Sugar, each time you respond to these allegations you continually defend your church by stating that the actions of a few do not necessarily represent the actions of the many.
This is true. It's the reason people put disclaimers about opinions in interviews and such, yes? Organizations don't want to be blamed for the opinions and actions of people who align themselves with them. I've never seen the church put out a bulletin that says "the individual actions of our clergymen do not necessarily represent the opinions and beliefs central to the Church or Catholicism." Let me know if I'm wrong about that.
Here is a fact of human life: if you are entered into the media spotlight, or even placed in a position of leadership over a group of people, you come to represent your organization or belief system to that group or the nation. Most days, people do not have time to seek out many, or even one more, person to create a wider sampling of any group. They are concerned with the everyday business of living. This sounds like the actions of the ignorant - in reality most days it comes down to the choice of "do I sift through possibly vast quantities of information about the rest of such-and-such group, or do I get my kids home, fed, their homework done, bathed, clothes mended, toys fixed, house cleaned, some news watched, pets cared for, spouse tended to, plants watered, bills paid, etc, etc?"
Our problem is that instead of distancing themselves immediately from anyone who might end up being a "bad apple," your church has closed ranks around them. In order to avoid the media finding out about these heinous crimes, officials attempted every possible cover up. People were allowed to retain their jobs. In an attempt to keep the church blemish free, they essentially made themselves look worse. Instead of cleansing themselves when they most needed it, they merely covered the rotten areas and allowed them to fester. You can agree with me on that or not as far as reality goes, but you cannot deny the perception that gives the rest of the world when something manages to split the facade and you realize it's like a tree dying from the inside out. It implies that 1) they knew what happened was wrong and they were so ashamed they couldn't face the way that person represented their church to that particular flock, or 2) they didn't believe it was wrong but knew other people would have a problem with it, and thus hid it anyway. Strength of character and willingness to do right by your parishioners would have been better handled by saying "Look! We discovered a man who was doing wrong, and as we the church do not condone it we will cast him out (publicly - for everyone else should know not to let him around your children) to prove we in NO WAY support this. We will not continue to keep him on our payroll in a position of any sort of power."
I have two huge issues: 1) You saying that these people do not have to stay as priests if they do not wish to stay celibate. 2) Using the example that people will start to shout "abuse!" simply to gain money (17 year old being with an older man, I think was your example, specifically gay).
You misunderstand the nature of an abuser. In fact, most of your postings dealing with this smack of someone who has never been abused, or seen the psychological, emotional, and physical damage abuse can incur on someone. I could be wrong, but I see no empathy for the victim in your answers, and frankly it sickens me. If these men were merely concerned with their need to fulfill their sexual urges, they would go about them in a way that every other healthy adult does - choose another consenting adult, and what happens lies between them (and god, if you so desire to bring that into it). I imagine if a priest met a man or woman who captured his fancy and made him doubt his life choice, he would give the idea of leaving some consideration, and no doubt if he felt he was no longer up to the task an understanding superior would allow him to leave. Abusers don't care. They aren't out to merely fulfill a sexual need - they crave power and dominance and thus prey on the weak. Typically these are children. Sometimes it is adults. Abuse in secular circles isn't limited to age, and it's prevalent enough - I don't know why we expect it to be different in the church, which is made up of human beings. You give these men who have this predisposition to dominate anyway even more power by encouraging the 'flock' to trust him as a shepherd. I have heard from too many formerly catholic friends that these men were supposed to be respected as your parents. Their direction was supposed to be followed implicitly. The door is then open for abuse patterns to begin, and once the cycle of shame and guilt is created it is hard to break. I could be wrong, but I think you have no idea what it is like to fear the sound of someone's voice because they committed violence against you - how a sound, innocent enough in its making (such as the scraping of a chair over the floor), could nonetheless be connected to something heard during the abuse and wreak havoc on a victim's psyche. Often times the abuser will blame the victim - "look what you made me do!" It takes incredible courage to break free from this and point the finger. Imagine the horror when a victim realizes their abuser wasn't punished, but merely moved where they can begin the cycle anew...or sometimes still continue from a distance! These men won't consider leaving because of their 'urges'. Their comfortable lifestyle gives them all they need - food, shelter, respect, and a platform to commit their misdeeds.
I won't deny that some people attempt to jump on a money bandwagon if they feel they have a shot. However, it's plain retarded to say that it's not the priest's fault if a 17 year old consented to have sex with him and later accused him. Depending on the age of consent (as well as legal adulthood) in whatever area it was committed, combined with statutory rape laws, IT IS STILL ILLEGAL! As the adult, the priest should say "not until you're 18," if only to protect himself, not even just the child (if you want to look at it selfishly). I am a gardener, and I think pot has medical benefits that would help immensely, as well as not believing its "bad" properties are not that bad - but I don't grow it...because it's ILLEGAL. If I don't like it, I need to join the ranks attempting to prove its worth to our lawmakers. If the priests wanted to enjoy consensual sex with someone younger than the legal adult age in that area...they should discuss with lawmakers why that age should be lowered. It is not so hard to wait to shtook someone if you're abstaining because you truly care about them and their well-being, and respect yourself. Don't make the adult the victim here - by the time you're 60 (as I think you used in your example) you ought to fucking know better.
This is true. It's the reason people put disclaimers about opinions in interviews and such, yes? Organizations don't want to be blamed for the opinions and actions of people who align themselves with them. I've never seen the church put out a bulletin that says "the individual actions of our clergymen do not necessarily represent the opinions and beliefs central to the Church or Catholicism." Let me know if I'm wrong about that.
Here is a fact of human life: if you are entered into the media spotlight, or even placed in a position of leadership over a group of people, you come to represent your organization or belief system to that group or the nation. Most days, people do not have time to seek out many, or even one more, person to create a wider sampling of any group. They are concerned with the everyday business of living. This sounds like the actions of the ignorant - in reality most days it comes down to the choice of "do I sift through possibly vast quantities of information about the rest of such-and-such group, or do I get my kids home, fed, their homework done, bathed, clothes mended, toys fixed, house cleaned, some news watched, pets cared for, spouse tended to, plants watered, bills paid, etc, etc?"
Our problem is that instead of distancing themselves immediately from anyone who might end up being a "bad apple," your church has closed ranks around them. In order to avoid the media finding out about these heinous crimes, officials attempted every possible cover up. People were allowed to retain their jobs. In an attempt to keep the church blemish free, they essentially made themselves look worse. Instead of cleansing themselves when they most needed it, they merely covered the rotten areas and allowed them to fester. You can agree with me on that or not as far as reality goes, but you cannot deny the perception that gives the rest of the world when something manages to split the facade and you realize it's like a tree dying from the inside out. It implies that 1) they knew what happened was wrong and they were so ashamed they couldn't face the way that person represented their church to that particular flock, or 2) they didn't believe it was wrong but knew other people would have a problem with it, and thus hid it anyway. Strength of character and willingness to do right by your parishioners would have been better handled by saying "Look! We discovered a man who was doing wrong, and as we the church do not condone it we will cast him out (publicly - for everyone else should know not to let him around your children) to prove we in NO WAY support this. We will not continue to keep him on our payroll in a position of any sort of power."
I have two huge issues: 1) You saying that these people do not have to stay as priests if they do not wish to stay celibate. 2) Using the example that people will start to shout "abuse!" simply to gain money (17 year old being with an older man, I think was your example, specifically gay).
You misunderstand the nature of an abuser. In fact, most of your postings dealing with this smack of someone who has never been abused, or seen the psychological, emotional, and physical damage abuse can incur on someone. I could be wrong, but I see no empathy for the victim in your answers, and frankly it sickens me. If these men were merely concerned with their need to fulfill their sexual urges, they would go about them in a way that every other healthy adult does - choose another consenting adult, and what happens lies between them (and god, if you so desire to bring that into it). I imagine if a priest met a man or woman who captured his fancy and made him doubt his life choice, he would give the idea of leaving some consideration, and no doubt if he felt he was no longer up to the task an understanding superior would allow him to leave. Abusers don't care. They aren't out to merely fulfill a sexual need - they crave power and dominance and thus prey on the weak. Typically these are children. Sometimes it is adults. Abuse in secular circles isn't limited to age, and it's prevalent enough - I don't know why we expect it to be different in the church, which is made up of human beings. You give these men who have this predisposition to dominate anyway even more power by encouraging the 'flock' to trust him as a shepherd. I have heard from too many formerly catholic friends that these men were supposed to be respected as your parents. Their direction was supposed to be followed implicitly. The door is then open for abuse patterns to begin, and once the cycle of shame and guilt is created it is hard to break. I could be wrong, but I think you have no idea what it is like to fear the sound of someone's voice because they committed violence against you - how a sound, innocent enough in its making (such as the scraping of a chair over the floor), could nonetheless be connected to something heard during the abuse and wreak havoc on a victim's psyche. Often times the abuser will blame the victim - "look what you made me do!" It takes incredible courage to break free from this and point the finger. Imagine the horror when a victim realizes their abuser wasn't punished, but merely moved where they can begin the cycle anew...or sometimes still continue from a distance! These men won't consider leaving because of their 'urges'. Their comfortable lifestyle gives them all they need - food, shelter, respect, and a platform to commit their misdeeds.
I won't deny that some people attempt to jump on a money bandwagon if they feel they have a shot. However, it's plain retarded to say that it's not the priest's fault if a 17 year old consented to have sex with him and later accused him. Depending on the age of consent (as well as legal adulthood) in whatever area it was committed, combined with statutory rape laws, IT IS STILL ILLEGAL! As the adult, the priest should say "not until you're 18," if only to protect himself, not even just the child (if you want to look at it selfishly). I am a gardener, and I think pot has medical benefits that would help immensely, as well as not believing its "bad" properties are not that bad - but I don't grow it...because it's ILLEGAL. If I don't like it, I need to join the ranks attempting to prove its worth to our lawmakers. If the priests wanted to enjoy consensual sex with someone younger than the legal adult age in that area...they should discuss with lawmakers why that age should be lowered. It is not so hard to wait to shtook someone if you're abstaining because you truly care about them and their well-being, and respect yourself. Don't make the adult the victim here - by the time you're 60 (as I think you used in your example) you ought to fucking know better.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
