Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

good lord will you children behave?.....Winter, if you know which page it's on just tell him, he shouldn't have to read all 39 pages to find out if you're right.....if you don't know what page its on, how do you know the document supports your claim?......
 
good lord will you children behave?.....Winter, if you know which page it's on just tell him, he shouldn't have to read all 39 pages to find out if you're right.....if you don't know what page its on, how do you know the document supports your claim?......

If someone offered a large document as evidence, wouldn't you at least scroll down or scan it to see if there were parts that were marked already?
 
If someone offered a large document as evidence, wouldn't you at least scroll down or scan it to see if there were parts that were marked already?
I read the first page and didn't find anything there to support your claim; and again, there's no reason for me to do your work for you. So again, one of two conclusions can be made. In lieu of the inordinate amount of time that you've admitted spent reading old posts on this site, I would think that reading 39 pages would be pleasurable for you.
 
The Vatican does not confirm it, and according to any competent lawyer, wisely so. Can you point out in the 39 page internal memorandum where the Pope was "instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety"?
No but it is common knowledge that they DID put the church's interest above child safety. Do a quick Google search of Jemez Springs and Priests and you will find that for decades the church sent pedophile priests to the Paraclete catholic retreat to "treat" them for their sexual abuse of children and then sent them back out to new parishes where several offended again. Common knowledge that cost the catholic church millions in lawsuits.

Here is the article on that particular piece of glory to the Catholic Church

Do you think priests should be allowed to get married?


Yes, I think it would actually make them better able to relate to their congregants.

No, it's an offense to the Catholic religion.

Don't care. I'm not Catholic.


NEW YORK — The founder of a religious order that treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children concluded in the 1950s that offenders were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry, according to his letters, which were obtained by plaintiffs' lawyers.

The Rev. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, was so sure of the priests' inability to control themselves that he tried to buy an island to isolate them.

Fitzgerald discussed the issue with Pope Paul VI and in correspondence with several bishops, according to the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper that reported the full content of the letters Monday.

The documents challenge recent statements by U.S. bishops that before the clergy sex abuse scandal erupted in the 1980s and again in 2002, they were unaware of the risks of moving predators among parishes.

Fitzgerald wrote in a 1952 letter to Bishop Robert Dwyer of Reno, Nevada that "real conversions will be found to be extremely rare."

"Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal," he wrote.

The Los Angeles law firm Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, which has brought many abuse cases against California dioceses, persuaded a judge in New Mexico to unseal the letters in 2007, according to Helen Zukin, an attorney at the firm.

The attorneys then verified that the documents were authentic during depositions with Fitzgerald's successor as the Paracletes servant general, the Rev. Joseph McNamara, Zukin said.

Leaders of the Servants of the Paraclete could not be reached for comment Monday.

Fitzgerald set up the Paraclete treatment center in the late 1940s in Jemez Springs, New Mexico, mainly to help clergy struggling with alcoholism and emotional troubles. Soon, bishops began sending him priests who had molested young people or could not keep their celibacy vows.

In a 1957 letter to Bishop Matthew Brady of Manchester, New Hampshire, Fitzgerald wrote that abusive priests only pretended to repent and change "to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity." He said eventually the church would have to establish "a uniform code of discipline and of penalties" to protect the priesthood.

More than four decades later, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did just that. It created a national discipline and child protection policy after news reports and court files unsealed in 2002 showed that many bishops had moved guilty priests from assignment to assignment without notifying parents or police.

Under the new plan, offenders are barred from church work or ousted from the priesthood altogether. American dioceses have paid more than $2.6 billion in abuse-related costs since 1950, according studies commissioned by the U.S. bishops.

By the 1960s, Fitzgerald was losing control over the direction of the religious order, and medical and psychological professionals began working at the center — a change he had resisted. Those experts said some abusers could return to ministry.

The New Mexico treatment center closed in the 1990s in the face of lawsuits over priests who had molested children while staying at the Jemez Springs site or after being treated there.




Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...ps_warned_in_1950s_on_chil.html#ixzz0UV6vMxG7
 
I read the first page and didn't find anything there to support your claim; and again, there's no reason for me to do your work for you. So again, one of two conclusions can be made. In lieu of the inordinate amount of time that you've admitted spent reading old posts on this site, I would think that reading 39 pages would be pleasurable for you.

If you had scrolled down, as I suggested, you would have found blue boxes surrounding relevant parts. In an entirely black & white document, the blue boxes stand out quite well.

So the document I linked would have stood up in court. Of course, the judge would have done more than read the first page and then pout, as you have done.
 
No but it is common knowledge that they DID put the church's interest above child safety. ...
"Common knowledge" means that you've got no evidence. Catholic teaching says that if the perpetrator confesses his sins shall be forgiven and anyone can be rehabilitated. I don't totally agree with that but compare the treatment centers for priests along side your accusation, and we see no basis.

Then compare it along with what we know about the Seattle public school system (post 129). The Church tries to rehab offenders then actively manage them while Seattle gives them full pay and severance, effectively seals the records, then turns them loose on another school system.

Yet you bash Catholics.
 
If you had scrolled down, as I suggested, you would have found blue boxes surrounding relevant parts. In an entirely black & white document, the blue boxes stand out quite well.

So the document I linked would have stood up in court. Of course, the judge would have done more than read the first page and then pout, as you have done.
You would have gleefully told me about the blue boxes earlier if you had read the document earlier, so obviously you’ve been lying, followed by pouting for several pages now. What page are these supposed blue boxes found?
 
In the same thread where I get accused of regionalism for pointing out the south is racist, the guy named "Southern Man" calls a black guy "blackie." Incredible.
TaiChiLiberal calls me "Southie" and my name is Southern Man, and I have no problem with that. So what's wrong with me calling Black As Coal "Blackie"? Perhaps you have a problem with folks from the South or black folks, but that would be your fucking problem, not mine. :pke:
 
You would have gleefully told me about the blue boxes earlier if you had read the document earlier, so obviously you’ve been lying, followed by pouting for several pages now. What page are these supposed blue boxes found?

I gleefully enjoyed watching you cry about being expected to read 39 pages. And your insistence that I spoon feed you was amusing as hell.

Go look at the document.
 
"Common knowledge" means that you've got no evidence. Catholic teaching says that if the perpetrator confesses his sins shall be forgiven and anyone can be rehabilitated. I don't totally agree with that but compare the treatment centers for priests along side your accusation, and we see no basis.

Then compare it along with what we know about the Seattle public school system (post 129). The Church tries to rehab offenders then actively manage them while Seattle gives them full pay and severance, effectively seals the records, then turns them loose on another school system.

Yet you bash Catholics.
They knowingly placed child molesters back in churches where they molested more children. They never turned the criminals over to the police and they used the Jemez retreat to hide them until they could be placed somewhere else. In the 1950's the head of the Paracletes KNEW they could not be reformed and told his bosses so. They hid it, they allowed them to repeat offend, and you, being the good blind catholic refuse to see their guilt. So long as they agree with you, you don't care how many children they fuck. You are part of the problem not calling your church to accord for their guilt. When my parents found that the church hid the fact that molesters were hidden from the police they left the church, maybe someday you can grow a pair and do the same, till then you are no better than a collaborator.
 
I gleefully enjoyed watching you cry about being expected to read 39 pages. And your insistence that I spoon feed you was amusing as hell.

Go look at the document.
I didn't insist that you spoon feed me, but merely to be specific in your argument. You already admitted that a Judge would require this.

Your first blue box defines what is to be done with the offender, if found guilty by the Church: ‘remove him from same ministry … transfer him to another assignment’. I assume that the new assignment would be under strict observation or in a capacity where children are unavailable. That conflicts completely with Soc's assertion that the public was further endangered. The remainder of the blue boxes don't detail specifics.
 
I didn't insist that you spoon feed me, but merely to be specific in your argument. You already admitted that a Judge would require this.

Your first blue box defines what is to be done with the offender, if found guilty by the Church: ‘remove him from same ministry … transfer him to another assignment’. I assume that the new assignment would be under strict observation or in a capacity where children are unavailable. That conflicts completely with Soc's assertion that the public was further endangered. The remainder of the blue boxes don't detail specifics.

You are assuming based on your hopes, not on the facts of what the church has done in the past.

Other boxes speak to the secrecy that was required and the techniques for interferring with investigations or with victims getting justice.

Keep reading.
 
They knowingly placed child molesters back in churches where they molested more children. They never turned the criminals over to the police and they used the Jemez retreat to hide them until they could be placed somewhere else. In the 1950's the head of the Paracletes KNEW they could not be reformed and told his bosses so. They hid it, they allowed them to repeat offend, and you, being the good blind catholic refuse to see their guilt. So long as they agree with you, you don't care how many children they fuck. You are part of the problem not calling your church to accord for their guilt. When my parents found that the church hid the fact that molesters were hidden from the police they left the church, maybe someday you can grow a pair and do the same, till then you are no better than a collaborator.
You appear to be confused. The document that Solitary linked to was written in 1962, and appears to require centralized (Vatican) management of the offender. You appear to be referring to a non-centralized (Diocese) decision before that document was written. I too, would have left the Boston Archdiocese for what had occurred there. I have made myself very aware of what the policies are in my own Diocese of Charlotte. I have also made myself aware of the policies of my local school system, which you apparently have not done.
 
You appear to be confused. The document that Solitary linked to was written in 1962, and appears to require centralized (Vatican) management of the offender. You appear to be referring to a non-centralized (Diocese) decision before that document was written. I too, would have left the Boston Archdiocese for what had occurred there. I have made myself very aware of what the policies are in my own Diocese of Charlotte. I have also made myself aware of the policies of my local school system, which you apparently have not done.

The document from 1962 shows a clear knowledge that priests were molesting children. And left the decisions for whether or not they were transfered or punished to lower authorities. And when a priest was found to have done more than one child after the original punishment was meted out, the same lower authority was allowed to decide the priest had been punished enough.

There is constant talk of secrecy in the memo, and several places refer to transferring the priest. And please show where it mentions anything of the transfer being to somewhere that there areno children.
 
The document from 1962 shows a clear knowledge that priests were molesting children. And left the decisions for whether or not they were transfered or punished to lower authorities. And when a priest was found to have done more than one child after the original punishment was meted out, the same lower authority was allowed to decide the priest had been punished enough.

There is constant talk of secrecy in the memo, and several places refer to transferring the priest. And please show where it mentions anything of the transfer being to somewhere that there areno children.

The Catholic Church is more like a federalist system where the Vatican encourages autonomy among the many Dioceses. The 1962 document provides guidance. Secrecy is important for any sovereign authority, especially in legal matters. You won't find these policies inconsistent with other church issues.
 
The Catholic Church is more like a federalist system where the Vatican encourages autonomy among the many Dioceses. The 1962 document provides guidance. Secrecy is important for any sovereign authority, especially in legal matters. You won't find these policies inconsistent with other church issues.

Secrecy about a pedophile priest? I would say that is putting the welfare of the church ahead of the welfare of children.
 
TaiChiLiberal calls me "Southie" and my name is Southern Man, and I have no problem with that. So what's wrong with me calling Black As Coal "Blackie"? Perhaps you have a problem with folks from the South or black folks, but that would be your fucking problem, not mine. :pke:

Gee! What a great point!
 
Back
Top