Bishops Change Tactics on Immigrants

Well, there's a legal Turskish 'shop-in-the-shop' in my supermarket, but I'll bash any second customer instead (surely I will beat either a Catholic or a Muslim then).

Since any "church" is NOT a taxpayer, they have no stake in our political system and should not be allowed to lobby for or against anything. Their tax preference is subject to the will of the voters

PS: The scoundrels are the "priests", not the Bishops.

woiyo wrote
.

But who covered up and hid the wrong doers. i.e. Cardinal Law {Boston}
they were as culpable.

That's a fascinating legal proposition. Is it your opinion that only the free speech of taxpayers is protected by the first amendment? Would you say that the ACLU, or the NRA, or other non-profits, forfeit their right to express their political views as well? How about high school kids who don't work yet? Retirees who don't work anymore?


Interesting. I would be grateful for evidence of their protection all the way up to the pope as well.

Walter has reported that there are in excess of 16,000 bishops. You've named one so far. If you doubt Walter's contention, i'm sure he would be happy to provide his source. How many priests are there? How many predatory molesters would constitute a significant fraction of that number?

I am reminded of a lesson i've used on racist white boys in the past. If some white boy knocks 'em on the head and steals their wallet, they'll say: "That sumbitch, i'll git him . . ." If a black boy knocks 'em on the head and steals their wallet, they'll say: "See, see . . . all them nigras is the same . . . "

Just how many perverted priests and venal bishops will you need to demonstrate are in the religion business today in order to have expressed anything other than a substantial anti-Catholic prejudice?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp

How many do we need??

An excerpt from the source.


"How widespread is the problem? The press reports seemed to involve a large number of priests.


The Associated Press reported that 250 priests had been dismissed or had resigned by the time the bishops met last June, though it is not clear that all of the dismissals and resignations were due to abuse. Even if all 250 priests were abusers, it would still amount to about one-half of one percent (0.53 percent) of the 47,000 priests currently serving in America, a proportion far smaller than in most media accounts. Since some of the allegations involved priests who are now dead, the proportion of offenders within today's priesthood is significantly smaller than one-half of one percent. Nevertheless, the numbers are profoundly disturbing.


What are the best statistics available about priestly sex abuse?


A 1992 study conducted in the Archdiocese of Chicago is the largest such study done to date. It examined the personnel files of all priests serving in the diocese. It found that out of the 2,252 priests who had served from 1951 to 1991, allegations of sexual abuse had been made against 59 of them, or 2.6 percent.

The study adopted a policy of favoring the accuser in cases of doubt, accepting hearsay testimony (which would not be allowed in court), and adopting a "preponderance of evidence" standard (as opposed to the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials). With this methodology, it concluded that 18 of the allegations of sexual abuse did not stand up, leaving 41 probable offenders, or 1.8 percent of the priests who had served in Chicago in four decades. Again, "the overwhelming number of cases . . . involved homosexual ephebophilia-in other words, priests sexually attracted to young teenage boys. . . . There was only one founded case of pedophilia, involving a priest-uncle with two six-year-old nieces" (Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis [1996], p. 81).

A recent study conducted in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania showed a 1.7 percent figure of priestly sexual abuse involving minors (cited by Philip Jenkins on "Catholic Answers Live," May 17, 2002, archived at www.catholic.com).

While there may be new accusations in the future, the national percentage of priests accused of abuse-0.53 percent-likely will never approach these figures of 1.8 and 1.7 percent. It appears that the archdioceses of Chicago and Philadelphia have had levels of abuse more than three times higher than the national average."

To quote Thomas - "Would you say that the ACLU, or the NRA, or other non-profits, forfeit their right to express their political views as well?"

The NRA and ACLU file for 501 c3 status differently than a religious organization. Political groups under 501 c3 have a different charter and therefore should be viewed differently, in my view.

Minors (high school students) rights are limited by law.

Retirees are taxpayers.

Ah yes, serve up an opinion piece, with just sufficient statistical flim-flam to justify its self-righteous tone. Were there 47,000 priests in the United States, which has fewer than 70,000,000 self-avowed Catholics, out of a world population of more than a billion Catholics, how many "rotten apples" do you purport justify a shabby attempt to kick over the barrel, and condemn the entire orchard?

The "statistical proof" offer in that op-ed piece relies upon some true logical non-entities. Is one to assume that every one of the fifty-nine in Chicago alleged to have abused children were in fact guilty? Certainly that assumption fits in nicely with the hack job you've posted here. Is one to assume that the diocese of two American cities, or twenty, or two hundred, are representative of the state of the priesthood in every corner of the globe? I suspect the author intends for the reader to make that assumption.

Can one reasonably assert that there is no abuse in the Anglican Church, among the Independents, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the United Church of Canada, the Dutch Reformed Church, the German Reformed Church, the Lutherans, the Silesians, the Moravians, the Mennonites, the Unitarians, the Society of Friends, the many denominations of Baptists, all the charismatics and fundamentalists? Quite apart from christianity, can one reasonably assert that there is no abuse among Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Animists . . .

I haven't the least doubt that the author certainly doesn't wish to explore the topic any further than the Catholic Church, which is the bulls-eye at which the author aims. Whether the motive of this piece were to demand reform from within, or an outright attack by a hater of Catholics (which is certainly not what i am contending), the point remains the same. Those statistics are insufficient to assess the problem, and the logic of their application stacked in a direction which the author wants to lead the reader to . . .

What is really disgusting, is that you enlist in your service the work of someone who appears to want to make the Church better, in aid of your nasty Catholic bashing.