PDA

View Full Version : Religion Catholic Pope officially full of shit


Count Zarth
03-18-2010, 03:51 PM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/how-is-the-pope-different-from-cardinal-law.html

A priest is discovered to have been actively molesting children. His superior is notified in 1980. One of the things he is told of is the priest's forcing an 11 year old boy to perform oral sex on him. The superior does not contact the police. He approves a transfer of the priest to a different city, where the priest is required to undergo therapy but is also subsequently able to resume his work with access to children. Six years later, the priest is again found guilty of abusing children. This time, he serves a sentence, but he is subsequently allowed to resume work as a priest, with the church authorities hiding his past from future parishes, and is only removed from his position three days ago.

Joseph Ratzinger was the superior, he reviewed the man's files in 1980, and he was subsequently in charge of reviewing all sex abuse cases as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine Of The Faith in Rome. He was integral to the policy of hushing up as much of this as possible. Money quote:

Hundreds of victims have come forward in recent months in Germany with accounts of sexual abuse from decades past. But no case has captured the attention of the nation like that of Father Hullermann, not only because of the involvement of the future pope, but also because of the impunity that allowed a child molester to continue to work with altar boys and girls for decades after his conviction.

Benedict not only served as the archbishop of the diocese where the priest worked, but also later as the cardinal in charge of reviewing sexual abuse cases for the Vatican. Yet until the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising announced that Father Hullermann had been suspended on Monday, he continued to serve in a series of Bavarian parishes.

In 1980, the future pope reviewed the case of Father Hullermann, who was accused of sexually abusing boys in the Diocese of Essen, including forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex. The future pope approved his transfer to Munich.

We don't know what lies ahead in Germany but if the story follows the pattern in the US, Australia and Ireland, the number of victims will grow, and the church hierarchy will at first blame anti-Catholic media for attacking the church, and at some point, the whole grisly truth will come out. Except this time, the current Pope himself will be - and already is - at the center of the storm.

If this person headed a secular organization, or if he were a politician, he would be forced to resign. Why are the standards for the Catholic church so much lower on tolerance of child abuse than the rest of society? On what grounds can this Pope reprimand bishops and priests in Ireland or the US when he seems deeply entangled in the same kind of cover-ups himself?

When, in other words, will the real victims come first? And moral responsibility meaningfully taken?

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 04:09 PM
add anti catholic to anti semitic to the qualities of the left

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:14 PM
So the Church discovered abuse and then punished the abuser but that punishment didn't permanently reform the culprit. What's the problem again? Does secular punishment result in zero recidivism?

bango
03-18-2010, 06:48 PM
Another thread about religion started by a man that does not even believe in God.

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2010, 09:44 PM
add anti catholic to anti semitic to the qualities of the leftWhat is your problem with the article? I can't imagine you supporting the hiding/protection of a sexual abuser so that they can abuse again.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 10:29 PM
What is your problem with the article? I can't imagine you supporting the hiding/protection of a sexual abuser so that they can abuse again.

Nobody hid a sexual abuser so that they could abuse again.

CoMoChief
03-18-2010, 11:11 PM
Religion period, is some of the biggest bullshit known to mankind.

I believe there is a god. A Creator of all beings and living things/organisms etc.. But I also believe in evolution.

stevieray
03-19-2010, 12:12 AM
But I also believe in evolution.

like we came from apes? how come they are ten times stronger? ;)

WoodDraw
03-19-2010, 12:45 AM
Nobody hid a sexual abuser so that they could abuse again.

Andrew Sullivan makes a legitimate point though. If these allegations were raised by any secular agency, we'd see massive support against the person in charge.

For whatever reason, the Catholic church has shown a lower standard in addressing child sexual abuse as the rest of the public. Can you imagine the outcry if this came from the Boy Scouts or YMCA youth?

SNR
03-19-2010, 01:45 AM
The Catholic Pope is an asshole.

But the Lutheran Pope is a pretty cool guy.

Just don't get me started on the Episcopalian Pope.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 06:58 AM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/how-is-the-pope-different-from-cardinal-law.html

A priest is discovered to have been actively molesting children. His superior is notified in 1980. One of the things he is told of is the priest's forcing an 11 year old boy to perform oral sex on him. The superior does not contact the police. He approves a transfer of the priest to a different city, where the priest is required to undergo therapy but is also subsequently able to resume his work with access to children.


Was it the same therapy US priests got? That is: reams of child pornography to read and look at daily while their weenies were hooked up to a peter-meter? Has a horrific success rate.

So the RCC uses the same "Passing of the Trash" that's use by the public school system in the United States?


Reader's Digest: Passing the Trash (http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/sexual-predators-being-allowed-to-teach/article31756.html)


After being shown papers detailing Crane's inappropriate behavior in Manchester, the Akron superintendent said to a reporter, "No other district would have hired that individual knowing what you just showed me in that file."

"It's called 'passing the trash,'" says Kansas State University professor Robert Shoop, an expert witness in nearly 50 school abuse cases. "I've worked with individuals who are in their fourth or fifth district, and you find out they've been molesting people for 20 years."

This shuffling of sleazy characters from school district to school district is just one way we're failing to fully protect our children. It's no small concern: In 2004, a U.S. Department of Education study found that nearly 10 percent of public school students have endured unwanted sexual attention from school employees, and close to 7 percent had experienced actual sexual contact -- anything from pinching to kissing to outright molestation.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 07:06 AM
Andrew Sullivan makes a legitimate point though. If these allegations were raised by any secular agency, we'd see massive support against the person in charge.
No you wouldn't. The public school system does the same thing with offenders-just not all of them. It's called Passing the Trash. See above.

For whatever reason, the Catholic church has shown a lower standard in addressing child sexual abuse as the rest of the public. Can you imagine the outcry if this came from the Boy Scouts or YMCA youth?

Their standard is no lower than the public school system's. And if you don't think sexual abuse hasn't been going on in Boy Scouts think again because it has. I know a counselor who I worked with when my daughter was in Girl Scouts tell me how often grown adult men have confessed to her that they were abused in Boy Scouts by the troop leader. There was also that huge sex sting where children were exploited and abused and most of the people involved in it were professions that dealt with children in a position of trust: teachers, counselors, ministers even etc. Pedophiles go where there are children. Period.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 07:08 AM
What is your problem with the article? I can't imagine you supporting the hiding/protection of a sexual abuser so that they can abuse again.

Well, I'd say he has a bit of a point because we only hear about this when it's the RCC church. The other faiths have pedophiles too. It's about the same percentage too.

Amnorix
03-19-2010, 07:28 AM
Nobody hid a sexual abuser so that they could abuse again.

So wait. Forget that this is a religious organization.

An employer discovers that an employee has engaged in extremely inappropriate conduct with a minor child. They transfer him to another location, and put them back into a position that involves extensive contact with minors.

What do you think should happen to the employer under these circumstances?

|Zach|
03-19-2010, 07:30 AM
Well, I'd say he has a bit of a point because we only hear about this when it's the RCC church. The other faiths have pedophiles too. It's about the same percentage too.

Link?

Slainte
03-19-2010, 07:39 AM
Link?

LMAO

I estimate your odds at getting that link are....








infantesimal.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 07:52 AM
LMAO

I estimate your odds at getting that link are....








infantesimal.

The link was put up earlier in another thread. It was an article by Medved. I only mentioned it because it's a reposted comment that others are already familiar with.

So quick being a jerk. I put up LOTs of links, far more than that troll named Zac who only heckles posters and NEVER makes any intelligent arguments.
I mean have you ever seen him make a contribution besides heckling posters?

And as far as your insinuation toward that Ronald Reagan quote that was also linked earlier. More proof on that is going to take reading a book, then scanning the applicable pages. There is no link that has the whole context other than the original link. But you must have missed all that, when I told pat much earlier that I'd do that.

I think you and Zac need to look at yourselves and the actual history of my posting. Or the facts. Quit accusing others of your own faults.

Dave Lane
03-19-2010, 07:54 AM
Nobody hid a sexual abuser so that they could abuse again.

ROFL

Slainte
03-19-2010, 07:55 AM
The link was put up earlier in another thread.

Link?

Dave Lane
03-19-2010, 07:55 AM
add anti catholic to anti semitic to the qualities of the left

HCF defending child molesting sodomites everywhere.

|Zach|
03-19-2010, 07:56 AM
The link was put up earlier in another thread. It was an article by Medved. I only mentioned it because it's a reposted comment that others are already familiar with.

So quick being a jerk. I put up LOTs of links, far more than that troll named Zac who only heckles posters and NEVER makes any intelligent arguments.
I mean have you ever seen him make a contribution besides heckling posters?

And as far as your insinuation toward that Ronald Reagan quote that was also linked earlier. More proof on that is going to take reading a book, then scanning the applicable pages. There is no link that has the whole context other than the original link. But you must have missed all that, when I told pat much earlier that I'd do that.

I think you and Zac need to look at yourselves and the actual history of my posting. Or the facts. Quit accusing others of your own faults.

Sounds like wacky technology.

Dave Lane
03-19-2010, 07:56 AM
So wait. Forget that this is a religious organization.

An employer discovers that an employee has engaged in extremely inappropriate conduct with a minor child. They transfer him to another location, and put them back into a position that involves extensive contact with minors.

What do you think should happen to the employer under these circumstances?

They get a cookie? :spock:

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 07:58 AM
Link?
The original article on this BB. Post #25
http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4098846&highlight=Medved+priests#post4098846

That's an easy one to find. Ready to eat your words?

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:03 AM
They get a cookie? :spock:

No one is saying people should get away with it. It's the lack of perspective that it goes on elsewhere as if the RCC is the only institution with the problem.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 08:06 AM
So wait. Forget that this is a religious organization.

An employer discovers that an employee has engaged in extremely inappropriate conduct with a minor child. They transfer him to another location, and put them back into a position that involves extensive contact with minors.

What do you think should happen to the employer under these circumstances?

If the employer does so with negligence they should be responsible for any damage that results. If the employer acts reasonably, then they are blameless. Based on the limited facts in your hypo, I'd say they should probably pay for any damages that results.

In the case described in the OP though, the Church didn't just transfer abusers, they also punished them and tried to reform them. The reform efforts may have been ineffective, but they didn't fail to try and the likelihood of success of those methods was not as obvious then as it is now, in retrospect and after we've acquired a much greater understanding of child sex abuse.

My post was mainly an objection to Pitt Gorilla's strange choice of words. The Church didn't do anything "so that [the abuser] could abuse again." The motives of the Church may have been to prevent bad publicity or they may have been to reform the offender, but the goal wasn't to generate more abuse.

Boise_Chief
03-19-2010, 08:07 AM
REligious Thread posted by the biggest asshat anti religious on the Planet.

But regardless an interesting article, but not new news. This has been a problem in the RCC since before the reformation. Martin Luther had a interesting letter on this from the reformation period.

The RCC church needs to change, stop making men act against nature. We all know what drives men. I might still be Catholic if Benedict had looked like he might change the rule.

And BEP statistics are just that, they can be twisted in whatever direction you want them to be. (besides 90% of all stats are made up :) )

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:12 AM
And BEP statistics are just that, they can be twisted in whatever direction you want them to be. (besides 90% of all stats are made up :) )

Link?

Proove those stats are made up. That's based on the actual number of cases in the US. Did you read the whole article? Including what other counselors have found in their work? At least those stats report where and how they got those numbers. Many stats do not do that. The reason it looks like so many in the RCC is because one priest would abuse lots of different kids over a long period of time while it was swept under the carpet. It is known that pedophiles go where kids go. So certain professions are more prone to have such events. That is not an unreasonable argument. And the fact that the schools pass the trash shows that as a method used by other institutions to cover it up.

The thing is you have to have something more reliable than those with an anti- bias toward a group will try to claim. It puts things in perspective. It doesn't mean it's being defended as right.

Boise_Chief
03-19-2010, 08:17 AM
BEP I'm not going to fight you over something like that. I'm a pro-catholic ex catholic but you are wrong. RCC needs to change.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:19 AM
The RCC church needs to change, stop making men act against nature. We all know what drives men. I might still be Catholic if Benedict had looked like he might change the rule.)

How does allowing men marry mean they won't abuse children? This was man on boy sexual abuse. Not man on girl sexual abuse. When I was still in school I had a tape given to me by a Catholic teacher claiming that one out of every four priests is now gay. So wouldn't men who lean this way desire men? How would being married change that? It's illogical.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:21 AM
BEP I'm not going to fight you over something like that. I'm a pro-catholic ex catholic but you are wrong. RCC needs to change.

Where did I say they didn't need to change?
Change on what though?

I am a pro-Catholic ex-Catholic too btw. But I respect a religions right to their own practices. I do not think their practices are the "cause" of pedophilia. Not when there's a certain percentage in the population that are inclined toward it. And a pedophilia can be a married man.

Slainte
03-19-2010, 08:29 AM
The original article on this BB. Post #25
http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4098846&highlight=Medved+priests#post4098846

That's an easy one to find. Ready to eat your words?

Are you?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334

Cave Johnson
03-19-2010, 08:33 AM
How does allowing men marry mean they won't abuse children? This was man on boy sexual abuse. Not man on girl sexual abuse. When I was still in school I had a tape given to me by a Catholic teacher claiming that one out of every four priests is now gay. So wouldn't men who lean this way desire men? How would being married change that? It's illogical.

The argument is, marriage would encourage more hetero men to become priests.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:34 AM
Did you say something slainte?

|Zach|
03-19-2010, 08:34 AM
Am I what? Are you hijacking this thread to make an ad hominem about a poster now.
Weak!

http://i42.tinypic.com/21em2p.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:36 AM
The argument is, marriage would encourage more hetero men to become priests.

Okay. But even if that's true, that's not anyone outside the RCC's business to call for that. But I am not sure it's true since, based on the numbers I've seen, there is pedophilia around the same percentage as other denominations. I think pedophiliacs are attracted to professions where they have access to kids in a position of trust. In fact it's a higher percentage among school teachers....some are also married.

Cave Johnson
03-19-2010, 08:42 AM
Okay. But even if that's true, that's not anyone outside the RCC's business to call for that. But I am not sure it's true since, based on the numbers I've seen, there is pedophilia around the same percentage as other denominations. It think pedophiliacs are attracted to professions where they have access to kids in a position of trust.

Sure, the Catholic Church can have any policy it wants. But given our modern understanding of the high recidivism rates of molesters, the Church is arguably engaging in criminal negligence by moving pedophile priests from district to district without eliminating their access to children.

Oh, and on the marriage bit, there are actually some married priests. I'd be interested to see a study on the molestation rates in those areas (mostly Eastern Europe).

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:49 AM
Sure, the Catholic Church can have any policy it wants. But given our modern understanding of the high recidivism rates of molesters, the Church is arguably engaging in criminal negligence by moving pedophile priests from district to district without eliminating their access to children.
Yes they are. As is the school system in using "Passing the Trash." However, I was not defending that just providing perspective that it's not just the RCC. Others cover it up.

Oh, and on the marriage bit, there are actually some married priests. I'd be interested to see a study on the molestation rates in those areas (mostly Eastern Europe).

Married priests are in the Eastern Rite though. One of the reasons the RCC didn't allow it, besides tradition, is that missionary work can be rough on families and those problems took a priest away from their work. They had to be completely dedicated. Protestant missionaries took their families with them to remote locations but it was hard on their families too.

Did the Apostles bring their wives with them when they did their missionary work? I gather that they didn't.

NewChief
03-19-2010, 08:50 AM
Sure, the Catholic Church can have any policy it wants. But given our modern understanding of the high recidivism rates of molesters, the Church is arguably engaging in criminal negligence by moving pedophile priests from district to district without eliminating their access to children.

Oh, and on the marriage bit, there are actually some married priests. I'd be interested to see a study on the molestation rates in those areas (mostly Eastern Europe).

Just a personal anecdote. Our local parish had a married priest (he was an Episcopal priest who was married then converted back to Catholicism and kept his priesthood somehow... not sure on the particulars). Anyway, he ended up getting removed because he made improper advances on a male parishioner (not a minor). One of my good friends who is Catholic (our school librarian) was bemoaning it. Our parish has had a lot of scandal in it. She said that they hoped that getting this married guy would put an end to it... then look what happened.

Anyway, nothing statistical or indicating a trend in that story... but I thought I'd share.

DJ's left nut
03-19-2010, 08:52 AM
Religion period, is some of the biggest bullshit known to mankind.

I believe there is a god. A Creator of all beings and living things/organisms etc.. But I also believe in evolution.

As do many MANY Christians...but then again, knowing this would require you do some research into the dogmas you are railing against. An informed CoMo is really a paradox; it might actually cause the Earth to implode.

Is it pseudo-intellectualism that spawns this kind of vitriole towards religion? Does one somehow consider themselves to be enlightened because they take shots on organized religion? Is Bill Maher really the golden calf you want to kneel before?

I don't go to church and don't have a chosen denomination. Nothing has fit, perhaps nothing ever will. At the same time, I would never begrudge those that do. On balance, those that adhere to a religious faith are far FAR more genuine, sincere, considerate and responsible than those that don't. Certainly there are outliers to every group, but taken as an aggregate, this particular comparison isn't even close.

"Religion period" espouses a set of principles and beliefs to which we should aspire. Does everyone that believes in "Religion period" do a good job of living up to those principles? Well of course not, but not everyone that goes to medical school is a good doctor, not everyone with a teaching certificate is a good teacher.

There are individuals within all groups that fail to live up to the standards put in place by that group or that fail to live up to the principles of that group. However, the fault there lies in the individual, not the teachings.

In short - grow up. Nobody really cares what you think about the validity of "Religion period" and referring to it as such only exposes your ignorance.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 08:54 AM
Just a personal anecdote. Our local parish had a married priest (he was an Episcopal priest who was married then converted back to Catholicism and kept his priesthood somehow... not sure on the particulars).

If a man is already married, then decides to become a priest the RCC allows it to stand. They don't break up marriages for that reason as it's for life. However, they do still have to take a celibacy vow.

I know of a whole family up in Mass where once the kids were grown up both the husband and wife entered the clergy with the wife becoming a nun. In fact the whole family entered the clergy, that is all the children.

Chiefnj2
03-19-2010, 10:10 AM
If the employer does so with negligence they should be responsible for any damage that results. If the employer acts reasonably, then they are blameless. Based on the limited facts in your hypo, I'd say they should probably pay for any damages that results.

In the case described in the OP though, the Church didn't just transfer abusers, they also punished them and tried to reform them. The reform efforts may have been ineffective, but they didn't fail to try and the likelihood of success of those methods was not as obvious then as it is now, in retrospect and after we've acquired a much greater understanding of child sex abuse.

My post was mainly an objection to Pitt Gorilla's strange choice of words. The Church didn't do anything "so that [the abuser] could abuse again." The motives of the Church may have been to prevent bad publicity or they may have been to reform the offender, but the goal wasn't to generate more abuse.

Do you really believe what you write?

Letting a child molester work with children after undergoing "counseling" is effing criminal. You don't risk it.

It would be like sending Tiger Woods to the Playboy mansion the day he left his "sex rehab" so he could train for the Masters.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 10:14 AM
Do you really believe what you write?

Letting a child molester work with children after undergoing "counseling" is effing criminal. You don't risk it.


Except that some psychiatrists did tell the Church that they could reform those priests. Not that I'd believe that but someone did.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 10:19 AM
Do you really believe what you write?

Letting a child molester work with children after undergoing "counseling" is effing criminal. You don't risk it.

It would be like sending Tiger Woods to the Playboy mansion the day he left his "sex rehab" so he could train for the Masters.

Of course I do. Most of the time at least. In this case, you're trying to apply modern understanding of the psychology of child molestation to actions taken decades ago. We didn't understand the recidivism rates of child sexual abusers as well then as we do now so the idea that therapy and punishment could lead to reform was not as "effing criminal" then as it seems to be today (and by that I presume you mean "unreasonable" since it's not really criminal).

Chiefnj2
03-19-2010, 10:21 AM
Of course I do. Most of the time at least. In this case, you're trying to apply modern understanding of the psychology of child molestation to actions taken decades ago. We didn't understand the recidivism rates of child sexual abusers as well then as we do now so the idea that therapy and punishment could lead to reform was not as "effing criminal" then as it seems to be today (and by that I presume you mean "unreasonable" since it's not really criminal).

No, I mean criminal. If someone sodomized your children, I'm sure you would find it to be more than unreasonable.

Slainte
03-19-2010, 10:40 AM
Did you say something slainte?

Well, now I've gone and done it. It seems I am officially on 'fake ignore'...

Norman Einstein
03-19-2010, 10:47 AM
like we came from apes? how come they are ten times stronger? ;)

Answer me this: If mankind came from apes why are there still apes? If mankind came from apes why are we not still seeing the transformation of ape to man?

patteeu
03-19-2010, 11:06 AM
No, I mean criminal. If someone sodomized your children, I'm sure you would find it to be more than unreasonable.

Do you even remember what you said? You were talking about the choice by Catholic authorities to force their priest to undergo therapy and then reassign them to normal work duties, not the act of abuse. That's not criminal, whether you think it's unreasonable or not and whether or not your children have been sodomized.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 11:33 AM
Like I was saying....


Perversion files’ kept secret by Scouts due to ‘confidential information’


PORTLAND, Ore. - The Boy Scouts of America has long kept an extensive archive of secret documents that chronicle the sexual abuse of young boys by Scout leaders over the years.

The "perversion files," a nickname the Boy Scouts are said to have used for the documents, have rarely been seen by the public, but that could all change in the coming weeks in an Oregon courtroom.

The lawyer for a man who was molested in the 1980s by a Scout leader has obtained about 1,000 Boy Scouts sex files and is expected to release some of them at a trial that began Wednesday.

The lawyer says the files show how the Boy Scouts have covered up abuse for decades.

The trial is significant because the files could offer a rare window into how the Boy Scouts have responded to sex abuse by Scout leaders.

The only other time the documents are believed to have been presented at a trial was in the 1980s in Virginia.( more...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

NewChief
03-19-2010, 12:07 PM
Like I was saying....

I'm an Eagle Scout and grew up with a family obsessed with scouting. It pretty much dominated 10 or so years of my life (in a good way).

The scary part is that I knew this guy pretty well. He tried to befriend me and some of my buddies on several occasions, but our leaders always discouraged it. I haven't talked to those leaders since then (this was actually Order of the Arrow, not traditional BSA, as my dad was my BSA leader), but they must have known that something weird was going on... because they discouraged us spending time with the guy.

http://www.heathstocks.com/jackwalls.html

Charles A. "Jack" Walls III was born into privilege as the son of a prominent attorney who later became a well-respected county judge in Lonoke, Arkansas. Jack married his high school sweetheart and had three daughters. He was a manager for a firearms and ammunition manufacturer and lived in a small, affluent, close-knit community where he was a respected, trusted friend and Boy Scout leader. Under Jack's guidance, Boy Scout Troop 103 of Lonoke excelled and he was voted Man of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce. He was regarded as a pillar of the community and the parents of Lonoke turned to Jack for help in raising their young sons.

What these parents didn't know was that Jack was taking some of their young sons into a dark, secret world of alcohol, pornography and forbidden sex. For decades, Jack used his position in the community to seduce and ensnare these boys with "dangerous attention". On one hand, most of them grew to love and adore Jack for this inordinate attention and for allowing them to participate in activities that their parents would surely forbid. On the other hand, only two boys in over 30 years would ever speak out against Jack, and those boys were ridiculed and made the town's pariahs. He was truly revered as a hero to the boys, their families, and the community. Jack was the answer for alarmed parents as they began having trouble with their growing sons.

There was a common thread among the boys whom Jack befriended and led astray. Learning disabilities or an already troubled relationship with their parents allowed Jack entry into their lives and families. Jack made time to spend with these boys when their own parents could not. He would take them out to his family farm to shoot guns, hunt snakes and wildlife, and blow up beaver dams using his experience with explosives from Vietnam. For Jack's chosen few, these outings would also include alcohol, pornography and sex.

And there were camp-outs, also at the secluded family farm. These camp-outs were filled with the Boy Scouts of Lonoke, but only some were allowed entry into Jack's elite group, The Order of the Arrow. It was this group that Jack would gather around the campfire to talk about their lives, what was missing, and what their interests were. He kept detailed notes of his conversations so he could become those missing parts and the champion of their interests. Jack would lavish these boys with praise, get them drunk, and rape them. He also made them perform sexual acts on each other as he watched and joined in.

As the years went by Jack became arrogant about not getting caught, after all he'd already been found innocent once (see "The First Trial"). "Look at me and look at you," he would say, "Who do you think would believe you." He had them dig a hole in the ground and told them it would be their grave if they ever told. He told them he liked the smell of burning flesh and they would be burned alive in their beds if they ever told. He killed a large tree with poison and told them that would be them if they ever told. The boys never told.

Karen Knox, Walls sister-in-law, next door neighbor, and mother of two of Walls victims, had this to say in a 1999 interview, "A lady I talked to after all this happened
(see "The Second Trial") summed it up. She lives on the highway leading out to the Walls farm, and every Saturday morning, she would look up, and Jack had an old Ford pick-up, and she said there would be kids hanging all over that truck, going out to the farm. And she would say to herself, "what a guy, what a nice guy.'"


It's a crazy case, btw, if anyone isn't familiar with it. The guy had one of his "boys" kill his parents.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 12:10 PM
I'm an Eagle Scout and grew up with a family obsessed with scouting. It pretty much dominated 10 or so years of my life (in a good way).
The scary part is that I knew this guy pretty well.

I went on a camping trip when my daughter was nine or ten with her scout troops as a chaperone. One of the troop leaders was a counselor and she told us that it was no that uncommon for her to encounter grown men in her session that claimed they were sexually abused by their adult troop leader.

I mean cripes, some family members do this stuff. It can happen anywhere as far as I am concerned.

You guy sounds like a psychopath if he went as far as telling kids to kill their parents.

Chiefnj2
03-19-2010, 12:20 PM
Do you even remember what you said? You were talking about the choice by Catholic authorities to force their priest to undergo therapy and then reassign them to normal work duties, not the act of abuse. That's not criminal, whether you think it's unreasonable or not and whether or not your children have been sodomized.

Child endangerment is a criminal offense.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 12:22 PM
Child endangerment is a criminal offense.

Good luck with that one. Do you know of any cases where such a law has been used in this manner?

Donger
03-19-2010, 12:26 PM
If the employer does so with negligence they should be responsible for any damage that results. If the employer acts reasonably, then they are blameless. Based on the limited facts in your hypo, I'd say they should probably pay for any damages that results.

In the case described in the OP though, the Church didn't just transfer abusers, they also punished them and tried to reform them. The reform efforts may have been ineffective, but they didn't fail to try and the likelihood of success of those methods was not as obvious then as it is now, in retrospect and after we've acquired a much greater understanding of child sex abuse.

My post was mainly an objection to Pitt Gorilla's strange choice of words. The Church didn't do anything "so that [the abuser] could abuse again." The motives of the Church may have been to prevent bad publicity or they may have been to reform the offender, but the goal wasn't to generate more abuse.

The church should have informed the police, Patty. This is a crime.

Count Zarth
03-19-2010, 12:32 PM
Another thread about religion started by a man that does not even believe in God.

First of all, you don't know what I believe. I'm not an atheist, so let's just leave it at that.

Second of all, who gives a crap what I believe? This news is fucking appalling.

Count Zarth
03-19-2010, 12:33 PM
like we came from apes? how come they are ten times stronger? ;)

What do you think they do all day? Fling poo? They lift weights.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/supprise-weight-lifting-gorrila-butt-sex-gorrila-ape-butt-se-demotivational-poster-1217608612.jpg

NewChief
03-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Wow. It's like a ghost reaching up from the grave. ROFL


Catholic Pope... 03-19-2010 11:15 AM Norman Einstein An eagle scout? With your abusive manner I really doubt that you learned anything if you were. BTW being an eagle scout and $3.50 you can get coffee at Starbucks.

irishjayhawk
03-19-2010, 12:49 PM
You just realized this (thread title)?

Count Zarth
03-19-2010, 12:53 PM
You just realized this (thread title)?

I've long known Catholicism was bullshit. But this is the greatest degree of confirmation thus far. Especially where Pope Palpatine I is concerned.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 01:13 PM
I've long known Catholicism was bullshit. But this is the greatest degree of confirmation thus far. Especially where Pope Palpatine I is concerned.

Well, that is not Catholicism either.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 01:14 PM
The church should have informed the police, Patty. This is a crime.

That's a reasonable opinion, but why are you directing it at me?

bango
03-21-2010, 12:28 AM
First of all, you don't know what I believe. I'm not an atheist, so let's just leave it at that.

Second of all, who gives a crap what I believe? This news is ****ing appalling.

You are correct on both counts. This is solid in backing up the fact that religion, and the church have become exactly what they claim that they are against.

gblowfish
03-28-2010, 10:11 AM
This commercial is repellant.
Sometimes I crack myself up.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpuYoK6wv_Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpuYoK6wv_Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>