Ex-Louisiana deacon whose son was sexually abused by a priest is excommunicated from church

[Tommy Tainant]

Ex-Louisiana deacon whose son was sexually abused by a priest is excommunicated from church

Bishop J Douglas Deshotel issued the order after Scott Peyton had resigned from his post, but the abusive priest was not censured

www.theguardian.com

Dear me. Nothing actually happened to the perv priest. In fact the diocese threw a farewell dinner for him before he left for jail.

Yet they throw out Godly men who have the nerve to complain when a priest fucks their son.

I know that my fellow USMB posters share my concerns for child welfare. Do you agree with me that this organisation should be shut down in the public interest ?

 

[Polishprince]

Apparently the fellow was excomm'ed for quitting his job as deacon- not because of his lawsuits or his complaints about priests schlonging the altar boys.


The RCC needs guys like Mr. Peyton who don't have qualms about snitching out priestly homos who are violating other men's buttholes, and his resignation wasn't good.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Apparently the fellow was excomm'ed for quitting his job as deacon- not because of his lawsuits or his complaints about priests schlonging the altar boys.


The RCC needs guys like Mr. Peyton who don't have qualms about snitching out priestly homos who are violating other men's buttholes, and his resignation wasn't good.

He was dumped because he won a settlement against the paedo diocese.

 

[DGS49]

I have to commend the Guardian for once because all of the relevant information was provided; you just have to read closely.

So the priest in question indeed molested the kid, an altar boy. He was convicted and went to prison for seven years. The family elected not to seek civil damages during the time when such a suit was possible.

To be vulgar for a moment and speak of money, the abuser was and remains impecunious, so he is what lawyers refer to as "judgment proof." He, the abuser, was totally to blame for the atrocity that was visited on the kid. Nobody else.

But the State Legislature, in a bid to buy votes, created a law that removed the time limit for abuse cases, thus making it possible for victims and their families to PROFIT FROM the long-ago abuse. Not only are they able to profit from the abuse, but the profits come, not from the person or persons responsible, but in this case from the Faithful Catholics who had nothing to do with it, and who were undoubtedly as appalled as the victim's families were. This happy result comes out of the evil legal principle of "vicarious liability," by which victims can forego suing the actual perpetrators and find someone with the money to pay a judgment, regardless of whether they were actually culpable. Nice, eh?

It appears that the ex-Deacon/father was excommunicated for availing himself of that perverse law to profit from his son's victimization, at the expense of "The Church" (that is, the butts in the pews).

I feel certain that there is more to it that didn't make "the papers," but one can gain sufficient information from this report. I'm a little surprised at the public excommunication, but I can't blame the Bishop at all. It is as if the dad stole the money from the Poor Box at church, eh? Money is fungible.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have to commend the Guardian for once because all of the relevant information was provided; you just have to read closely.

So the priest in question indeed molested the kid, an altar boy. He was convicted and went to prison for seven years. The family elected not to seek civil damages during the time when such a suit was possible.

To be vulgar for a moment and speak of money, the abuser was and remains impecunious, so he is what lawyers refer to as "judgment proof." He, the abuser, was totally to blame for the atrocity that was visited on the kid. Nobody else.

But the State Legislature, in a bid to buy votes, created a law that removed the time limit for abuse cases, thus making it possible for victims and their families to PROFIT FROM the long-ago abuse. Not only are they able to profit from the abuse, but the profits come, not from the person or persons responsible, but in this case from the Faithful Catholics who had nothing to do with it, and who were undoubtedly as appalled as the victim's families were. This happy result comes out of the evil legal principle of "vicarious liability," by which victims can forego suing the actual perpetrators and find someone with the money to pay a judgment, regardless of whether they were actually culpable. Nice, eh?

It appears that the ex-Deacon/father was excommunicated for availing himself of that perverse law to profit from his son's victimization, at the expense of "The Church" (that is, the butts in the pews).

I feel certain that there is more to it that didn't make "the papers," but one can gain sufficient information from this report. I'm a little surprised at the public excommunication, but I can't blame the Bishop at all. It is as if the dad stole the money from the Poor Box at church, eh? Money is fungible.

You use the word profit when you mean compensated.
It is totally correct that this sleazy organisation should pay.
Maybe they should exercise better judgement and better safeguarding.
Your post is pretty despicable. The groomers friend.

 

[Missourian]

You use the word profit when you mean compensated.
It is totally correct that this sleazy organisation should pay.
Maybe they should exercise better judgement and better safeguarding.
Your post is pretty despicable. The groomers friend.

This is the "sue the gun manufacturer" style lawfare.

The abuser is the guilty party...not the church.

Sue the abuser... I'm all for it.

Also, seven years in prison wasn't long enough in my opinion.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This is the "sue the gun manufacturer" style lawfare.

The abuser is the guilty party...not the church.

Sue the abuser... I'm all for it.

Also, seven years in prison wasn't long enough in my opinion.

Why dont you want to protect the kids ? Why is that a problem for you ?

 

[Missourian]

Why dont you want to protect the kids ? Why is that a problem for you ?

Sorry my man, that tired dog won't hunt.

I want to protect kids from homosexual child abusers...not the Church.

You tell me what safeguards the Church can implement and I'll evaluate those...but suing the church that 100% views these actions as evil for the actions of an individual is ridiculous.

So...what safeguards do you believe the church should implement?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Sorry my man, that tired dog won't hunt.

I want to protect kids from homosexual child abusers...not the Church.

You tell me what safeguards the Church can implement and I'll evaluate those...but suing the church that 100% views these actions as evil for the actions of an individual is ridiculous.

So...what safeguards do you believe the church should implement?

I think that if you read the article several things leap out at you regarding the conduct of the church.

For example throwing a dinner for a convicted priest. Not taking action against the priest. Creating an environment for a perv to thrive.

This isnt the first issue that the diocese has had. Perhaps they should not make it easier for pervs to get at kids ? Perhaps they should punish the pervs who have been caught and convicted ?

Maybe if they did that, less perv priests would be attracted to an organisation that gives them comfort ?

None of that seems unreasonable. Safeguarding kids does not seem to be a responsibility that they take much interest in. I suggest that given recent history they should do so.

Perhaps you could explain why you do not believe that ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You have an uncanny ability to turn USMB into Pornhub. But, at least, Pornhub isn't into kiddie porn like you are.

Im not a catholic priest. Why do you deflect for them ? Why are paedo priests exempt from your criticism ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why your obsession with kiddie porn? 75% of your posts are about kiddie porn. Is that all you have on your mind?

Why cant you answer my question ?

 

[Independentthinker]

Why cant you answer my question ?

Apparently you can't answer mine.

 

[rampart]

Ex-Louisiana deacon whose son was sexually abused by a priest is excommunicated from church

Bishop J Douglas Deshotel issued the order after Scott Peyton had resigned from his post, but the abusive priest was not censured

www.theguardian.com

Dear me. Nothing actually happened to the perv priest. In fact the diocese threw a farewell dinner for him before he left for jail.

Yet they throw out Godly men who have the nerve to complain when a priest fucks their son.

I know that my fellow USMB posters share my concerns for child welfare. Do you agree with me that this organisation should be shut down in the public interest ?

i think francis needs to do a severe housecleaning with real penance assigned.

 

[Missourian]

For example throwing a dinner for a convicted priest. Not taking action against the priest. Creating an environment for a perv to thrive.

One of the tenets of Christianity is forgiveness.

Not taking action. It sounds from the article that the abuser confessed absent any accusation. Do you believe the Church had no part it that?

He was also removed and convicted of sexual assault of a minor.

"Creating an environment for a perv to thrive"? How specifically is the Church doing that?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

One of the tenets of Christianity is forgiveness.

Not taking action. It sounds from the article that the abuser confessed absent any accusation. Do you believe the Church had no part it that?

He was also removed and convicted of sexual assault of a minor.

"Creating an environment for a perv to thrive"? How specifically is the Church doing that?

Farewell dinner.?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Ex-Louisiana deacon whose son was sexually abused by a priest is excommunicated from church

Bishop J Douglas Deshotel issued the order after Scott Peyton had resigned from his post, but the abusive priest was not censured

www.theguardian.com

Dear me. Nothing actually happened to the perv priest. In fact the diocese threw a farewell dinner for him before he left for jail.

Yet they throw out Godly men who have the nerve to complain when a priest fucks their son.

I know that my fellow USMB posters share my concerns for child welfare. Do you agree with me that this organisation should be shut down in the public interest ?

To me, there should be a price for anyone who is guilty of such horror no matter who they are.

God bless you and the victim always!!!

Holly

 

[Missourian]

Farewell dinner.?

Yes. Like I said, forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity.

Jesus forgave the very people who were torturing him to death on the cross.

Luke 23:34

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Then Jesus forgives the criminal being crucified next to him.

Jesus' Words to the Thief on the Cross Teach Us True Forgiveness.

Also...Jesus preached to visit and minister to prisoners in Matthew 25:34...


34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

​

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - New International Version

More on that from the BBC...

How Christians respond to crime - Matters of life and death: Crime, punishment and justice - CCEA - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - CCEA - BBC Bitesize

Revision notes for CCEA GCSE Religious Studies - Matters of life and death, crime, punishment and justice

www.bbc.co.uk

How can you condemn them for practicing that which they preach...to be Christ-like.

 

[DGS49]

Neither the victim nor his family suffered any financial loss. When something costs you nothing but you get paid, that is a profit.

And why, exactly, should the parishioners pay this judgment? What, exactly, did they do wrong? Most rational people acknowledge that when a pedophile joins a religious community he takes great pains to conceal his intentions and his acts, in the event.

What sort of fucked-up logic and pathetic vindictiveness leads you TT to the conclusion that the Faithful should pay this judgment?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes. Like I said, forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity.

Jesus forgave the very people who were torturing him to death on the cross.

Luke 23:34

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Then Jesus forgives the criminal being crucified next to him.

Jesus' Words to the Thief on the Cross Teach Us True Forgiveness.

Also...Jesus preached to visit and minister to prisoners in Matthew 25:34...


34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

​

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - New International Version

More on that from the BBC...

How Christians respond to crime - Matters of life and death: Crime, punishment and justice - CCEA - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - CCEA - BBC Bitesize

Revision notes for CCEA GCSE Religious Studies - Matters of life and death, crime, punishment and justice

www.bbc.co.uk

How can you condemn them for practicing that which they preach...to be Christ-like.

Why not just deciminalise child abuse ? Is that your aim ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Neither the victim nor his family suffered any financial loss. When something costs you nothing but you get paid, that is a profit.

And why, exactly, should the parishioners pay this judgment? What, exactly, did they do wrong? Most rational people acknowledge that when a pedophile joins a religious community he takes great pains to conceal his intentions and his acts, in the event.

What sort of fucked-up logic and pathetic vindictiveness leads you TT to the conclusion that the Faithful should pay this judgment?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think that is just about the most disgusting thing you have ever said. And the bar is high on that.
Everything does not have a monetary value. And i am sure that child would prefer his childhood back than a few dollars given unwillingly. You are a typical conservative Foul and hypocritical.