Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Options
1…119120122124125…131

Comments

  • Options
    #3632
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    I'll add to to what ScumLord said up above (I agree with him by the way)
    Having said as much, it should be obvious that if eight in ten of the molesters had never been allowed to become priests, the scandal as we know it would have been avoided.

    Okay, assuming for the sake of argument that what that link is saying is true (I don't, not yet, I haven't looked into the details or numbers), how would you go about ensuring that the RCC wasn't ordaining priests who are gay, and thus apparently more likely to abuse children?
    Do you ask them? Wouldn't most, if not all, hopefuls say they're not gay or have never had gay relationships, so as to be allowed to be ordained? Do you monitor them 24/7, thus violating their right to privacy?


  • Options
    #3633
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    It could also be argued that if these men hadn't joined the priesthood and came out of the closet they may well have ended up in healthy mutually beneficial relationships with other men. It could very well be that being in an institution that told them their thoughts were evil, oppressed them to the point they turned into sexual deviants.


  • Options
    #3634
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    ScumLord wrote: »
    It could also be argued that if these men hadn't joined the priesthood and came out of the closet they may well have ended up in healthy mutually beneficial relationships with other men. It could very well be that being in an institution that told them their thoughts were evil, oppressed them to the point they turned into sexual deviants.

    Exactly. Get told often enough that you're evil, you know what? You might just come to believe it, might just come to the belief that since you're evil, you might as well do evil things. After all...it'd be consistent with your evil nature.


  • Options
    #3635
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Exactly. Get told often enough that you're evil, you know what? You might just come to believe it, might just come to the belief that since you're evil, you might as well do evil things. After all...it'd be consistent with your evil nature.
    Just like the Kinsley lad Festus references in one of his posts, I looked him up and he used to stick things in the end of his knob to try and overcome the homosexual thoughts he had, in the end he was so used to pain there he was able to give himself a circumcision without anesthetic.. It takes real mental trauma to need that level of pain to counteract it. It's sad to think anyone would have to go through that level of social persecution.


  • Options
    #3636
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I'm new here so correct me if I'm wrong but is the current theory it was a gay conspiracy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3637
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I'm new here so correct me if I'm wrong but is the current theory it was a gay conspiracy?
    It's Festus's theory, and it's probably true to say that others take a similar view. But it's not a theory that's widely held; most observers reckon dysfunctional clerical power structures have a lot more to do with this train wreck than sexual orientation does.

    On edit: I probably should have said "dysfunctional clerical power structures and an unhealthy attitude to human sexuality".


  • Options
    #3638
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I'm new here so correct me if I'm wrong but is the current theory it was a gay conspiracy?

    More of an agenda. and it's still going on - the gay agenda that is, the pope has acknowledged there is a gay lobby in the vatican. As for the abuse the popes instruction is that it is reported to the authorities - one could presume this is because of the level of gay support within the vatican still.

    By gay I mean homosexuals who are fully in support of the gay sexual lifestyle as opposed to homosexuals who deal with their desires in a Christian manner. While all gays are homosexual not all homosexuals are gay.


  • Options
    #3639
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    More of an agenda. and it's still going on - the gay agenda that is, the pope has acknowledged there is a gay lobby in the vatican. As for the abuse the popes instruction is that it is reported to the authorities - one could presume this is because of the level of gay support within the vatican still.

    By gay I mean homosexuals who are fully in support of the gay sexual lifestyle as opposed to homosexuals who deal with their desires in a Christian manner. While all gays are homosexual not all homosexuals are gay.

    It's a "gay agenda" to join the priesthood, engage in sexual abuse of minors (be they male or female) and subsequently cover it up?

    Have you any evidence to support this claim?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3640
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    It's a "gay agenda" to join the priesthood, engage in sexual abuse of minors (be they male or female) and subsequently cover it up?

    Have you any evidence to support this claim?

    The sexual abuse scandal. All the evidence is there. Homosexual men joined the priesthood and some of the gay ones abused minors.
    As to the cover up I would suspect as many do that gay friendly clergy at all levels looked out for each other within the organization. The Ryan report describes homosexual abuse within the boys institutions as endemic. That is a damning incitement on the gay priests and brothers who were involved in these institutions as well as their management and the term "endemic" brings it's own connotations.
    It wasn't all cover up. In some cases they sought outside advise which was frequently bad and didn't always work. The nature of this scandal was new to the Church and they didn't have the tools to deal with it. Unfortunately this has been misrepresented but given that no one except for a few faithful members of the current Church are actually pro-Catholic the facts of the case have been buried such that few understand the reality of the abuse scandal.

    The fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests and brothers and that this fact is not openly discussed should inform as to what the gay lobby is capable of.


  • Options
    #3641
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    More of an agenda. and it's still going on - the gay agenda that is, the pope has acknowledged there is a gay lobby in the vatican.
    So what if there's a gay lobby in the vatican? there are probably lots of lobbies in the vatican, just like there's lots of lobbies in every state in the world. There's nothing wrong with there being a lobby.
    As for the abuse the popes instruction is that it is reported to the authorities - one could presume this is because of the level of gay support within the vatican still.
    No it's because the problem everyone had with the church's handling of the sex abuse scandals was the church internalising everything, they acted as judge and jury when it wasn't their place to do so.

    The pope is simply stating that the church will now follow the law and report crimes to authorities.
    By gay I mean homosexuals who are fully in support of the gay sexual lifestyle as opposed to homosexuals who deal with their desires in a Christian manner. While all gays are homosexual not all homosexuals are gay.
    So they should carry on the catholic tradition of self flagellation and other forms of self mutilation to combat their homosexual thoughts? Do you not feel any remorse for making people feel so bad that they would rather feel the pain of a lash over listen to the thoughts god put in their head?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3642
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    The sexual abuse scandal. All the evidence is there. Homosexual men joined the priesthood and some of the gay ones abused minors.
    That is not evidence that the "gay agenda" supports the abuse of minors as you have claimed. Care to provide evidence to your claim?
    As to the cover up I would suspect as many do that gay friendly clergy at all levels looked out for each other within the organization. The Ryan report describes homosexual abuse within the boys institutions as endemic. That is a damning incitement on the gay priests and brothers who were involved in these institutions as well as their management and the term "endemic" brings it's own connotations.
    So it was the abusers, and the subsequent cover up by the relgious groups, and not homosexuality that was the problem.
    It wasn't all cover up. In some cases they sought outside advise which was frequently bad and didn't always work. The nature of this scandal was new to the Church and they didn't have the tools to deal with it. Unfortunately this has been misrepresented but given that no one except for a few faithful members of the current Church are actually pro-Catholic the facts of the case have been buried such that few understand the reality of the abuse scandal.

    The fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests and brothers and that this fact is not openly discussed should inform as to what the gay lobby is capable of.
    No. It's that people don't agree with your anti-homosexual stance that it was homosexuality that was the problem rather than the actual abuse and cover up.

    If we change what you said as follow:
    The fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual heterosexual and carried out by gay heterosexual priests and brothers and that this fact is not openly discussed should inform as to what the gay heterosexual lobby is capable of.

    we can see just how silly it is.

    Why do homosexuals have to answer for the actions of child abusers?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3643
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »
    So what if there's a gay lobby in the vatican? there are probably lots of lobbies in the vatican, just like there's lots of lobbies in every state in the world. There's nothing wrong with there being a lobby.

    Yes indeed - there is the pro-abortion lobby, the pro-divorce lobby, the pro-contraception lobby... any number of anti-catholic lobbies including the gay lobby. While there is nothing wrong with a lobby group in a political setting, there is a problem with lobby groups if their objectives are undermining of the organization they operate within.
    ScumLord wrote: »
    No it's because the problem everyone had with the church's handling of the sex abuse scandals was the church internalising everything, they acted as judge and jury when it wasn't their place to do so.

    many of the failures were human failures. No-one is perfect.


    ScumLord wrote: »
    So they should carry on the catholic tradition of self flagellation and other forms of self mutilation to combat their homosexual thoughts? Do you not feel any remorse for making people feel so bad that they would rather feel the pain of a lash over listen to the thoughts god put in their head?

    While self flagellation is known amongst some ascetics it is not a Catholic tradition.


  • Options
    #3644
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    The sexual abuse scandal. All the evidence is there. Homosexual men joined the priesthood and some of the gay ones abused minors.
    As to the cover up I would suspect as many do that gay friendly clergy at all levels looked out for each other within the organization. The Ryan report describes homosexual abuse within the boys institutions as endemic. That is a damning incitement on the gay priests and brothers who were involved in these institutions as well as their management and the term "endemic" brings it's own connotations.
    It wasn't all cover up. In some cases they sought outside advise which was frequently bad and didn't always work. The nature of this scandal was new to the Church and they didn't have the tools to deal with it. Unfortunately this has been misrepresented but given that no one except for a few faithful members of the current Church are actually pro-Catholic the facts of the case have been buried such that few understand the reality of the abuse scandal.

    The fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests and brothers and that this fact is not openly discussed should inform as to what the gay lobby is capable of.

    This is vile conspiracy theory stuff and thankfully so outlandish that no one would give it any credibility .

    Your day is done and largely through the church's own making , get used to it.


  • Options
    #3645
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Festus wrote: »
    The sexual abuse scandal. All the evidence is there. Homosexual men joined the priesthood and some of the gay ones abused minors.
    As to the cover up I would suspect as many do that gay friendly clergy at all levels looked out for each other within the organization. The Ryan report describes homosexual abuse within the boys institutions as endemic. That is a damning incitement on the gay priests and brothers who were involved in these institutions as well as their management and the term "endemic" brings it's own connotations.
    It wasn't all cover up. In some cases they sought outside advise which was frequently bad and didn't always work. The nature of this scandal was new to the Church and they didn't have the tools to deal with it. Unfortunately this has been misrepresented but given that no one except for a few faithful members of the current Church are actually pro-Catholic the facts of the case have been buried such that few understand the reality of the abuse scandal.

    The fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests and brothers and that this fact is not openly discussed should inform as to what the gay lobby is capable of.

    I'd imagine boys were the victims because back then boys were more easily available. I know the one who abused me wasn't gay, he abused both males and females. Maybe he was bisexual :eek:


  • Options
    #3646
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    This is vile conspiracy theory stuff and thankfully so outlandish that no one would give it any credibility .

    Your day is done and largely through the church's own making , get used to it.

    This is the world we live in now. If gay people do bad things no one is allowed to say anything about it.


  • Options
    #3647
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    Yes indeed - there is the pro-abortion lobby, the pro-divorce lobby, the pro-contraception lobby... any number of anti-catholic lobbies including the gay lobby. While there is nothing wrong with a lobby group in a political setting, there is a problem with lobby groups if their objectives are undermining of the organization they operate within.
    I don't think those lobbies are anti-church, trying to change something from within shows they like the organisation, there's just one or two things they'd like to see updated so the church is more in line with the modern world. That's how people change things, it was the same when Ireland won it's freedom from Britain, it didn't win that war with guns it changed the UK from the inside out so that we could leave amicably.


    many of the failures were human failures. No-one is perfect.
    I agree, there were horrible failures, from the people involved and the in the institution and it's modus operandi. Even the church has admitted as much and changed the way it deals with internal breaches of the law of the land. But that show an institution wide failure that wasn't just because there were gay priests. There were gay priests that took advantage of the churches failings but the church created the environment that allowed it to happen and even when the failings became apparent they ignored them to everyone else detriment. I've seen nothing to prove there is a gay conspiracy in the church and nothing to show that the majority of priests that are also gay aren't living the same celibate lifestyle as a hetrosexual priest.




    While self flagellation is known amongst some ascetics it is not a Catholic tradition.
    It is actually.

    Taken from wiki.
    The Flagellation refers in a Christian context to the Flagellation of Christ, an episode in the Passion of Christ prior to Jesus' crucifixion. The practice of mortification of the flesh for religious purposes was utilized by some Christians throughout most of Christian history, especially in Catholic monasteries and convents
    In the 13th century, a group of Roman Catholics, known as the Flagellants, took this practice to its extreme ends

    It wasn't started for sexual reasons but it seems that the people who use it most are getting some sort of sexual gratification from it and some are using it to suppress sexual desires or thoughts.

    For a hetrosexual person the act of sex and thinking about the act is impure, but it's not immoral or evil. It takes on a different connotation for people that believe they are possessed by evil thoughts like gay priests. They're trying to be close to god but everyones telling them god hates them. It's got to be confusing for any catholic that wants to believe in the church.


  • Options
    #3648
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    This is the world we live in now. If gay people do bad things no one is allowed to say anything about it.
    You are allowed. You just can't say that because one gay person does something bad that there's a gay conspiracy to commit evil,


  • Options
    #3649
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »
    You are allowed. You just can't say that because one gay person does something bad that there's a gay conspiracy to commit evil,

    Well, I can actually if two or more are operating in cahoots.


  • Options
    #3650
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It's Festus's theory, and it's probably true to say that others take a similar view. But it's not a theory that's widely held; most observers reckon dysfunctional clerical power structures have a lot more to do with this train wreck than sexual orientation does.

    On edit: I probably should have said "dysfunctional clerical power structures and an unhealthy attitude to human sexuality".

    Its a theory Ive heard before but usually the people who say it disappear before getting a chance to dig themselves into a hole.

    In here we have Festus' theory of the RCC existing as a front for homosexual rapists. Probably caused 9/11 too.

    I would have thought they would just have sex with each other if that was the case, turn it into some sort of swingers club but obviously they have done an excellent job covering it up.


  • Options
    #3651
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I would have thought they would just have sex with each other if that was the case, turn it into some sort of swingers club but obviously they have done an excellent job covering it up.
    I've heard stories that basically said that Vatican city was like some gay resort at night. I doubt it though, the rumors came around the same time as Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties.

    I would think that the vatican is full of the most devout Catholic from around the world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3652
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I've heard stories that basically said that Vatican city was like some gay resort at night. I doubt it though, the rumors came around the same time as Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties.

    I would think that the vatican is full of the most devout Catholic from around the world.

    They're the ones you need to watch out for ;)


  • Options
    #3653
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'd imagine boys were the victims because back then boys were more easily available. I know the one who abused me wasn't gay, he abused both males and females. Maybe he was bisexual :eek:

    I'd imagine that's pretty much the case. At the time there were no girls serving as altar servers. Even now I'm not aware of any male religious orders who run schools for girls.

    Painting this colossal mess as some type of "gay conspiracy" may serve as a comfort blanket in avoiding uncomfortable truths but it simply doesn't hold up. It's a slur against gay people in general, not to mention the very many decent and honourable gay men who serve as priests.


  • Options
    #3654
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    Well, I can actually if two or more are operating in cahoots.

    Even if every catholic priest was homosexual and even if every catholic priest was an abuser, that still wouldn't justify your paranoia of homosexual people, since those members of the homosexual population who are catholic priests represent only a tiny tiny fraction of that population.
    You are focusing on something that is completely irrelevant to the situation. No-one cares here if the priests were homosexual. We care about their actions, that is, the abuse of minors, AND more importantly, the cover-up. You for some weird reason are not focusing on those two issues. You are devoting your entire attention on the homosexuality of the priests.
    You're sounding like other people I've talked to in the past. One took your stance on this very topic (the sex abuse scandal) and went to the extreme, saying that all gay men are only gay because they were raped as children, and that NAMBLA is a powerful lobby group within the RCC.

    Speaking of lobby groups...so what? You do realise that the various positions of the RCC were all born out of political struggle, don't you? For example, the doctrine of the Trinity. That wasn't set church teaching until the end of the 4th century. As for the celibacy of priests, that wasn't mandated until 1139 - hell, from the gospels, there is a mention of the Apostle Peter having a wife.
    If all of these teachings and commands are really so important to your god, how come they weren't part of your religion's dogma for the first thousand years?
    If what you're afraid of is change in dogma, of admitting that dogma that you had lived with before is somehow wrong, don't be. The RCC has changed dogma many a time throughout it's history (ever hear of Vatican II?)


  • Options
    #3655
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Even if every catholic priest was homosexual and even if every catholic priest was an abuser, that still wouldn't justify your paranoia of homosexual people, since those members of the homosexual population who are catholic priests represent only a tiny tiny fraction of that population.

    I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I do however have a problem with gays, priests or otherwise, who abuse children and minors.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    You are focusing on something that is completely irrelevant to the situation. No-one cares here if the priests were homosexual.

    Of course not. You don't care if some gays abuse children and minors. You care if the abuse is carried out by a priest and ignore the fact that if the priest is gay and abuses boys because that doesn't suit the gay agenda.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    We care about their actions, that is, the abuse of minors, AND more importantly, the cover-up. You for some weird reason are not focusing on those two issues. You are devoting your entire attention on the homosexuality of the priests.

    I don't care about the homosexuality of the priests. What I do care about is that they abused boys homosexually because they were gay. There is a difference.
    I also care about the fact tht the majority of the abuse was homosexual and gay and liberal idiots running the world are still covering it up.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    You're sounding like other people I've talked to in the past. One took your stance on this very topic (the sex abuse scandal) and went to the extreme, saying that all gay men are only gay because they were raped as children, and that NAMBLA is a powerful lobby group within the RCC.

    I am not saying that all gay men are rapists or that all gay men have a tendency towards pederasty. What I am saying it that the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay men is being ignored and glossed over - essentially covered up.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Speaking of lobby groups...so what? You do realise that the various positions of the RCC were all born out of political struggle, don't you? For example, the doctrine of the Trinity. That wasn't set church teaching until the end of the 4th century. As for the celibacy of priests, that wasn't mandated until 1139 - hell, from the gospels, there is a mention of the Apostle Peter having a wife.

    none of these things are political.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    If all of these teachings and commands are really so important to your god, how come they weren't part of your religion's dogma for the first thousand years?
    If what you're afraid of is change in dogma, of admitting that dogma that you had lived with before is somehow wrong, don't be. The RCC has changed dogma many a time throughout it's history (ever hear of Vatican II?)

    Not afraid of any change in dogma


  • Options
    #3656
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @Festus what is the difference between a homosexual and a gay person? you clearly see a distinction, so I'm curious as to what that is.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3657
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I do however have a problem with gays, priests or otherwise, who abuse children and minors.

    The fact that you focus on the gays in that second sentence puts the lie to the first sentence. Why is it you didn't write "I do however have a problem with priests who abuse children and minors"? Why put the word gay in there, if you don't have a problem with them? The way you worded it implies strongly that you really only get into a huff if its gay people who abuse children, but won't get as ticked off if it were hetero people doing the crime.
    none of these things are political.
    There were struggles of opinion between rival camps in the early RCC, with some groups disappearing, such as the Arianist camp.
    Not afraid of any change in dogma
    Then why is it you have a problem with the divorce lobby group within the RCC and the other lobby groups you mentioned?


  • Options
    #3658
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Festus, I'm assuming you arent a member of the RCC?


  • Options
    #3659
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    The fact that you focus on the gays in that second sentence puts the lie to the first sentence. Why is it you didn't write "I do however have a problem with priests who abuse children and minors"? Why put the word gay in there, if you don't have a problem with them? The way you worded it implies strongly that you really only get into a huff if its gay people who abuse children, but won't get as ticked off if it were hetero people doing the crime.

    The reason I qualify the abuse is because you and everyone else who wants to attack the Catholic Church are ignoring the fact that the majority of the abuse was carried out by gay priests on teenage boys.

    I get more than ticked off by all abuse of children and minors but in this case I am getting ticked off because the gay lobby doesn't want the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual put in the spotlight and people like you are evidence of their success.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Then why is it you have a problem with the divorce lobby group within the RCC and the other lobby groups you mentioned?

    You do know the Churches teachings on divorce don't you.


  • Options
    #3660
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    The reason I qualify the abuse is because you and everyone else who wants to attack the Catholic Church are ignoring the fact that the majority of the abuse was carried out by gay priests on teenage boys.

    Again...even if true, so what? What makes the abuse by male priests of male children somehow worse or meriting of greater concern than the rape of a child of any gender by a person of any gender? Why is the gender and sexuality of the abuser and victims so interesting to you?
    You do know the Churches teachings on divorce don't you.
    Obviously. What does that have to do with my question, and your worry about these lobby groups?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3661
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    That is not evidence that the "gay agenda" supports the abuse of minors as you have claimed. Care to provide evidence to your claim?

    Already did. The reports all record that the majority of the sexual abuse was homosexual.
    SW wrote: »
    So it was the abusers, and the subsequent cover up by the relgious groups, and not homosexuality that was the problem.

    I never said homosexuality was the problem. The problem was active homosexuals who abused minors. The fact that gay and gay friendly elements within the Church facilitated and protected them made the problem worse.
    Now the problem is that the fact that the abuse was carried out by gays is being covered up.
    SW wrote: »
    No. It's that people don't agree with your anti-homosexual stance that it was homosexuality that was the problem rather than the actual abuse and cover up.

    I never said that homosexuality was the problem.
    SW wrote: »
    If we change what you said as follow:



    we can see just how silly it is.

    yes, because the majority of the abuse wasn't heterosexual, it was homosexual.

    SW wrote: »
    Why do homosexuals have to answer for the actions of child abusers?

    Never said they did. However the Gay lobby and their liberal friends do have to take responsibility for not letting the truth of the abuse and the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual be known or discussed.


Advertisement