Horror Show Sunday: Philly Pedophile Priests

priest+collar2The Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, still reeling from sexual abuse charges stemming from a high profile 2011 conviction, have placed another 5 priests on administrative leave, including one that has been charged with child molestation.  Archbishop Charles J. Chaput placed a 58-year old priest, Michael A. Chapman, on leave following allegations that he had inappropriate sexual contact with a minor.  Four other priests were placed on leave as well for undefined violations of standards of behavior and boundaries.  Whether or not these are sexual in nature, we just don’t know.

The allegations against the five priests sprung from the 2011 trial of Monsignor William Lynn, the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic Church official convicted in a child sex abuse scandal.  Lynn, one-time secretary for the archdiocese, was convicted and jailed for assigning a priest with a known history of sexual abuse to a parish that was not told of his predilections.

David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, thinks he sees through Chaput’s scheme.  “There’s only one reason to delay and to lump multiple accused predator priests together for one big announcement, Chaput simply wants to try and make sure there’s just one story about child-molesting clerics, not several stories.”

In Philadelphia, 23 priests have been placed on administrative leave since 2011.  8 of those were found not guilty of charges and returned to the priesthood, 9 were discharged and the rest remain on leave pending charges and investigations.  That’s still a lot of priests to be suspected of inappropriate behavior and we’re not even sure what all of them are actually accused of.

Not that far away, Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, says he was always told that the problem was under control and he’s apologized for “overlooking” pedophile priests.  “When I arrived here seven years ago one of the first things I was told is that this whole question of clerical sexual abuse had been taken care of.  Unfortunately I believed that.”  He says he wants to uphold the hard work and dedication of the 97% of priests that do not abuse kids.  I think he’s a bit high on his estimation.

So there you have it, yet another Catholic archdiocese in trouble, still hiding the truth and trying to lessen the pain of admitting that they have a problem.  That’s hardly a surprise, just read the rest of the cases on Horror Show Sunday.

160 thoughts on “Horror Show Sunday: Philly Pedophile Priests”

    1. They just released thousands of pages on priest sex abuse in the Chicago archdiocese too, same thing, they tried to protect the priests and ignored the kids. Expect to see this in every archdiocese in the country.

        1. Oh, they talk about it, they say they're sorry about it, they promise they're working to fix it, but apparently, it's all lip service and they're not serious.

          1. Of course they do.
            Men who take vows of celibacy, rationalize that same sex is not sex.

            It all depends what your definition of is is………….

          2. I don't know that they secretly condone it, I think they really don't understand what's going on and why. They aren't aware that it's Catholic belief and restrictions that are causing priests to turn to young children for their natural sexual release. They think people can just turn their sex drives off completely at will, which isn't something that the majority of people can do.

          3. IMO this has probably been going on for hundreds of years and they knew about it all along. I agree with on not being able to tunr off people's sex drives though.

          4. Of course not. They may want to hush up what is happening. But that is entirely different than condoning it.

            You have a double standard, public secular schools have a higher rate of sexual abuse. Do you apply the same thinking and say the public school secretly condone it?

          5. Public schools don't teach people not to have sex and to turn off natural instincts

          6. So public schools have a lot of sexual abuse and it goes unchallenged.

            You seem rather biased in your world view.

          7. It does not go unchallenged. The abusers face the justice system and in the church they cover most of it

          8. It went unmentioned by you until I kept bringing it up.

            So, you don't seem to care so much about the abuse as the opportunity to attack Christianity for something it doesn't have in it's teachings.

            It's a failure of not keeping it's beliefs, not because of them.

          9. I agree, but it's only the Catholic Church which is forcing unnatural practices on their priests and that's why there are so many cases of sex abuse in the Catholic Church. We know for a fact that Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops have been engaged in hiding pedophile priests for decades, why is it I hardly ever see calls from Catholics to change the system or hold these Cardinals and Archbishops accountable for their actions?

          10. Yep, I bet thousands cases have been covered up and we will never really know the numbers of kids abused by these monsters

          11. Every single time that papers are forcibly released, we find that everyone knew about it right up the chain of command. We've yet to see a single case where the Catholic Church has turned over every accused sex abuser to the police. It's always hidden and we have the paperwork to prove it.

          12. And those diocese many of them have filed for bankruptcy.

            And they deserved to. But the failings reflect on the failed priests.
            Other denominations aren't celibate and other denominations shouldn't be held accountable for things they don't agree with.

          13. Yep, the catholic church. They cover most of up. At least in schools the teachers face trial and it's not covered up

          14. Which doesn't change anything so long as the churches are doing it as well. Pointing fingers and saying "they're doing it too!" doesn't improve the situation.

          15. People have voted with their wallets.

            This is just a partial list, as I recall the phoenix area discese filing was the first.

            But, it points to why you're wrong. Religion is voluntary and when it becomes abusive people can reject and rebel against that abuse. Just as they did in the reformation era.

            Christianity isn't wrong. People that violate Christ's teachings are.

          16. Funny, there are still people sitting in the pews on Sunday. Until those churches are empty, people aren't voting with their wallets.

          17. Cephus, I'll take you as a well mannered kind of person.

            You might want to go to any Catholic Church. No, I'm not proselytizing. You don't understand why there are people in that church. If you went in quietly and sat in a pew silently for a few moments, even outside of any organized service.

            Everything in that building points towards God. Some may not make sense until it's explained, even the statutes of martyrs point towards the strength and history of God fighting evil on our world.

            I'm not Catholic. But I understand that the loyal few still attending don't attend due to the priest, but due to their faith in God. And those are the ones paying less out of protest.

            Peter's pence is way down.
            Churches are closing.

            The catholic church had worse abuses down through history, and the reformation resulted. The Church was better for it. Like any free market product if they don't have a good product people will go elsewhere.

            And if you checked a single one of my links you would realize you're wrong.

          18. No, I do understand why they're there, I just don't agree that it's actually a good reason for being there. Everything in the building points toward a BELIEF in God, not toward God himself. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the two. I've spent tons of time in tons of churches over the years, I don't get where you think you're the only one who has had that experience, but I've probably been much more religious in my past than you ever will be. I just got better. You still need to.

            We're not talking about history though, the fact is, there has been sex abuse in virtually every major denomination of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. There are ways for the various churches to correct their problems, to bring them under control, at least to minimize the problems, but they don't. To them, their beliefs are more important than the health and safety of the children in their congregations. We can point to specific beliefs and teachings that directly lead to sex abuse. There's no denying that. So why are the churches not willing to do what it takes, whatever it takes, to stem the catastrophic tide of priest sex abuse?

            I don't know, why don't you tell me? Explain why they're not willing to make the changes that clearly, they need to make. You're defending religion, defend this. Instead, you're making excuses why we shouldn't pay attention to the Catholics and all the other religions out there that are guilty of the same thing. You're pointing fingers at everyone else. You don't want to address it. You just want to pretend it isn't there. Even a single molestation by anyone, church, school or any other group, is too much. Why won't you acknowledge this where Christianity is concerned?

          19. And if those things point people to doing good, who cares why it's there?

            We need more 'good' in the world for what ever reasons.

            I've mentioned 'the calling'. You don't believe in it. But those who have had it do.

            And there are those who pretend because they think being a priest is easy money and it is a cover for evil. But who is to say those evil people wouldn't have molested even if the church figured them out and rejected them? Public school teachers molest at a higher rate, if your view held they would have all tried to be priests before going into teaching.

          20. I don't have to "believe in it", you have to prove it. You make the claim, you bear the burden of proof. You ought to know that by now. Just because you can point to people who believe an imaginary man in the sky wanted them to go into the ministry doesn't mean that's how it actually happened, that's just the lie they tell themselves, they can no more prove it than someone can prove that leprechauns wanted them to become bartenders. You continue to justify the horrors of religion instead of just admitting that there are problems and that makes you a reprehensible human being.

            Knock it off.

          21. Some would say this person dealt with an example that proved my point.

            Even if you have heard hearsay whispers otherwise.

          22. Yes, and I think that your narrow minded view is a sign of possible mental illness.

            Are some religions abused? Yes.

            And some of the best and most lasting things of beauty have been caused by religion, do you want to destroy the great pyramid in Giza since it was made as a result of religion?

          23. Roger is attacking gay people and calling Obama a spear thrower on another site. Jesus never did that.

            Roger @ Conservative Victory News – Army to Reduce Active … 2 minutes ago · 0 replies · +1 points
            A limp spear draped in cross dressed metrosexual attire.

          24. The way our military has been decimated and used as a social experiment makes me sick.

            And the comment wasn't racist. Why do you two keep bringing up skin color?

          25. When has our military been decimated? You need to go look up that word, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

          26. It has roots that go back to 'beheaded' or something close.

            And on the story I posted that comment, it talked about cuts to the troops lower than any time previous to WW2. That in the face of our hostile world I would consider it 'decimated' in a literal sense.

          27. You were talking about Obama being a spear chucker and metro sexual for cutting military spending.

            And you were talking about his limp pe n is… a lot.

          28. Maybe that's what he means when he says he wants a President that will stand up for America.

          29. Yes, and they can see that I'm not.

            You care about skin color, I don't.
            The person inside is what matters, the MLK dream.

          30. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You make racial smears against Obama on Navy's site, then pretend you are not a racist here.

          31. It wasn't racial and it wasn't against Obama but against his policies gutting our military.

            You keep bringing up skin color, you're the one that by definition is racist if that matters to you.

          32. So his "policies" are a limp pen is that wears metro sexual clothes?

            You pathological liar. Your lawyer needs to know your racist remarks.

          33. His policies have made our military ineffective as a deterrent. Palin said as much when she predicted Russia would attack Ukraine.

          34. Then way are so making personal attacks on the President, calling his p e n is limp and saying he wears metro sexual clothes on his p e n i s.

          35. You DID. I even posted your comment here.

            You are a pathological liar. No wonder you are a annulled and your lawyer can't find me.

          36. I never said to destroy the pyramids. I was merely pointing out the problem with equating schools to churches. Its not the same.

            But yes I do suffer from clinical depression, so sure I have a mental illness. I get treatment for it. In contrast, some people would say religion is a mental illness (the numbers of psychologists that say this is growing), and the believers are not prepared to get the treatment.
            My recent post Religion is a mental illness

          37. It's worse in the schools, IMO.

            Churches and Schools both are manned by authority figures.
            But church is voluntary, schools are not.

          38. Church is voluntary? How so? Isn't there an official hierarchy in virtually all religious bodies? Aren't there priests and bishops and archbishops and the like? Those aren't voluntary positions.

          39. If I miss church this week nobody comes to my house to stone me.

            There are religions that would. But Christianity is voluntary.

          40. If you miss school you don't have anyone that comes to your house and stones you either

          41. You have the state come and investigate and perhaps remove the children from your home.

            So, your failed attempt to just be the irritant you are failed, like so very much.

          42. Try it and see what happens.
            Try not sending an excuse/note with a child when they return to school after missing a day.

            You sure have selective reality.

          43. They get a tardy or an unexcused absent for the day.

            I have tried it since I am a father

          44. And you have to send a note or excuse when they return to school. Keep that up and they find out why. Child protective services doesn't take kindly to parents not educating their children.

          45. They sure don't get stoned as you implied though.

            If you don't send a note they get an unexcused absence. I know because I have children and you do not

          46. TMN, I realize you can't actually discuss any issue without lying and trying to change the argument. Quote me where I said they stone you for missing school.

            Go ahead, I'm waiting. Have you ever had a legit debate where you didn't troll and lie about things?

            I said I can miss church and no one comes to my house to stone me.

            Try again, you failed this time, again.

          47. And you can miss school and no one comes to your house and stones you. We are discussing school sex abuse vs. Christian sex abuse.

            Please stay on topic and quit commenting to me in a threating manner

          48. Truancy officers.
            Have you heard the term before?

            Are you so out of step with reality that you deny the most obvious of things?

            Please stay on the topic yourself, can't you lie and insult your way out of being owned again?

          49. Sure have never meant one though. Out of touch. How many kids do you have and how often you had to keep them out of school? You don't have any so you are out of touch with reality.

            You can quit with the insults and threating tone

          50. You're floundering.
            Your struggling because you know I owned you again, like I always do. Who are you going to hide behind now?

          51. You "own" me More threats and more threats towards the safety of my family.

            Struggling? I don't think and I don't hide behind anyone. You are the one hiding behind an attorney because your feelings got hurt.

            I can see the conversation "WAAA Mr. attorney I stalked and harassed people online and they said mean things to me so I wanna sue them now"

          52. My pointing out that you were lying and wrong again, may be a threat for your ego, but nothing more.

            You may want to reconsider if you are suited for public debate forums.

          53. How is the growl doing, I notice within about 30 minutes of my pointing out how badly it's done under it's new blue liner, there were more posts there. I wonder who the 'guest' could be?

          54. Your reputation couldn\’t get much worse, Roger. From where you sit, there\’s only one direction to go and that\’s up.

          55. And some like minded people think I deserve a medal for being here.

            Most wouldn't bother.
            Someone needs to give the other side of the story, you have one side nailed and mock the other.

            You still haven't offered proof of the big bang for example.

          56. So you're here to justify sexual abuse by priests? Seriously?

            Of course we've offered objective evidence for the Big Bang. We've provided plenty of references, you just won't pay any attention to it. You, on the other hand, have provide no objective evidence for your God. Every time you're asked, you shuck and jive and say that we have to provide more evidence. You've provided nothing. This stupid Christian apologetic nonsense isn't fooling anyone.

          57. Nobody but you has even mentioned public school sex abuse, you\’re just trotting it out so you can avoid dealing with the Catholic Church. Nobody buys into your attempts to avoid dealing with the topic at hand.

          58. And nobody but non Christians has mentioned sexual abuse by priests in this thread.

            More sexual abuse goes on in public schools, so who is overlooking the sexual abuse (by the numbers)
            in this thread?

          59. And this is a non-Christian blog. Don\’t like that? Go start your own blog. I can only speak for myself, but I oppose sex abuse no matter where it\’s found but here, we\’re talking specifically about sex abuse by the religious. If you want to talk about sex abuse by teachers, by all means find a blog that talks specifically about that. This isn\’t that blog.

          60. At least now you pretty much admit this is more about attacking Christians than worrying about the children in the sexual abusive situations.

          61. They deserve the attacks they get, they believe things for no rational reason and you purposely avoid criticizing them for the evils they do in the world because you share the same ridiculous beliefs they do. Keep dodging, it's blatantly obvious that you do.

          62. The oThe ones that abused people deserve it. I admit to that, but then again they will have to answer for those failings, everyone dies sometime. Why do you think God won't deal with them better than the authorities on earth have?

          63. Most wouldn't bother.
            Someone needs to give the other side of the story, you have one side nailed and mock the other.
            Wow what hypocrisy when I gave an alternative position on a right-wing, pseudo-Christian, republican forum you requested that I was banned. I wasn't abusive, demeaning or anything of the sort. I just debated strongly and you had no answer but to ban me. But hey it just goes to prove my intellectual betterment over you

          64. Nobody is ignoring anything, we\’re focusing on a particular aspect of the issue. You\’re the one trying to excuse pedophile priests by pointing fingers elsewhere.

          65. You blame it on their religion and I show those without religion have worse numbers on the issue.

            True, those who abuse in the church need to be held accountable, but if they didn't have religion they might eve molesting in the higher numbers found in state schools.

          66. But the cause *IS* the religion because the religious beliefs stop people from acting in a normal, natural way with their sexuality. You can't just turn it off, as the Catholic Church expects their priests and nuns to do. Their normal sex drives continue to operate and they turn to the most commonly available resource, children. It could easily be alleviated by allowing priests and nuns to marry like normal people do, but the fact that they refuse is a failure of the religion, something you cannot point out in public schools.

            Stop trying to make excuses and just condemn the teachings of the Catholic Church like any moral person would.

          67. Then what is the cause in secular schools?

            Not everyone is called to be a minister. Some perverts use any cover to do what they want to do.

            Religion has been that cover too much, but guess what? It isn't just religion.

          68. Nobody is called to be anything, people choose to do the jobs they do. I'm sure that very few enter the ministry thinking they'll be able to rape kids, I'm sure they think they can handle it, but when the rubber hits the road, biology is stronger than willpower and they have to take advantage of their position and the access their position gives them to young children. You're still making excuses. It's sad that you support your religious beliefs over sexual abuse of children.

          69. Perhaps no atheists are. But some religious leaders in all sorts of religions feel called. Mother Theresa for example Somethign called to her, and she rise above her normal situation in life and accomplished a lot.

          70. Feeling called and being called are two different things. You have yet to demonstrate that there's anything that can "call" them. And Mother Theresa was a monster, she's one of the worst examples you can give for a valuable Catholic. She not only ripped off her contributors, she worsened the lives of the poor. If that's supposed to be your best example, you're going the wrong way.

          71. How does it. I took on board what you said and posted appropriate responses and questions. That's how debate works. But when the going gets tough for you Rog, Rog goes crying to moderators to get more intelligent people banned. Maybe your profile should state "weak mind looking for morons to debate with, because as soon as someone out-thinks me I go running to my mummy!

          72. You almost used all the words right.

            Wow, what an endorsement.

            And of course you are entitled to your opinion. Covering for the posse must come natural for you.

          73. its all relative and compared to you I'm like Newton or Ida Noddack. Good to see you don't discagree with my position only attack my intelligence as a feeble retort.

          74. Such situations are apparently what the report button was design for, according to Rog.

          75. Really? Like who? A medal for going to a web site???

            Who are these people or did you just make that up?

          76. Does it? Or is it reflective of you positions?

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO

          77. It is justice compliant with sharia.

            If you consider that most style of the most violent solution to every problem 'justice'. I don't.

          78. Why do you think I hold your sharia compliant thinking?

            Not everyone looks for the most violent solution to every problem.

            For example some in my western culture might think that on a debate site attacking someone's positions might be a debate kind of thing.

            Have you considered that?

          79. You know what the definition of attack is right?

            My you just claim to own "western culture"

          80. Well with your history of making threats and using the definition of the word you are wrong. You just can't make up your own deinitions

          81. Still trying to pretend I threaten people? I advocate for no violnce outside of self defense. You know this. Why are you trying to run down adn besmirch my reputation?

    1. It is. What\’s more, Roger tries to defend them by playing the \”these other guys are worse!\” card, which is absurd. Any child molestation from any organization is unacceptable but Roger is unwilling to accept that his religion is to blame for a huge number of sex abuse.

  1. So rogers threatens to "attack me for just about anything" and then sends he only advoactes for self defense

    1. Why don't you post the quote and the entire thread.

      When you use flawed positions attacking those positions is the decent thing to do, and on a forum for debate that would entail vigorous debate.

      For example…:
      24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
      "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

      A sharia compliant endorsement of violence deserves to be attacked on this forum and to have it explained for what it is. And all that is done on this forum. Just because you seem to lean towards the most violent solutions doesn't mean everyone else does,

      It's not part of my western thinking.

      1. He can't retire to the Old Trolls Home.
        Dooche is the Gatekeeper, the Keeper of the Keys.
        Plus, Dooche has the Ring……….

        He doesn't want Roger there competing with his words of wit………………..

        1. All insults all the time.

          And guest is too much the coward to even use his own name.

          He wouldn't brave the old folks home, he' d hide outside in the shadows.

  2. Attack"
    verb (used with object)
    to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.

    to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

    to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.

    1. Roger has been attacking you, and others with his trolling for years. I hope you get a huge settlement against him. The very Idea that he filed this suit is laughable. This shows exactly how delusional this butt monkey really is.

      1. Claimed suits don't mean a thing until you receive legal notification and summons to a courtroom. I can't tell you how many people have claimed to have sued me for this and that over the years but I can tell you how many legal documents I've ever received. Zero. Not a one. Neither will anyone ever receive anything from Roger. He's a lying sack of shit.

      2. I have been disagreeing with him for years.
        The very idea he thought he could demand I pull my profile and place a time limit on my posting comments is crossing a line.

      3. Just a head's up — I closed my 'poof' account. I seriously didn't want Roger bothering me, he creeps me out that much. Anyway, you should drop by http://www.katu.com some time and see if you'd be interested in commenting there — there's plenty of 'regulars' to lack much in brain matter and lose debates often. =) If you DO stop by, you probably won't find too many stories I don't have something to say about, and you can't miss my avatar — it's my hiney. Best of luck with Roger — he ain't right. ~~ PoofShesGone

        1. Poof-

          I was conversing with you there the other day, when everything disappeared. I enjoy our conversations. I will miss you.

    2. #2, in a public debate forum would allow for 'without a weapon' and in a debate why wouldn't I be aggressive?

      There is nothing in intense debate that says it can't be 'intense'. Why don't you define that word while you're at it.

  3. I don't have to "believe in it", you have to prove it. You make the claim, you bear the burden of proof. You ought to know that by now. Just because you can point to people who believe an imaginary man in the sky wanted them to go into the ministry doesn't mean that's how it actually happened, that's just the lie they tell themselves, they can no more prove it than someone can prove that leprechauns wanted them to become bartenders. You continue to justify the horrors of religion instead of just admitting that there are problems and that makes you a reprehensible human being.

    Cephus proving the 'calling' to you would be akin to proving music existed to a deaf man.

    It's not something you're willing to even consider. And that's your right. But you can't pretend that there are those so dedicated to their belief in God they will die for it. Then there are those who are in it for what ever reason and don't seem concerned at all that if they abuse people while hiding behind all the trappings of religion that God might require accountability for it.

    And you insulted Mother Theresa.
    Here is a story about someone that knew her.

    His view of her, based on personal experience is different than yours based on rumors.

    1. You don't get to just make up terms and pretend they mean something, yet that's all you do. You make assertions but cannot back any of them up. You think there are imaginary beings in the sky without evidence. You do all of this and don't understand why people laugh at you, or how to conduct a rational, intellectual debate. Reality, you're doing it wrong.

      Oh, and Mother Theresa was a monster. I did a piece on her a while back. Check it out: http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2013/04/24/

      1. I do, since I seem to know more about a 'spiritual calling' then you do.

        Christianity isn't the only religious system that has the term and the understanding.
        Even if you ignore the possibility of God, with your assertions (based on no proof), even you should accept that the belief of those gods can drive people to doing good.

        And you may have done a piece based on rumors, I linked to a first hand account of what she meant to those around her.

        1. None of which proves that your claims are actually true. Ideas with common concepts will often have common claims, that doesn't mean any of it is actually so. That's where you keep getting hung up. You're buried in your dogma, you can't even imagine that anything that you believe might be false and when people ask you to prove that God actually exists, you just twist in the wind and try to make another argument. Avoiding direct questions is not going to impress anyone, you really ought to stop doing it.

          1. And none of which proves any of your claims are true.

            Cephus, fair is fair. You have offered no proof either. It works both ways.

            I've been respectful of your claims and assertions and would expect the same.
            Why? Because both of us are entitled to our opinions.

          2. Roger, Don't you have a children's magic pony site to troll? By the way your Avatar with those creepy, dark soulless eyes of yours really freaked the kids out.

Leave a Reply to Cephus Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)