Want to know just how many priests are involved in the RCC child-rape conspiracy?

[cleanhippie]

Have a look for yourself. There's more than you can imagine.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/member/index.jsp

[yourpaljoey]

1. they are all around me, surprising

[xfundy]

2. These dipshits expect their victims to just forget about it.

It's heartening to see sites like this.

[bbgrunt]

3. holy shit. literally

[skepticscott]

4. It's not just priests who are involved in the conspiracy

and cover-up. There are a few other apologists I could name who are enthusiastic participants.

[rug]

5. You have a duty to name them. Or else you're enabling the conspiracy.

[skepticscott]

7. I have named them

what makes you think I haven't?

[rug]

8. Your words: "I could name".

[skepticscott]

9. I was talking about here

Did you not get that, ruggie? Is this your whole world?

[rug]

10. Then name them, scottie. It's your duty.

We can't have child rape apologists on this site any more than we can have people who troll by insinuation.

[skepticscott]

11. Oh, what...you think I was including YOU in that, ruggie?

Ok, let's play your game.

I utterly condemn every priest who ever raped a child, every priest, bishop, cardinal and pope who knew that children were being raped and covered it up, and the catholic church as an organization for participating in a conspiracy to enable child rape.

Let's hear you do the same, without dodging or equivocation. Otherwise, you're liable to be included as part of the conspiracy.

[rug]

12. Not at all, scottie. Name them: "I was talking about here"

Your attempt to divert has not discharged your duty.

[skepticscott]

13. You've named yourself, ruggie

dodging and equivocating about something so clearcut? What must people think?

And I said I "could" name them here. I HAVE named them elsewhere. You've done neither. And will never condemn the catholic church for enabling child rape. That tells everyone whose opinion matters all they need to know about you.

[rug]

14. Not in the least, scottie. I've asked you to name them. You're dodging.

But since you are poor at anything but obliqueness and insinuation, let's cut straight to the chase: Are you calling me an apologist of child rape?

[skepticscott]

18. We can certainly find out if you are or not, ruggie

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 06:17 AM - Edit history (1)

I'll repeat...I utterly condemn every priest who ever raped a child, every priest, bishop, cardinal and pope who knew that children were being raped and covered it up, and the catholic church as an organization for participating in a conspiracy to enable child rape and attack its victims.

Are you willing to do the same? Then do it in your next post. If you're not, then I'll let everyone reading this judge which of us is part of the effort to defend and enable child rape. Go on, dude...everyone is watching to see where your loyalties lie...with the rapists and their enablers, or the victims. It's your choice...don't disappoint.

And no, I don't give a fuck about the little games you play trying to get me a hide, ruggie.

[rug]

19. If you already could you wouldn't need to find out.

I really don't give a shit about who you "condemn" in your pompous little world.

Do it if you can.

You won't because you can't. Instead you hide behind your ridiculous little statements like "I'll let everyone reading this judge".

It was your claim and your claim alone. scottie. Step out and speak directly for yourself for once without your furtive invocation of"we". If it's true you don't have to worry about a hide. Besides, what's another one to you?

Do it or admit your trolling games.

[rug]

23. Still hiding behind others, eh, scottie?

You are so consumed with hatred of the RCC and anyone who doesn't jump on your train of hate that you see nothing clearly, let alone "know me like you do".

I'll give you one more chance. You once again obliquely refer to me as "what you are". Go, on, what exactly is that?

[Lordquinton]

16. If you condemned them just once it would defuse a lot of this

But you can't even say what LGBTQIA means.

[rug]

20. The only fuse burning is in your head.

scottie's already passed failsafe.

[mr blur]

17. Any member of the RCC cult who does not leave it, and stop funding it,

is an enthusiastic participant. Beyond reason and beyond shame.

[rug]

21. Now, I know you're from the UK but must you smear our Vice President?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12216721

How about you, bliur, do you have any more bigoted statements to make about Catholics? How about Muslims?

Go on, deny that's bigotry.

[rug]

6. That site's been up for years.

SNAP''s been around for nearly 50 years.

This proves it was caused by the innate nature of religion and its immoral texts.

[Iggo]

15. Far as I'm concerned, it's every single one of them.

In the same way that good cops who cover for bad cops are bad cops.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Somebody actually responded to this with "that site has been up for years".

What. The. Fuck.

[rug]

26. Yeah, more than a week ago.

Do you dispute that site has been up for thirteen years or are you flailing to make some sort of point?

[cleanhippie]

27. Some will do or say anything to deflect from the issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Somebody actually responded to my post, defending

That seriously fucked post with "it was more than a week ago".

I didn't know that the statute of limitations on defense of pederasty on du was one week.

[rug]

29. And you have yet to address it.

Looks like you prefer cooing to each other in dismay.

Anytime you want to engage directly, warren, you know where I am.

BTW, what is truly fucked up is your attempt to frame it as "defense of pederasty". I see why you are reticent to make that claim directly, not that you're unskilled in promoting bullshit.

[cleanhippie]

30. Yup. As expected, how long this list of pedophiles has been online apparently overshadows

the fact that while the list was started a decade ago, it continues to grow even to this day. That we haven't brought it up until now is so much more important than the fact that churches have been protecting and enabling pedophile priests for decades, and continue to do so.
The usual defense of pederasty from the usual suspects is usual.


Oh, and Dawkins tweeted something, so there's that.

[NeoGreen]

31. Indirectly?...

...ALL of them...

an excerpt:

William F. White, Ordained 1968

11 men have accused White of abuse between 1961 & 1993 when they were teens. Placed on leave in 1993. Diocese had complaints in 1979. In 1987 the Church received more complaints when family reported he had tried to molest 2 brothers on the night of their father's wake.

Emphasis added.

Source:
Buffalo News 03.08.94; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_03_08_Beebe_PriestIs_William_F_White_1.htm
Buffalo News 03.09.94; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_03_09_Condren_AccusedPriest_William_F_White_2.htm
Buffalo News 03.11.94; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_03_11_Condren_DioceseSpeaks_William_F_White_3.htm
Buffalo News 03.31.94; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_03_31_Condren_NewAllegations_William_F_WHite_4.htm
Buffalo News 05.29.94; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_05_29_Condren_SexOffender_William_F_White_6.htm
Buffalo News 05.29.94; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_05_29_Herbeck_DioceseHit_William_F_White_5.htm
Buffalo News 04.02.02; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_04_02_Michel_DioceseSays_Aurelio_AND_Mach_6.htm
USA Today 11.11.02; http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_11_11_USAToday_TheAccused.htm#newyork