Research Discussion: Pedophile Priests

Pedophile Priests
Posts: 52

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

Greysky
2010-04-11 15:50:45 EST

"HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hpv6dm$6c9$1@hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> "[SMF]" <snbsmf@yahooligo.com> wrote in message
> news:hpv2rk$fai$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> I don't mind the kiddie diddlers getting sentenced and placed in
>> the general population in the local prison, but there is a point
>> when crap like this gets absurd.
>
>
> Why? Aren't there some crimes, when perpetrated by an adult,
> are unforgiveable? I say yes, and child molestation tops the list.
>
> That the church, which is financially responsible for these crimes,
> is against removing the statute of limitations is understandable
> from a money point of view..... But aren't they supposed to be the
> good guys? Wouldn't a 'good guy' put the needs of the wronged
> person over their own finances?
>


Well, then get rid of *all* limitations. Joan of Arc was threatened by rape
when she was captured by the English (she was still a teenager). Even if it
didn't happen, I'm sure the 'emotional distress' she felt was tremendous.
Since the Church was behind the persecution, shouldn't she should be able to
sue the Church in today's court - or some trial lawyer who claims Joan was
his ancestor should be allowed to get his, right? No Limits...




HVAC
2010-04-12 06:45:52 EST
Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature
that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse
cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic
bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them
to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past
their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law
would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions,
including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by
Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic
Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of
Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their
legislators in opposition of the bill.

The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in
Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic
Charities," the letter says.

The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit
announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on
Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.

The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns
about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut
state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.

"The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye
said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will
never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving
them access to the courts."

Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex
abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim
filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show
substantial proof that they were abused.

"They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar
high," Bye said.

The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims
that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased,
memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been
lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by
"trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye
said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.

Jimbo
2010-04-12 07:31:52 EST
On Apr 12, 6:45 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that there should be no statute of limitation on child
molesting/abuse. I guess the church should have thought of
"frivolous lawsuits" when they were busy covering up real cases, and
supporting, protecting, and enabling their pedophile priests.

Yap
2010-04-12 08:05:21 EST
On 12 Apr, 17:45, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature
> that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse
> cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic
> bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them
> to oppose the measure.
>
> Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past
> their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law
> would rescind that statute of limitations.
>
> The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions,
> including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by
> Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.
>
> The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic
> Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of
> Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their
> legislators in opposition of the bill.
>
> The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in
> Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic
> Charities," the letter says.
>
> The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit
> announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on
> Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.
>
> The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns
> about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut
> state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.
>
> "The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye
> said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will
> never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving
> them access to the courts."
>
> Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex
> abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim
> filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show
> substantial proof that they were abused.
>
> "They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar
> high," Bye said.
>
> The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.
>
> The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims
> that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased,
> memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been
> lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by
> "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."
>
> The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye
> said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.

Why should RCC be so blatant obvious to wish to protect those
molestors, especially those supposedly god's servent?
It shows religious bigots do not think there is god to punish them in
hell....
which in turn really is telling every one that there is no such thing
as god, hell, or heaven.

[SMF]
2010-04-12 08:14:46 EST
On 4/12/2010 6:31 AM, Jimbo wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:45 am, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that there should be no statute of limitation on child
> molesting/abuse. I guess the church should have thought of
> "frivolous lawsuits" when they were busy covering up real cases, and
> supporting, protecting, and enabling their pedophile priests.


I don't mind the kiddie diddlers getting sentenced and placed in
the general population in the local prison, but there is a point
when crap like this gets absurd.

There was a period of time, in the past twenty years, when a slew
of people were slandered and/or sent up the creek based on impressed
memories. Since such cases are based on word of mouth and the
defendant is presumed guilty, such cases become specious, at best.

People need to learn to get over things. At 21 everyone should be
forced to list all grievances with the knowledge that after that
point in time it's too friggin' bad. This ten plus years after
the fact crap is bullshit.

Now, that Polanski character escaped justice. Situations like
that are different. If the perp is 'known and evades', it is an
entirely different scenario.

[SMF]
2010-04-12 08:37:18 EST
On 4/12/2010 7:05 AM, Yap wrote:

> Why should RCC be so blatant obvious to wish to protect those
> molestors, especially those supposedly god's servent?
> It shows religious bigots do not think there is god to punish them in
> hell....
> which in turn really is telling every one that there is no such thing
> as god, hell, or heaven.

They're not allowed to marry, or be with women...you figure it out.


Androcles
2010-04-12 09:07:47 EST

"[SMF]" <snbsmf@yahooligo.com> wrote in message
news:hpv2rk$fai$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 4/12/2010 6:31 AM, Jimbo wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 6:45 am, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that there should be no statute of limitation on child
>> molesting/abuse. I guess the church should have thought of
>> "frivolous lawsuits" when they were busy covering up real cases, and
>> supporting, protecting, and enabling their pedophile priests.
>
>
> I don't mind the kiddie diddlers getting sentenced and placed in
> the general population in the local prison, but there is a point
> when crap like this gets absurd.
>
> There was a period of time, in the past twenty years, when a slew
> of people were slandered and/or sent up the creek based on impressed
> memories. Since such cases are based on word of mouth and the
> defendant is presumed guilty, such cases become specious, at best.
>
> People need to learn to get over things. At 21 everyone should be
> forced to list all grievances with the knowledge that after that
> point in time it's too friggin' bad. This ten plus years after
> the fact crap is bullshit.
>
> Now, that Polanski character escaped justice. Situations like
> that are different. If the perp is 'known and evades', it is an
> entirely different scenario.

Age of consent in Italy (Vatican City) is 12, age of criminal
responsibility in Britain is 10. Two 10 year olds were tried and
convicted as adults for the murder of a 2-year-old toddler, one
of whom (now aged 27) was in the news recently, recalled for
breaking parole.
Different countries, different states, different laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Polanski broke freedom-loving USA Californian law, he did not break
Mexican law, he did not break Italian law! He went to Italy to obtain
justice, not to escape it.

There is something seriously wrong and hypocritical about a country
that demands an 18-year-old sign up to fight for it, laying down his life,
and yet can't have a drink until he's 21. Justice demands privilege goes
with responsibility, so don't give us any crap about "escaping justice".

The age of consent in West Virginia is 16.
The age of consent in Wisconsin is 18.
Which commandment said "Thou shalt not fuck if thou crosseth over
the border of thy state"?


HVAC
2010-04-12 09:15:32 EST

"[SMF]" <snbsmf@yahooligo.com> wrote in message
news:hpv2rk$fai$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> I don't mind the kiddie diddlers getting sentenced and placed in
> the general population in the local prison, but there is a point
> when crap like this gets absurd.


Why? Aren't there some crimes, when perpetrated by an adult,
are unforgiveable? I say yes, and child molestation tops the list.

That the church, which is financially responsible for these crimes,
is against removing the statute of limitations is understandable
from a money point of view..... But aren't they supposed to be the
good guys? Wouldn't a 'good guy' put the needs of the wronged
person over their own finances?






>
> There was a period of time, in the past twenty years, when a slew
> of people were slandered and/or sent up the creek based on impressed
> memories. Since such cases are based on word of mouth and the
> defendant is presumed guilty, such cases become specious, at best.
>
> People need to learn to get over things. At 21 everyone should be
> forced to list all grievances with the knowledge that after that
> point in time it's too friggin' bad. This ten plus years after
> the fact crap is bullshit.
>
> Now, that Polanski character escaped justice. Situations like
> that are different. If the perp is 'known and evades', it is an
> entirely different scenario.



Brad Guth
2010-04-12 09:39:30 EST
On Apr 12, 6:15 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "[SMF]" <snb...@yahooligo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hpv2rk$fai$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > I don't mind the kiddie diddlers getting sentenced and placed in
> > the general population in the local prison, but there is a point
> > when crap like this gets absurd.
>
> Why?  Aren't there some crimes, when perpetrated by an adult,
> are unforgiveable?  I say yes, and child molestation tops the list.
>
> That the church, which is financially responsible for these crimes,
> is against removing the statute of limitations is understandable
> from a money point of view..... But aren't they supposed to be the
> good guys?  Wouldn't a 'good guy' put the needs of the wronged
> person over their own finances?
>
>
>
> > There was a period of  time, in the past twenty years, when a slew
> > of people were slandered and/or sent up the creek based on impressed
> > memories.  Since such cases are based on word of mouth and the
> > defendant is presumed guilty, such cases become specious, at best.
>
> > People need to learn to get over things.  At 21 everyone should be
> > forced to list all grievances with the knowledge that after that
> > point in time it's too friggin' bad.  This ten plus years after
> > the fact crap is bullshit.
>
> > Now, that Polanski character escaped justice.  Situations like
> > that are different.  If the perp is 'known and evades', it is an
> > entirely different scenario.

That church is also saturated into government, by those holding public
office that may not want their past associations to become any part of
that mess which formulated what they consider moral and/or judge
others by.

~ BG

Uncle Al
2010-04-12 10:30:36 EST
HVAC wrote:
>
> Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature
> that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse
> cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic
> bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them
> to oppose the measure.
[snip]

Christ had His cross, little boys have their priests' bunghole-seeking
missals (go ahead, look it up). Christianity has always been
intensely, openly homosexual. Jews and Muslims prefer genital
mutilation of their young boys

Yahweh is a sickness.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron