The Vatican appears in need of a serious media consultant. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, has issued a defense that boils down to insisting that implicated priests were not pedophiles but homosexuals who liked young boys — and besides no more than five percent of priests had sex with children . . . and Jews and Protestants do it more.
Tomasi made his confrontational statement following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, insisting only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. Tomasi seems to think that the faithful can rest assured that the likelihood that the priest will sexually assault your child is only 5 out of every 100 priests. Those are odds that are viewed as more than adequate in Vegas.
He also insisted that it is more likely that your child will be abused by Protestant or Jewish religious leaders — making the Catholic Church a virtual safe zone if you are going on purely the average likelihood of a rape. That could lead to a new campaign: “Go Catholic: We are Statistically Less Likely to Rape Your Child.”
Besides, Tomasi insisted “[o]f all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” He insisted most of the accused priests are homosexuals who simply liked younger partners.
The angry response came after Keith Porteous Wood of the International Humanist and Ethical Union accused the Church of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children’s organizations must unite to pressure the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities.”
For the full story, click here.
Denial? No, thanks. You’ve had enough.
YOU LOST.
Too bad.
Buh bye.
lil billy wanker,
I think the term you used was wayward. Hey get a dictionary, well hell first you’ll have to learn to read and write. Forget about the numbers man. That can come later.
So do you expect the usual family inheritance? The upper incisor?
Come on, declare your victory again. Just like you did in that other thread where you declared victory over me and I wasn’t even in the argument. You’re not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you certainly are the most delusional.
It’s funny.
http://dmh.lacounty.gov/
Try your standup out on them.
Read the articles I have shared, check the search engines, “pull your head out of the sand”, you both live in denial…
AY, you’re right, “sadly” the homo priests are the ones’ doing all the molesting…..
AY, your “smokescreen” is only more pathetically obvious than buddhas’, sell it to some boobcatcher jury in the south who share their upper plates to “chew” with…
lil billy wanker,
You should know that you can be a homo and priest at the same time. Its what you do with the little boys is what is criminal. Do you not see the difference? Or is this you deterrence policy?
“Prove me wrong in saying that the RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.” If you can’t/won’t/don’t that means I WIN.”
I think I’ve heard that before.
Hmm. Seeing that you just admitted that the RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control, despite your “poor me” contention that “they’ve paid” – which is out right laughable twaddle – I suggest you go sulk now and change nicks.
You lost.
Go home.
Unless you just want to squirm some more, worm.
You lose buddha, your pathetic smoke screen has been unveiled, you’re weaker than I thought “troll”….
lil billy wanker,
Punishing the Wayward
Flores Has Disciplined Nine Priests,but Still Faces Some Criticism
By J. Michael Parker
San Antonio Express-News [Texas]
April 28, 2002
In the past 16 years, San Antonio’s Catholic archdiocese has dealt with nine wayward priests, including four indicted on child molestation charges and a priest who admitted three years ago to several affairs with women and who fathered a child when he was pastor of a local parish.
One of the priests, Father Xavier Ortiz-Dietz, is serving a 20-year prison sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a child after he was accused in 1992 of molesting five altar boys. Four years ago, the archdiocese reached a $4 million settlement with Dietz’s victims.
link: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_04_28_Michael_PunishingThe_Fernandez_AND_Ortiz_Dietz_2.htm
I believe that there is a difference between wayward priest and pedophiles. Maybe you are trying to defend your position. Are you intimating that you were a wayward priest?
Read the links senor, priests “come clean”, they admit “RAMPANT” homosexuality and pedophilia, HELLO! These priests who are homosexual, (inoverflow) numbers should never have been ordained. These homo/pedo priests have been a horrific scandal. This is due to the Church ordaining homosexual priests. Read the links I have provided and stop playing the “answer the question card”. I answered it, my contention which you cannot refute is that these pedo priests are HOMOSEXUAL. Yes buddha, they are!
Buddha, We agree, “troll”, the church has covered up pedophilia and payed out a bumper crop of cash , McFly! My contention is that they are doing this because the “wayward priests” in the church are homosexual in orientaion and committing acts of pedophilia, stop the “smoke screen troll”…
I have again had to delete entries from this thread for inappropriate language and personal attacks. Come on Folks, let’s move on or at least drop the personal attacks and crude language. This is a family show.
Answer the question.
Can you prove the RCC is not involved in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to help pedophiles escape justice so they won’t have to pay out civil damages?
Prove it. You keep talking about how innocent they are.
P – R – O – V – E it.
Unless you can’t. In which case, you should shut your pie hole, troll, go sulk and think of another different yet unsurprisingly lame tactic to try here.
“that the RCCC is not involved in the systematic”
I should not eat cake and troll bash as the same time.
I never claimed statistical abnormalities in the the church. Those are your words, sport, not mine. I merely said you’d lose that argument. And you would, but that’s not the argument.
Again, I have nothing to refute.
Answer the damn question, wayne.
Can you prove that the is the systematic cover up and protection of pedophiles by the RCC in order to avoid civil liability for the crimes of their employees?
That’s the only question here ANYONE is interested in hearing answered. I answered that question with a resounding “YES!” and you, well, you have consistently avoided the question.
Put up.
or
Shut up.
Propaganda troll.
Man, I read your posts, you guys are a pack of cut-throat “barracudas”. I go away for a couple of hours and you “all turn on me”. I know buddha dosn’t like me, but “all” of you guys. Gee, I thought we were all gettin’ along. Sorry “Byron” I just hate to see a shameless suck-up, kinda gross man.
Bummer, Michigan loses in OT and Bruins seriously on the ropes at “the farm”..
The truth is so “liberating”, it will set you free. Buddha, I have yet to have “my response”. I requested a refutaion about the statistical abnormalities within the Church concerning gay/pedophile prists. I have provided my info, links and statistics, please “explain to us all”. Thrall us with your acumen, “let me know when you have the answer”. You say, “What’s the question”? The question that I stated was “homosexuality and pedophilia are linked” within the church priesthood”, based upon the “disproportionate number” of male on male molestation with priests and underage boys. My contention is that it would be impossible to have this many pedophiles simultaneously in one place , if they were not in fact homosexual in orientation. If they are not homosexual in orientation, what are they? They can only be hetero/homo, there is nothing else. If you provise a third way I have my “answer waiting”. Please proceed. Articulate your case counselor..
I assume you can read, read the articles and while you are at it, read “all” the surrounding links…..
AY, I’ve smoked you out, and please refrain from profanity, you have a much bigger vocabulary than that, remember, you are a Longhorn…