Bullcrap, that's exactly what the whole "it's the work of evil" and "he'll need our help and prayers" crap means. It's their way of saying partially or fully absolving him of responsibility, especially spiritually, but sadly he is, and the problem with shit like this is they frequently make excuses. It always goes on far too long because "temptation", "the devil", or whatever the fuck people have in their heads that excuse people they want to defend because of their beliefs.

I can say for me 40 hail Marys ain't gonna cut it for this asshole, FUCK THAT SHIT.
Yeah, because there isn't a truckload of precedent of the Catholic Church sweeping this sort of shit under the rug.

We don't have crystal balls, nor are we in the jury box where we need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The dude probably did all of it and finally got caught for some of it.

this is getting good :D

Sounds like they did something a couple years ago, which is why he's an ex-priest. From the article, it sounds more like the Diocese is supporting him for personal reasons even though he's no longer a priest. The sex shop stuff happened later.

If the article is to be believed, this is just genuine compassion for somebody who has fallen on hard times.
The US has over 300m people, it's almost certain that at any given time somebody is engaged in any unspeakable act you can imagine. And probably a few that don't even have names yet.

Not that it really applies to this but less we forget Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill (Silence of the Lambs) were all based on the very same very real guy. And I've been to his hometown!

I read the article and thought for a couple minutes to try and sum up what to say about it. Then I saw the side bar and it fits...

Holy Crap.

Any absolving him of responsibility is entirely what you are reading into it. In fact, it conflicts with the rest of what they are saying because it makes no sense to ask for prayer for the "difficult days ahead for him" if they have absolved him of responsibility. Rather, in spite of what he has done, they genuinely care for him as a person, and hope that will be able to come to realize what he did was wrong and and find the strength to make amends.

You, me, and pretty much everyone else agree that that ain't gonna cut it, so I'm not sure why you insist that others think differently.

As rational beings, we don't ever believe something is true unless we have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is ever reasonable doubt, then it is rational to withhold judgement on something until you are given evidence that you consider to be good enough to establish it beyond it. Being in the jury box is just a formalized version of this.

The difference here is that you apparently think the existence of related accusations are enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while I think the fact that there have been been many cases where priests have been falsely accused is enough to establish reasonable doubt. We simply do not have enough information to conclude one way or the other.

However, regardless of whether he is guilty of this, we are not told what the Diocese's response was. We are just given that he was accused of something and led to believe that the Diocese did nothing. That may have been the case, but we don't have enough information to know. Also, considering that he was convicted for things he did after he left the priesthood and that the Diocese might never have been informed at that, I'm not even sure why you think it is something the Catholic Church needs to "sweep under the rug" in the first place.

Loosely based, but yes. I still need to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the original, not that remake.

For this situation, I don't know what is worse: That "priest", or the "church" still protecting him... What a bunch of "holy" hypocrites. F*ck**g b***s***...

Can you give examples of the Church protecting him? As far as I am aware, no one has suggested that he shouldn't have been convicted.

Did you read the news entirely?

I read the linked article and a number of the comments.

Give up, he's an apologist, life's too short to try and convince someone like him something he's incapable of comprehending. The news is sickening, it's along the vein of shit we've seen far too often, and as usual there's people being thickheaded about it.

So far, you've assumed the worst about people who made comments and jumped to a conclusion that the article does not show, but I'm the one being thickheaded? All that he has been convicted of is selling meth and money laundering, which I fully agree is wrong, but I wouldn't exactly call sickening when compared with things like shooting up and elementary school. Even if he were cross-dressing and have sex, that's not a good example to set for his congregation, but that's not illegal, so it should be handled internally. I also fully agree that there have been problems with the Church, but I have not yet been given sufficient evidence to conclude that this is one of them. There have been times when the Church has been hypocritical, but I don't think it is so wrong to ask Azrael to provide evidence to back up his specific claim.

I know, right? How come we weren't in on this?

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the church tried to protect him in any way other than giving him a sabbatical and requiring him to get a mental screening before returning to work. When he failed to do that, they fired him.

I'm not sure what else you would expect the church to do here? Perhaps cut off his wiener.