Isn't it like a requirement to become pope to shield at least one sex offending priest?

(August 27, 2018 at 5:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Perhaps if god had made molesting children the one unforgivable sin instead of not loving him enough, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.

Yeah, it's too bad that Jesus died for that sin too.

Kinda makes Jesus an enabler, don't it ??

Helluva mistake for Godboy to make . . . .

(August 27, 2018 at 2:27 am)Aroura Wrote: I'm sorry, that's bs to me. Now derision of those who turned down his advances are bad and do constitute sexual harassment, but a superior absolutely can make an advance on someone below them, as long as they do not repeat the request more than once or in any way indicates their job is on the line. One ask, let me say that word again, ask, is not sexual harassment.

It is generally considered inappropriate for superiors to date subordinates, but inappropriateness is not equal to sexual harassment.

It does however sound like this fellow may have harassed one of the priests who turned him down. But most of what I'm reading is simply Catholic disgust at the fact that priests were having gay sex and this fellow was encouraging it. They seem far less concerned about the actual act of harassment. Hard always, always do it over and over.

So yeah, shoot me, one derrisive comment is not the same as a child rapist or repeat assaulter. If we cannot overlook a single incident of poor behavior, then duck the whole world, we are all doomed for making jokes in poor taste and hitting someone's feelings because maybe they hurt ours.


I once laughed at a boy and said, your loss! In public, All snarky because he had refused a date with me. Was that sexual harassment or just me being a jerk?

---

(August 26, 2018 at 6:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Fair enough. I didn't realize that being a superior automatically made it legally qualify as harassment. Makes sense though.

It isn't. Whatever his name is up there's fake indignation is disgusting. Is it inappropriate to ask out someone below you? Absolutely. And most places would down on that. Is it the equivalent of actual harassment in reality or in the law? No!

People equating a person threatening, grabbing, forcing, and coercing to someone asking disgust me.

If you've ever been sexually harassed, you'd be offended too when people go all black and white and act equally offended about rape, threats, and a simple effing request. As if all acts are the same!!!

I'm going to take an unpopular stance and say one act of derision can be forgiven. If it turns out he was threatening, derrisive, or coercing multiple men into bed or against their will, I'll change my tune. But I can forgive a person for one transgression, and feel fine that the Pope did so if that's all there is to the story that he knew of.

What I sense here is homophobia. Again if I'm wrong I will admit it, but what I've read it's nothing more than some guys uncomfortable that they had a gay man hit on them, and others grossed out that actual gay sex happened.

Get a fucking grip. Not you Cl. The people overreacting to this I mean.

I thought it was weird when Javaman said it was illegal and automatically considered sexual harassment for a superior to have consensual sex with someone below them. But I chose to believe him.

Nonetheless, even if it isn't illegal or whatever, I still consider it highly inappropriate, because of the context. This was a high ranking priest teaching young seminarians about the faith. Which includes being celibate and chaste, as a priest.

I do think Pope Francis should have been harsher on McCarrick for that, but I understand why he wasn't.

---

(August 27, 2018 at 5:35 am)Aroura Wrote: Ew yuck, so the accusations do seem to include an alter boy. So I have to take back my defense. The guy turns out to have actually abused multiple people.

But it certainly says something that in the two pages I read on this story, it goes on and on about the depravity of the sex act with other priests, and barely mentions the rape of a boy. Talk about messed up priorities.

Yes, but did the Pope know about that back in 2013, or is that part something that just came out recently? From what Vigaro is saying, it seems all they knew about at the time was the gay sex. Not the pedophilia.

That's the big question for me. If the Pope knew and forgave him for the pedophilia (or believed he was innocent), I absolutely think he needs to resign. If, however, the Pope only knew about him having consensual sex with other priests, I still think he handled it poorly, but don't think he should be demonized for it.

Looks like it is time for this again!

I am not defending him. I said if he is covering up known child molesters he needs to resign.

Regardless, I think the pope needs to provide more of a response to the charges than he has.

Where is Atilla and his huns when we need him. Oh, dead.

(August 26, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's kind of like impeaching Trump though, the replacement could end up being worse than what you're replacing.

The pope thankfully has no access to nuclear weapon or the ability to install justices that would require wholesale revision of the legal foundations and the state to marginalize.

Shattering the infallibility of the pope is more beneficial than anything the current pope can do, and outweigh any damage the next pope can do.

---

(August 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Where is Atilla and his huns when we need him. Oh, dead.

He is in the whitehouse. The real Attila died after a german princess proved too much for him during the nuptial night of debauchery and drinking. So there is hope for the US yet.

(August 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Where is Atilla and his huns when we need him. Oh, dead.

I'm married to one of his descendants but as far as I know she doesn't hold any Hun titles.