Another priest arrested

[Anonymous]

Is there a list of priests that have been accused and/or tried?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if this Syracuse priest gets jail time you won’t care about him, either? Oh wait, here you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Danny Masterson raped a bunch of women. The priest had an inappropriate relationship apparently. Not even the same situation.

[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:

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.

Please connect the dots as to how this case has anything to do with the priests in the past who were protected by the Church. The only similarity I see is that they are priests. Sorry, but the timeline makes it obvious this wasn't a massive cover up but the Church. It doesn't matter if you refuse to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if this Syracuse priest gets jail time you won’t care about him, either? Oh wait, here you are.

Fail again. Defending the indefensible.

[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:

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.

Please connect the dots as to how this case has anything to do with the priests in the past who were protected by the Church. The only similarity I see is that they are priests. Sorry, but the timeline makes it obvious this wasn't a massive cover up but the Church. It doesn't matter if you refuse to see it.

Again - just a few years ago the Syracuse bishops were saying that kids were culpable for their own molestation by priests! You think that kind of insitutional culture - at the very top! - disappears immediately once there are a few court cases? No. The fact is, the conditions that facilitate abuse are still present in the Church, in an institution that attracts psychologically immature young men with sexual issues, gives them more sexual issues through celibacy and all the other doctrine on controlling/judging sexuality, then places them in positions of unsupervised authority over children and vulnerable people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a list of priests that have been accused and/or tried?

Yes and you can get them by state too, you can google it.

Not every list is complete because if they priest has died like the Rockville rapist priest Powderly they drop off the list.

[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:

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.

Please connect the dots as to how this case has anything to do with the priests in the past who were protected by the Church. The only similarity I see is that they are priests. Sorry, but the timeline makes it obvious this wasn't a massive cover up but the Church. It doesn't matter if you refuse to see it.

Again - just a few years ago the Syracuse bishops were saying that kids were culpable for their own molestation by priests! You think that kind of insitutional culture - at the very top! - disappears immediately once there are a few court cases? No. The fact is, the conditions that facilitate abuse are still present in the Church, in an institution that attracts psychologically immature young men with sexual issues, gives them more sexual issues through celibacy and all the other doctrine on controlling/judging sexuality, then places them in positions of unsupervised authority over children and vulnerable people.

So we need to destroy the institution, right? Do you think these people won't access other vulnerable people somewhere else? This doesn't make the problem go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just pointing out your massive hypocrisy. You can't claim a thread in the Entertainment Forum, about a guy whose faith (Scientology) is apparently important in his life, is the same as someone starting a thread in the Religion forum to probe how Scientology's secretiveness contributed to the rapes.