Flabengal seems to be protecting the priest by suggesting that the child wasn't young enough to make it criminal. Are you supporting this?
you dont go crazy from a cold streak where you arent getting any, or lots of us would go crazy, including me. the craziness is the people who are willing to go celibate permanently . its deviant and creepy. its weird self-torture and a normal healthy person would never do it. priests have some sort of weird hangups and homosexual guilt or something. there is something really wrong with them. and it clearly manifests itself as this crippling problem within the church.
I'm not protecting the priest at all. What I'm saying is you should use the language correctly or it distorts the issue. The issue is sadly enough that for whatever reason there seems to be a relatively high concentration of homosexual men that have become Catholic priests. I maintain that these individuals for the most part are not even real believers but have become priests to change the Catholic Church from the inside. I imagine most of them think they are doing a good thing (changing the Chruch, which they view as old fashioned, outdated, backward, etc, etc) and are probably not really out to wreck other people's lives....it's one of those sad stories where you start out with the best intentions and end up a drug addict or a disgraced politician or disreputable doctor, etc, etc. Human beins are flawed....it happens. (Take Jamarcus Russell for example...I don't think he intended to end up like that but his life and his choices built up on him and boom.....his life is a wreck. I hope he pulls out of it but damn...)
That amounts to the almost same thing. The church hierarchy are all priests. All of the priests have a responsibility to not turn a blind eye on their colleagues.
Certainly you are correct about that but the Church has an adversarial relationship with the media and secular authority. To simply lay your head in the lap of the "enemy" is not always a wise decision. I think (and this is just my interpretation) that at some level the truly Catholic leadership in the Church believes that the Holy Spirit is really responsible for protecting the Church so the human leadership tends to defer any earth-shattering decision until a future date.
Kooks? Freemasonry is perfectly legitimate and there are many famous, intelligent and influential people who are Masons. What's the big deal? I just pointed out that they are anti-Catholic. Or more accurately that the Catholic Church is officially, openly Anit-Mason. Which group is kooky? The Cathoic Church or Freemasonry? To dismiss either group as kooky just betrays a lack of any historical reference. These are two of the biggest dogs on the block and they have been for a while now.
dude. freemasons? they are like a bowling league or something. they have as much influence on america as the sri lankan cricket team.
I always refer to them as a cult and it always pisses them off. There are wide spread urban legends about thier "secret handshakes" and all sorts of tomfoolery like that. Lots of that stuff in the Army too. While there are plenty of big names that are masons, I tend to think their effect on anything important is nil.
