Priest Pedophiles Kept Their Jobs, Gay Catholic Teachers Fired.

I know several Catholic clergy and they are fine men.

The problem in the Catholic church is it’s management rules, set up to govern the church and manage its personnel, money and properties, were not set up by laity to serve laity.  They were set up by the clergy to benefit the clergy.

We all know about clergy accused several times of sexual child abuse who were not turned over to law enforcement.  They were, instead, allowed to remain priests and were simply transferred and often given the opportunity to abuse again.

The Diocese of St. Paul (Minnesota) is in the news a lot these days with problems of sexual abuse.  At the same time, the Diocese dismissed teachers in Catholic schools found to be gay.

There is no valid reason to dismiss a gay teacher.  Gay citizens are no more likely, it even appears less likely, to be child abusers.  But this fact is no match when faced with myth and self interest.

From the explanations I’ve read as to why priests who committed sexual abuse were not simply fired, it was because clergy were to follow the practice of forgiveness.  “Father X is troubled and needs our forgiveness, prayer and support.”  Forgiveness was not, apparently, the way homosexual teachers were treated.

There is a simple solution for the Catholic Church.  It is for the Vatican to decree, “God has told us the Church should be run by a lay Board selected by the laity.”  Things would be different.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/225577512.html

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Priest Pedophiles Kept Their Jobs, Gay Catholic Teachers Fired.

  1. entech says:

    Possibly because nowhere is paedaphilia declared to be an abomination.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      entech 2:38 “…nowhere..declared to be an abomination”

      I had forgotten the Church is the authority on abomination. If I had only consulted the abomination chart, I would not have written this blog.

      • Avatar of realist realist says:

        There is an abomination chart? As a non-religious person, I had no idea. I would assume a simplistic chart: two headings, “abomination” and “not abomination”. Didn’t Stephen Colbert do something along these lines?

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          realist 3:47 “‘abominatin’ and ‘not abomination’”.

          That’s the correct chart and headings. I read entech’s post twice to see where nudity was. Surely to be nude like Adam and Eve would be under “abomination”. But, it really was not that clear in post. Maybe it has to be combined with talking snakes.

  2. Michael Ross says:

    Pedophiles are people who fall under the characteristic of being “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:2). The phrase “without natural affection” is translated from one Greek word, and it means “inhuman, unloving and unsociable.” One without natural affection acts in ways that are against the social norm. This would certainly describe a pedophile.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/pedophilia.html#ixzz2hZUd2W3S

    • entech says:

      Michael I came across that site when I was making sure that there was no direct prohibition. The site has another answer, to the question “what is the cause of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church?” in its turn this page has the question “I am a Catholic, why should I consider becoming a Christian?”

      I don’t think such a doctrinaire and narrow site can be considered a good reference

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      When you lift an entire paragraph from a website, at least put the whole thing in quotes or an indented paragraph.

      By the way, this website, gotquestions.org has an array of questions that sounded interesting. I was going to read the one about “Can a Christian be a nudist? but decide I really didn’t want to know.

      • entech says:

        Don’t expect a change at this stage, Michael is one of the most accomplished cut’n'paste artists we have. Creationists in general are like this take a bit that suits their purpose and ignore the rest. Quote as if it were original, go mining for a good snippet, never mind context.

        A classic is Stein, in an interview with Dawkins he was asking about transpermia, Dawkins said it was proposed by some and was a possibility. From Stein this becomes “Dawkins believes in little green men but not God”. Conveniently overlooked, forgotten, deliberately and dishonestly ignored is the fact that Dawkins also says exactly the same about God, it is something which is proposed and is a possibility. It would be too inconvenient if it was researched honestly and found that the two propositions were possible they were equally improbable.

      • entech says:

        R. you demonstrate that all temptation is initiated by women :) Once I had read your comment I could not resist reading about Christian nudity. Or, perhaps I was looking for an excuse and one was provided by woman, either way it was not my fault.

        Apparently the answer lies in innocence in fact and in perception, prior to the fall humans were innocent.

        { in•no•cent adjective: not guilty of a crime or other wrong act
        : not deserving to be harmed
        : lacking experience with the world and the bad things that happen in life

        Full Definition of INNOCENT
        1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless }
        … ellipsis to indicate more if you care to look it up
        Merriam-Webster

        Never before had they realized they were unclothed—the concepts of “clothed” and “unclothed” were meaningless to them. Sin affected their hearts and minds, creating vulnerability, guilt, and shame, and these things produced fear (verse 10). In their attempt to cover their spiritual shame, Adam and Eve intuitively covered their bodies. We should note that, when God took away their fig leaves—a sadly inadequate covering—He replaced them with something more permanent—animal skins (verse 21). Thus, God regarded clothing as appropriate and necessary in a fallen world.
        Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-nudist.html#ixzz2hbQHQfOF

        to continue:
        So before eating the fruit, still without knowledge, still innocent they did not even know what clothes were did not know right from wrong. So, suddenly, after losing their innocence, not possible before, they become aware of all the naughty things God didn’t like, things like running around naked and talking to serpents. The serpent bit is interesting, presumably all this happened early on, shortly after God had created everything including serpents. Not only that, this act by innocents introduced death to the world. I suppose death would have been needed, without death God would not have been able to slaughter the first innocent animals to make clothes for his little children.

        So confusing sometimes, the explanations generally only make it worse. Take the “free will” thing, it is often stated that they had the choice to do what they were told or face the consequences. What kind of choice is that? it is not until the choice has been made that the consequence can become apparent! Imagine going to Vegas and saying God sent me and told me that I could put my bet on after the result is known.

  3. wolfy32 says:

    I know, I’m maybe a little too practical for people on this site… but I have a simple, practical solution….

    Don’t force humans to be inhuman…. Taking an oath of celibacy… Why? Why are priests forced to do this.. If they could be normal be normal sexual creatures of humanity… Then maybe they wouldn’t exhibit deviant human behaviors…

    Freud deemed Sexuality of humans as a basic need ingrained in us. So, by taking an oath against sexuality, they are actually denying something God created in us.. and in turn denying God’s own creation or admitting God screwed up in making us…

    Instead, allow priests to marry, have families, or be gay, or whatever (just not kids — consenting adults). OMG!! How revolutionary and practical.

    Allow them to be humans and maybe they’d well, be human… Instead of inhumane.

    imagine taking an oath of of refusal to eat. Ever. If sexuality is an ingrained part of the human existence, the same type of drive as hunger… We would pretty much all agree that a religious order of Non eaters would be pretty stupid.. (Also, the religious order wouldn’t last long if they were successful… 2 weeks… lol.)

    Denying food or water is absurd.. So, why sexuality? These priests are human and have human needs why deny them? It is not sexuality that caused the first sin.. I don’t really understand why the need for “celibate” priests.

    Let them be people and we might actually have people!!! (People with distorted religious views, but at least people instead of abominations…)

    • Simple says:

      I agree completely. We must also remember that “choking the chicken” is included in the vow of celibacy. Hard to be anything near “normal” when that is the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>