Y'know, I don't think I was enough of an asshole to you to deserve that kind of dismissal. You're not even going to cite sources for the things I agreed with you on?
Here are some of the reasons I feel there is a pattern of sheltering pedophiles in the Catholic church that goes beyond the actions of a few isolated individual bishops whose behavior cannot be said to represent their organization.
WI bishops opposed Wisconsin legislation to repeal the statute of limitations on child abuse cases. (http://www.chnonline.org/news/local/376-state-bishops-oppose-legislation-to-repeal-statute-of-limitations.html) Whom does that one help, eh? They don't like sex abuse legislation in Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1) or New York (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/nyregion/12abuse.html) or the D.C. area or Denver or basically anywhere (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/beltway_cardinals_oppose_abuse_extension_bills_many_cite_nationwide_anticatholic_trend/).
New Report Shows Extent of Priest Abuse in Chicago (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/10/new_report_shows_extent_of_pri.php)
The percentage of parishes and institutions ministered by credibly accused priests approached 25% in the mid-1990's. In 2009, one in five institutions in the archdiocese still had a credibly accused priest in residence.
"This study raises deeply troubling questions about the way credibly accused priests were sent to parishes and residences. The concentration of assignments in certain areas, the clustering of multiple pedophiles in the same place, and the total absence of assignments to parishes or institutions in other areas, all suggest that assignments were not made strictly in response to changing pastoral needs. The question of what criteria were applied to the assignment of these priests remains to be answered. It is painfully clear that these assignments were not accidental."
Another article on the RCC's habit of relocating predator priests to unsuspecting communities rather than firing them. (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/90872524.html)
The Kansas City Catholic Diocese chooses not to tell the police that one of their priests--who, it should be noted, had received complaints about the way he behaved around children--had a stash of kiddie porn on his computer, and on his very own personal camera. (http://www.kctv5.com/story/15009588/attorne?hpt=ju_bn5)
The Vatican is arguing the following things as reasons why Benedict shouldn't be deposed: "that the pope has immunity as a head of state; that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests weren’t employees of the Vatican," etc. Not "we didn't do this and you have no evidence," but "the pope has diplomatic immunity so nyah." (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/31/will-the-pope-be-deposed-not-if-the-vatican-can-help-it/)
Another good defense: Blame the Jews! ...Somehow. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/12/bishop_blames_pedophilia_jews_open2010/index.html) There are some other hilarious scapegoats listed here. (http://gawker.com/5508277/stuff-catholics-have-so-far-blamed-for-the-churchs-pedophilia-scandal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gawker%2Ffull+%28Gawker%29)
These are not isolated incidents being invented by an anti-Catholic conspiracy. This behavior from any other organization would be viewed as seriously suspicious. If the ASPCA did this with employees who molested members' dogs they would have been ripped apart and would go down in history as "those people who screwed Saint Bernards," no matter how many times they helped law enforcement and disaster relief in other instances.
no subject
Here are some of the reasons I feel there is a pattern of sheltering pedophiles in the Catholic church that goes beyond the actions of a few isolated individual bishops whose behavior cannot be said to represent their organization.
WI bishops opposed Wisconsin legislation to repeal the statute of limitations on child abuse cases. (http://www.chnonline.org/news/local/376-state-bishops-oppose-legislation-to-repeal-statute-of-limitations.html) Whom does that one help, eh? They don't like sex abuse legislation in Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1) or New York (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/nyregion/12abuse.html) or the D.C. area or Denver or basically anywhere (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/beltway_cardinals_oppose_abuse_extension_bills_many_cite_nationwide_anticatholic_trend/).
New Report Shows Extent of Priest Abuse in Chicago (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/10/new_report_shows_extent_of_pri.php)
Another article on the RCC's habit of relocating predator priests to unsuspecting communities rather than firing them. (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/90872524.html)
The Kansas City Catholic Diocese chooses not to tell the police that one of their priests--who, it should be noted, had received complaints about the way he behaved around children--had a stash of kiddie porn on his computer, and on his very own personal camera. (http://www.kctv5.com/story/15009588/attorne?hpt=ju_bn5)
The Vatican is arguing the following things as reasons why Benedict shouldn't be deposed: "that the pope has immunity as a head of state; that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests weren’t employees of the Vatican," etc. Not "we didn't do this and you have no evidence," but "the pope has diplomatic immunity so nyah." (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/31/will-the-pope-be-deposed-not-if-the-vatican-can-help-it/)
Another good defense: Blame the Jews! ...Somehow. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/12/bishop_blames_pedophilia_jews_open2010/index.html) There are some other hilarious scapegoats listed here. (http://gawker.com/5508277/stuff-catholics-have-so-far-blamed-for-the-churchs-pedophilia-scandal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gawker%2Ffull+%28Gawker%29)
These are not isolated incidents being invented by an anti-Catholic conspiracy. This behavior from any other organization would be viewed as seriously suspicious. If the ASPCA did this with employees who molested members' dogs they would have been ripped apart and would go down in history as "those people who screwed Saint Bernards," no matter how many times they helped law enforcement and disaster relief in other instances.