Wednesday, June 04, 2014

When Is A Priest Not A Priest? When He's Raping Young Boys

Leave it to the Catholic Church to try and rationalize child molestations as not being their problem because the priests who are raping children are, ahem, “off duty” when it happens.

Oh. Yes they did.

Chris Naples
Chris Naples was raped by the Reverend Terence McAlinden back in the 12980s and now, thirty years later, as McAlinden is on trial for being a pedophile, Naples has to sit in court and listen to the lawyer for the Diocese of Trenton explain that McAlinden was not "on duty" — or serving in his capacity as a priest — when he allegedly molested Naples.

And when one of the justices hearing the case asked a simple question — “How do we determine when a priest is and is not on duty?” — the diocese lawyer replied:
“Well, you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example. ... A priest abusing a child is absolutely contrary to the pursuit of his master’s business, to the work of a diocese.”
There you have it, folks, the excuse to end all excuses. Any time a priest rapes a child he is “off duty” because it is not within the realm of holiness to be a pedophile.

Chris Naples is once again being f**ked by the Catholic Church.
"Any hope I had that the church was concerned about me as a victim or about the conduct of its priests was totally gone. They were washing their hands of it. I was shattered. I just couldn’t believe that was one of their arguments."
This latest lawsuit comes after the Delaware courts ruled Chris Naples didn’t have jurisdiction to sue the diocese in that state because he couldn’t prove the trips were church-sanctioned; Naples did, however, win a $3 million judgment against McAlinden individually, though he doubts he’ll ever see a dime of that.

Terence McAlinden
But here’s the part even the church can’t explain away through some idiotic “off duty” defense: Chris Naples says the diocese knew that McAlinden was raping children and did nothing about it, and even paid off some of his victims quietly.

So, um, please to explain, Catholic Church, why you would pay the victims of child molestation when their rapists weren’t technically working at the time? Wouldn’t that mean you have no stake in the case? Because paying off victims sure does make you seem like you’re guilty of aiding and abetting child rapists.

Naples first came forward to the diocese in 2007, alleging McAlinden sexually abused him for more than ten years, and after the diocese investigated the claims, even they found them to be credible. So, they suspended McAlinden from ministry, ending his career as a priest, though, at the time of his deposition, five years after Naples made his claims, McAlinden said he was still a priest, albeit a retired one, and was even receiving a pension from the diocese.

Now, two other men have come forward with similar claims. Both men, Patrick Newcombe and Bob Markulic, say they received undisclosed, monetary settlements from the diocese n exchange for keeping quiet.

So, once again, explain how, if the priest is “off duty” when he’s raping boys the Catholic Church not only felt the need to suspend McAlinden, but also felt the need to pay off two victims of molestation as long as they kept their mouths shut.

McAlinden, disgusting pig that he is, will only say that, yes, he did have a sexual relationship with Chris Naples, but it began after Naples turned eighteen. He did, however, also admit to sleeping nude, and bathe nude, with "a number of" teen boys who were active in the diocese’s youth group, but he denies having sexual contact with any of those boys.

How low is the Catholic Church sinking that it seems to downplay child molestation by claiming they aren’t at fault because the priest was “off duty.” I mean, if he wasn’t acting as a priest, if he wasn’t taking these boys out on church-sponsored or –sanctioned trips, then he was just a Regular Joe citizen who was raping boys. So why not turn that guy in to the police? Why pay settlements? Why hide priests? Why allow a priest whom the church has found to be a pedophile a pension?

It’s simple; the church is out for the church and not for any of its members.


Raybeard said...

So effective has been the Church's brainwashing that, in spite of stories like this (which would be risible if it wasn't so tragic), we STILL get millions on millions of 'the faithful' who are ready to defend the Church against criticism on this subject. Makes one want to hang one's head in shame and despair at humanity!

Anonymous said...

Once ordained, the person is always a priest until death. As a gay priest, I am shocked and sickened that the diocese's lawyer would try that "on/off duty" as a valid argument...what a travesty of justice for the victim.

anne marie in philly said...

this is such bullshit!

the dogs' mother said...

I thought the rational behind not letting priests get married as they would not be able to serve the church 100% all the time. There would be no wife or children to divide their time with. So there is no *off duty*.

viktor kerney said...


Helen Lashbrook said...

I didn't think priests could be off duty; after all being a priest is a vocation and you can be called upon night and day