Priest caught with 15 year-old boy with no pants.

Today’s cover story of the Not Surprising Times is about a priest who counsels troubled teens who decided to fuck one of them.

A Catholic priest in Pennsylvania was charged with molesting a 15-year-old boy after cops say he was caught in the act.

Father W. Jeffrey Paulish was allegedly found with the boy — who was wearing no pants — in a car on the Penn State University campus Thursday, CNN reports.

Police say they discovered the 56-year-old Scranton priest and the boy while responding to the call of a suspicious vehicle.

Paulish initially told cops that he was working on his homily on campus when he met the boy, who he said was in emotional distress and needed counseling. Police say he later admitted that he met the teen through the “casual encounters” section of Craigslist.

Religion does not make people better.

  • http://allweathercyclist.blogspot.com/ JethroElfman

    Let me know when he gets defrocked and excommunicated

    • unbound55

      I hope you’re patient…I don’t see it happening in my lifetime…

    • busterggi

      Sounds as though he was already getting defrocked but I’m sure he won’t be excommunicated.

  • baal

    I’m sure he was just there for the ministerial exemption.

  • Vikram

    Absolutely right ! Neither does anti-religiousness. You havent defined what a ‘better’ person is.Who is a ‘good’ person according to you?

    • unbound55

      You are absolutely correct. Being anti-religious does not mean you will be a better person.

      But, here’s the rub, the anti-religious don’t make any such claim. The religious, on the other hand, claim that being religious will make you a good person. Some of the religious even go so far as to claim that their particular religion / denomination is the source of all good.

      Thus, JT does (rightfully so) point out the massive hypocrisy in those claims.

      • Vikram

        Good points. There are some very broad statements in your response.

        When we say a thing in general, we dont say anything in particular.
        1. The religious, on the other hand, claim that being religious will make you a good person – Which religion is this and what is the exact claim?
        2. Some of the religious even go so far as to claim that their particular religion / denomination is the source of all good. – Again which religion makes this claim?
        I can tell you that in the Christian worldview, there is no grounds for what this priest has done. Neither is there any support in the Bible, nor does Jesus Christ give His stamp of approval for such a behavior.
        So this priest has acted on his own desire/impulse.
        This does nothing to the truth claims of the Bible.
        Anyone can get a theological degree and become a priest. That is same with a person who considers himself/herself anti religious. They can call themselvese anti-religious, but may do the same things this priest has done. The behaviour of the anti-religious person does nothing to the truth claims of the anti religious person.
        It seems that a so called religious person is held to a higher moral standard than everyone else and rightfully so. However I would like you and others to note that a good or a bad behavior does very little when it comes to responding to the truth claims of a particular religion. If you want to know what Biblical Christianity is then I would be happy to share. Alternatively I would encourage you to take a copy of the New Testament and read thru the Gospels, because going back to the source, many a times is the best way to understand the worldview. There are good and bad people on both sides of the debate. To discount a religion/worldview on the basis of its so called ‘adherents’ would be a poor argument against that worldview.

        • baal

          “It seems that a so called religious person is held to a higher moral standard than everyone else and rightfully so.”
          Eh, not quite. Everyone is held to the “don’t get caught with a 15 year old boy with no pants” rule. That’s the same for everyone. The reason it gets mentioned is the hypocrisy. The various churches like to tell us that belief in god/jesus/the sogoth makes you more moral and yet we find endless cases where that’s not true.

          Also, noone is suggesting that the priest is carrying out RCC dogma by his acts with the youth. The priest, however, is still a christian.

          • Vikram

            If you are implying that his Christian faith led him to what he did, then I have already responded on my post to that.
            If you think ‘all’ Christians are ‘hypocrites’ then I can tell you that there is a far worse term than a hypocrite that they use for themselves. It is the word ‘sinner’. Being a hypocrite is just one of the many ‘wrong’ things that the word sinner includes.

            Christians do fail, however that does nothing to the standard they point to. It is the standard that I want you to refute.

          • baal

            Please stop trying to shoehorn me into your preconceived notions and re-read what I actually wrote. It’s reasonably clear.

            I’m not interested in your framing. It doesn’t fairly represent what anyone on the atheist side has actually said in this thread.

            I’m also much more concerned about hypocrites that sinners. Sinning is pissing off an imaginary friend. Hypocrisy is done to a human. I rate actual persons as more worthy of respect than non-existant supernatural entities.

          • Vikram

            1. Please explain where I have ‘shoehorned’ you?
            2. What is the atheist side?

          • baal

            no.
            also, again, I do not recognize you as a fair person who gets to have your questions answered.

          • Vikram

            Nice! Just label someone as unfair, so you dont have to defend your position.

          • baal

            My position is that you have misread posts and don’t actually deal with the replies you get. You’re very busy trying to lead folks down a rhetorical (not real) path to your ‘objective truth’ god. It’s not an honest discussion when you’re doing that.

          • pennyroyal

            bullying doesn’t work V.

          • indorri

            The standard includes calling everyone, included yourself, “sinners” to mean the most wretched thing is harmful to human well being.

            The standard that calls for religious interference in civil marriage and, in earlier years (and among some members, in current years) the death of gay men and women is harmful to human well being.

            The belief that people deserve hell is harmful to human well being.

            The belief that obedience to an authority figure is the ultimate morality is definitely harmful to human well being (cf pretty much every authoritarian human regime).

            Now I’m sure you’re itching to reply that why “harmful to human well being” means “immoral”. My pre-response is that it’s not my responsibility to teach correct map-territory resolution and to stop using classes as referents.

          • Vikram

            IF the standard includes everyone, then you would constantly run into contradictions. One culture believes in worshiping another human being and another culture believes in eating them when hungry? Whose standard are you going to go by?
            If God does exists then ultimate morality is grounded in Him and His character. And that standard is the same for everyone. Ultimately someone is the authority, its either coming from you or from an external party, namely God.

          • Pofarmer

            Social evolution has led us to our current sense of morality, which is quite different from what it was 2000 years ago in a lot of cases. Why is it so hard to understand/comprehend/contemplate, that morality is a byproduct of our human condition? Our actions, in most cases, are really not much different than many other species we share the planet with. Do they all get their sense of action from God?

          • Vikram

            Good points Pofarmer. Basic moral values have always remained the same since the begining of human race. Values such as Honesty, Speaking the Truth (as against lying), Honor and Respect, Courage, Loyalty etc for example have always been there no matter what the culture and time period. Therefore it would be an error to say that moral values have changed.
            IF God the creator exists and IF morality is grounded in Him then yes, all get their sense of morality from God.
            IF morality is a byproduct of our human condition, then would ‘rape’ be acceptable if we were conditioned / evolved differently?

          • Pofarmer

            “Basic moral values have always remained the same since the begining of human race.”

            I’d say you are arguing facts not in evidence. And I’d say that morals have changed. Not viewing women as property, at least in most cultures, for example. Or, not allowing the Church to kill those who disagree with it, for another.

          • Spuddie

            Yet such values are frequently ignored if done in service of a religious figure. Somehow if one is doing harmful, spiteful, and dishonest acts for God, its OK. So basic moral values have never been basic at all. Especially for theists who forgo making personal moral decisions in favor of conformity to an arbitrary and capricious set of outside rules.

          • John Alexander Harman

            Yes, among the many ways in which we might have evolved there are some plausible ones which would make rape (defined as sexual intercourse forced by an individual who wants it upon an individual who doesn’t) acceptable. It is possible to imagine a sentient species in which reproduction can only be achieved by force, with one sex invariably resisting mating until physically overpowered by the other. Such a situation might be due to traumatic insemination, for example, or natural selection favoring strength and aggression so strongly that all its females become Red Sonjas. It is even possible a sentient species could evolve which follows the reproductive pattern of the mantids, in which the male is eaten by the female subsequent to mating (the other way around, however, probably could not evolve, as the female has to survive to carry the eggs).

            In Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Edward O. Wilson wrote an extreme example of how a sentient species with very different origins and biology might perceive “universal” morality:

            On one thing we can surely agree! We are the pinnacle of three billion years of evolution, unique by virtue of our high intelligence, employment of symbolic language, and diversity of cultures evolved over hundreds of generations. Our species alone has sufficient self-awareness to perceive history and the meaning of personal mortality. Having largely escaped the sovereignty of our genes, we now base social organization mostly or entirely upon culture. Our universities disseminate knowledge from the three great branches of learning: the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the termitities. Since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromone script, termitistic scholarship has refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the deontological imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are mostly self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of the colony life amidst a richness of war and trade among colonies; the sanctity of the physiological caste system; the evil of personal reproduction by worker castes; the mystery of deep love for reproductive siblings, which turns to hatred the instant they mate; rejection of the evil of personal rights; the infinite aesthetic pleasures of pheromonal song; the aesthetic pleasure of eating from nestmates’ anuses after the shedding of the skin; the joy of cannibalism and surrender of the body for consumption when sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat); and much more.

            Some termitistically inclined scientists, particularly the ethologists and sociobiologists, argue that our social organization is shaped by our genes and that our ethical precepts simply reflect the peculiarities of termite evolution. They assert that ethical philosophy must take into account the structure of the termite brain and the evolutionary history of the species. Socialization is genetically channeled and some forms of it all but inevitable. This proposal has created a major academic controversy. Many scholars in the social sciences and termitities, refusing to believe that termite nature can be better understood by a study of fishes and baboons, have withdrawn behind the moat of philosophical dualism and reinforced the crenelated parapets of the formal refutation of the naturalistic fallacy. They consider the mind to be beyond the reach of materialistic biological research. A few take the extreme view that conditioning can alter termite culture and ethics in almost any direction desired. But the biologists respond that termite behavior can never be altered so far as to resemble that of, say, human beings. There is such a thing as a biologically based termite nature…

            (Disqus, you’re weird! Why the heck should the first paragraph of a block quotation be in a different font, but the second paragraph revert to the same font as the rest of the post? I certainly didn’t insert any tags to make it do that!)

          • indorri

            This is what I referred earlier to as “stop treating classes as referents”. The phrase “morality grounded by x” is semantically meaningless.

          • Spuddie

            As is “ultimate morality”.

          • Spuddie

            If your moral sense comes from an external party, it is not morality at all.

            Morality is based on personal decisions and considerations. We weigh our options based on personal needs, notions of the consequences of our actions and empathy towards others whom our actions are taken towards. It is a balance of internal and external constraints.

            Simply assigning the decision-making process to an outside party is forgoing the responsibility of making moral decisions. It is amoral conduct calling itself morality.

          • pennyroyal

            read your Gospel of Thomas where Jesus himself initiates a youth into the mysteries in private.

    • Loqi

      Who is a ‘good’ person according to you?

      Oh man, do we have Bananaman in the house again? Time to have some fun!

      I’m a good person.

      • DavidMHart

        Bananaman? I’m afraid I don’t get the reference. I’m used to it either meaning Ray Comfort, who thinks that bananas are evidence for creationism (but doesn’t seem to think that pomegranates are evidence against it), or this relatively obscure British cartoon character from the 80s, but I don’t get how either of them relate to what Vikram said.

        • Loqi

          Yes, I meant Ray Comfort. The part I quoted is an opening line for his canned “convert an atheist” schtick. I’ve found the most fun way to deal with people who use it is to call the shot early, either by calling them on it and/or explicitly answering their next question, essentially allowing you to hold the conversation by yourself. They either slink away from the conversation or subbornly persist, which allows you total control over the debate.

          • DavidMHart

            Oh, I see. Cheers for clearing that up.

            Though as an aside, I would say that Comfort is ripe for some parodying using the 80s cartoon character if anyone is good at cartoonifying.

          • Vikram

            So its about taking control of the debate. Not really debating the issue then. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.

          • Loqi

            First, those two things are not mutually exclusive. One can have total control over a debate and still address the issues. Second, no. It’s about giving a warning shot. You’re using a prepared script, and your opponent has the script. It’s like playing football against a team who knows exactly what plays you are going to run. Since your plays are scripted and known by the other team, it’s your opponent who controls how the game will play out.

            I’m being generous in giving you the chance to not play the game.

          • Vikram

            I appreciate your generoisty, however you have done nothing to refute the points I have presented.

          • Loqi

            I’ve yet to see you present a point that’s relevant to what’s being discussed. I see lots of statements responding to what you wish we had said, but nothing related to what we’re actually saying. Your script is still showing. We’ve heard the moral arguments before. Though it is amusing watching you debate the imaginary person who lobs the softballs and who sets up your next statement perfectly. Keep up the good work. He doesn’t stand a chance.

    • EdmondWA

      Perhaps a “good person” is something like art, befitting the old saying “I’ll know it when I see it”. It definitely would NOT be a man who takes sexual liberties with the children in his care.

      • Vikram

        I agree. What do you ground your morality on?

        • John Alexander Harman

          My aversion to suffering, not only for myself but for others; the empathy that allows me to recognize suffering in others; and the rationality that allows me to predict what courses of action will lead to more or less suffering, and avoid the former.

          • Vikram

            Thanks John.
            1. So you are basing your morality in yourself? i.e. you as an individual decides what is right an wrong? I would appreciate if you can clarify. If you base your morality in yourself (and everyone is also supposed to do the same), then by such a definition, people such as Hitler and Stalin did the right thing (at least as far their belief is concerned).
            2. What would you say to those who died to defend the country you live in? That they were bad people?

          • baal

            I’m getting tired of this script. Do you think you’re the first theist to pull out this line of ‘objective morality’ noise? Fully explained ‘atheistic’ (or humanistic) morality has been discussed at length and is freely available on the web.

            You’re dishonest to ignore that and pretend that you get to start the discussion over.

          • Vikram

            Hi Baal…even the response to the atheistic morality is well documented. If you get off the popular sites and get into the scholarly sites, you will know what I am talking about. Also note, my attack is not on you as a person (which is what you seem to be doing to me in your responses) but what you believe to be true. If attacking me or being ad hominem is your best response, then thats pretty weak.

          • baal

            If you are dishonest, then we shouldn’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and we should discount your arguments. It’s not an ad hom. (you beat your wife so you’re wrong is an ad hom)

            I’ve watched WLC and other scholars and sophisticates and they too wind up in my mind in the dishonest category. You, and they, do not fairly represent the views of those who are arguing with you. Instead, you reform your opponent statements into something they didn’t say and refute that. It’s like the ‘name game’ song from the 60′s. In that song, the singer can rhyme anything by changing the ending…well of course.

          • Vikram

            Hi Baal….I am aware of the Atheistic/Humanist arguments and dont think they hold ground. None of my posts so far on this site have been adequately responsed to. Calling someone dishonest just on the basis of posts here is assuming too much on too little.If there are 3 people in the Atheist community (scholarly) that you can refer me to, who you think best represent the Atheistic worldview then we can discuss those. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this rather than throw mud and run away.

          • baal

            I’d rather avoid enhancing the derail and giving you additional opportunities to drive the discussion away from the bad acts of the priest in the OP.

            Each of your posts so far have baked in assumptions that are not true.

          • Loqi

            You’re doing it again. Your first sentence betrays a either a complete misunderstanding of atheism or deliberate dishonesty. Care to elucidate on what these “atheist arguments” are that don’t hold ground? What do atheists argue for?

            Edit: thread is getting too long for my phone to handle. Will have to bounce until I get home.

          • Vikram

            Sure. The argument is that morality is grounded in humanity/self or humanist values. If this is not the case, then I would love to hear from you and baal what it is grounded in.

          • Spuddie

            There is no such thing as theistic morality. If one is assigning moral decisions to a deity and alleged rules laid down by one, they are avoiding making the personal considerations required of morality. Harmful, spiteful and dishonest behavior is frequently excused as a necessary part of the dictates of such rules. In essence it is not morality at all, just obedience to a set of rules for its own sake. At best its sociopathy on a leash.

            “I do it because the Bible tells me so” is a far cry from saying, “its the right thing to do”.

          • indorri

            Athena preserve, if I couldn’t find a decent debater who confused referents with references.

          • John Alexander Harman

            If you can translate what I said into the kind of moral relativism that wouldn’t judge Hitler and Stalin’s actions to be wrong, than you’re probably too willfully ignorant to be worth talking to, but I’ll give it one more try. The basis of my morality is that I don’t like suffering. That means I don’t like to suffer myself, and I don’t like other people to suffer, either. The latter is true because I have a mental characteristic called empathy, which allows me to vicariously experience what I observe other people experiencing, though at a lesser intensity than my own first-hand experiences. Actually, “causes” might be a better word than “allows,” since I can’t really choose not to feel some degree of empathy when I perceive other people suffering.

            Aversion to one’s own suffering is a universal human trait, and the capacity for empathy is nearly universal; we have terms for people who don’t have it, such as “sociopath” or “malignant narcissist,” and we rightly fear and distrust them for their total indifference to the suffering of others, even when it’s at close proximity and caused by their own actions.

            Unfortunately, humans tend to restrict our empathic feelings to those we recognize as similar to ourselves, and ignore or suppress them towards those viewed as “other.” At its best, moral philosophy, whether religious or secular, works to expand our “moral circle” to include all our fellow human beings; at its worst, it defines the in-group worthy of moral consideration and declares inflicting suffering on those outside that group to be virtuous.

            As to those who have died defending this country, your suggestion that I would consider them “bad people” is an even more bizarre non sequitur than your intimation of absolute moral relativism. I would say that those who died to defend this country or its allies* from genuine threats were acting nobly to prevent suffering for others. Of those who died in Vietnam and Iraq, “defending” the U.S. from “threats” that did not actually present any real danger of harming us, I would cite Kipling’s “Epitaphs of War”: “If any question why we died, say, ‘because our fathers lied.’”

            * The soldiers who died in Korea were not defending the U.S. from any actual danger, but because of their sacrifice only the northern half of that peninsula is subject to the megalomania and capricious cruelty of the Kim dynasty, which has caused enormous suffering among those who do live under the Kims’ yoke.

          • Spuddie

            Well it is certainly more grounded in reality and how people live than assigning all decision making responsibility to an arbitrary, contradictory and capricious set of rules laid down by bronze age sheep herders. All moral decisions are based on considerations made at a personal level.

            When one says their morality is based on the Bible, what they are saying is they are avoiding all personal moral considerations and choosing to act out of self-interest or simply to follow rules for their own sake. Its not morality at all.

        • EdmondWA

          Without re-reading everyone else’s replies to you, I “ground” my morality on how I’d like to see society develop. Morality is really just “rules”, like the rules of a game. Such rules are guided by what the players want the outcome to be. Our shared “rules” are geared toward providing us all with a productive, cooperative and peaceful society as an outcome (maybe you have something different in mind for an outcome, many people do). We then establish the morality needed to make that happen. Don’t kill each other. Don’t take each other’s property. Don’t go 90 in a 35 zone. Obey they law, basically. The laws which we’ve all agreed to AS a society.
          .
          This is the only way we CAN come up with morals. We can’t rely on them to be handed down to us from on high. For one thing, we have to rely on the people (human beings) who are doing the handing down. Are they honest? Are they deluded? Do they have their own agenda? Are they mistaken about what’s handed down to THEM? If we decide that they ARE honest and reliable people to listen to, then the only “moral” that you are following is obedience. You should be able to question WHY each moral IS a moral, and come up with a good answer on your own, without guidance from an outside source.
          .
          For example, as a gay atheist, I wonder about the “morality” of commanding that such people are abominations, and that they deserve eternal torment (I also question that as a moral punishment for ANY crime). I am not “rebelling” or “hating” God by holding these positions. I am gay because that is my nature. I am an atheist because supernatural stories are not convincing to me. Is there something “moral” in proclaiming that I’m a bad person, deserving of torture, just for being this way?
          .
          In any case, biblical morals fail before being examined too deeply. Take child marriage. How young is too young? The Bible doesn’t say. No “morality” is established there. In fact, the Bible has several cases of God COMMANDING his people to take the virgin daughters of their slain neighbors as property. We have to decide this ourselves.
          I don’t see how anyone can claim that the Bible is a good source of morality, without using THEIR OWN SENSE OF MORALITY to judge it as moral. Some people come to diffferent conclusions about the morality of scriptures and religions. Is this because God gave some people the right answer, and some people the wrong answer? THAT wouldn’t be very moral. No, I think it’s because we all have our own senses of right and wrong, justice and morality, and they will all vary some. We all reach different conclusions, based on what’s important to us. Based on what outcome we want the rules to produce.
          .
          I can’t judge a book as “moral” when it says “Thou shalt not kill” but does NOT say “Thout shalt not harm”. I can’t do it for a book that gives extensive instructions for the hideous treatment of slaves, nor which advises women to be subservient to men. My own common sense holds me back from supporting a book with talking animals. How could THAT ever provide a “grounding” for morality?

    • Heather_Habilatory

      Well, someone who doesn’t rape children is a good person. Also, someone who doesn’t defend child rape…

      • John Alexander Harman

        Someone who doesn’t rape children or defend child rape may be a good person, while someone who does do those things cannot be. However, there are many other ways to fail at being a good person than those two.

        • Heather_Habilatory

          I wasn’t too clear in my first post, I’m sorry. It was late. ugh

          I MEANT to say “Someone who doesn’t .. has a way better chance of being a good person.”

      • Vikram

        And what do you base your definition of ‘good person’ on?

        • Heather_Habilatory

          Like I said. not defending rapists and not being a rapist is a good place to start.

          • Vikram

            Thanks Heather. Those would be examples of what a ‘good person’ does and not who a ‘good person’ IS.

          • John Alexander Harman

            “You are what you do; choose again, and change.” —-Lois McMaster Bujold

            “Love is behavior.” —-Andrew Vachss

            “A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act; there is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy.” —-Spider Robinson

            What a person does defines who that person is. Humans are social beings; our relationships with one another are what make our lives meaningful, and only our actions matter to others. Our thoughts and feelings are important only insofar as they shape our actions, and the intent behind an action is important only insofar as it can be used to predict future actions.

          • pennyroyal

            “Just be good for goodness’ sake” Atheist slogan on busses during holiday season in England and USA

          • Vikram

            Nice to ‘feel’ you are doing good, however what ‘good’ is, is different for different folks. Whatever ‘goodness sake’ is, is ultimately defined by the individual. Such a humanist morality does not work and has already been shown to fail in the 20th century. If being ‘good’ comes naturally to us, then we wouldnt need to teach it. However, we do.
            I have seen all the responses in this email chain and none of them have been able to provide a foundation for grounding their morality, this when I havent once mentioned my position. Instead of providing responses, I have seen lot of name calling, ad hominem attacks and lot of anger. If this is the best that Atheism can do, then I would challenge the readers to reconsider their foundation.

          • John Alexander Harman

            Humanist morality was not “shown to fail in the 20th century.” Conservative Christians like to pretend that humanist morality had something to do with the Nazi and Soviet regimes, but in fact the moral beliefs that motivated those regimes’ atrocities bore no resemblance whatsoever to humanism. Both were based on dehumanizing anyone outside their adherent’s favored in-groups (the “Aryan Race,” and the “Proletariat,” respectively), which were defined in self-serving fashion by their leaders, and both appealed to mythical authorities: God in the Nazis’ case, “the dialectic” in the Soviets’. The Soviets cloaked their mythical authority in enough bafflegab to fool most people into thinking they actually were atheists and materialists, but their ideology was ultimately based on faith in an entity for which no evidence exists — it just wasn’t a personal deity in their case.

            Being empathetic toward those we recognize as part of our in-group (whether that be a family, tribe, class, church, nationality, or other type of affiliation) comes naturally to the great majority of us. Expanding our in-groups to include everyone is the hard part that people have to be taught.

            The foundation that grounds my morality, as I said twice before (you twisted the first beyond recognition in your response, then failed to respond at all to the second), is the proposition that suffering is bad. Because nobody likes to suffer, and most people can recognize and empathize with the suffering in others, that proposition makes a solid foundation for a universal (or at least species-wide) morality. Those humans who cannot possibly be taught to follow such an anti-suffering morality are probably not amenable to being taught any other morality, either, and can only be kept from doing harm by either the fear of punishment or the actuality of being locked up and thus rendered unable to harm others.

          • pennyroyal

            morality is not grounded in theism. It predates by millennia the Catholic Church. The ancient Greek philosophers, and in the East, Confucius. Morality is a foundational human enterprise, not a ‘gift’ from a God.

        • Gehennah

          Doing as little harm to others as possible.

          • Vikram

            Thanks. If you mean ‘physical harm’, then what would be your response to those who defend their country and in the process of doing that, inflict harm on others. Are they ‘bad’ people for defending their country? If you mean some other sort of harm then how can we label that as bad, without knowing what the intention behind that was? Thanks Gehennah.

    • Baby_Raptor

      …Not a Fucking child rapist?

    • Jasper

      Being virus-free also doesn’t tell anything about how to be healthy… outside of being virus-free.

  • busterggi

    Another poor innocent priest being seduced by a worldly wise 15 year old boy.

    • islandbrewer

      Who will think of the poor poor priests!

  • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

    The only time I’m actually surprised when I hear about a priest molesting a child, is when the child turns out to be female.

    • John Alexander Harman

      Don’t be; there appear to be more male than female victims of sexual abuse by priests, but that doesn’t mean the latter are rare.

  • Pofarmer

    But, but, but, this all happened years ago.

  • # zbowman

    Working on his homily, huh?

  • pennyroyal

    I think he should be strung up by his offending part.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X