ChatterBank1 min ago
Another Catholic church cover-up?
57 Answers
If the priest in question claims not to know about the contents of a memory stick he is using to present material to children, then that is a poor defencce because it is his business to know.
I would not use a memory stick for a presnetation without checking its contents first, and needless to say, there is no danger of any inappropriate images being on any stick in my posession.
The priest asking for - and being granted - leave from his duties tends to incline towards the traditional church approach towards the devient behaviour of its clergy - let's pretend it's not hapening, and with luck, it will all go away.
Any bets on this priest being moved to another parish once the initial furore has died down? Media URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17885912
Description:
I would not use a memory stick for a presnetation without checking its contents first, and needless to say, there is no danger of any inappropriate images being on any stick in my posession.
The priest asking for - and being granted - leave from his duties tends to incline towards the traditional church approach towards the devient behaviour of its clergy - let's pretend it's not hapening, and with luck, it will all go away.
Any bets on this priest being moved to another parish once the initial furore has died down? Media URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17885912
Description:
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andyRoe - obviously your definition of 'mitigation' and mine are somewhat different.
Showing inappropriate images to children does not have less of an effect on them because the images are adults rather than children - that's a line too fine for small minds to comprehend.
The fact that a priest has these images in his possession at all makes his position untenable - and the notion that he is less responsible for the damage he has done because his pornography of choice is does not include the abuse of children is frankly laughable.
Showing inappropriate images to children does not have less of an effect on them because the images are adults rather than children - that's a line too fine for small minds to comprehend.
The fact that a priest has these images in his possession at all makes his position untenable - and the notion that he is less responsible for the damage he has done because his pornography of choice is does not include the abuse of children is frankly laughable.
sandyRoe - "I don't think he deliberately showed these images to the children and their parents."
One would seriously hope not!
I have no issue with anyone being a homosexual.
However, here appears to be a man who indluges in the height of hyppocricy by living as a Catholic priest which means, by definition, that his profession and professed calling requires him to denounce his own sexuality to others as a sin, and to condem them for it in God's eyes.
Add to that the unforgivable carelessness of exposing his own hypocricy to parishoners, including children, and then allowing the church which permits paedophiles to move to other areas to shelter him, and allow him to take leave until the fuss dies down - it amounts to unforgivable behaviour and he should have the honest morality to resign from the priesthood, considering the church's appropriate action of defrocking him for the rancid hypocrite that he is, will be very doubtful indeed.
One would seriously hope not!
I have no issue with anyone being a homosexual.
However, here appears to be a man who indluges in the height of hyppocricy by living as a Catholic priest which means, by definition, that his profession and professed calling requires him to denounce his own sexuality to others as a sin, and to condem them for it in God's eyes.
Add to that the unforgivable carelessness of exposing his own hypocricy to parishoners, including children, and then allowing the church which permits paedophiles to move to other areas to shelter him, and allow him to take leave until the fuss dies down - it amounts to unforgivable behaviour and he should have the honest morality to resign from the priesthood, considering the church's appropriate action of defrocking him for the rancid hypocrite that he is, will be very doubtful indeed.
// ..Parents said 16 indecent images of men were displayed. //
What a halfwit. Surely when a gay porn image pops up halfway through your powerpoint presentation, you hit the off switch pronto. You don't flick through the next 15 to get to the end. ..At least that's what I did at my WI talk the other week, and I think I got away with it.
What a halfwit. Surely when a gay porn image pops up halfway through your powerpoint presentation, you hit the off switch pronto. You don't flick through the next 15 to get to the end. ..At least that's what I did at my WI talk the other week, and I think I got away with it.
I think that's harsh, andy. What we have at worst is, as sandyRoe says, a man who accidentally picks up the wrong memory stick. I have little patience with pedophile priests; but gay ones are another matter. It would be nice if all priests were free of sin; indeed, it would be nice if I was. But priests are human, and his congregation now know all about him. (And this is just assuming he's guilty as charged, which he may not be.)
If he'd really been vigorous in denouncing homosexuality, if his flock despised him for hypocrisy, that might make a difference. But the story doesn't say. That being the case, I'm inclined to leave judgment on him to those who know him.
If he'd really been vigorous in denouncing homosexuality, if his flock despised him for hypocrisy, that might make a difference. But the story doesn't say. That being the case, I'm inclined to leave judgment on him to those who know him.
ummmm - no it's not out of the qeustion, but surely if someone did something as serious as that, you would have at least a notion of whom it was, and suggest that to the powers-that-be as your mitigation?
Had the response been - 'Father McVeigh has advised the name(s) of the person(s) he believes may have been responsibile for placing the images on the memory stick to the police, and they are investigating further ...'
then that argument would hold water. But he hasn't - so it doesn't.
Had the response been - 'Father McVeigh has advised the name(s) of the person(s) he believes may have been responsibile for placing the images on the memory stick to the police, and they are investigating further ...'
then that argument would hold water. But he hasn't - so it doesn't.
