PDA

View Full Version : Anti-church, not anti-pedophile conspirators?


dukeuch
06-27-2006, 11:56 AM
How can this Tamburg guy, quoted towards the end of this article, try to blame the anti-church motives of the plaintiffs? Or how about if they are anti-church, can you blame them?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/27/griffin.priestabuse/index.html

Ibleedburgundy
06-27-2006, 12:15 PM
In a deposition, Monsignor James Cain, one of O'Grady's superiors, tried to explain why he did not tell police about the earlier allegations.

"Certainly I knew the one in '76 took place but didn't put the two together," Cain said. "One was a girl -- inappropriate touching, the other was a boy. So I just didn't hook them up in my own mind."



Incredible. This is their idea of leadership.

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 12:33 PM
primarily based on anti-Church assertions by plaintiff's attorneys who stand to gain financially and on the self-serving comments of former priest O'Grady, a sick, twisted monster and, like most molesters, a master manipulator."

God forbid you use the whole quote.

Keino
06-27-2006, 12:34 PM
Well to be fair, he is the official spokesman. What is he going to say?

I don't blame Ari Fleischer for linking Iraq to 9/11, I blame the guy he was working for.

Keino
06-27-2006, 12:35 PM
God forbid you use the whole quote.

Dave thats because they filed a civil suit according to the article.....

akhhorus
06-27-2006, 12:40 PM
Dave thats because they filed a civil suit according to the article.....

huh? How is that relevant to Dave's comment? The full quote that Dave pointed out is relevant to the primary issue of this thread. That the pedophilia accusers were called "anti-church". Technically, its true, but its selective use of the quote.

dukeuch
06-27-2006, 12:57 PM
God forbid you use the whole quote.

Well, you might as well use the whole quote in it's entire context:

Archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg, who viewed the film prior to its debut, sent a statement saying it is "primarily based on anti-Church assertions by plaintiff's attorneys who stand to gain financially and on the self-serving comments of former priest O'Grady, a sick, twisted monster and, like most molesters, a master manipulator."

Sounds like the guy is pointing our that there may be financial motives in play here, fair enough. But to a say the movie is based on anti-church assertions because it excoriates church officials who cover up abuse, that's just pitiful. It sounds like the movie is based on anti-pedophilia assertions.

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 01:07 PM
Well, you might as well use the whole quote in it's entire context:

That didn't change anything. Your's did.


Sounds like the guy is pointing our that there may be financial motives in play here, fair enough. But to a say the movie is based on anti-church assertions because it excoriates church officials who cover up abuse, that's just pitiful. It sounds like the movie is based on anti-pedophilia assertions.

It also sounds like it is letting this monster of a man pin the blame for his molestation on someone else.

Keino
06-27-2006, 01:20 PM
That didn't change anything. Your's did.




It also sounds like it is letting this monster of a man pin the blame for his molestation on someone else.

Was he disciplined for it by his superiors who admit knowing about it?

Seems to me someone else was at least a facilitator once this monter's pattern of behavior was established.

dukeuch
06-27-2006, 01:20 PM
[QUOTE=RedskinsDave]That didn't change anything. Your's did.
Not sure what you are getting at. The spokesman seems to be saying the assertions that there was a cover up is somehow anti-church. I think saying that is lame.


It also sounds like it is letting this monster of a man pin the blame for his molestation on someone else.


I don't even think that the monster is doing that, maybe he is. But how is the movie based on anti-church assertions? From reading the article, it sounds like the movie is saying this guy did horrible things, he is sorry (it does not sound like there is any forgiveness involved) and that church officials were aware of what was going on and didn't report it to the authorities nor remove this guy, who they knew was a molester, from those he was molesting. How is any of that an anti-church assertion?

Believe me, I can distinguish between those who committed the crime of molestation and those who knew about it but covered it up. I don't blame the church for breeding molesters, because they work for all kinds of companies. I DO blame them for covering up the crime and allowing the perpetrator to continue in a capacity which lends itself to further abuse. in my mind, those church officials choose to protect the name of the church, as it were, at the expense of innocent children. Why shouldn't they have reported the crime and relieved the priest of his duties?

Keino
06-27-2006, 01:27 PM
huh? How is that relevant to Dave's comment? The full quote that Dave pointed out is relevant to the primary issue of this thread. That the pedophilia accusers were called "anti-church". Technically, its true, but its selective use of the quote.

Well I was speaking to the actual quote, not necessarily Dave's comment. See, both parties have a financial interest in the disposition of the Civil Matter, and Dukeuch didn't even post a quote, he posted a link to the entire article.

swheeler
06-27-2006, 01:32 PM
Somewhat related question for anyone who has an answer:

In general, if a priest has an affair with a consenting adult (male or female) are they removed from the priesthood?

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 02:06 PM
[quote]
I don't even think that the monster is doing that, maybe he is. But how is the movie based on anti-church assertions? From reading the article, it sounds like the movie is saying this guy did horrible things, he is sorry (it does not sound like there is any forgiveness involved) and that church officials were aware of what was going on and didn't report it to the authorities nor remove this guy, who they knew was a molester, from those he was molesting. How is any of that an anti-church assertion?

I believe the spokesman is saying that the motivation behind the film is anti-church. Who knows, it may be.

Believe me, I can distinguish between those who committed the crime of molestation and those who knew about it but covered it up. I don't blame the church for breeding molesters, because they work for all kinds of companies. I DO blame them for covering up the crime and allowing the perpetrator to continue in a capacity which lends itself to further abuse. in my mind, those church officials choose to protect the name of the church, as it were, at the expense of innocent children. Why shouldn't they have reported the crime and relieved the priest of his duties?

This is old news. It's well recorded that the church made the horrible mistake of covering up for the bad priests. It is paying for it now in more ways that one.

The priests who were found to have done this have been defrocked.

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 02:08 PM
Somewhat related question for anyone who has an answer:

In general, if a priest has an affair with a consenting adult (male or female) are they removed from the priesthood?

I think it depends on whether on not it continues or whether the priest decides to stay a priest. I know one family friend who left the church and married the woman.

Spence
06-27-2006, 02:38 PM
Some of these priests make Jimmy Swaggert look like an angel. And Jimmy Swaggert is one perverted dude.

Keino
06-27-2006, 02:46 PM
I think it depends on whether on not it continues or whether the priest decides to stay a priest. I know one family friend who left the church and married the woman.

I've honestly thought for a long time that this would go a long way into A. Sparking interest in the Priesthood and B. Modernizing.

By this, I mean allow Priests to marry. One of the best way to promote family values is to have leaders actually have some experience in having a family.

I've also felt that allowing women to become priests is a good idea.

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 03:00 PM
I wouldn't mind them marrying. Women ain't gonna happen.

dukeuch
06-27-2006, 03:54 PM
I believe the spokesman is saying that the motivation behind the film is anti-church. Who knows, it may be.

And my point in starting the thread was to question why such an attack would be viewed as anti-church, when the issue is the molestations and the cover-ups. I just find it odd that when they are bieng taken to task, they say it's anti-church rather than them being held repsonsible for a crime they committed (if the allegations are true). And by cirme, I mean the cover-up in addition to the molestations.

This is old news. It's well recorded that the church made the horrible mistake of covering up for the bad priests. It is paying for it now in more ways that one.

The priests who were found to have done this have been defrocked.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the ones who actually molested the kids have been defrocked, but it appears that the ones who moved the molesters from location to location without relieving them of their duties, reporting the crimes, or warning their followers of their behavior, apparently remain in positions of authority. To me, it would be just like a principle in a school, after finding out a teacher molested some of his/her students, just moved the teacher into a different classroom. If someone then criticized the principle for not firing the teacher and reporting the crime to the authoties, would that person be anti-school or anti-education? WOuldn't that principle be guilty of helping to perpetuate the cirme? What's the difference?

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 03:59 PM
The difference is this is old old news, especially this particular story. I would also be willing to take bets that the film maker is quite anti-Catholic.

dukeuch
06-27-2006, 04:07 PM
The difference is this is old old news, especially this particular story. I would also be willing to take bets that the film maker is quite anti-Catholic.

Even if he/she is, it does not mean they are not right. I just find it appalling that the spokesman attacks the messenger rather than acknowledging the gross misconduct by SOME of the churches officials. I would understand if he said "some church officials were gravely mistaken in their approach, and they will be disciplined appropriately for their misdeeds, but their actions do not represent the church and its teachings" instead of avoiding the issue and saying "anti-church".

dukeuch
06-27-2006, 04:08 PM
The difference is this is old old news, especially this particular story. I would also be willing to take bets that the film maker is quite anti-Catholic.

And if those who covered it up have never been punished, why would it be old news anyway?

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 04:23 PM
Did you read the whole article? The Bishop admitted he had little knowledge of how deep pedophilia ran and thought by confronting the priests and moving them that it would stop. He was wrong as were many in the church (most, by the way, are long retired).

Regarding the quote, the guy who gave it saw the film. You have not. I have not. For all we know it may be an anti-church film. It may use a dark time in the church's history to take a larger shot at the church. It wouldn't be the first time.

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 04:25 PM
Sidenote: When watching one of those Dateline shows where they bust pedophiles, they got a Rabbi here in D.C. They then showed a photo of him and other rabbis who ran some kids camp. Turns out two others had been accused of abuse who were in the photo. That's three rabbis in one picture. It seems this is not only a Catholic problem. Of course I didn't read any big expose in the Post about it. I wonder why?

dukeuch
06-27-2006, 04:44 PM
Sidenote: When watching one of those Dateline shows where they bust pedophiles, they got a Rabbi here in D.C. They then showed a photo of him and other rabbis who ran some kids camp. Turns out two others had been accused of abuse who were in the photo. That's three rabbis in one picture. It seems this is not only a Catholic problem. Of course I didn't read any big expose in the Post about it. I wonder why?

Can't answer that. Maybe it's because (and I don't know) the Rabbi's were promptly arrested, and removed form their positions of repsonsibility? I don't think it was because they are Jewish and not Catholic, do you?

Look, I am jsut saying that those who cover this stuff up are guilty too. And if your arguement is that "well, it was just alittle bit of abuse, not enough to report or take action on" I simply disagree, but you have the right to your opinion.

Using the school example again, if a priciple took the similar action as the bishop did in this case, what would you think should happen to the principle?

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 04:50 PM
Can't answer that. Maybe it's because (and I don't know) the Rabbi's were promptly arrested, and removed form their positions of repsonsibility? I don't think it was because they are Jewish and not Catholic, do you?

Look, I am jsut saying that those who cover this stuff up are guilty too. And if your arguement is that "well, it was just alittle bit of abuse, not enough to report or take action on" I simply disagree, but you have the right to your opinion.

Using the school example again, if a priciple took the similar action as the bishop did in this case, what would you think should happen to the principle?

Should happen and would happen are two different things. I think the folks who covered it up should be held responsible for something. I am not naice enough to believe they will though.

Nowhere did I say anything was "only a little bit of abuse". Any abuse is a lot of abuse.

I absolutely believe had those three been Catholic priests and not rabbis, something more would have been made of it.

Spence
06-27-2006, 05:06 PM
I wouldn't mind them marrying. Women ain't gonna happen.You don't want them marrying women? Dave, my friend, your journey has been a long one! :)

RedskinsDave
06-27-2006, 05:57 PM
You don't want them marrying women? Dave, my friend, your journey has been a long one! :)

:lol1:

dukeuch
06-28-2006, 01:04 PM
I absolutely believe had those three been Catholic priests and not rabbis, something more would have been made of it.

OK, I've done a bit of research on both events and have a lot of observations, but before I waste any time, explain to me what forces would be at work such that if they were priests rather than rabbis, "something more would have been made of it"? If I understand your reasoning, maybe I'll agree. Who would be in control of that and why would such a decision be made?

RedskinsDave
06-28-2006, 01:07 PM
OK, I've done a bit of research on both events and have a lot of observations, but before I waste any time, explain to me what forces would be at work such that if they were priests rather than rabbis, "something more would have been made of it"? If I understand your reasoning, maybe I'll agree. Who would be in control of that and why would such a decision be made?

I'm talking about the press. The Washington Post in particular loves a juicy anti-Catholic church story in this area.

dukeuch
06-28-2006, 01:15 PM
I'm talking about the press. The Washington Post in particular loves a juicy anti-Catholic church story in this area.

So (and please correct me if I am wrong) "the press" ignores or suppresses stories of misconduct by clergy of non-Catholic faiths, but goes after Catholics? If I have that right, who is making that decision/policy, and why?

RedskinsDave
06-28-2006, 01:20 PM
Not sure what you're asking there.

dukeuch
06-28-2006, 01:28 PM
Not sure what you're asking there.

I'm asking what you think "the press'" motives are for ignoring such a story if non-Cathlics are involved but reporting it if Catholics are involved. Also, do you really mean all press, or are you talking about specific newspapers?

RedskinsDave
06-28-2006, 01:34 PM
I'm asking what you think "the press'" motives are for ignoring such a story if non-Cathlics are involved but reporting it if Catholics are involved. Also, do you really mean all press, or are you talking about specific newspapers?

If I knew their motives I wouldn't have to wonder why they do it.

Spence
06-28-2006, 02:47 PM
The primary motivations for the media tend to be:

1] laziness;
2] drunkenness;
3] lucre.