Monday, March 12, 2012

The fall guy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html

7 comments:

  1. More stupid human tricks: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/

    ReplyDelete
  2. A rotten move by the Church, no question, at least given what we know.

    Vague charges leading to his removal that are said to be unrelated to the main issue always comes across as "an excuse to end this rather than confront the problem."

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Catholic Church has of late been very vocal in its opposition to any mandated coverage of contraception as well as any civil recognition of gay marriage. As such, it doesn't seem likely that the priest's suspension was due to his merely being consistent with church teaching regarding dispensing Communion, does it?

    "This action was taken after I received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."

    In any rate, it would have been nice if they had taken equal measures in regards to the bishops who've shuffled known pederasts from parish to parish (not to mention the pederasts themselves).

    ReplyDelete
  4. As such, it doesn't seem likely that the priest's suspension was due to his merely being consistent with church teaching regarding dispensing Communion, does it?

    Why? That's like saying "The Republican Party has been very against this particular law, so reports of this individual group of republicans supporting it must be some kind of misunderstanding." No, sometimes individual communities make dumb moves or buck the line.

    In any rate, it would have been nice if they had taken equal measures in regards to the bishops who've shuffled known pederasts from parish to parish (not to mention the pederasts themselves).

    Indeed, that whole rotten affair hopefully taught them not to turn a blind eye to homosexual behavior among the clergy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Indeed, that whole rotten affair hopefully taught them not to turn a blind eye to homosexual behavior among the clergy"

    So you're saying that these trysts with pre-adolescent youth and even adolescent youth were consensual? If not, these are instances of rape or statutory rape and should be treated as such. From all accounts, these youth were coerced into these actions.

    Otherwise, you may as well suggest that the nearly 250,000 instances of sexual assault against women this year are indicative of typical heterosexual behavior.

    By the way, this is what Catholic League blowhard Bill Donahue stated about those victims when they gathered for a conference last year:

    "A whopping 75 people turned out for the conference, 25 of whom were the speakers. How embarrassing. It’s clear that the professional victims’ lobby is spent. Everyone else has moved on, but those who have an ideological, emotional or financial interest in continuing this saga cannot let go. What a pitiful bunch of malcontents."

    http://www.catholicleague.org/boston-victims%E2%80%99-summit-bombs/

    So I guess those youth (male or female) who had to mentally pretend they were somewhere else while a priest was on top of them doing his business are just a bunch of crybabies?

    This is why Catholic apologists just don't get it. It's more than the errant priests. This is a hierarchical coverup as well as a continued abuse of the victims by those who seek to protect the Church at all costs.

    How sad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So you're saying that these trysts with pre-adolescent youth and even adolescent youth were consensual?

    Where did I say that? Where did I even imply it?

    I'm saying these acts were, by and large... homosexual. As in, male on male.

    Please, deny that. I'd love to see that fantasy game of "it's not really a homosexual act if it happens to be illegal".

    This is why Catholic apologists just don't get it. It's more than the errant priests. This is a hierarchical coverup as well as a continued abuse of the victims by those who seek to protect the Church at all costs.

    I think they seek to protect their friends and allies at all costs, not "the Church". I absolutely agree that there are those in the hierarchy who go to bat for homosexual predators in the clergy. I believe they should be sued, ruined, and run out of the church.

    You and I are in agreement: homosexual predation on young boys by Catholic priests is a rotten, terrible problem. Bishops in the hierarchy playing defense for male priests engaging in (by and large) homosexual molestation of young boys is disgusting. Clearly there's plenty of sexual deviants who should never have been allowed to be priests to begin with, and a cadre of sympathizers among those in authority.

    Let's run them out. No more turning a blind eye to what are overwhelmingly homosexual acts of predation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Please, deny that. I'd love to see that fantasy game of "it's not really a homosexual act if it happens to be illegal"."

    Sure. But again ... is the rape of a woman by a male a "heterosexual act"?

    It is in form, and rape is hardly an uncommon occurrence in this nation. But so what? What conclusions should I draw from this fact? All heterosexual men are rapists or at least inclined to rape women? All heterosexual sex involves a form of rape?

    Heterosexual rape and intercourse between a husband and wife are identical in form. They're nothing alike in terms of substance, though.

    So you see, I'm just suggesting we not misuse labels or draw conclusions that are erroneous.

    ReplyDelete