Anti-church, not anti-pedophile conspirators?

dukeuch · #1 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/gr...use/index.html

Ibleedburgundy · #2 06-27-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 06-27-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

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 · #4 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 · #5 06-27-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

God forbid you use the whole quote.

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

akhhorus · #6 06-27-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keino

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 · #7 06-27-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

God forbid you use the whole quote.

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

Quote:

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 · #8 06-27-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dukeuch

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

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

Quote:

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 · #9 06-27-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

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 · #10 06-27-2006, 01:20 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

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 · #11 06-27-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akhhorus

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 · #12 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 · #13 06-27-2006, 02:06 PM

[quote=dukeuch]

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.

Quote:

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 · #14 06-27-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swheeler

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 · #15 06-27-2006, 02:38 PM

Some of these priests make Jimmy Swaggert look like an angel. And Jimmy Swaggert is one perverted dude.