Deaf sex abuse victim suing the pope

The action against the World Trade Centers was #1 a heinous crime (sneak attack that summoned up images of Pearl Harbor and the hated Japanese scum long since become our friends) and #2 it was a dastardly attack against defenseless individuals.

So you see? Two completely different animals. #3 might be that the plane hijackers didn't first say "drop your pants".

Where's the anger towards Hollywood for the movies they made presenting jet planes as a weapon stronger than skyscrapers ala "True Lies"? True Lies wasn't the only such movie I just don't recall the others at the moment. Has Hollywood producers and script writers been hauled into court to pay the families?

The use of a heavy explosive such as a fueled jet represents and the resulting fireball deaths of burned victims must've pulled up long-ago suppressed memories of the little Vietnamese girl whose flesh was seared by napalm over in Vietnam. So perhaps the answer to your question is that Americans cannot tolerate the idea of receiving the same treatment HERE that their military and pilots delivered to the Vietnamese day after day for YEARS.

We can dish out death but we can't absorb it.
We can dish out death but we can't absorb it.
We can dish out death but we can't absorb it.
We can dish out death but we can't absorb it.

Of course the monster tells us we can. Typical.

Sexual assault against teens, children, and the disabled by priests then, subsequent "sweeping under the rug" of these priests from the Vatican for at least 30 years isn't a heinous crime? It isn't a "dastardly attack against defenseless individuals"?

You are failing to grasp my friend that there are degrees of heinous and degrees of dastardly. If an act is #1 done suddenly and #2 without warning (drop your pants) and #3 is more (less) explosive like #4 the difference between a child wearing napalm versus a simple dirty bomb in Manhattan, then there's your difference.

One generates memories of past heinous acts -like the little girl in Nam or Pearl Harbor- while the other does not meet that requirement. Since the great majority of folks have not experienced a sexual predator they consequently fail to have a past memory to add to the victim's for a cumulative feeling of heinous and dastardly to be resurrected up.

See how simple it is when you break it down?

Just because someone hasn't felt it themselves doesn't mean people can't have empathy for the victims, especially if it's been going on for a long time. Most of us have never been in a concentration camp. WWII was well before my time. But, I still feel empathy for those who were trapped, killed, lost their families etc. because of the Nazi regime.

If we've gone 30 years hearing about how priests are molesting kids and then being whisked away to a new area where they can continue their priesthood, people get upset. People *are* upset about it, even if we've never been sexually assaulted by a priest.

I'm sorry if I'm missing your point. My initial point in my original post was how come we allow Vatican City to continue with this charade? I wasn't trying to compare 9/11 with church sanctioned sexual abuse. I was just pointing out that people were enraged enough with an act to go to war. And, from comments I see on articles such as this, stories I read, news, etc., I think people are enraged with the Vatican so, I was just wondering why we're still allowing it.

I hope I have made myself more transparent.

I didn't say people lack empathy. I was seeking to show why a kneejerk bomb them all to hell response has failed to materialize.

Obviously the Vatican enjoys the same perks as Israel, therefore it logically follows we can rest assured nothing of any significance whatever will be forthcoming.

We will have to resolve ourselves to wait for the end of Revelation 18 where the Vatican gets what's coming. The Vatican is behind the protective shield of Satan and neither you, I or empathy can breach that wall. It will take Christ Jesus (see Revelation Chapter 6 for that also). You just have to accept the things we powerless humans cannot change.

It's all in God's great and capable hands, even now. We have many very significant reasons to believe that time is about to come true, all true, from Armageddon to Revelation Chapter 22. In regards to the Vatican, they have over the centuries made additions and subtractions to God's Word the Bible through changing the Bible's teachings (aka dogma),so the Pope is the head of an organization about to experience Jesus' full wrath for daring to claim it represents him.

Stay strong. This too shall pass. They're about to lose in Court and they shall not get a reprieve.

uhm, I think the Pope believes in a non-Biblical prophecy about how his successor will be the last Pope. As usual His Papalency's knowledge is in error. This Pope will be the last Pope on earth, ever. There is no such "next Pope". Pope Benedict reaches outside the Bible for his beliefs as usual, and in so doing has rendered his station a dead end.

The sexual abuse card is a hard one to judge, considering all of the vultures whose bread and butter consists of riding the waves of frenzy on the surfboard of deceit. This is especially true when considering Catholic priests (or Michael Jackson). The circumstances lead me to believe this young man is genuine and suffered a trauma in his past at the hands of his clergy. But it's also hard to disbelief a deaf man, or someone with any disability, claiming they were taken advantage of, and perhaps this is a calculating man who knew he could take his "case" all the way to the top, to Pope Statutory Gay Rape XVI.

But most of the time those who are disabled or become disabled become extremely empathetic and are less likely to take advantage of the misery of others. I guess all there is to do is watch how the story unfolds.

B, I'm thinking it took him a long time to come to the conclusion that he isn't going to burn in hell for exposing this.

just an FYI its victim not victum--I just noticed that myself. :P

Indeed. I think, and hope, that this one won't go anywhere.

ahh. thanks.

yeah I can't really see how there going to get out of this one.

very easy, money for the best attorneys and a little "extra help" to the US government....

I suspect this abuse has been going on for hundreds of years, not just the last 70.

YEP!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHHAAAAAA HHAAAA

Oh, dear, you just lost any chance of "winning" an argument.

so whats wrong with that? i vote myself up all the time.

i;ll pray for your suffering to end.

ha. that's funny. well placed. please don't. Our scwabbles on this site are nothing. If your going to pray please do it for bigger things. Like the end of a war, or the end to the abuse of helpless children.

been their done that. still trying maybe i need to give up alittle more cash to gerry falwell or the libertarien party. you want to see change?

i want to see people stop abusing children.

Well, at least you have YOU to support you.

The sheer amount of rape cases and the Pope's personal involvement covering them up gives enough evidence to detract from your claim.

circumstantial

your pointing that out: not necessary.

for who?

really? your really going to play dumb?

whateveer happnd to innocent before guilty?

dude, go to fucking school instead of church! take a look at your spelling and punctuation around here, if you even know how to comprehend your mistakes...you'll find that your skills are super shitty.

and I think you mean "innocent until proven guilty"

but I don't think it fully applies when this isn't the FIRST known case of the pope covering up one of these incidents.

nothing ois better than home schooling. it keps me from believing communist lies.

Whatever happened to innocent until the damn church butts in?

Nothing is better than home-educating in a free-thinking home. It keeps children away from brainwashing, especially in private schools.

If it was you, or someone you loved, would you be suing the church after all this time. Might you be a little upset about it? I think so. Pretty sure he wants justice. And, for it to never happen again. To anyone.

if he was a real christian especially cathoolic he would forgive and forget.

3 things here on your point of view/logic

1) Forgiveness is a very important thing. No where does it say forget. And how would you go about telling the victim of an unspeakable act to "forget". You don't because that would be wrong.

2) What the heck is a "real" christian? If you want to argue it from that angle why can't two gay people marry? Even thought the church teaches that it's wrong shouldn't they just forgive?

3) If that happened to you would you just "forgive and forget"? I'm going to guess no.

1-if you couldnt forget than you cant forgive.

2-catholics are real christians

3-yes because i am a good catholic. i dont sin. if i do i go to confessional.

I killed a man once...but i confessed it right afterwards...no one but God and I have to ever know about it...wait... d'oh!

your claim that you must forget in order to forgive is not what Pope John Paul II believed. Are you going to criticize the former Holy Father? In 1981, Pope John Paul II was critically wounded and almost killed by Mehmet Ali Ağca, the trained sniper who tried to in fact murder the pope but of course did not succeed. The pope of course recovered and Ağca was of course sentenced to a very very long sentence of imprisonment. When the pope became well again, he began to visit Ağca in prison and forgave him there. He also told the public many times to forgive him and not harbor any hatred; that he had forgiven him and only harbored love for him, and to pray for (im quoting the former pope) "my brother Ağca." the pope continued a relationship with Ağca and the man's family all the way until John Paul II's death in 2005. everybody became friends. but John Paul II never forgot that he was nearly murdered and almost died (how could you forget something like that?). My point: Pope John Paul II never forgot. He definitely did forgive. Now, are you going to say that he went about it all wrong and should have just completely forgotten everything? Well it seems that if he had completely forgotten everything (if that were even possible which it probably is not...almost dying is hard to forget)...the pope would not have been able to push forgiveness and consistently forgive the man who nearly killed him again and again. See my point? By things you have said you would not criticize the Holy Father so you must agree that he was right to never forget and to completely forgive. I think it was amazing that he was so wonderfully forgiving...and not forgetful. he never forgot Agca and the man's family and extended them such great kindness, very much like i think Jesus Christ himself would have done. but this would not have been possible if he had forgotten everything and everybody. I am in no way saying JPII is on the same level as Jesus Christ and I have many criticisms of the former pope, but lets all admit that this was an awesome example of never forgetting, getting justice, and the tolerance, acceptance, love of thy enemy, forgiveness, compassion and kindness that Christians/Catholics are supposed to show according to Jesus Christ. did i mention that there was justice served? now, if the pope had tried to kill someone and it had been the other way around, im sure the pope would have gone to prison himself....child abuse is a crime that is just about as bad as murder....so why don't they put the current pope in jail?

nice example. that pretty much sums it up.

1 - See the post by shiningarainbow above (or below witchever it is). We as people have the capacity to forgive a person for their actions. It is very difficult to live a day to day life with hate in a persons head. But if we forget what happened how the heck are we ever suppose to learn? Should people of the Jewish religion forget about concentration camps? Should I just forget about the person who swindled me? No. Cause if I do there's a good chance history will repeat itself. And the cycle will continue.

2 - It's good to know you can read the first sentence I typed. Thanks for responding to it. Now how about not ignoring the second sentence. I wasn't asking what a real christan literally was/is in terms of a word association. What I was asking was if your going to play the "forgiveness" card up (let alone the fallacy ridden forgive and forget) how can christians live with the contradiction of not forgiving and forgetting about people being gay. And allowing them to marry.

3 - So your saying if you were deaf, if your father had just killed himself, and if your dog had just died, and the head of your school, the only father figure you know sexually abuses you, you'd just forgive him for it? And then forget about it? And if he kept on doing it, you'd let him because you forgave and forgot? That you wouldn't harbor any feelings of anger, or hurt? I'm sorry but that sounds highly unlikely. And wrong. The only thing I see that as is justification for being a victim.

And lastly: "I am a good catholic. I don't sin. If i do i go to confessional."

This is another can of worms. Yes you do. Everybody does in some form or another. And also, if you sinned, say molested a child. Then went to a confessional and confessed it, would you still be a good christian?

No. No you wouldn't.

i still preyed for your soul to go toheaven cuz you sound like a nice guy.

thanks. How about an answer to point number 2.

know what a "?" is?

Know how to sidestep something when you it's obvious your in the wrong? And also, HA! Your going to come after me about grammar? Have you even looked at what you've posted?

Easy to say when it hasn't happened to you.

Whoa... wait a minute, wait a minute.

You do NOT sin????

But, then you say, if you DO sin, you simply go to confession and get your sin erased. That means you DO sin. So you can sin and sin and sin, and get forgiven and forgiven and forgiven. Doesn't sound as if this is going anywhere, and it sure as hell won't help make you a better person, much less a "REAL christian."

i absolutely would LOVE it if indeed he used to hate jews and now loves them that IS showing the forgiveness and love of Jesus Christ and of Mother Mary and how they loved EVERYBODY, if indeed he were to change like that they would love it and be so happy....he presumably did change quite a bit and has much more love in his heart now where there used to be hatred...but im also quite certain that they would be very very sad about the sexual abuse of children. they both loved children. and by loving children i know they did not mean pedophilia. i am certain that is not what they meant and i am certain they would be sad that the church that constantly uses their names has not done more to stop these atrocities against the children Jesus and Mary love so much. think about it.

wel depends on whos kids? "not my kids"

now who's being childish?

You. You are being childish. I don't want to finger point. This discourse with you is starting to be a waste of time.

sadly given the churches complete misinterpretation of the bible on this issue and the way they have covered it up for decades I almost believe you may have found the true reason Ratzinger was elected.

First - the only thing i can think of is that the church just isn't that smart. The other people up for the job must have been incredibly worse.

Second - I can understand your outrage and or anger, but I would have to come down on the side of this is a healing thing for them. Money may be involved but I'm more then certain these people have been struggling with what happened to them. For their entire lives. Lives that were shaped but those awful events. I'm also going to guess that, given the chance, they would rather have this handled in privet. I would not won't the world to know I was sexually abused. But I think this is one of the few ways people can keep from covering it up. If it gets out into the public discourse.

Not sure about your last point. I don't see how bring this out into the open and dealing with it this reinforces a stereotype of gay or closeted males who molest. To me it reinforces idea that certain people should never EVER be allowed children. Pretty sure a molesting priest is a stereotype inside of itself.

If that's your point of view your entitled to it. I would go with the more positive angle, while it may trigger memories of terrible things, maybe this can be something people can draw strength from. So they are now able can't start or try to heal from whatever caused the pain.

You prove my point when you say you would not want the world to know you were sexually abused--because as it is now unless you can claim molestation by a priest--you can't talk openly about your abuse experience without people freaking out in some way and you can barely mention you were molested by a priest before it hits a tipping point and people start thinking you are just being a money grabbing asshole-- so really honestly nobody wins.

So while I appreciate you trying to spin it into a positive it just not-- because to me anyway stories like this one only serves to bring up a bunch of yuck and bad memories for sexual abuse survivors that they have to deal with and also reinforces feelings of the complete injustice of the fact that since their abuser was not a gay priest their experience is not as valid or worth having a national dialogue about.

Also my point is where are the stories about children being abused by their biological father or grandfather or their uncles or their mom's various boyfriends? Where are the stories of males being abused by their mother or their aunt or their grandmother or their stepmother? Where's the public outcry? Where's these children and young adults advocate?

But mention a gay man is accused of sexual abuse and its all over the news -- whether that gay man is a priest or Michael Jackson or a U.S. Senator--suddenly everybody wants the gay man's penis on a platter as payback-- but any other abuser--not so much.

Again this is your point of view. I can just as easily say "while I appreciate you trying to spin it into negative -- it's just not."

As for "people" thinking that when some one cries priest I'm interested in what the "people" actually think. Since we can't take a survey, lets stick to this site. I'm going to re-post this at the top of the thread. So current, what do you think? In it for money or to put an end to the abuse?

As for you other point: The stories are there. And there is plenty of public outcry. You just don't hear about it because the people who run the new corporations control what we see. Now I know I sound like a bleeding heart liberal by typing that, but both sides do it. Fox will spout the conservative point of view to the grave just as MSNBC will do the opposite. There are just examples. The reason we hear more about this is because the story is that much worse. Religious people are suppose to leaders, teachers to understanding our world through the divine, guiders, and keepers of our faults and sins. Not predators. Which are the exact opposite.

I don't know how to translate that thought any clearer.

As for the way they (news media) spin abuse, I agree that it's outrageous. I think it's about the same in terms of what they report on with abuse, gay or straight. But you never know. Have any examples? Beyond this one?

I try not to read or pay attention to that many awful stories like this one. It's just to much to deal with.

I didn't mean for you to take it personally--nor did I think you weren't perfectly clear in expressing yourself. That you are entitled to your opinion-open honest discussions on a topic without a bunch of political rhetoric are actually refreshing and unusual of late....but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

And yes there is public outcry about sexual abuse--but mostly its on TV shows like Law and Order SVU or some other serialized drama--its never spoken about openly like stories of horrific abuse like this or in cases like Jean Benett Ramsey or cases like Elizabeth Smart....again very rarely does EITHER side MSNBC or Fox News cover your day to day cases of children in foster care because of sexual abuse or children living with sexual abuse in silence in their own homes.

And I probably should have been more clear that I don't think everybody molested by priests is out to get money from the Catholic church---I just think that because we don't have a natural free flowing dialogue about sexual abuse in this country its easy to over sensationalize the cases where its a gay male or a gay male catholic priest who is the molester and that tragedy is then compounded by people taking advantage of the situation and trying to make a buck.

Examples? I have my masters degree in social work--I have seen case after case after case of sexual abuse and man's inhumanity to man....and no I don't see the cases making the news in the same way that a few sensationalized ones do--but yes I have had clients come up to me and point blank say where's my advocate or where's my justice or that sucks just because my abuser was my mom's boyfriend and not a priest I am shit out of luck? or about 30 or so variations on that theme----also its very extremely rarely if ever you hear about the so called "classic" incest story where father molests daughter on the regular news--its always some celebrity daughter talking to Oprah about her dad---or about some crazy stranger breaking into the house or some crazy male or female teacher who claims to be "in love" with their student or like in this case some gay rogue priest who was allowed to just walk away and be reassigned to a new parish when the allegations were first made.

Cool cool. Didn't take it personally. I'm with you on how it's covered. Personally I wouldn't want those two sides covering it. I feel like they'd take it to far. And cover it to much. Desensitizing (as you say, by over sensationalizing) all of us as they do with a so hard to deal with, and sensitive, issue. They'd probably give it a logo or catch phrase. Or even some sort of theme song. Ugh. My frustration here is not with your points, but with how trashy things that should be reliable and enlightening have become... just as you have pointed out.

It feels good to restate sometimes.

The only thing I'm curious about is the cases of gay male or gay male priest line.

Isn't it easy (and equally) tragic if anybody commits such a crime? Or are you saying that the cases where someone is gay are the ones that get the awful sensationalized treatment?

also, understanding a bit more not, would you like me to take down the poll i posted at the top of the page?

yikes. good examples. didn't mean do you have examples as a "Aha!" It's nice to converse with someone who actually has insight about the topic.

Or are you saying that the cases where someone is gay are the ones that get the awful sensationalized treatment? yes.

Cases that are happening every day but don't involve gay men or some crazy person in a position of power over the victim like a teacher or a priest or that don't involve some crazy stranger kidnapping a child and forcing them to join a funky cult or live in a tent in his backyard for years---simply don't get any attention.

And because of that sense of deep injustice and how many survivors are forced to deal with all the yuck all over again and still don't have a way to openly express that pain--- and that's what I find seriously sad/aggravating/tragic/annoying/and depressing. And when I read horror stories like this one about catholic priests who put young boys in that same intainable position for many many years it just brings me back to that place of sadness for ALL victims because unfortunately only a rare few have a chance to have their day in court or in the media spotlight.

no you're cool---like you said sometimes its good to back up a bit and rethink and regroup and then restate your ideas or thoughts---but like I said its good to have an honest open debate on the actual topic instead of a bunch of biting on each other over political views rhetoric for a change so leave it up and see where it leads.

(nods head in solemn agreement)

You'de let the pope sexually abuse you?...

no cuz i dont like old men. do you? maybe he enjoyed himself and worships satan? it seems that people are giving the guy scouts honor credits cuz he is deaf, IMO.

OMG dude -- I can understand your need to be sarcastic and do this piss everybody off and get like 20 negative votes per comment thing--- but this comment

"statute of limitations! the pope is our holy leader he knows what is best for us!" is just so damn wrong and sad and insulting to everybody who truly is catholic and/or who truly has an ounce of compassion for their fellow human beings.

"maybe he enjoyed himself and worships satan? it seems that people are giving the guy scouts honor credits cuz he is deaf, IMO."

i thought that was bad enough. sorry i used catholicism as a scapegoat. it was that whole Mike Shanklin promoting i was doing.

yeah, funny how people fail to bring up the inquisition or the crusades in history. Not the best arguing point for the defense.

and that makes it okay for him to have been molested and assalted?

thats what you say. where the proof? innocent before proven guilty. live and let live, forgive and forget.

turn the other cheek?

I think thats what the priests say before, during and after raping children.