms, is the Family of God. As a whole, we are NOT abusers. There have been priests, to be sure, and perhaps even religouis sisters, who abused children in their care, and the history of handling of those cases has obvioulsy been poor. I would never defend the administrative decisions that were made, except to say that 25 to 40 years ago, our understanding of adult predatory behavior was not what it is today. For example, during WWII, the family doctor told my grandmother to take up smoking to calm her nerves when her son, my dad, was taken POW in northern Italy. Today, of course, we would sue for malpractice, since we know smoking is so unhealthy. Back then, we just did not know. So, accuse an entire Religion of abuse is wrong. What is also forgotten in this discussion is, that in every "occupation" or vocation, there are people who are mentally ill-pedafiles, sadists, pornographers...not just the priestly vocation.
8/21/2009 9:37:38 AM

The "Church", with a capital "C", in Roman Catholic terms, is the Family of God. As a whole, we are NOT abusers. There have been priests, to be sure, and perhaps even religouis sisters, who abused children in their care, and the history of handling of those cases has obvioulsy been poor. I would never defend the administrative decisions that were made, except to say that 25 to 40 years ago, our understanding of adult predatory behavior was not what it is today. For example, during WWII, the family doctor told my grandmother to take up smoking to calm her nerves when her son, my dad, was taken POW in northern Italy. Today, of course, we would sue for malpractice, since we know smoking is so unhealthy. Back then, we just did not know. So, accuse an entire Religion of abuse is wrong. What is also forgotten in this discussion is, that in every "occupation" or vocation, there are people who are mentally ill-pedafiles, sadists, pornographers...not just the priestly vocation. indybski


The "Church", with a capital "C", in Roman Catholic terms, is the Family of God. As a whole, we are NOT abusers. There have been priests, to be sure, and perhaps even religouis sisters, who abused children in their care, and the history of handling of those cases has obvioulsy been poor. I would never defend the administrative decisions that were made, except to say that 25 to 40 years ago, our understanding of adult predatory behavior was not what it is today. For example, during WWII, the family doctor told my grandmother to take up smoking to calm her nerves when her son, my dad, was taken POW in northern Italy. Today, of course, we would sue for malpractice, since we know smoking is so unhealthy. Back then, we just did not know. So, accuse an entire Religion of abuse is wrong. What is also forgotten in this discussion is, that in every "occupation" or vocation, there are people who are mentally ill-pedafiles, sadists, pornographers...not just the priestly vocation.indybski


jarfrank wrote:
This is why catholic priests should be allowed to marry. God intended us to have a mate - not doing so can lead to this behavior. The catholic church should reconsider its policy - several hundred years ago priests could marry.

How terrible that "the archdiocese isn't challenging the truthfulness of John Doe RG, just his legal claim." Also that this priest has confessed to molesting children but since the victims are adults the statue of limitations has expired. There is something fundamentally wrong with how the system treats these victims. I'm sure it isn't a easy to come forward as a victim in these situations. I'm not catholic, but I consider myself a Christian. It's stories like this that can make non-believers very skeptical of the Christian faith.

8/21/2009 9:36:03 AM
This is why catholic priests should be allowed to marry. God intended us to have a mate - not doing so can lead to this behavior. The catholic church should reconsider its policy - several hundred years ago priests could marry.

How terrible that "the archdiocese isn't challenging the truthfulness of John Doe RG, just his legal claim." Also that this priest has confessed to molesting children but since the victims are adults the statue of limitations has expired. There is something fundamentally wrong with how the system treats these victims. I'm sure it isn't a easy to come forward as a victim in these situations. I'm not catholic, but I consider myself a Christian. It's stories like this that can make non-believers very skeptical of the Christian faith.
jarfrank


This is why catholic priests should be allowed to marry. God intended us to have a mate - not doing so can lead to this behavior. The catholic church should reconsider its policy - several hundred years ago priests could marry.

How terrible that "the archdiocese isn't challenging the truthfulness of John Doe RG, just his legal claim." Also that this priest has confessed to molesting children but since the victims are adults the statue of limitations has expired. There is something fundamentally wrong with how the system treats these victims. I'm sure it isn't a easy to come forward as a victim in these situations. I'm not catholic, but I consider myself a Christian. It's stories like this that can make non-believers very skeptical of the Christian faith.
jarfrank

User Image
drake007 wrote:
If you are "devout" then you are in mass every Sunday and you hear the prayers for victims, support groups, etc. Visit the Archdiocese website and read the stats on abuse claims and look at the the resources they offer for people to either make a claim of abuse, seek support, etc. They are not running away from this; but handing out $ isn't the solution

"This makes me sick - the Archdiocese continues to try to abuse these victims even more by not giving them some kind of restitution. Harry Monroe did terrible things to these boys who are now men - the Archdiocese needs to take responsibility and stop this abuse and Harry Monroe needs to be put in jail! The Catholic Church has named this next year as "The Year of the Priest" - they should change that and make it the "Year of the Victims" and seek forgiveness. I am a devout Catholic and I am sickened by this whole situation and pray that it will all be resolved in due time and that the victims can find some peace in their lives."

8/21/2009 9:02:02 AM
If you are "devout" then you are in mass every Sunday and you hear the prayers for victims, support groups, etc. Visit the Archdiocese website and read the stats on abuse claims and look at the the resources they offer for people to either make a claim of abuse, seek support, etc. They are not running away from this; but handing out $ isn't the solution

"This makes me sick - the Archdiocese continues to try to abuse these victims even more by not giving them some kind of restitution. Harry Monroe did terrible things to these boys who are now men - the Archdiocese needs to take responsibility and stop this abuse and Harry Monroe needs to be put in jail! The Catholic Church has named this next year as "The Year of the Priest" - they should change that and make it the "Year of the Victims" and seek forgiveness. I am a devout Catholic and I am sickened by this whole situation and pray that it will all be resolved in due time and that the victims can find some peace in their lives."
drake007



If you are "devout" then you are in mass every Sunday and you hear the prayers for victims, support groups, etc. Visit the Archdiocese website and read the stats on abuse claims and look at the the resources they offer for people to either make a claim of abuse, seek support, etc. They are not running away from this; but handing out $ isn't the solution

"This makes me sick - the Archdiocese continues to try to abuse these victims even more by not giving them some kind of restitution. Harry Monroe did terrible things to these boys who are now men - the Archdiocese needs to take responsibility and stop this abuse and Harry Monroe needs to be put in jail! The Catholic Church has named this next year as "The Year of the Priest" - they should change that and make it the "Year of the Victims" and seek forgiveness. I am a devout Catholic and I am sickened by this whole situation and pray that it will all be resolved in due time and that the victims can find some peace in their lives."
drake007



TomDunwurkin wrote:
Thousands of cases of abuse from around the world and there are still millions of Catholics pouring money into church coffers to defend it. All of those lost souls subsidizing child molestation and calling it religion. You'd think some of the self-righteous zealots would realize where the money is going and walk away from that Cult organization. Wake up! It's still going on and you are paying the Church to let it happen.
8/21/2009 8:57:09 AM

Thousands of cases of abuse from around the world and there are still millions of Catholics pouring money into church coffers to defend it. All of those lost souls subsidizing child molestation and calling it religion. You'd think some of the self-righteous zealots would realize where the money is going and walk away from that Cult organization. Wake up! It's still going on and you are paying the Church to let it happen. TomDunwurkin


Thousands of cases of abuse from around the world and there are still millions of Catholics pouring money into church coffers to defend it. All of those lost souls subsidizing child molestation and calling it religion. You'd think some of the self-righteous zealots would realize where the money is going and walk away from that Cult organization. Wake up! It's still going on and you are paying the Church to let it happen.TomDunwurkin
User Image
indt1942 wrote:

Replying to OhIam:

Replying to ChiefRose2000:

taking care of these victims of abuse. The blockquote>

u r rite if same okkured in parish they cud not continue if ur priest abuses wot can you do when they close parish we r left without a priest to guide us and look aover us. Stop the payments priests r only human



Learn to write and spell. Can not read a word of this.


8/21/2009 8:01:33 AM
User Image
patrickindyguy wrote:
How do we know the Archdiocese is doing nothing? In many dioceses they offer counseling, offer to pay for counseling and therapy, they offer other things that are directed at helping the person. In Chicago, the Archdiocese does many of the above mentioned things. Some of this may not be publicized for good reason. Victims don't always want to be known, nor do they want to be centers of public media attention, thus group therapy, counseling, etc are not broadcast for everyone to know. My only caution is, one cannot recover from something only by a monetary restitution.
So, the Church doesn't continue to abuse victims. I've heard many times at mass during the intercessions a prayer for victims of sexual abuse.
8/21/2009 7:53:38 AM

How do we know the Archdiocese is doing nothing? In many dioceses they offer counseling, offer to pay for counseling and therapy, they offer other things that are directed at helping the person. In Chicago, the Archdiocese does many of the above mentioned things. Some of this may not be publicized for good reason. Victims don't always want to be known, nor do they want to be centers of public media attention, thus group therapy, counseling, etc are not broadcast for everyone to know. My only caution is, one cannot recover from something only by a monetary restitution.
So, the Church doesn't continue to abuse victims. I've heard many times at mass during the intercessions a prayer for victims of sexual abuse. patrickindyguy



How do we know the Archdiocese is doing nothing? In many dioceses they offer counseling, offer to pay for counseling and therapy, they offer other things that are directed at helping the person. In Chicago, the Archdiocese does many of the above mentioned things. Some of this may not be publicized for good reason. Victims don't always want to be known, nor do they want to be centers of public media attention, thus group therapy, counseling, etc are not broadcast for everyone to know. My only caution is, one cannot recover from something only by a monetary restitution.
So, the Church doesn't continue to abuse victims. I've heard many times at mass during the intercessions a prayer for victims of sexual abuse.patrickindyguy
User Image
wiljo wrote:

Replying to ChiefRose2000:

I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue.


It is simple. If they are not in a continued cycle of abuse they should prove it by opening the documentation and once and for all be held accountable. They have been as guilty as the perps by knowingly moving these animals from one parish to the other. Until then. The Church is an abuser.
8/21/2009 7:49:07 AM


I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue.
It is simple. If they are not in a continued cycle of abuse they should prove it by opening the documentation and once and for all be held accountable. They have been as guilty as the perps by knowingly moving these animals from one parish to the other. Until then. The Church is an abuser. wiljo



I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue.
It is simple. If they are not in a continued cycle of abuse they should prove it by opening the documentation and once and for all be held accountable. They have been as guilty as the perps by knowingly moving these animals from one parish to the other. Until then. The Church is an abuser.wiljo
User Image
Tweddy wrote:
perps always have selective memories while victims remember every iota.
8/21/2009 7:21:45 AM
perps always have selective memories while victims remember every iota. Tweddy


perps always have selective memories while victims remember every iota.Tweddy
User Image
JustTheFactsLady wrote:
While I don't doubt for a second that these people are telling the truth and are real victims, I would struggle with a prosecution with zero physical evidence and 10 year old testimony. Multiple victims with claims against the same individual, as well as physical descriptions of private areas all help, but it's still an uphill battle, not to mention the emotional struggle of testifying.
8/21/2009 6:46:03 AM
While I don't doubt for a second that these people are telling the truth and are real victims, I would struggle with a prosecution with zero physical evidence and 10 year old testimony. Multiple victims with claims against the same individual, as well as physical descriptions of private areas all help, but it's still an uphill battle, not to mention the emotional struggle of testifying. JustTheFactsLady


While I don't doubt for a second that these people are telling the truth and are real victims, I would struggle with a prosecution with zero physical evidence and 10 year old testimony. Multiple victims with claims against the same individual, as well as physical descriptions of private areas all help, but it's still an uphill battle, not to mention the emotional struggle of testifying.JustTheFactsLady
User Image
OhIam wrote:

Replying to ChiefRose2000:

I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue.



u r rite if same okkured in parish they cud not continue if ur priest abuses wot can you do when they close parish we r left without a priest to guide us and look aover us. Stop the payments priests r only human
8/21/2009 6:40:14 AM
User Image
ChiefRose2000 wrote:
I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue.
8/21/2009 2:47:13 AM

I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue. ChiefRose2000



I disagree with the idea that the Archdiocese is continuing to abuse these victims. The Church is caught in the situation of trying to balance protecting funds to keep parishes open and serving those congregations and taking care of these victims of abuse. The Church has reached out with offers of counseling and other assistance. The law provides for a defense and I feel it is wise for the Church to avail itself of the protections of the law. The Archdiocese of Boston has had to close many parishes because of million dollar payouts of the priest abuse scandal. If the same were to occur here, I'm sure my own parish of Little Flower and many others could not continue.ChiefRose2000
User Image
nonebetter wrote:
This makes me sick - the Archdiocese continues to try to abuse these victims even more by not giving them some kind of restitution. Harry Monroe did terrible things to these boys who are now men - the Archdiocese needs to take responsibility and stop this abuse and Harry Monroe needs to be put in jail! The Catholic Church has named this next year as "The Year of the Priest" - they should change that and make it the "Year of the Victims" and seek forgiveness. I am a devout Catholic and I am sickened by this whole situation and pray that it will all be resolved in due time and that the victims can find some peace in their lives.
8/21/2009 1:19:26 AM

Choke on Pope John Paul II

The foot soldiers of Opus Dei are busy at their work again to dissipate all possible light on the Achilles Heel of John Paul II the Great -- which is his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army - which included Fr. Maciel as the most illustrious of them all – in this article below.



The Opus Dei produced and run the great show of the 26 years papacy of John Paul II –EVERYTHING that John Paul II did was orchestrated by the Opus Dei. Therefore, the biggest pedophile crime cover-up in the Catholic Church was led by the Opus Dei behind the face of John Paul II. John Paul II was angelic in the beginning until he became old and ugly – just like Lucifer who fell from grace from Heaven – see our earlier exposé on this matter.



So now, the Opus Dei who are master of words are saying “choke on the pope’s name” like in this article below. Read between the lines, the deceptive words and Octopus Dei tentacles are at work here.

The Opus Dei cannot allow any free speech and therefore they silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino - see our earlier posts for details.



Let us not be fooled that Zenit is the foremost news source of the papacy today - it publishes EVERY speech adn almost every move and meetings of the pope at the Vatican - and it is run by the Legionaries of Christ founded by Fr. Maciel. Zenit is one of the tentacles of Octopus Dei, just like John Allen of National Catholic Reporter is one of Octopus Dei’s tentacles.


Opus Dei is the most secretive and python-slimy crook on the planet today controlling the trillions wealth of the Catholic Church at the Vatican. So they need the pope with his daily pomposity meeting with royalties and diplomatic immunity to hide its wealth. Christ said: You cannot serve God and mammon – the Opus Dei can…because their true god is St. Josemaria Escriva, it is not Jesus Christ…see the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com and God’s Rottweiler www.pope-ratz.blogspot.com for details of Opus Dei’s crimes against humanity since the 20th century and on-going!


Cough up the truth or choke on the pope

Pete VereBy on August 16, 2009 9:47 PM | | Comments (4)

The French have saying that whoever eats of the pope will choke on him. This saying comes to mind as I survey those questioning the canonization process of Pope John Paul II in light of recent revelations about Fr. Maciel's "double life." The secular press and certain anti-papist strains within protestant fundamentalism aren't the only ones questioning the appropriateness of John Paul II's potential canonization. Adding their voice to the chorus this week are CrunchyCon's Rod Dreher and Renew America and Liberal Traditionalist blogmeister Eric Giunta.

For the record, I believe Pope John Paul II probably was not aware of the evidence against Fr. Maciel. Given what we know about JPII, I put the odds of him knowing and not doing anything about it (and in fact continuing to praise Fr. Maciel publicly as an excellent example for youth) at about the same percentage as several young women, independently and years apart from each other, breaking into the hospital room of an elderly priest-founder and stealing his semen to impregnate themselves.
Possible? Yes. Probable? I'd sooner bet on the state lottery.
Having said that, this incident may still slow down Pope John Paul II's canonization process. Because of the nature of canonization, it's important that we know everything we can about the late Supreme Pontiff. Especially when allegations are as high-profile as those concerning Fr. Maciel. Thus the devil's advocate will have his job cut out for him.

Nevertheless, over at the other end of the Church spectrum, some LC/RC supporters are still using the pope to try and shut down discussion of their movement's charism. A recent example of this comes from Mark Polo in the comments section of the AmericanPapist blog. Mr. Polo writes:

The charism is not the same as the founder. The charism is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which at this point, is guaranteed by the Church in its approval of the Constitutions. While this is not an infallible act of Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict would be fully free to make changes or even remove this approval of the Church entirely, the assumption at this point has to be in favor of the validity of the charism. Any other attitude is really moving away from the respect that is due the Holy Father. (If we can decide that John Paul II was obviously wrong about this matter, and abused his power as Pope to approve these Constitutions, the next step is to start questioning everything else the Holy Father says. This is not a road I want to see people going down.)

Others commentators have refuted his errors in logic, so I'll set those aside for now. The road that ought to be avoided is that of eating of the pope by continuing to invoke an approval of one's founder and movement that was gained through deception of the founder's piety. This was the deception used to gain papal approval, to provide oneself with the cover of Catholic orthodoxy, and persecute the founder's victims while silencing the movement's legitimate critics.
That being said, I am sure that many orthodox Catholics like myself, who are part of the Pope John Paul II generation of Catholic activists, will continue to defend our pope during this time. This is not to say, however, that we will be silenced by the mere mention of Pope John Paul II's name, or that in his name our anger toward the LC/RC will dissipate.

Unlike other attacks against Pope John Paul II, this recent volley was completely avoidable. HAD THE REST OF THE CHURCH KNOWN THE TRUTH ABOUT FR. MACIEL. The controversy also could be cut short by the LC/RC coming forward with the truth and apologizing to Fr. Maciel's victims.

Nevertheless, Fr. Maciel and his movement chose to invoke the pope as shield against serious allegations concerning the founder's proclivity towards violations of the Sixth Commandment. An example of this can be seen in Sandro Magister's 2003 interview with Father Miguel Cavallé Puig, LC - a Spaniard who at the time was part of the LC's general secretariat (click here). In responding to former LC seminarians who accused Fr. Maciel of sexual impropriety, Fr. Puig states: "the true target of the accusations is not so much Father Maciel, but the church, and the pope."

In short, Fr. Puig, like his founder Maciel, ate of the pope in the name of the movement. And for all we know, the movement may have bitten off a chunk of the Holy Spirit in proposing Maciel's mother - Mama Maurita - for potential canonization. Do we have any outside corroboration of holiness and heroic virtue? Is anyone outside the LC/RC putting forward her cause? (Unlike the case of Gabrielle Lefebvre, whose cause has always been independent of the SSPX, Mama Maurita's cause appears completely driven by the LC/RC and its supporters)
And thus the LC/RC finds itself choking on the very lie which it ate. Yet the movement's supporters continue biting off more chunks of the pope, warning others of choking hazards in an attempt to stop them from noticing that the movement is choking.

Please, dear LC/RC member, I beg you. For the sake of Maciel's victims, for the sake of your own members, for the sake of the Church and Pope John Paul II supporters embarrassed by your founder's lies, please come forward now with the truth. You've eaten of the pope. So please cough up the truth and stop the choking.

4 Comments

By Molly on August 17, 2009 9:10 AM

It's so much more than violations of the 6th commandment; it's thorough deceit, it's coveting and getting what is not yours, it's aiming false witness at victims, there seems to be more than one false god in the works here, it's taking resources collected for one purpose and using them for another, it's the dishonoring of persons. Let's not make this all about sex as if that were the only morality worth noting. As for JPII's knowledge---there is such a thing as maintaining your blind spot. When you do this in traffic there's accidents. When you do this in leadership, there are consequences usually for other people. What he may not have intended, he most thoroughly facilitated with harmful consequences for many, many people.

By Anonymous on August 17, 2009 11:04 AM

Your argument for why it is preposterous to believe that JPII knew anything of Maciel's sexual exploits is the same one that the likes of Father Neuhaus used back in the day to defend the mighty Maciel. Neuhaus just couldn't bring himself to believe that this man he knew to be so holy and who had done so much "good" for the Church could possibly have been a complete deviant and a pervert. That line of argument no longer holds any kind of water.
But whether the Pope knew for sure or not seems irrelevant to me when it comes to his canonization. Even if he didn't have one inkling about Maciel, he SHOULD have. Would the Church canonize a mother who for decades ignored the cries of her sexually molested children and chose instead to listen to her coworkers who were telling her that their abuser was a wonderful and holy man? Perhaps she truly did believe it for herself. And she may have been a pious and holy woman in many other areas of her life and may have done fabulous things for the Church. But should she be canonized??!!

The Pope was the spiritual father of these abuse victims (and all the other thousands of victims of Maciel's fraud and deception). He had a duty to investigate the matter for himself. He was not in prison. The internet was readily available to him. He could have interviewed the accusers himself. He surely should have known what kind of intrigue was going on in the Vatican. It was his responsibility to know about such intrigue. You do not have the luxury of naivete when you are the Vicar of Christ.

Canonization of a pope who failed his spiritual children so utterly in a matter of such great importance would be a massive scandal in my eyes. I hope the process is at the very least slowed considerably so that the test of time will lend some perspective and clarity to the situation.

By giselle on August 17, 2009 4:40 PM

There are two questions: is JP2 in heaven and is he worthy of veneration? (which cannot exclude his years as pope). I'm at peace with the thought of him having entered heaven, perhaps having been purged of this and that, but I'm doubtful of the value of venerating his papacy. I love the man to death, have my own strong reasons for believing that he didn't know the details of MM's depravity, and I think he did tremendous things to restore many elements of Catholic culture. But if honouring him dishonours the victims (or overlooks their years of suffering in any way) then let it go. The "smoke of satan" entered the highest levels of the Church and a back-slapping session over John Paul the Great would do more harm to the Church overall than good. We can privately ask his intercession (for what he didn't know then, he surely knows and grieves for now) and through his prayers we'll get past this mess. Canonisation wouldn't be a good idea.

By Pete VereAuthor Profile Page on August 17, 2009 6:46 PM
Regardless of where one stands on the debate over Pope John Paul II's canonization process, I believe this discussion corroborates the main point I was attempting to make:

The Fr. Maciel scandal is causing many orthodox Catholics to rethink Pope John Paul II's potential canonization.

Why Pope John Paul II should not be canonized‏

Well, well, well, someone is finally paying attention to our humble weblog the John Paul II Millstone and proving our point that John Paul II MUST not be called a “saint” by American children and in American soil!


Well, someone is paying attention finally to our humble weblog the John Paul II Millstone and proving our point that John Paul II MUST not be called a “saint” by American children and in American soil! Opus Dei through Benedict XVI is speeding up the canonization of John Paul II because he is their GAY Holy Father mystically married to their other Holy Father St. Josemaria Escriva – see our earlier posts and images. Opus Dei cannot stand the Jesuits who work with the poorest of Christ and so they expel and silence them form the Vatican Radio and shut down the Vatican Observatory run by the Jesuits. The Opus Dei bishop of el Salvador silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino because he dared criticised the theatrical papacy of John Paul II in his book Witnesses to the Kingdom: the Martyrs of El Salvador and the Crucified People


August 14, 2009

Why Pope John Paul II should not be canonized

By Eric Giunta
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090814

Once again, the Catholic world has been rocked by yet more allegations of sexual impropriety by Legionnaires of Christ founder, the late Fr. Marcial Maciel. It seems the now-disgraced founder-cum-pervert fathered more children than previously suspected; the latest claimants to his paternity purport to have evidence that the late Pope John Paul II knew of Maciel's sexual dalliances, and turned a blind eye to them. (If true, it would confirm the prior journalistic scholarship of author Jason Berry.)

The allegations highlight what for all too many Catholics is the elephant-in-the-room when discussing the ills which beset the modern Church: the extent to which the late Pope John Paul II was an enabler of these perversions, from sexual and liturgical abuse to theological dissent and the scandal of Catholic politicians who support the most immoral of social policies with the tacit or express blessings of their Church.

One does not need to deny or disparage the personal sanctity, thoughtful conservatism, or religious orthodoxy of the late Pontiff in order to acknowledge that his Pontificate, by all accounts, was a glorious failure. Yes, he aided in the fall of Eastern European Communism, but the Pope of Rome is not primarily a mover and shaker of state politics, but a Christian pastor whose mission it is to save souls, convert the lost, and govern his church in such a way that it resembles, as best as possible, the city on a hill, the light of the world whose radiance cannot be hid under a bushel-basket.

In terms of raw statistics, the Catholic Church shrank under the late Pope. Catholics comprised 18 percent of the world's population in 1978, the year Karol Wojtyla assumed the Chair of St Peter. At his death Catholics comprised 17 percent.

It'd be foolish, of course, to let such numbers stand alone as leading Catholic indicators, but in terms of the quality of world Catholicism the evidence, while not as quantifiable, is no less apparent or tangible. If one is looking for the fruits of the Wojtylian pontificate, several studies of the modern church paint a representative picture: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, and the pioneering work of Dr. Richard Sipe and Roman Catholic Faithful. These sources approach their subject matter from very varied ideological backgrounds, but they all paint a very bleak, but well-documented, picture of the prior pontificate.

Though Catholics and others are loathe to admit it of an otherwise beloved Pope, John Paul II oversaw a church which deteriorated in both its inner and outer life. His callous indifference toward the victims of priestly sexual abuse in refusing to meet personally with a single one of them, and his stubborn refusal to compel the resignation from office of any of the bishops who aided, abetted, and covered-up the abuse, are testamentary to his utter failure: not as a Catholic or a theologian, but as a Pope.

And this is precisely why he should not be canonized. For in the Catholic (and popular) understanding, canonization is not simply a technical decree indicating one's everlasting abode in Paradise; it is, in addition, the Church's solemn endorsement of a Christian's heroic virtue. The question the Catholic Church must ask herself is: Was John Paul II a model of "heroic" papal virtue?

Contrary to leftist media reportage, the late Pope was not an authoritarian despot, bent on enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on an unwilling church. Quite the contrary: theological liberals and dissenters flourished in all of the Church's structures, from lay politics and Catholic universities, to the ranks of priests and bishops. Not a single pro-abortion Catholic politician has been excommunicated from the church; only a handful of openly heretical priests were asked to stop teaching theology, but were otherwise permitted to exercise their priestly ministry unhindered. The Church in Austria openly dissents from orthodox Catholicism with papal impunity. Fr. Richard McBrien, Sr. Joan Chittiser, Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Notre Dame University, dissenters galore: the overwhelming majority of prominent far-leftist, theologically modernist Catholic organizations, speakers, and theologians are Catholics in good standing with their church, and are frequently given an official platform at church-sponsored institutions and events. To give just two more examples, several Catholic parishes and universities flaunt themselves as "gay-friendly" in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians. These speakers and institutions are in just as good standing with the Church as so-called "orthodox" Catholic pundits and writers.

After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from the Anglican Communion. Everyone has their seat at the table, liberal and conservative, high church and low. The "official" teaching of the Church may lean toward religious conservatism, but this is just one option out of many which a loyal Catholic may avail himself of and remain in good standing with his Church.

The late Pope's governance of his church was laissez-faire, he personally adhering to conservative Catholic orthodoxy but not wishing to impose such on Catholic clergy or institutions. Ironically, the Papacy has been rather critical of governments who take such approaches to their economies; should it be the model for a church which regards itself as the one true religion?

The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on one's religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope would represent (among other things) his church's influential imprimatur on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational conservative principles of one of the world's oldest and most venerable conservative institutions.

As noted earlier, the Papacy is the third-rail of orthodox Catholic discourse. The respect Catholics have for the Papal institution renders the living or recent claimants of that seat virtually impervious to criticism, as if such critique automatically rendered one implacably uncharitable or schismatic. When civil society regains its conservative bearings, history will not be kind to what any unbiased observer must regard as the gross pastoral negligence of the 21st century's first Pope; if Catholics want to come out of the present cultural quagmire with their intellectual integrity intact, they must fearlessly shed the light of truth on that Pontiff's pastorship, and be sure to end up on the right side of history's verdict.

© Eric Giunta

Comments to this article are BLIND to the reality of the Octopus Dei http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/08/an-argument-against-john-paul_comments.html


Observer
August 14, 2009 10:38 PM
He may have been great in some ways, but his feet were of clay here, and canonizing him would send the message that his and the Church's response to this situation was somehow not a real problem.

Well said, Tumarion.

John Paul himself will suffer nothing if he is not canonized. Perhaps the analogy to Junipero Serra is apt here. Serra may have been a good guy, but his canonization would send a certain message (in his case about colonialism) which might not be appropriate. JP was undoubtedly a good guy too, but I don't think the Church should send the message that denial is the proper response to the horrible things that have happened.


David F. (the most ignorant of them all -- John Paul II saved NO ONE)
August 15, 2009 10:24 AM
The Person - The former Pope was clearly a highly educated man beloved by his flock. His legacy will never be defined by one issue, nor should the most important be ignored. How many pages of the “posito” deal with the sexual abuse of children by priests? I would appreciate it if the investigators would answer two questions for me.

What is the most important thing JPII did to stop the negligent supervision of abusive priests by his highest level employees?

What is the most important thing he did to show care, concern, and compassion for the tens of thousands who were raped by his employees, and betrayed by his hierarchy?
Is it just me, or do you have the feeling that when they’re done, documentation will show that no one on the planet saved more kids from sexual abuse.
Observer

August 15, 2009 12:44 PM
Is it just me, or do you have the feeling that when they’re done, documentation will show that no one on the planet saved more kids from sexual abuse.
It's just you. Unless you mean this statement ironically, or to imply that the "documentation" will fall somewhat short of reality.

thomas tucker
August 15, 2009 1:30 PM
David- you may be right. We can't know at this point. One quibbe- JPII did not see his fellow bishops as "employees." His model of Church governance, which has its flaws a swell as its benefits, was much more in the mode of first among equals. In addition, he was not a micromanager and delegated responsilbility, rightly or wrongly, to others.

Furthermore, I honestly cut the Pope a lot of slack on this issue for two additional reasons- as the Scandal began unfolding, he was rapidly aging and becoming ill in health. I think played a large part in how much he was able to dela with this problem. Secondly, don't underestimate how much someone at the top knows about what his happening in other places and how much info is given to him. And don't overestimate how much of the story is known to and correctly reported by the media. All I'm saying here is that you have to be very careful in judging how much someone knew and how culpable they werein dealing with it- there are many variables.
In the meantime, I give JP great credit for his evangelization, Theology of the Body, and laying of groundwork for the rising number of vocations with orthodox seminarians that we are now seeing- this began under his pontificate. He ably sageguarded the Deposit of Faith and was an inspiration to literally millions.
Now, let the mosquitos resume their biting.

Pentimento
August 15, 2009 4:30 PM
Saints are canonized for their holiness, not for their good judgment about temporal matters, or even sometimes about spiritual matters.

Thomas R
August 15, 2009 5:05 PM

"I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the Giunta essay." RD
TR: I know one should assume good faith, but I think it's highly unlikely you disagree more than agree with the essay. You left the faith largely because of anger over things during his Papacy. Also I don't think you've ever have linked to a case for his canonization and I'm skeptical you would be emotionally able to do so.
Anyway ideally canonization is a matter of meeting the requirements, some or most of which involve miracles beyond our say-so. I agree with those saying it shouldn't be rushed and that maybe JPII canonized others too fast. If and when he meets the standard he meets the standard. It's not up to me or you or anyone here to say he must never be canonized. (And for any Orthodoxers poo-pooing some Catholic saints may I just say Tsar Nicolas II.)

Personally Pope John Paul II means a great deal to me and even many non-Catholics I know admire him. His ability to reach out to other religions without compromising core principles is very inspiring to me. I understand the anger someone like him or you feel, but I don't share it. The lack of that rage makes me maybe insensitive to something, but I think it has its positives.

Jason
August 16, 2009 9:20 AM
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.

Observer
August 16, 2009 11:15 AM
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.

Kind of.

However, the promotion of a Cause down here on Planet Earth requires quite a lot of money. The people best situated and motivated to spend this money are the religious orders. As a result, the calendar of saints is heavily weighted towards founders of religious orders, even and including some pretty obscure people. Married people (who did not manage to get martyred) and other ordinary people are very much underrepresented.

One could draw the conclusion that being married and having a family is a sort of second-class Christianity, that according to the Catholic Church the "laity" is only there to "pay, pray and obey" while the heights of "real" holiness are accessible only to religious.
In fact people have drawn that very conclusion from this data. Religious and priests are especially fond of this take on the data, but they're not th only ones. After all, remember, religious life is "the state of perfection." Which makes my life "the state of imperfection," which it is, but not in the way they mean.
If you think this process is mostly "supernatural" you should buy into the idea that God agrees. (Also, I have a bridge to sell you.)

Jason
August 16, 2009 1:44 PM
Observer, apparently you have not been observing the Church for the last forty years post Vatican II in which She has stressed the role of the laity. With regard to your comment about selling me a bridge, "for those who have the gift of faith, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, no explanation will suffice." Please be assured I will keep you in my prayers.


David J. White
August 16, 2009 4:11 PM
Aside from the early martyr popes, relatively few popes have been canonized
Of course the early martyr popes, and other saints from the early centuries, were not "canonized" in anything like the modern understanding of the term.
Who cares if the Roman church "canonizes" one more dead saint?
We Catholics care a great deal, Siarlys.
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
According to a cousin of mine who is a diocesan priest, it is very much a political -- and financial -- process. That's why so many members of religious orders are canonized, according to him: the orders have the funds to keep the cause open and to advance it.

Siarlys Jenkins
August 16, 2009 10:09 PM
David J. White:
You Romans are welcome to care, within your church, about what your church does. That is your freedom of religion, ethically and, in this nation, constitutionally. My point is, why should a self-professed Greek Orthodox care, why should a true blue Protestant, and proud of it, care, why should an atheist care, why should secular media care, why should any government anywhere care? It is indeed a private internal matter of your church, and of no significance to anyone else, either to object to or take note of. I had only one comment on the selection of Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome: "Thank God for the Reformation."
Thomas R:
Let the Russian Orthodox worry about Bloody Nicholas. The rest of us don't have to revere the autocrat. If there is a hell, I'm sure he is burning in it right now. I hope his children are not suffering for the sins of their father.

Siarlys Jenkins
August 16, 2009 10:10 PM
David J. White:
You Romans are welcome to care, within your church, about what your church does. That is your freedom of religion, ethically and, in this nation, constitutionally. My point is, why should a self-professed Greek Orthodox care, why should a true blue Protestant, and proud of it, care, why should an atheist care, why should secular media care, why should any government anywhere care? It is indeed a private internal matter of your church, and of no significance to anyone else, either to object to or take note of. I had only one comment on the selection of Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome: "Thank God for the Reformation."
Thomas R:
Let the Russian Orthodox worry about Bloody Nicholas. The rest of us don't have to revere the autocrat. If there is a hell, I'm sure he is burning in it right now. I hope his children are not suffering for the sins of their father.

Thomas R
August 16, 2009 11:07 PM
I shouldn't have painted all Orthodox with the brush of what the Russians do or don't do.
Still I intended a larger point. Most religions have saints who are "questionable" in some way. Even in the case of the Humanists I'd think several of those named "Humanist of the Year" had qualities that not all Humanists find admirable.
It bothers me to overly pick on a religion for having a questionable saint or to focus in only on the moments a saint had bad judgement. I think non-Catholics care about this as it's a way to bash or praise Catholicism. I would say non-Catholics are more likely to admire John Paul II than castigate him, from what I remember of polls, but for ex-Catholics and secularists his canonization is a big deal relating to their anger at the Church. (Of Popes considered for canonization John XXIII and Pius IX would likely be the ones that would cause some unease for me.) So I think that's why it matters to other religions even if I might agree it should be none of our business.

Your Name
August 17, 2009 9:45 AM
Siarlys- if you don't care, then why comment on this post?
Just to be inflammatory, or rude?

Siarlys Jenkins
August 17, 2009 11:00 PM
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com
Since you asked, Your Name, no, I didn't comment to be inflammatory or rude. The post itself strongly suggests that the canonization of JPJP is a matter of broad concern, and examines arguments why or why not. I initially responded by saying that I have a very different understanding of what a "saint" is -- based on very early church history, and modern Protestant usage. In the sense I understand the word, canonization is either redundant or a nullity. A sincere, devout, Christian of the Roman branch explained that to him, and to his co-religionists, whether JP is canonized makes a great deal of difference. I acknowledged that, internal to their denomination, that is entirely up to them. I know of course that, according to orthodox Roman understanding, my saying that is a bit of an insult, since that denomination still claims to be the ONLY "Church," and their canonization process the ONLY way to "sainthood." I don't, incidentally, mind seeing Bishops of Rome playing modest roles as peacemakers in the world, as long as they don't reach for the kind of secular powers which have in many centuries corrupted their bureaucracy. But my comments are a legitimate observation on the significance of JP being "made a saint." Nobody has any obligation to agree with me. I hope we all know that God will do as God chooses, regardless of what any of us opine here.