Catholic Cardinal authorized $20K to pay priests who raped children, then railed against ‘immorality’ of gay marriage

Discuss

101 Responses to “Catholic Cardinal authorized $20K to pay priests who raped children, then railed against ‘immorality’ of gay marriage”

  1. efr says:

     Cardinal Timothy DOLAN … it says it all.

  2. This is a text book straw man argument.  Possibly an ad hominem.  Regardless it’s a fallacy.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      I didn’t say his opinion was wrong because he was a hypocrite (though Think Progress may have been saying that). I’m arguing that hypocrites are effective religious leaders.

      • I will go with grace hopper on this one.   Religions don’t lead.  They attempt to manage people.  In that, they fail.  Leaders lead people.  That’s not to say there can’t be leaders among the religious.  I could name a few that netted positive and a few that netted negative, and a few we can haggle over.  But among those leaders I feel the defining qualities do not necessarily include hypocrisy.  It would be an interesting argument if someone provided analytical data sets pointing to it.  Who knows, maybe we do have a predilection to follow the example of hypocrites.

        • Mordicai says:

           Can’t we say that paying off child molesters & covering it up is inherently a bad thing, in & of itself?  I mean, I don’t know how much analysis we need on that?

          • cfuse says:

             Apparently more when there’s a cassock involved.

          • David Speller says:

            You can’t have cassock without a cock and an ass…
            …and why can’t I reply to cfuse?

          • Felton / Moderator says:

            There’s a limit to how far replies will nest, to make sure we don’t end up with comments of one or two words per line.

      • Marc Mielke says:

        Possibly because hypocrytes realize the whole thing is a sham and are thus the only folks in the organization thinking clearly. 

      • Analog Kid says:

        Wrong.  This man claims the moral high ground as he rewards pedophiles with cash bonuses.

      • Charlie B says:

         It’s a strong argument, Mark, and deeply troubling to us religious folk.  Have you read Rumi’s paens to drunkeness and other forbidden practices?

    • wysinwyg says:

      Man rails against consensual adult homosexual relationships.  Man provides “charity” for child rapists.  Man is a hypocrite.

      I’m not seeing an ad hom or straw man there.  Just the facts.

      • Just two random isolated facts placed together by chance.  Of course.

        • wysinwyg says:

          They’re not random or isolated.  If they were I couldn’t conclude from those facts that he is a hypocrite.

          If you want people to stop criticizing the Catholic church maybe you should strongly advocate that it stops protecting child rapists.  Again, Catholics and their defenders don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to questions of morals.

          You can pretend this man is being treated unfairly but it’s not really hard to understand that he has devoted his life to a criminal organization.

          • wysinwyg says:

            Of course there’s a link. They both speak to the man’s moral character. THere’s no fallacy involved in making judgments about a man based on actions he’s taken and words he’s spoken that betray his morals — or in this case his moral hypocrisy.

            Sorry, buddy, some of us are actually deeply offended when a wealthy organization with global reach uses its earthly power to defend child molesters while claiming title to the ultimate moral authority and the voice of God Himself.  Given the thousands of years of venality, corruption, and cruelty the church has gotten away with, five minutes of hate just doesn’t seem nearly enough.

            You know what the church ought to do?  Disband.  All archbishops, bishops, cardinals, and the pope himself should doff their stupid hats and admit that all the bullshit they’ve been spewing from pulpits all their lives are lies — that they do not know whether there’s a God or an afterlife and that their earthly wealth and power has all been based on lies. 

            But I’d settle for the church simply turning in the criminals in its own ranks.  One would think that’s a pretty low bar for an organization that claims to be the voice of morality for all mankind, but it’s one they’re apparently not willing to jump (they might trip on their pretty dresses!). 

            It is perfectly fine to change ones stance in science, ethics, or even regarding the New York Yankees if you so wish.

            Is it OK to rape children? Is it OK to cover it up when your employees rape children? Perfectly fine you say?

            In response to your next comment:
            1. I’m not making the conflations of which you accuse me. I’m arguing that a) this man is a moral hypocrite and b) the Catholic church is irredeemably corrupt. Please stop throwing the word “fallacy” around. Demonstrate that I’ve made one before you accuse me of such.
            2. If you’re naive enough to think this is really charity being displayed towards a debased sinner then it’s hardly worth arguing with you. You simply won’t acknowledge the depth of the corruption in the Catholic church. I can’t make you, but it’s an indictment of your own logic — since you’re making such a big deal about logic.
            3. I have a math degree. You’re not in a position to lecture me about logic.
            4. I have compassion. That’s why I care more about the helpless kids than the predatory priests who rape them.
            5. When there are folks standing against change, leading change requires rallying against those people. Embrace logic.
            6. You’re the one ignoring the issue here. Moral hypocrisy in service to a wealthy criminal organization. Ignore it all you want, but it takes some chutzpah to then turn around and accuse me of failing to “embrace compassion.”

          • chenille says:

            Edit: this was in reply to a post by openfly, which seems to have earned an even better response.

            I would NEVER recriminate a person for showing mercy to even the most evil of human beings.

            This sounds good at face value, but it has to come after some concern for their victims. You’ve talked up the church as committed to the “poor, sick, and disenfranchised”, but entirely neglected to mention children.

            Has Dolan or anyone else in the church taken any measures to help them through all this? If not, if they’re only interceded to keep their abuse hidden instead of helped, their selective mercy is not praiseworthy.

            You can see in lots of organizations: being a positive force of change is all but impossible, if you allow cover-ups of abuse by your own members. If the church puts up with this from people like Dolan, the institution itself is broken.

        • BrianP says:

           How are they random if they were done by the same person?

          • dirktanzarian says:

            Openfly…how are these two items not related?  The man is painting an entire group of individuals with the paintbrush of mortal sin and sexual deviancy, while supporting mortal sinners and sexual deviants behind the scenes.  These are linked.  He’s a hypocrite.
            The only way your argument adds up is if this man believes that child rape is not a sin.  If that’s the case, then you are correct, he’s not a hypocrite.   Seems like a poor trade in my mind.

          • BrianP says:

             openfly… I know you’re desperate here but c’mon… a sandwich is not to biking to work as condemning homosexuals is to giving bribe money to pedophiles. Those two issues are obviously linked in that they deal with morality, especially relevant given that this person is supposed to be a moral “leader”. And I have to add that that was one of the most pathetic arguments I’ve ever read on this site. Congratulations.

          • Christ and someone removed my posts.  My faith in humanity has been decimated by this thread.

            To censor someone because you disagree with them is wrong. To lie about why you censored them is wrong as well.

            Maybe you just didn’t understand my arguments, simple and clearly logical though they were. If so, I am saddened for you. Your educational system has failed you wholly. I can only hope that you will consider taking up some free time learning how to think critically using the tools afforded us by logic, and the scientific method. You might find that your own closed minded views are challeneged, and you are made a better person.

            I have consolidated my argument Here: http://www.music-piracy.com/?p=690 For those that care to circumvent Antinous’s censorship.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Yes, I took out several of your repetitive, fractious comments in which you used the very logical fallacies about which you’ve been complaining in order to prove your assertion that you can think better than other people.

        • Cleo says:

          You should reread the “straw man” section of that “text book”. The argument is that the Cardinal is a hypocrite. Evidence is presented that describes the preaching of morality in contrast to arguably immoral actions. What is the false position being attacked (a.k.a. “straw man”)?

      • Albie Farinas says:

        Forget hypocrite, how about, man is a criminal….  

    • chgoliz says:

      So what I hear you saying is that you are a willing accomplice to the many violent sexual felonies committed by this group of perverts and their pimps, whom you choose to support financially (via the offering plate and other donations) as well as politically on public forums such as this one.

    • Ms. Anne Thrope says:

      The issue of logical fallacy isn’t what drew me into this; it’s the title of the piece. Putting pedophilia and homosexuality in the same title is feeding the flames of misconception.  When the gay rights movement of the 1970s was getting press, the most common response of opponents was to equate and link homosexuality and pedophilia.  This linkage remains for many uber-conservatives and homophobes. Perhaps it is this link which should be the question, but I think the intent was to show that these people have no moral high ground, whether the issue is pedophilia OR homosexuality.  I disagree with the title’s wording, myself.

  3. philipb says:

    Time to render unto Caesar?  In other words, jail time.

  4. Guido says:

    Nah. This is a good outcome of terrible events.

    Some people, more and more, will stop going church. And you can shame others into shutting up when they nag you about your supposed lack of morals, as unbeliever. 

    I almost swear that the current Catholic hierarchy are atheists who infiltrated the church to make it look hateful, corrupt, callous, prejudiced, hypocritical, and self absorbed. I wish a really long life to the current Pope. May he live to be 120 and much more. We don’t really need a charming one right now.

    • Lexicat says:

      Putting the RAT back in ratzinger!

    • Forgot where the hell I read this (probably some sci-fi book), but it was something like this that stuck with me:

      That Satan’s final laugh was the creation of organized religion, allowing the most evil deeds to go marked in mankind’s history under God’s name. These churches bathed in gold among the starving are the final, ultimate blasphemies carried out by His own followers through blindness and corruption.

      Nice poetic lore, if any of that god crap was actually real!

  5. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    One gets the slightly disturbing impression that consensual-just-like-everybody-else-except-for-y’know-gay sex bothers them more than good, old-fashioned violent rape of the powerless by the powerful, regardless of the biological specifics….

    • Michael Rosefield says:

      Child rape’s OK, you see: *God* consents!

    • Marc Mielke says:

      Actually, I believe it DOES. Consensual homosexual sex threatens the hierarchial nature of their conception of God’s relationship to Man. God—Man—Woman—Child. 

      Molesting children only reinforces this hierarchy.

  6. SamSam says:

    Actually, according to the original article. he authorized up to $20,000 per offender. Talk about a crime that pays!

  7. Teller says:

    They’re just unemployment benefits!

  8. TRH says:

    Debunked here:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/cardinal-dolan-authorized-paying-abusers/

    The salient quote from Cardinal Dolan himself:  “For anyone to assert that this money was a payoff or occurred in exchange for Becker agreeing to leave the priesthood is completely false, preposterous, and unjust. What this was, instead, was an act of charity, in-line with Catholic Social Teaching, that allowed a person to obtain health insurance coverage he simply could not afford on his own. If people want to criticize me for that charity, so be it.”

    Oh, wait, a chance to tar and feather a Catholic?  BoingBoing is on the case! :-P

    *edit for formatting

    • wysinwyg says:

      Oh, wait, a chance to tar and feather a Catholic?  BoingBoing is on the case! :-P

      You know how absurd it looks for defenders of Catholicism to pretend to have the moral high ground at this point in history, don’t you?

    • keithfulkerson says:

      And you buy that?

    • Christopher says:

      Did you read the article you claim is doing the debunking, since it simply seems to be about making far-reaching comparisons between what Dolan did and giving money to the homeless or to family members? Did you even consider that the source of the “debunking”, like Dolan himself, has an interest in denial and obfuscation?

    • Smoobly Renfrew says:

      Interesting logical process: BoingBoing runs an article about a rich, powerful apologist for child molesters, and you claim it’s because he’s Catholic. How’s that fugue state working for you?

      • spacedmonkey says:

        Well, you can see how you’d almost have to be creepily defensive about stuff like that to still be a Catholic at this point.

    • Whatever.  How about Cardinal Dolan extend some charity to thousands of consenting, loving adults who just want basic human rights and dignity, instead of so readily to child rapists?  The moral compass exhibited here couldn’t distinguish ass from elbow.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      Cardinal Dolan telling the National Catholic Register that it wasn’t a payoff = debunking? I’m skeptical.

    • Vinnie Tesla says:

       You’re saying this was just another case of the Catholic Church’s dedication to making sure everyone has access to healthcare. Or at least, you know, anyone who isn’t a dirty slut. Or poor.  Gosh, why do those damn liberals have so much trouble understanding common compassion?

    • Wild Rumpus says:

      Oh Christian apologists, you can spin anything to make yourselves look either justified or victimized. 

      You can argue semantics all you want, but the fact remains that the Catholic Church is regularly involved in “acts of charity” to buy off pedophile priests.  Those same people who give pedophile priests $20,000 “donations” to quietly bury their sex crimes then go on to preach about the evils of gay marriage.

      You can invent all the justifications you like or carefully choose your words to twist the blame as much as you like, but the facts remain.  Instead of calling the police and looking after the victims, Dolan gave a child molester $20,000 to quietly go away.

    • Cleo says:

      I trust the Cardinal is willing to charitably authorize $10K to every American who has no health insurance.

    • Bruce Wright says:

       You know, people in jail get health care.  Whatever happen to “fire him and call the cops”?

    • BrianP says:

       An $20,000 act of charity to a person who abused a child?!?! Why not give that charity to the CHILD. You, sir or madam, are a sucker if you buy into that being “charity”. 

    • BrianP says:

       I like how you say it’s “debunked” because the person denied it. Oh! Well, mystery solved! All is right with my brainwashed little world again!

    • chgoliz says:

      But will he allow that health insurance coverage to include birth control?

    • dvrcthewrld says:

      Also: 
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2012/06/03/no-good-deed-ny-times-slaps-cardinal-dolan-actually-getting-rid-abusive

      In effect, to be upset about this route of getting rid of bad priests expeditiously, is to be upset about getting rid of priests expeditiously because there exists no speedy alternative. Look at that, the Church is the pragmatist, leaving the naysayers to be …

      People keep saying, “Report them to the police,” but what the heck is that meant to do. “So, we have a customer who complained to us about an employee sexually harassing him.” To which the cops will respond with, “So what?” It’s called heresay, and it holds no water, legally, whatsoever. Victims should be happy if the priest is laicized, and they must bring the case themselves to the civil authorities. That’s more basic than Law 101.

      • unclemike says:

        You do know that child abuse is not quite the same as sexual harassment, right?  

        Child abuse is a felony. 

      • Nortalud says:

        So you’re suggesting that victims of rape or sexual assault should NOT report the event to the police?

      • This has nothing to do with religion – it is a matter of civil law, and of the basic moral precept that is observed even by the majority of the so-called lower animals: you protect your bloody young.  If you had a strong reason to believe somebody was a child abuser, and hence was highly likely to abuse children and emotionally scar them for life in the future, would you or would you not report it to the authorities?

        Jesus said:

        But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

        Kinda funny how that becomes “it were better that they were quietly paid off, so we can shrug our shoulders and wash our hands of the whole awkward affair.”

        • Charlie B says:

          You say “This has nothing to do with religion” but I have trouble believing that it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with this particular religion, which has sheltered and defended child rapists for a thousand years.

          You know, we don’t do that in my religion.  So while I agree with you in general I have to strongly disagree in this specific.

      • Charlie B says:

         Hey, check this out:  I can get rid of bad priests INSTANTLY.  I must be magical.

    • Marc Mielke says:

      If I had any actual courage IRL, I’d tar and feather every child molester, Catholic, Protestant, or even Atheist!

    • Tommy Timefishblue says:

      P-P-P-P-PREPOSTEROUS!!!!!!!!

    • blissfulight says:

      So that’s what you call all those legal settlements for the victims of pedophile priests:  acts of charity!   

    • Analog Kid says:

      Pedophiles don’t deserve charity.

    • Charlie B says:

       Yo, TRH, my ancestors were burned out of their houses and had to flee to this country to escape Catholic mobs.  Don’t even start with the “poor victimized catholics” bullshit.

  9. oldtaku says:

    Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles was the same. He knowingly sheltered child molestors and shuffled them from dicoese to diocese for decades. They ended up with a $650M settlement for 500+ victims.

    Not surprisingly, it was about the time that this all blew up that Mahony decided the plight of illegal immigrants was his #1 issue. And it worked. His largely Latino constituency closed ranks behind him and supported him till his retirement.

    • Mitchell Glaser says:

      And don’t forget to mention that Cardinal Mahoney, like so many others in the Catholic church, worked like a demon to prevent the police from getting access to records regarding what had been done. You cannot interpret this any other way than that they consider themselves not to be subject to secular law. And at the same time refuse to consider anyone not to be subject to their own religious laws. It is the very essence of hypocrisy despite all the protestations of the apologists above.

  10. Khordas Salamander says:

     I’ve worked at a lot of places.  I’ve even been fired a time or two.  I have yet to be fired and given 20,000 dollars to keep me in health insurance till I could get my own.  I call bullshit.

    • bzishi says:

      Try committing a violent felony that the company wants to cover up.

      Wait. The only problem I’m having with this visualization in that even the evilest companies that I can think of (like Haliburton and Blackwater) would probably still rather have some bad publicity than let a child molester go free.

  11. Mister44 says:

    They need to open the clergy up to married and women priests. That way they will have a larger pool to pick from and won’t be so hesitant to throw out bad apples.

    In general the average American catholic opposes many things the Vatican does. At some point there will have to be some reform.

    • Wild Rumpus says:

       “at some time there will be reform”…  maybe if enough people leave the church.  If you don’t agree with the vatican, Mister44, maybe it’s time to quit the church!

      http://ffrf.org/uploads/images/FFRF_NYTad_BirthC_11x21_FIN_lo.jpg

      • Mister44 says:

        Not to get too off topic – but the position of the church for the pill has more to do with sanctity of life than controlling reproduction. It isn’t illogical from the view that we don’t know when “life” beings, thus to protect it from the beginning.

        eta – and leaving just reduces the voices of opposition. It is a huge, multinational organization and the blanket dogma doesn’t tuck everyone in at night.

        IIRC they accused some nun organizations of being too liberal, as nuns who are doctors see the value of birth control, etc. The support for the sisters was pretty strong and not just from Catholics.

        • unclemike says:

          But if we don’t know when it begins, when’s the beginning?

          Supposedly, god already knows which women will seek an abortion.  Wouldn’t he, in his infinite wisdom, just not put a “soul” into those cells? Or does he not have control over that? Or not care?

          Religion is weird.

          • Mister44 says:

             It’s the catch 22 of “free will”. It’s why you can do bad things to good people. If he interceded all the time, this would be heaven already.

          • Wild Rumpus says:

            How about this logic:  According to some Christian thought; if a baby is aborted, it’s soul will go to heaven.  If that baby is born to a family of atheists and becomes an atheist, then it’s soul will be condemned to eternal torment.  Therefore, Christians would be more benevolent allowing atheists to have abortions to save the souls of the babies than allowing them to be born and then go to hell because of the philosophy their parents taught them.

            Yup…  religion is weird and so are the people who follow it…

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury had brought a toy boy to the Jubilee Concert.  It turns out to be his son Pip, because even the closest thing that the Anglicans have to a Pope gets to have a life.

    • Richard Monteverde says:

      The Latin Rite Churches already allow married men in the Clergy as Deacons.  The Eastern Rite Churches allow married men to order of Deacons and Priest.  They are still lacking “a larger pool to pick from.”

  12. GawainLavers says:

    When a religious leader is found out to be a lying hypocrite, the members of the religion become much more devout. Church leaders should do this kind of thing more often.

    Give them a break: there are only 24 hours in a day, and they have to sleep occasionally.

  13. realityhater says:

    Did anyone really expect anything else ?  History has been repeating itself in the Catholic church enough to believe this “tactic” of hush money  is coming from the top down…..From  an organization who’s number one goal is total mind control – you would think they would start the brainwashing  at the priest level –  Obi wan style “these are not the little boys you are looking for”…..” your goal is to remain celibate and not to have intimate relations with children”..

  14. Just to delve a little deeper into the logic, for accuracy’s sake…the church isn’t paying off priests to keep them quiet, though that’s the intent. It’s paying off priests in an agreement that the priests won’t challenge their laicization, in order to avoid “discovery” in the legal process that would lead to evidence of abuse.

    It’s reprehensible that it’s being used to keep abuse of children out of the (public) legal system.

    For what it’s worth though, avoid calling all priests perverts and condemning the church as a whole. You know better.

    • wysinwyg says:

      For what it’s worth though, avoid calling all priests perverts and condemning the church as a whole.

      Oh, clever.  Because those are the same things, right?

      No, the Catholic church is an institution that pretends to epistemic and more importantly moral authority.  One can acknowledge that there are a great many non-diddling priests within the church while at the same time condemning the church as a whole. 

      If clergyman want to me judged by their own character rather than by the company they keep they would do well to step out from behind the shelter of their vestments.  Stop trying to conflate personal immorality and institutional corruption.  It’s the latter that damns the church.

      •  I meant them as mutually exclusive, so more like, “avoid a) calling all priests perverts or b) condemning the church as a whole”.

        There are lots of reasons to call priests perverts and lots of reasons to condemn the church; sometimes those things overlap, sometimes they don’t, and more often than not, priests aren’t perverts and the church’s acts needn’t be condemned.

        So more to your point, the church’s faults are ugly and, I’d say, contrary to its #1 teaching, unforgivable. But its institutional virtues  — commitment to education; to the poor, sick, and disenfranchised; and to serving its (small-c) churches’ communities — aren’t something you’d want to get rid of.

        • wysinwyg says:

          But its institutional virtues  — commitment to education; to the poor, sick, and disenfranchised; and to serving its (small-c) churches’ communities — aren’t something you’d want to get rid of.

          I’d agree if those were things that could only be had from the Catholic church.  But they’re very clearly not. And if its commitment to those things is outweighed by its commitment to child rapists, just how committed could it be?

    • arikol says:

      Condemning the church has actually become completely fair through the actions of the church as an organisation (you know, how the american catholic church has systematically hidden child abuse and more, and how the rest of the world’s catholic church has systematically done the same. All the way up to the guy who is now pope..). Systematized coverups, corruption, and general intolerance have made the church as an organisation into something that deserves no respect.

      Saying that all priests are perverts is, however, not fair. But that isn’t really what has been said, anyway.
      Catholic priests may (I say “may” because I don’t know, but it sure looks that way) have a higher incidence of child molestation than happens in the general population, but that could be a combination of many factors. Selection (who goes into a celibate job where you are surrounded by children) and pressure (we have a sex drive, the priests have to suppress it) and probably other factors. 
      Yet, even so, most priests are no worse than you or I. 

      The organisation, however, is fair game.

      • “The organisation, however, is fair game.”

        Not saying it isn’t. It’s just worth recognizing that systematized abuse, covered up from the parish level to the Holy See, is reason to rip a lot of the church down but, to both devout and cafeteria Catholics, still not reason to pull up its foundations.

        “The Catholic church is an organization with a powerful top-down hierarchy.”

        When it comes to controversies and doctrine, yes. At the day-to-day parish level, surprisingly not. (Just for God’s sake, don’t watch EWTN unless it’s on a bet.)

        “I’d agree if those were things that could only be had from the Catholic church.  But they’re very clearly not.”

        Sorta true. You’re assuming those resources (~30 of the top 100 hospitals in the U.S., tons of homeless shelters, awesome controversial nuns, etc.) can be replaced. They probably could over time, but it’s tough to picture NGO’s (let alone for-profit ventures) taking over the space left by Catholic charities, should the latter go away.

        • wysinwyg says:

          ~30 of the top 100 hospitals in the U.S.

          Wait, we’re giving the church credit for the great work done by the MDs, RNs, and support staff at the hospitals?

          Go figure.  Can’t do anything good without God stealing credit.

          Personally, I think we should just ban the church from having anything to do with hospitals since they don’t seem content with letting MDs make their own ethical decisions.  They should get back into the exorcism game. 

          Edit: Hey, while we’re on the subject, remember this? Somehow even the RCC’s attempts at “good works” end up being morally repugnant.

          • I think that’s my baby-with-the-bathwater point…

            If I understand, you’re saying two things. 1) If choosing between a Catholic hospital that provides all health services minus ones the church says they can’t vs. finding private buyers to run those hospitals, you would choose the latter. And 2) M.D.’s ethical decisions at non-Catholic hospitals are entirely their own decisions.

            For that second item, I’m guessing you’d argue “Even Catholic hospitals’ M.D.’s have to deal with meddling from administrators, insurance companies, and other people that second-guess their ethical decisions. So it’s still worse that they’d tack church ethics on top of it.” You’d be right. But we might also agree that if we’re going to fight the good fight on M.D. ethical freedom, you’d have to start with people with a lot more pull in a hospital than God has.

            “Can’t do anything good without God stealing credit.”

            I don’t think I’ve ever met an M.D., at a Catholic hospital or otherwise, who ever gave credit to God for getting their M.D. Cursing him during midnight rounds as an intern maybe, but not credit.

      • Richard Monteverde says:

        “Catholic priests may (I say “may” because I don’t know, but it sure looks that way) have a higher incidence of child molestation than happens in the general population, but that could be a combination of many factors.”

        Instead of speculation please do a quick Google search… http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html 

        “4 percent of the 110,000 Priests have been accused.” 

        “Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5.”

    • abstract_reg says:

      The Catholic church is an organization with a powerful top-down hierarchy. If there is an organization that can be blamed as a whole it is the Catholic church. It is certainly the case that there are far more good (non-child-molesting) Catholics than bad ones, but that does not give the Catholic organization the right to protect child molesters. Just as doctor-client-privilege does not extend to criminal acts endangering others, the secrecy of the confession can not extend to molesters.
      While the church continues to protect these monsters in any way, it deserves all the condemnation it gets. If you don’t want to be associated with it, leave. There are plenty of other places you can spend your Sundays.

  15. dr_awkward says:

    Petition to end tax exemption for churches in the USA: http://wh.gov/zFR

  16. niktemadur says:

    On the 20K angle and lashing out against SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Andrew Sullivan stated things in a very eloquent manner:

    “Dolan, the man who puts ecclesiastical power before the protection of children or compassion for the abused.”

    So it seems that doubling down on a two-faced moralistic dogma is also part of the strategy of putting ecclesiastical power at the top of priorities and strategy.
    How’s that working out for ya, Dolan?

  17. Paul Jordan says:

    I found a complete (?) article on NYTimes
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/cardinal-authorized-payments-to-abusers.html

    The article does not state any priest was convicted of wrongdoing.

    The article  does not state the Catholic Church or Dolan did anything to avoid prosecution of any charges.

    The article does state the payments were an attempt to deal with “unassignable priests” and to speed their laicization (effectively removing them from the priesthood).  Given that this is the primary thing that the Catholic Church had control over at that point, speeding the process does not seem offensive or outrageous to me.

    I would speculate a private company dealing with an accusation of sexual harrassment might act similarly.

    I am not saying that Dolan is in the right.  I am saying I don’t see any glaring evidence of wrongdoing or even hyprocisy.  I don’t see this action as condoning anything.  I see it as trying to deal with the situation at hand in a rational way.

    • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

      Did the article mention if charges could not be brought due to the Church lobbying to keep the statue of limitations on child molesting short?
      Did the article mention that the Church often engages in long term hide the files games to hinder prosecution?
      Did the article mention that the Church often advises people to not report abuse to the police, because it might cause a scandal for the church?
      Did the article mention how the Church enables its followers to attack victims of child predators with a collar?
      Did the article mention that “unassignable” priests were a new thing, in the past they just sent them to outposts with no warnings about complaints?
      Did the article mention how long it takes from the first whiff of scandal to a priest becoming unassignable?

      A private company dealing with accusations of sexual harassment can’t pull out the old sanctity of confession chestnut to cover up their wrong doings.   And if the company allowed the harassment to continue and only removed the offender once someone tried to sue they are only trying to cover their own asses.

      The hypocrisy is in him claiming I am evil and of the devil and not worth of basic civil rights that others get, while he works for a group known for enabling child molesters to work their evil.  The hypocrisy is in him trying to say paying off priests was just to speed up them leaving, so you put a child predator on the street who still can say he was a priest who retired and not a child molester booted out.  The hypocrisy is not wanting to protect children and keeping the Church safe is the first goal.

      Suffer the little children, I do not think it was meant your supposed to make them suffer.

    • chgoliz says:

      So what you’re saying is that you found a very INcomplete article.

  18. AmericanFellow says:

    i can’t help but bring personal views into this. but i DO believe in the rumors of whom most conclude that Fatima 3 spoke of a sin-filled, corrupt church. and i do believe the more than one roman catholic exorcist who allege(d) a satanic infusion at the top levels in the vatican nerve center.

    there’s also the old standby that you are who you associate with. having been educated in catholic schools from grade one to graduate degree, i know their dogma by heart and i see today a perverse version of the faith i was imbued with. if their priests and lay choose to defend a malefacting hierarchy with their own allegiance, the options to behave not only illegally but also disgustingly or in legal but quiet complicity with corruption, those options are free for them to pick.

    more often than not, priests enter the church with an agenda to hide their predilections for homosexuality or man/child love. that explains one thing. secondly, today’s twisted morality that comes directly from the mouths of ratzinger and wojtyla before him explains a church fearful of losing membership, europe a prime sticking point in their craw. their frenzied reactions to what they see as a lax morality there have engendered their fierce opposition to homosexuality and simultaneously hiding the church’s own employees’ monstrosities to prevent a bad view of their organization by the public; hence they hope to staunch a growing exodus of their believers. in this case it’s clear that money fuels power, it’s acquisition and usefulness in keeping the absolute power they like to wield.

    thirdly, their recent history of collusion with american mafia figures, illegal banking transactions and investigations by prosecutors in italy could be the most damning finger pointing to their surreptitious efforts to aggrandize their church’s wealth beyond the current splendor in which most in the vatican live. John Paul I had known intentions of cleaning up things in rome. that’s more food for thought. in short, my point is that the church is as wicked as that seen under alexander vi. it’s just that these thugs have learned to disguise their evil works in cloaks of “charity” and “authority as the infallible vicar of Christ on earth”. draw your own conclusions.

  19. Marko Raos says:

    There is a reason why catholic church is so keen on keeping homosexuality so taboo… Once you realize how closed societies keep their members in line everything else falls into place. What is the centerpiece of Skull and Bones initiation rite? By removing homosexuality from the category of tabboo, catholic church would relinquish a major source of it’s internal power.

  20. Mitch_M says:

    What could be more natural than choosing the person who gives you the biggest, best boner as your life companion?

  21. tkdgns says:

    Christ, what an asshole.

  22. Oliver Crosby says:

    “When a religious leader is found out to be a lying hypocrite, the members of the religion become much more devout. Church leaders should do this kind of thing more often.”

    I think I disagree, but you are being so vague and offhand that I’m not sure what you mean by this. It sounds to me like you are arguing that this is an example of the church showing strengthened devotion to somebody just because they’re a hypocrite. That’s a petty, reactionist response to this story.

    It doesn’t even make logical sense, especially when a far more likely scenario is that this is another example of the Catholic church going to great lengths to defend it’s reputation. It’s totally wrong what they did, but the conclusion you’ve drawn seems stupid.

    Maybe you were just trying to be provocative, or I may be misinterpreting you. If you happen to read this, please clarify.

Leave a Reply