Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Philadelphia Catholic Priest Trial: The Cardinal, the Clergy and Kiddie Porn

In the secret files of the archdiocese, a psychologist warned church officials that Father Edward M. DePaoli was a likely repeat offender.

Father DePaoli was the priest who got busted by U.S. Postal inspectors in 1985 for hoarding $15,000 worth of foreign kiddie porn under his bed in the rectory at the Holy Martyrs Church in Oreland, Pa. The feds raided the rectory and confiscated more than 100 magazines and 14 reels. In the archdiocese's secret files, Dr. Eric Griffin-Shelley, Father DePaoli's therapist, told church officials in 1986 that the priest was "likely to repeat his past behavior and become progressively worse."

The psychologist suggested six months to one year of "intensive in-patient psychotherapy."  The major problem with letting Father DePaoli continue in ministry, the psychologist warned, was the danger that the priest might "go beyond fantasy in terms of his sexual urges toward children." There was no indication that the priest was on the road to being rehabilitated, the psychologist reported. Despite being busted by the feds, Father DePaoli was still getting porn in the mail, Dr. Griffin-Shelley told church officials.

Besides his addiction to porn, Father DePaoli had other problems, the psychologist revealed in confidential documents displayed Monday at the ongoing archdiocese sex abuse trial, now in its third week. Father DePaoli had a "narcissistic personality," the psychologist reported, plus a "compulsive personality disorder," and a habit of forming "poor relationships with other people."

Everything you'd want in a priest, right?

Father DePaoli was sentenced to a year's probation in the kiddie porn case. The archdiocese shipped him off to the House of Affirmation in Hopedale, Mass., a treatment facility for sex offenders. While he was an in-patient, a staff member saw Father DePaoli leaving an adult book store. A search of the priest's room revealed another stash of porno, including child porn, all of which was reported to the archdiocese.

Cardinal Bevilacqua, however, thought that despite his continuing problems, Father DePaoli deserved another chance to continue his "priestly ministry." But he didn't necessarily want that ministry to continue in Philadelphia. So in 1988, after conferring with Father DePaoli, Cardinal Bevilacqua wrote in his private file that "in view of the publicity," he advised the priest that "for the present time it might be more advisable for him to return to the active ministry in another diocese."

In the secret archive files, the cardinal suggested to his underlings three possible landing places for Father DePaoli: the dioceses of Harrisburg or Scranton, or the diocese of Metuchen in neighboring New Jersey.

But there was a problem. Bishop William H. Keeler in Harrisburg told archdiocese officials that there were "too many readers of The Philadelphia Inquirer" in his diocese "to avoid serious scandal." So the cardinal, in the margin of one memo, wrote in his own handwriting, "Let's try Metuchen."

Bishop Edward T. Hughes of the Metuchen diocese was happy to oblige. He was advised in a memo that Father DePaoli was a "priest in good standing" in the Philadelphia archdiocese," although the archdiocese, with the priest's permission, sent a transcript of his medical records to Bishop Hughes.

And so Father DePaoli went to work as the parochial vicar at St. John Vianney Church in Colonia, N.J. In 1991, Cardinal Bevilacqua approved a transfer of Father DePaoli back to the Philadelphia archdiocese, as parochial vicar at St. John the Baptist Church.

It wasn't long before Father DePaoli got in trouble again. At a Mass for school children in 1992, Father DePaoli was giving the homily when he started talking about how he would like to see one of the parish school's eight-grade girls naked from the waist up.

Then, two weeks later, another priest at St. John the Baptist, Father Robert Feeney, reported to the archdiocese that three times a week, Father DePaoli was receiving pornographic catalogues and magazines at the rectory. In another memo in the secret archive files, Father Feeney reported that some of the porn was "graphic and gross," including "some form of bestiality." Father Feeney was so revolted by what he saw that he tore up some of the catalogues and magazines and threw them in the trash. But when he called the archdiocese, they told him to go get the porn out of the trash and send it to them.

Father Feeney was called to testify. He said that Father DePaoli was tough to be around. "It was definitely very difficult to live with the man," he told the jury. Father DePaoli had naked pictures of Roman soldiers on the walls of his rectory room, Father Feeney said, and a crucifix with a naked Jesus on it.

This time, the archdiocese notified Father DePaoli that he had to leave the parish immediately.  In the secret files, the priest admitted to church officials that "his addiction cycle had been activated," and he wondered if he "should just pack up and go away."

Sounds like a good idea, right? But church officials were not ready to toss Father DePaoli on the canonical scrap heap just yet.

In the files, Msgr. William J. Lynn, the archdiocese's secretary for clergy, wondered that if he told Father DePaoli that the chances of him receiving another priestly assignment in the Philadelphia archdiocese were slim and none, it might have "a severe negative effect" on the priest's chances of recovery.

Lynn is on trial for allegedly conspiring to endanger children by recycling pedophile priests to other assignments, usually without warning parishioners.

In the secret archive files, Father DePaoli's therapist, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, admitted to church officials that the priest had suffered "what I would view as a minor relapse." But the therapist didn't think the priest needed to be hospitalized again. Dr. Fitzgibbons also said he believed that the priest "could function well in ministry."

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina interrupted Detective Joseph Walsh, who was reading the secret archive files into the court record, to ask if this was the same therapist who two years earlier, had pronounced Father DePaoli cured of his addiction.

Yes it was the same therapist, the detective noted. Under the judge's direction, the detective read to the jury what Dr. Fitzgibbons had written in 1990 about Father DePaoli, "I believe that Father DePaoli has made a complete recovery."

In the secret files, Father DePaoli pressed archdiocese officials to allow him to return to St. John the Baptist. The priest cited "his need for stability in the midst of his relapse." Father DePaoli had been transferred from St. John the Baptist to a residence at Immaculate Conception parish.

As the priest pressed for a return to St. John's, he was interviewed by Msgr. Lynn. In his secret files, the monsignor noted that Father DePaoli "has not yet accepted his own actions," and "is blaming every one else." Msgr. Lynn noted that Father DePaoli said if he didn't get transferred back to St. John's, "he would in effect die."Lynn, however, wrote that if Father DePaoli was allowed to return to duty, Lynn was worried about the possibility of more "scandal to the church."

Msgr. Lynn also told Father DePaoli that the other three priests at St. John's did not want him back. When Father DePaoli heard that, he wondered to Lynn if the archdiocese had in effect set him up to fail, by placing him in a parish where he was not wanted.

In the files, Lynn also discussed with Father DePaoli his continuing receipt in the mail of porn. The priest told the monsignor that if he knew where the stuff was coming from, he would tell them to stop sending it. Not even the monsignor was buying that. In the files, Lynn wrote that he questioned the priest's sincerity.

In the secret files, the monsignor wrote that he had to tell Father DePaoli he would not get another priestly assignment in Philadelphia. Cardinal Bevilacqua had approved Lynn's recommendation to strip Father DePaoli of authority to say Mass in public, or do any other public priestly duties. Father DePaoli was placed on administrative leave, and had his "faculties restricted for the good of the church and the avoidance of scandal," Lynn wrote.

 Father DePaoli was "very upset" with the decision, as well as "saddened and hurt," Lynn wrote. The priest informed Lynn that he wanted to appeal the cardinal's decision, because he felt it was "an overreaction to his difficulties."

But Lynn wrote in the secret files that he was acting "for the good of the church, and to avoid scandal for the faithful."

The secret files, show, however, that church officials were still not finished with their efforts find a new home for Father DePaoli outside the archdiocese. A 1994 confidential memo from Lynn to Bevilacqua noted that the bishop of the Metuchen diocese had turned down an archdiocese request to ship Father DePaoli back to New Jersey.

Father DePaoli, however, did get approval from Msgr. Lynn to go to Rome in 1995 and officiate at a Mass commemorating his 25th year of service as a priest. When he wrote out the permission slip, Lynn noted that Father DePaoli was "a priest in good standing in the archdiocese of Philadelphia." Father DePaoli also received a congratulatory letter from Cardinal Bevilacqua.

The priest pursued an appeal of the cardinal's decision to place him on administrative leave. In 1995, Father DePaoli's canonical advocate wrote that Father DePaoli was on lithium, and attending weekly therapy for sex offenders. The advocate pointed out that despite his addiction to pornography, Father DePaoli "never had sexual contact with another human being."

But he still had urges.

Another prosecution witness testified that back when she was in sixth or seventh grade, she attended the parochial school at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Doylestown. Father DePaoli was as assistant pastor there from 1970 to 1975.

She testified that when she was 12, she was preparing to make her confirmation. Father DePaoli had his arm around her one day as the two walked from school to church.

"He grabbed my breast and fondled me," she testified. The victim told the jury she jabbed the priest in the stomach with her elbow. "I had to get away from him," she said, but she was also in shock. "I was 12 years old and nobody had ever touched me before."

The victim told her mother what had happened, and added, "He was a bad man." But neither she nor her mother told anybody at the church. "They would have never believed us anyway," she testified.

When Father DePaoli was arrested for kiddie porn, the victim's mother called to tell her the news. "I told you he was bad," she told her mother.

Then, the Boston sex abuse scandal exploded. "Now people were coming forward in this country," the victim testified. She decided to do her part. In 2002, she reported the incident to the archdiocese. She ended up in the office of Msgr. Lynn. She came back a second time, bringing along her mother to confirm the story. Then she had a private meeting with Cardinal Bevilacqua, who gave her some rosary beads.

Under cross-examiantion, the victim didn't have anything nice to say about Msgr. Lynn.

"My feeling was that they didn't really care," she testified about her meetings with Lynn and an assistant. "They were going through the motions. Were they empathetic? No."

22 comments:

  1. "I believe that Father DePaoli has made a complete recovery," the therapist said?!?! Good grief.

    As horribly as Church officials handled these allegations, one aspect that has gone virtually unreported in this entire decades-long narrative is that bishops and officials often relied on the *garbage* advice of psychologists and therapists.

    U.S. Judge Patrick J. Schiltz has had experience with over 500 cases of abuse (adult and child) in Christian denominations. He has written:

    "[A]ll of us have read horror stories about bishops permitting abusive priests to remain in ministry. These stories were horrible because what the bishops did was often horrible. It should be noted, however, that something rather important was usually left out of these stories: In most cases in which a bishop decided to permit a priest accused of abuse to remain in ministry, the bishop was relying on the advice of a psychologist. That psychologist told the bishop either that the priest likely did not commit abuse or that, although the priest did commit abuse, his problem was now under control.

    "On countless occasions, psychologists gave bishops terrible advice about abusive priests-and, of course, this bad advice led to terrible consequences for victims and the broader church. Yet these psychologists have gotten off scot-free in the media ...

    "Bishops, too, often consulted experts - sometimes the most respected and experienced experts in the nation. Bishops, too, were often told that they had nothing to worry about. Bishops, too, relied on that advice to their detriment. Yet the media have consistently blamed bishops for following bad advice, rather than the experts for giving the bad advice."

    http://www.dnu.org/news/newspaper/dec03/notallnews.html

    -

    Thanks for the update, Ralph.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, the pedophile priest protecting professionals like "themediareport" have their planned excuses, and point fingers elsewhere.

      Catholics are famous for

      - blaming anybody and everybody else
      - finding people that will take money in exchange for excuses
      - letting the most innocent children suffer the consequences of their evil decisions
      - avoiding the truth

      Here's the truth, and THE ONLY TRUTH THAT MATTERS:

      THE COWARDLY CATHOLICS NEVER TOLD ANY OF THESE PARENTS OR CHILDREN THAT THEY WERE LEAVING THE CHILDREN ALONE WITH KNOWN CHILD RAPISTS.

      No parents ever would have allowed it, and tens of thousands of children could have been saved.

      These Catholic bishops are the gang leaders of the child rape underworld. They reassigned known child rapists to be with new, innocent children without telling the parents. They used live children as “lab experiments” to see if these pedophile priests would rape again.

      When these pedophile priests inevitably raped more children, they moved them again, never telling the next set of unsuspecting parents and children.

      When God eventually made them get caught, they lied or misled the congregation. Cardinal Rigali in Philadelphia out and out lied in 2011.

      Cardinal Law in Boston told a congregation in the early 1990s that he would bring the “wrath of God” down upon the newspapers that were investigating Father Porter, a known pedophile priest that Cardinal Law himself had reassigned multiple times. Catholics were even more ignorant back then, so they trusted Cardinal Law, who was lying to a full church in Boston.

      Of course, Cardinal Law was lying and God helped the newspapers. Father Porter was eventually convicted of molesting 28 children, and he admitted sexually abusing at least 100 children of both sexes over a period of 30 years. Cardinal Law was reassigned to a beautiful church in Rome, and just celebrated his 80th birthday with a lavish party. Rewarded, like the mafia does.

      The Catholic Church eventually admitted 220+ priests in Boston who had sex with 820+ children, and there were others that were worse than Porter.

      Even at this stage of repeated practices of evil, the Catholic Church could have done the Christian thing, which would have been to actively seek out victims and get them the kind of therapy that a child would need after they think they've been raped by “Christ on earth” when they were 10, 11, 12 years old. Instead, they took the parishioners money and found the best lawyers they could to fight the victims that came forward.

      Of course, they still do today.

      God is proving this isn't God's church.

      Delete
    2. Apparently you missed the part where I wrote, "As horribly as Church officials handled these allegations ..."

      Is there a remedial course in reading comprehension available for you at Harvard, Neil?

      Delete
    3. First of all, "themediareport", the key isn't whether Catholic bishops could pay doctors that they could use as scapegoats. The issue is that they repeatedly moved these known child rapists around instead of alerting the police, and they left these known child rapists alone in the presence of children.

      You go on for paragraphs about excuses. Your bishops made clear, deliberate decisions at the time, knowing exactly what they were doing, and they did it worldwide in a consistent manner. This is what Catholics call "the persistent sin", and it isn't forgiven.

      Of course, your web page reference isn't from any credible news source. These are such feeble excuses.

      Delete
    4. themediareport,

      I'm really good at reading comprehension and also at math.

      You spent 8 words saying the obvious, and mitigated it by only saying horribly handled. You didn't say that they made evil, calculated decisions to put known child rapists into positions where they could commit one of the world's most heinous crimes - making an innocent child think they were being stabbed to death by "Christ on earth", adn then intentionally leaving that in their minds for their entire life, then lying about it (against their commandments), then bullying the victims rather than parting with their extravagant wealth.

      There, I said it better.

      You then spent 245 words making excuses and blaming others for a related problem. Again, putting those known pedophiles in the presence of children is the crime. The related crime is that some doctors were willing to take money to make the bishops think that those doctors had cured these pedophiles.

      This distraction works on many Catholics, but wouldn't work at Harvard.

      Then you point to a web page which isn't a legitimate, known site, and looks like it might be a site created by a 10 year old.

      Let's hope that 10 year old is never with a Catholic priest.

      Delete
    5. Neil, over looking the fact St John Vianney therapists and psychiatrists were being paid for by the diocese is one thing, but this sentence of yours is too totally true for both bishops and therapists: They used live children as “lab experiments” to see if these pedophile priests would rape again."

      Delete
  2. Mr. Cipriano,
    I know well, as you may also know, that the archdiocese had/has "an approved list" of psychologists in which priests are sent for treatment. These psychologists are paid by the archdiocese for their treatment, as well as their final recommendations. Does anyone really think that psychologists who render opinions that are "contrary" to what benefits swift reassignment will continue to be on "the approved list?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catholic bishops still use the same practices, as you can see in a case in Kansas City, where Bishop Finn hid a known pedophile for a year.

      Finn got a four-page memo from a school principal, which said that Father Ratigan was taking pictures “up the skirts” of 5 to 10-year-old girls, making kids reach into his pocket for change, and exhibiting other pedophile priest behavior.

      Seven months after this report, they found Ratigan's computer filled with child porn. The pictures included a staged strip tease of a two-year-old girl out of a diaper until the girl was completely naked and exposed.

      Undoubtedly, Catholics will blame the two-year-old girl.

      They didn't go to the police. Instead, they intentionally misled a police friend about the contents of the computer in a feeble attempt at “plausible deniability”.

      Bishop Finn sent Ratigan to a Catholic approved counselor who said Ratigan wasn’t a pedophile, even though he was taking pictures up the skirts of young girls and had a computer filled with child porn. Not a pedophile by Catholic priests standards.

      Bishop Finn has now been indicted and is facing trial in the fall.

      Delete
    2. I would not lump all catholics together. The truth is many, myself included, were naive at the least and were raised in a middle class, working class family structure where the parents & children went to mass every week. That being said this naivete is no longer. On a more personal note it is very sad for me to see what the hierarchy has brought on itself and the entire church. I'm sure those who practice their faith see this the same way and want thosee who are guilty to be punished to the extent of the law. Never again will this be overlooked.

      Delete
  3. Dpierre, if a Walmart or ACME manager received child porn at work, I would expect his employer to call the cops. Period, end of story. If Walmart instead transferred him to another store or paid for a therapist, nobody would feel that Walmart complied with its legal or moral duty. So, yes, I expect at least as much from the RCC as I do from Walmart. If you read the article in the national catholic reporter, it was fairly clear that there was a lot of therapist shopping and they were sent to Archdiocesan treatment centers. There were well publicized priest scandals in the 80s and the recidivism of sex offenders was well known by then, you are not seriously contending that the church believed these priests were cured. It's apologists like you who are the real enablers. The offenders themselves ares simply sick disturbed deviants that probably need institutional care or full time custodial supervision. Apologists and enablers have no excuse. Admit it, you don't get along well with mature adult women and prefer the company of men. Hanging with priests allows you to have your male bonding and feel superior. Otherwise, you have to confront that strange attraction that your religion says is sinful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the difference - Walmart isn't selling free tickets to heaven and free confessions for any crime committed.

      However, the leaders of the Catholic Church have the congregation convinced they are the only church that can allow people to get to heaven.

      You are absolutely right about the “enablers”. If Catholics were actual Christians, they could have insisted that all victims be found and given whatever therapy was necessary for the heinous crimes of their leaders. They wouldn't have cared about money. They would've sold oversize churches. They could have insisted that those criminal leaders go to jail and they could have insisted that laws be changed to force those leaders to go to jail if the laws were an adequate.

      Instead. Catholic bishops made the decision that Satan would have made. They decided to make every effort to protect money and property and to intimidate and bully every victim that came forward. The congregation followed these leaders, enabling and empowering them to do exactly the opposite of What Jesus Would Do, with the power of 1 billion people.

      This isn't God's church. They don't have free tickets to heaven. They are the false idols that you were warned about in the Catholic congregation follows them faithfully.

      Delete
    2. "you are not seriously contending that the church believed these priests were cured"

      No, but I am contending - through the facts shown in the article above - that therapists SAID they were cured! Awful!

      Delete
    3. Here's the God's test - what did the bishops say to the parents and the children in the next area that the priest was assigned to?

      Delete
    4. Dpeierre; you still don't get it. Receiving child pornography is a crime; particularly if the person has already been convicted of possessing or disseminating child pornography. Show me in any reports where the Archdiocese called the cops. If I came in and stole $20 out of the poor box, these clowns would have called the cops and reported the crime. A convicted sex offender is receiving child pornography; and the good church gives him a letter in good standing and pays for their rent-a-shrink; instead of calling the cops and letting them conduct an investigation. Because if the cops were called; and he was arrested; then there would have been an investigation concerning the children that this priest was in contact with and what materials he was receiving. Then, after the Archdiocese hinders a criminal investigation into a convicted sex offender with access to children; you call the eventual victims who may not come forward until they are adults--frauds and liars. I don't blame the church for having deviants in their clergy. I blame them because they covered for them; rather than call the cops. And they lied to their parishioners about why the good Father was transferred or sent to treatment. If Walmart, or any other corporation, did this once; there would be outrage. But the RCC has done this over and over again for decades

      Delete
    5. Neil, I think you have to distinguish between the bishops and complicit clergy; and the parishioners. The broad accusation that they are all just Satan's vessels is a bit extreme. Whether you are catholic, jewish, mormon, or muslim; is generally an accident of birth. Many religious folks are indoctrinated from infancy with the idea that religious folks are virtuous and non believers evil; or at least intent upon shaking or drawing believers away from their faith. Their faith is reinforced because most of the good people they see in their society adhere to their particular religion. If you grew up in mormon Utah, most of the decent people you would encounter were mormon and it is a community that offers distinct advantages to belong to in Utah. The same is true for catholics in traditional catholic areas. After a lifelong of indoctrination, it takes a lot to look at the faith of your family and community critically. But in every religion has the same evil and manipulative concepts; and that is that there are special people who have some unique status or position that places them in a special relationship with god; and that god is like a jealous yenta who needs to be praised and worshiped to thank him for creating the world, but more importantly, the special people (clergy) need to be praised and set apart or god will get pissed off. Not surprisingly, the best way to show your appreciation to this yenta-god, is to give money or property to the people who claim they speak for the yenta; and then they can give you some of the favor that they get. Oh, and secondarily, there are a lot of well meaning people who believe in the various form of yenta gods that they do good works--which apparently justifies the special status of the special yenta spokesman. And it is all relatively harmless until believers start flying their planes into buildings; or start transferring rapists from parish to parish

      Delete
  4. Ya know, some days you can only take so much of the horrific stoies...I admire these victims, who were kids, so much... I don't know how they survived.. and many of them did not..!!

    How can these holy guys be so bad..?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catholic priests aren't holy guys.

      The genius of Satan is that he works in a variety of ways. He took over the Catholic Church and got them to commit heinous crimes against God's most innocent children, but that was just the beginning. He then got all of the rest of the priests to protect the rapists, lie about them, and fight the innocent victims when they came forward. None of the priests complained.

      Even worse very few of the parishioners complained. They sat by and let Satan take over the church. The genius of Satan is that he is dropped the standards of Catholics so low that they think:

      - child rape is no big deal
      - lying about it is okay
      - fighting the victims is okay
      - protecting money is the top priority

      If Catholic followers accept these things in their leaders (the best Catholics in the world), they can commit almost any crimes and sins themselves and still feel really good about themselves by comparison.

      Satan isn't stupid, but God never lets him get too smart. This is easy to figure out.

      This isn't God's church.

      Delete
  5. As a former Roman Catholic, I find the continuing disclosures of gross priestly immorality especially repugnant. The evidence that has emerged over the past decade that demonstrates the widespread corruption of the morals of youths by priests and the lengths to which the bishops have gone to preserve their imagined and self-perpetuated “holier than thou” image is simply breathtaking. This is truly a case in point!

    The rampant moral degeneracy and cover up mentality of the RC “church” spawned by unquestioned and irrational institutional loyalty driven by a self-preservation mentality that characterizes the so-called “hierarchy” is a flat contradiction of the basic Christian principles of truth, honesty and transparency and only serves to reinforce my decision to walk away from this den of gross and unrivaled iniquity masquerading behind a pretense of religion! What a mockery they have made of the religion of Christ!
    Don't forget . . it was Bill Donahue, the RC “church”'s arch defender of the faith that placed an add in the New York Times on April 11, 2011, from which I share an excerpt:

    “When the National Review Board, a group of notable Catholics, issued its study in 2004, the team’s chief, attorney Robert S. Bennett, said that “any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.” One of the members, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins, has said that “This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it’s not being discussed.” By the way, the figures after 2004 haven’t changed—eight in ten cases involve homosexuality. Worldwide, the Vatican estimates that 60 percent of the cases are same-sex, 30 percent are heterosexual and 10 percent involve pedophilia.”

    Indeed the Roman Catholic priesthood has become a "gay community" and the problem has been identified by Dr. Paul McHugh as “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth”.
    So it would follow that without a thorough cleansing of the temple of homosexual priests and bishops, one can expect that the abuse of “Catholic youth” will continue.

    Roman Catholics who are genuinely interested in the well-being and welfare of their children, as well as providing a safe and wholesome environment that both instills and mirrors the traditional family values they hold and cherish are left with but one option . . LEAVE!

    JuneAnnette, a Witness for Christ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You missed the point, but did manage to cloak your anti-gay rant in such a way that some Catholics will agree with you and won't see through it.

      This isn't about gay & not gay, alhough most Catholic priests are gay.

      This is about child rape.

      When we found out that Fr Cudemo raped a 12 year old girl, only Catholics sighed and said, "at least he wasn't gay".

      That isn't "heterosexuality". Its child rape, and outside the Catholic church, its one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

      Delete
  6. I think you put the cart before the horse. If you speak to many catholic priests, and ask them why they became priests, they will first tell you that they heard a call. When you press them further, they will eventually state in so many words that the idea of living and working in an all male community and hierarchy has a great deal of appeal. If they speak candidly about their teen romance/sex history, you will learn that most of them had very immature and underdeveloped male-female relationships. Very few of them dated normally or had healthy normal views of female sexuality and relationships. Priests are very comfortable with the notion that god created very separate roles for men and women; and that men were intended to lead women. While they don't directly say it, essentially most priests feel that men are superior to women; and given that they are uncomfortable around women in the first place, as mature sexual beings; the notion of male dominance and superiority is appealing. It allows them to bypass their core insecurities. So if you create an all male clergy who are intrinsically uncomfortable with and have very immature views of female sexuality; and who retreat to an all male community; then most of the members will be primarily homosexual in orientation; and who will seek out other males with immature sexual development, i.e. adolescent boys.

    Outside the church, most of the child predators are males preying on teen females. In other words, the priest scandal is not part of a general homosexual predation on America's youth. The Priest-teenage boy issue is a problem specifically created by the demographics of the individuals who are interested in and pursue the priesthood. In prior generations, there were enough poor bright heterosexually orientated males kids who chose the priesthood to get an education and avoid a life of dreary manual labor or poverty to balance out the homosexuals who became priests to join all male communities. Now, with financial aid, scholarships, etc, a smart poor kid doesn't have to be a priest to escape the slums of Philadelphia and go to college. So all you really have are the closeted self-loathing homosexuals who make up most of the modern priesthood

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please tell me where else a gay Catholic boy was going to go given the Church is so officially homophobic? The NFL?
      We should probably start thinking about some real truth. If the Roman Catholic priesthood had a very different makeup, and we weren't so hell bent on castigating gays, maybe our priestly issues would be a whole lot different. Then we would be like every other religion where the sexual abuse of male leadership trended towards girls.

      Hmmmm. Maybe we should go even further and try to determine why a significant percentage of male religious leadership is so into illicit sex with adults, teen agers, or children. By the way, this tendency is well documented in all spiritual traditions.

      Delete
  7. It is a standard Catholics excuse to say that this happens just as much everywhere else, but it isn't true and never has been. It's also standard Catholic practice the plan on homosexuality, when it's really child rape.

    The Catholic Church admitted 4,392 child sex abusing priests in their 2002 John Jay report and 72% of them were pedophile priests. Then the Catholic Church did the standard dishonest Catholic of lying about it. They knew that the older generation hated the phrase "pedophile priests", so they actually changed the cutoff age for pedophilia to make the Catholic priests look less disgusting.

    First guess what the cutoff age is for pedophilia. 17? 16? 15?

    The American Psychiatric Association says the cutoff age for pedophilia is 13 and the reason is that that's the age at which most children reach puberty learn about sex. Children younger than that, especially Catholic children, and especially back in the old days rarely knew about sex before they were 13 years old so the crime is even worse.

    The Catholic Church change the meaning of the word pedophilia so that the cutoff age was 10 because that dropped the percentage of "pedophile priests" to 22%. Did the difference of 50% is due to the fact that most of these cases were priests having anal sex with altar boys who are normally in the 10 the 13 year old range.

    By the way no other institution in history has a number that's even close to 4392 child sex abusers

    Catholics protect their pedophile priests like parents protect children.

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.