Woodburn priest chased boy down street after abuse
#21
(08-17-2012, 02:20 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly I think it's shameful to say you won't let priests be alone with kids until they are x age, it's also offensive to catholic ppiety.

The fact is only a very small minority of priests are perverts, you risk more by sending your kids to school or the scouts. If you trust a priest there's no reason not to let him be alone with kids and it's not only prejudiced but shameful to say otherwise.For those of us with good holy priests there is no justification for such am opinion, frankly though most priests would probably avoid this in case people make things up.

It's our job to protect our children. It's not about hurting someone's feelings or accusing anyone of a specific action. But the fact remains that our children, given to us on loan by God, are targeted for destruction. Perhaps if you knew a priest for a very long time, knew his family, etc, you could trust him. But what priest these days invites a 12 year old boy to his home overnight alone? Most priests are only at a parish for 3-4 years anyway. That is not enough time to know them and to be able to trust them in my opinion.

My point was simply that it is not a hard and fast rule, moreover I don't think you need to know priests for a very long time in order to trust them. Clearly there are some dodgy actions here which priests wouldn't normally do, but lets not exagerrate, thats all I'm saying.
Reply
#22
(08-17-2012, 03:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:20 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly I think it's shameful to say you won't let priests be alone with kids until they are x age, it's also offensive to catholic ppiety.

The fact is only a very small minority of priests are perverts, you risk more by sending your kids to school or the scouts. If you trust a priest there's no reason not to let him be alone with kids and it's not only prejudiced but shameful to say otherwise.For those of us with good holy priests there is no justification for such am opinion, frankly though most priests would probably avoid this in case people make things up.

It's our job to protect our children. It's not about hurting someone's feelings or accusing anyone of a specific action. But the fact remains that our children, given to us on loan by God, are targeted for destruction. Perhaps if you knew a priest for a very long time, knew his family, etc, you could trust him. But what priest these days invites a 12 year old boy to his home overnight alone? Most priests are only at a parish for 3-4 years anyway. That is not enough time to know them and to be able to trust them in my opinion.

My point was simply that it is not a hard and fast rule, moreover I don't think you need to know priests for a very long time in order to trust them. Clearly there are some dodgy actions here which priests wouldn't normally do, but lets not exagerrate, thats all I'm saying.
Not that it's in any way the parents' fault, at all, but I can't see myself letting my kid sleep over at the priest's house. Any priest's house or any adults' house, alone. Just him asking would be suspicious, I don't care if I've known him my whole life. I don't feel I have to be wary of priests more than any other human being, but I do have to watch out for suspicious behavior (from anyone) and a grown man asking my kid to "sleep over" is like a tornado siren going off. Such a sad story.
Reply
#23
(08-17-2012, 04:21 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:20 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly I think it's shameful to say you won't let priests be alone with kids until they are x age, it's also offensive to catholic ppiety.

The fact is only a very small minority of priests are perverts, you risk more by sending your kids to school or the scouts. If you trust a priest there's no reason not to let him be alone with kids and it's not only prejudiced but shameful to say otherwise.For those of us with good holy priests there is no justification for such am opinion, frankly though most priests would probably avoid this in case people make things up.

It's our job to protect our children. It's not about hurting someone's feelings or accusing anyone of a specific action. But the fact remains that our children, given to us on loan by God, are targeted for destruction. Perhaps if you knew a priest for a very long time, knew his family, etc, you could trust him. But what priest these days invites a 12 year old boy to his home overnight alone? Most priests are only at a parish for 3-4 years anyway. That is not enough time to know them and to be able to trust them in my opinion.

My point was simply that it is not a hard and fast rule, moreover I don't think you need to know priests for a very long time in order to trust them. Clearly there are some dodgy actions here which priests wouldn't normally do, but lets not exagerrate, thats all I'm saying.
Not that it's in any way the parents' fault, at all, but I can't see myself letting my kid sleep over at the priest's house. Any priest's house or any adults' house, alone. Just him asking would be suspicious, I don't care if I've known him my whole life. I don't feel I have to be wary of priests more than any other human being, but I do have to watch out for suspicious behavior (from anyone) and a grown man asking my kid to "sleep over" is like a tornado siren going off. Such a sad story.

In certain cases, but I can foresee legitimate cases, though odd, servers for example etc... There are certainly more than a few people over the years who've been taught by priests and had to sleep over at that house for some reason. That said on the other hand it does create undue familiarity etc... All I'm saying is that we should be careful not to buy into the demonisation of priests, even when it seems like we're just being 'prudent' etc..
Reply
#24
(08-17-2012, 04:28 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 04:21 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:20 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly I think it's shameful to say you won't let priests be alone with kids until they are x age, it's also offensive to catholic ppiety.

The fact is only a very small minority of priests are perverts, you risk more by sending your kids to school or the scouts. If you trust a priest there's no reason not to let him be alone with kids and it's not only prejudiced but shameful to say otherwise.For those of us with good holy priests there is no justification for such am opinion, frankly though most priests would probably avoid this in case people make things up.

It's our job to protect our children. It's not about hurting someone's feelings or accusing anyone of a specific action. But the fact remains that our children, given to us on loan by God, are targeted for destruction. Perhaps if you knew a priest for a very long time, knew his family, etc, you could trust him. But what priest these days invites a 12 year old boy to his home overnight alone? Most priests are only at a parish for 3-4 years anyway. That is not enough time to know them and to be able to trust them in my opinion.

My point was simply that it is not a hard and fast rule, moreover I don't think you need to know priests for a very long time in order to trust them. Clearly there are some dodgy actions here which priests wouldn't normally do, but lets not exagerrate, thats all I'm saying.
Not that it's in any way the parents' fault, at all, but I can't see myself letting my kid sleep over at the priest's house. Any priest's house or any adults' house, alone. Just him asking would be suspicious, I don't care if I've known him my whole life. I don't feel I have to be wary of priests more than any other human being, but I do have to watch out for suspicious behavior (from anyone) and a grown man asking my kid to "sleep over" is like a tornado siren going off. Such a sad story.

In certain cases, but I can foresee legitimate cases, though odd, servers for example etc... There are certainly more than a few people over the years who've been taught by priests and had to sleep over at that house for some reason. That said on the other hand it does create undue familiarity etc... All I'm saying is that we should be careful not to buy into the demonisation of priests, even when it seems like we're just being 'prudent' etc..


I consider all adults the same. Meaning, I don't single priests out as potential abusers over anyother adult who interacts with my child. Mr T and I do not allow any sleepovers except to my mother's house. Priests are very well aware of the situation out there, and I imagine that most priests would find it prudent to be visible and take normal precautions. For example, no sleepovers. It is the world we live in now. I did not chooses for this to be so. Evil priests and bishops and higher allowed this horrendous sin to corrupt the reputation of the priesthood. I am just a mother determined to preserve the innocence of her children for as long as possible.
Reply
#25
(08-17-2012, 02:43 PM)Spooky Wrote: He's younger looking than I thought he'd be.

Melkite, are you saying fondling the genitals of 12 year olds is normal homosexual behavior? Because that's the only logical reading of what you said to ggreg.

I don't what the true percentage is, but it's definitely not the normal behavior of all homosexuals.  The reason I said it is because ggreg in the past has talked about his desire to put homosexuals (or, maybe just pedophilic ones, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one) to death, having said he doesn't mind dying if he can take some of them to hell with him.  But take his own words: 'leave perez to me and I would give him a slow and painful death.'  We can talk about allowing pedophiles to make a confession and swiftly being executed for the safety of children, that's one thing, but what purpose is there to make it a slow and painful death?  The only reason I can see is that ggreg would like to take pleasure in killing such a person.  Even if the person deserves to die, the desire to put one to death in a tortuous manner and to take pleasure in it, do I really have to explain why that is completely incompatible with Catholicism?
Reply
#26
(08-17-2012, 04:28 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 04:21 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:20 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 01:19 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly I think it's shameful to say you won't let priests be alone with kids until they are x age, it's also offensive to catholic ppiety.

The fact is only a very small minority of priests are perverts, you risk more by sending your kids to school or the scouts. If you trust a priest there's no reason not to let him be alone with kids and it's not only prejudiced but shameful to say otherwise.For those of us with good holy priests there is no justification for such am opinion, frankly though most priests would probably avoid this in case people make things up.

It's our job to protect our children. It's not about hurting someone's feelings or accusing anyone of a specific action. But the fact remains that our children, given to us on loan by God, are targeted for destruction. Perhaps if you knew a priest for a very long time, knew his family, etc, you could trust him. But what priest these days invites a 12 year old boy to his home overnight alone? Most priests are only at a parish for 3-4 years anyway. That is not enough time to know them and to be able to trust them in my opinion.

My point was simply that it is not a hard and fast rule, moreover I don't think you need to know priests for a very long time in order to trust them. Clearly there are some dodgy actions here which priests wouldn't normally do, but lets not exagerrate, thats all I'm saying.
Not that it's in any way the parents' fault, at all, but I can't see myself letting my kid sleep over at the priest's house. Any priest's house or any adults' house, alone. Just him asking would be suspicious, I don't care if I've known him my whole life. I don't feel I have to be wary of priests more than any other human being, but I do have to watch out for suspicious behavior (from anyone) and a grown man asking my kid to "sleep over" is like a tornado siren going off. Such a sad story.

In certain cases, but I can foresee legitimate cases, though odd, servers for example etc... There are certainly more than a few people over the years who've been taught by priests and had to sleep over at that house for some reason. That said on the other hand it does create undue familiarity etc... All I'm saying is that we should be careful not to buy into the demonisation of priests, even when it seems like we're just being 'prudent' etc..
Trent, this is probably the first post in which I don't agree with you;
ResiduumRevertetur is spot on.

There may be a situation in which a family has car trouble and a man offers his home for shelter.
But for someone to ask that your boy to sleep over? I don't care if it's the pope. No.

Reply
#27
(08-17-2012, 05:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:43 PM)Spooky Wrote: He's younger looking than I thought he'd be.

Melkite, are you saying fondling the genitals of 12 year olds is normal homosexual behavior? Because that's the only logical reading of what you said to ggreg.

I don't what the true percentage is, but it's definitely not the normal behavior of all homosexuals.  The reason I said it is because ggreg in the past has talked about his desire to put homosexuals (or, maybe just pedophilic ones, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one) to death, having said he doesn't mind dying if he can take some of them to hell with him.  But take his own words: 'leave perez to me and I would give him a slow and painful death.'  We can talk about allowing pedophiles to make a confession and swiftly being executed for the safety of children, that's one thing, but what purpose is there to make it a slow and painful death?  The only reason I can see is that ggreg would like to take pleasure in killing such a person.  Even if the person deserves to die, the desire to put one to death in a tortuous manner and to take pleasure in it, do I really have to explain why that is completely incompatible with Catholicism?

I agree with ggreg on this one. It's the painful slow death to give them some of the pain/suffering they afflict on others before they go..and perhaps if our country brought back some of the time honored traditional deaths of the middle ages (the rack anyone? drawn and quartered?) maybe there'd be less sodomite pedophiles out there willing to engage in such vile acts with innocent children. Not to mention straight rapists/pedophiles etc. Several good Catholic monarchs and their Catholic peasants working for them (in the service of the government executing criminals) did the above, and I'm sure that there was less pedophiles/active pedophiles back then because of it.
Reply
#28
(08-17-2012, 11:54 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: I agree with ggreg on this one. It's the painful slow death to give them some of the pain/suffering they afflict on others before they go..and perhaps if our country brought back some of the time honored traditional deaths of the middle ages (the rack anyone? drawn and quartered?) maybe there'd be less sodomite pedophiles out there willing to engage in such vile acts with innocent children. Not to mention straight rapists/pedophiles etc. Several good Catholic monarchs and their Catholic peasants working for them (in the service of the government executing criminals) did the above, and I'm sure that there was less pedophiles/active pedophiles back then because of it.

"Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord.  You are unfortunately just as lost as ggreg, then.

Maybe there would be fewer active pedophiles and homosexuals.  There would be just as many pedophiles and homosexuals, though.  What you suggest might suppress activity, but does nothing to prevent the illness, which I would think is the act of mercy that a true Catholic would prefer to do.
Reply
#29
I'm not necessarily taking a position here, but do you think it is possible that there are at least some people who have become homosexuals who could have become healthy heterosexuals? I'm not saying this is the case for all homosexuals, but it seems possible that a social consensus against homosexuality might lead some people to adapt to heterosexuality when they might otherwise have "experimented" in a way that would lead them to homosexuality. I'm not sure if you've seen the story, but there was an article going around not too long ago about a self-identified homosexual man who also claimed to be happily married with two daughters. I don't think it's impossible that there are similar people who would be able to get along in heterosexual relationships if homosexual ones were discouraged.
Reply
#30
(08-18-2012, 12:58 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not necessarily taking a position here, but do you think it is possible that there are at least some people who have become homosexuals who could have become healthy heterosexuals? I'm not saying this is the case for all homosexuals, but it seems possible that a social consensus against homosexuality might lead some people to adapt to heterosexuality when they might otherwise have "experimented" in a way that would lead them to homosexuality. I'm not sure if you've seen the story, but there was an article going around not too long ago about a self-identified homosexual man who also claimed to be happily married with two daughters. I don't think it's impossible that there are similar people who would be able to get along in heterosexual relationships if homosexual ones were discouraged.
I don't know about that one. Homosexuals tend easily towards pedophilia,  more than the heterosexuals.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)