Another priest arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

I actually only started posting more recently, perhaps you are getting me mixed up with another poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

Considering that at the time this abuse allegedly happened, the bishop of Syracuse and his immediate predecessor were on the record stating that clergy child abuse victims could be culpable for the abuse, it’s not being “blinded by bigotry” to connect this incident to the Church hierarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

I actually only started posting more recently, perhaps you are getting me mixed up with another poster.

It hardly matters because I am the only one bringing up the particulars of this story. Seems that nobody actually wants to discuss the article that prompted this thread. Seems it was always meant to be an anti-Catholic post and nothing else. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

Considering that at the time this abuse allegedly happened, the bishop of Syracuse and his immediate predecessor were on the record stating that clergy child abuse victims could be culpable for the abuse, it’s not being “blinded by bigotry” to connect this incident to the Church hierarchy.

Yikes!! They actually said that??
Horrific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

Considering that at the time this abuse allegedly happened, the bishop of Syracuse and his immediate predecessor were on the record stating that clergy child abuse victims could be culpable for the abuse, it’s not being “blinded by bigotry” to connect this incident to the Church hierarchy.

Except that's not true because that bishop resigned in 2018 and a new bishop was consecrated in 2019. So, no, not at the same time when the abuse was alleged between 2019-2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

DP. I’d respect the argument more if pp didn’t rely on hand-waving insinuations like “That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church…”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

DP. I’d respect the argument more if pp didn’t rely on hand-waving insinuations like “That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church…”

well you certainly cant argue that there absolutely isn't any collusion at this point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

DP. I’d respect the argument more if pp didn’t rely on hand-waving insinuations like “That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church…”

well you certainly cant argue that there absolutely isn't any collusion at this point

Why not? Where is the evidence that there is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

Considering that at the time this abuse allegedly happened, the bishop of Syracuse and his immediate predecessor were on the record stating that clergy child abuse victims could be culpable for the abuse, it’s not being “blinded by bigotry” to connect this incident to the Church hierarchy.

Except that's not true because that bishop resigned in 2018 and a new bishop was consecrated in 2019. So, no, not at the same time when the abuse was alleged between 2019-2021.

Oh yeah, that totally resolves it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pedophile apologists are gross... just stop, please.

Some of us have personal reasons to be concerned about pedophelia. That’s precisely why we believe your behavior is so damaging: you’re identifying yourself as a bigot and, by doing so, you’re making everything about yourself and your bigotry instead of about the pedophelia.

Perhaps you don’t want news like this to be overshadowed by people’s’ perceptions that you’re an attention-seeking bigot. If you’re sincere, you’d start weekly posts in DCUM’s schools fora about the latest pedophile teachers in Des Moines and Syracuse. Without that, we understand that you’re just a run-of-the-mill bigot who uses news like this to stir up online attention to yourself.

The bigot is NOT the one denouncing pedophila in the church... Take a look in the mirror - it's clearly you.

Why are you pointing out "in the church" is pedophilia accepted elsewhere? Why does the location or religious leaning interest you so very much? Don't you denounce pedophilia wherever it occurs?

Certainly, but that's not what this thread is about? This thread is about a CATHOLIC PRIEST WHO ABUSED CHILDREN. Do you need assistance keeping your threads clear?

Ok, do you denounce teachers when one is arrested for pedophilia? Down with teachers?

If all the other teachers conspired to silence the victim, protect the pedophile and lie to the entire world then absolutely I would.

That's just not the case in these one-offs.

I'm with you on BSA though.

All the other priests didn't conspire to protect the priest this very thread is about.

...anymore

Well isn't that what this thread is about? This priest and this instance? Why are you trying to tie it back to decades ago? Pick a lane.

We actually don't know that yet, but hopefully it comes out at the trial. Right now, all we know is a young woman reported her experiences to the police, theyve arrested him and he's plead not guilty. If there were any collusion or church involvement we will likely hear about it.

I think we do know. The girl told her mom about all this in June 2023. The arrest happened pretty swiftly after, no? At what point would there have been unsuccessful collusion or involvement?

The incidents happened to her starting 2019 (i think thats what it said). It also said she saw concerning incidents with other people. Who knows what they (church) know/knew about it. It also says the lawyer for the priest refused to answer if he was hired by the church or by the defendant himself.

She didn't say anything until 2023. She told her mom, her mom took action. The police made an arrest. This is how things are supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church prior to the arrest (or post, if they are paying for the lawyer). I said IF there was it will come out at trial, we can't say we have all the answers at this time.

I'd respect your argument more if you had made any mention of the particulars of this case prior to page 8. The church shuffled priests around and refused to involve the police in the past. The timing of this case makes it pretty clear, to those willing to see with their eyes wide open, not blinded by bigotry, that collusion didn't happen here. Unless it involved with not standing in the way of the law.

DP. I’d respect the argument more if pp didn’t rely on hand-waving insinuations like “That doesn't mean that there was no collusion with the church…”

well you certainly cant argue that there absolutely isn't any collusion at this point

Why not? Where is the evidence that there is?

You cant argue that there is 100% evidence of no wrongdoing because you don't know. If there is, it will come out in trial. You cant say you know everything based on a 30s article read. I think that is pretty clear. He also pleaded not guilty, so will be trying to say she either made it up or it was consensual, we'll see how that goes.

[Anonymous]

Where's the outraged thread about Danny Masterson? Oh right, he doesn't count because he's a Scientologist, not Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where's the outraged thread about Danny Masterson? Oh right, he doesn't count because he's a Scientologist, not Catholic.

here you go: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/680004.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where's the outraged thread about Danny Masterson? Oh right, he doesn't count because he's a Scientologist, not Catholic.

What about whatabout whatabout!!!!

Fail.

And he got 30 to life.

Stop defending the indefensible.