Priest who is not the Pope's direct advisor nontheless raped lots of boys

Investigators say that in tapped mobile-​phone conversations, Seppia asked a Moroccan drug dealer to arrange sexual encounters with young and vulnerable boys. “I do not want 16-​year-​old boys but younger. Fourteen-​year-​olds are O.K. Look for needy boys who have family issues".

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/top-advisor-to-pope-on-pedophile-priests-arrested-in-pedophilia-sex-ring/news/2011/05/26/20865

Subject line changed to reflect changed headline at link (see post #20 for change log. See URL itself (just above this line) that contains the original headline from The New Civil Rights Movement).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-​year-​old parish priest in the village of Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, was arrested last Friday, May 13, on pedophilia and drug charges.


Genoa Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who is the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, had been working with Benedict to establish a tough new worldwide policy, released this week, on how bishops should handle accusations of priestly sex abuse.”



Just a parish priest under the authority of the Genoa archbishop.

Why the need for the lying headline?

"Top Advisor To Pope On Pedophile Priests Arrested In Pedophilia Sex Ring"

...which I assume is one of the source articles, the first paragraph more clearly states the situation..

Then please tell me what you think an adivsor is... thanks in advance.

The headline at the link:
Priest In Archdiocese Of Advisor To Pope On Pedophile Priests Arrested In Pedophilia Sex Ring


The advisor is not the pedophile.

has been altered for whatever reason.

I guess cut and paste of the actual title means nothing to some... Jesus God... we're sick.

The headline does seem incorrect, but I did take my post title from the headline. Still, the Catholic church is still staffed at the top of the organization and all the way down to the bottom with a bunch of child rapists, despite any protestations from those who wish it wasn't true.

If he's on a panel working for the Pope on this very issue?

I guess I don't split hairs quite as fine as others.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a parish priest was arrest.

not his archbishop, who is the actual "advisor to the pope".

do you read?

a parish priest is at the lowest level of the catholic hierarchy. he oversees a parish.

parishes are organized into dioceses overseen by bishops, which are in turn organized into a metropolitan/archdiocese overseen by an archbishop.


in this story a parish priest was arrested.

his archbishop is the "advisor to the pope".

He was one of many on a panel of advisors... I'm not sure what the deal is here, but this is kind of scary...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or to the panel.

This doesn't excuse his behavior. He's still slime, if the allegations are true.

cannot or did not READ the article.

Is it me, or the original headline writer? I'd really like to know. This isn't LBN, so I changed the subject line to something of my choosing, but my subject line was most certainly entirely based on the headline at the link.

Who are you calling a liar, and why?

I asked you to have the courage to back up what you were saying, and to specify whether you were calling me or the original headline writer a liar. Your words have no merit if you're not willing to back them up.

sorry if you can't understand it.

You sound tough on the first go-round. The complete crumbling and lack of conviction was surprising.

you posted a headline which misrepresented the facts clearly stated in the story. a lying headline.

sorry you are offended by my pointing that out.

New title:

"Priest In Archdiocese Of Advisor To Pope On Pedophile Priests Arrested In Pedophilia Sex Ring"


at bottom:

though it has no connection to the story whatsoever.

every priest is under the jurisdiction of some "advisor to the pope".

that doesn't mean that the "advisor to the pope" is on board with priests raping people.

They have since changed it. It's still about yet another rapist priest who has been protected by the church.

Thanks for noting it. I'll go ahead and edit, since the link edited, but I'll let this post track the change:

My original subject line was:
The Pope's advisor on pedophelia turns out to be a pedophile

This was based on the article linked in the OP; the article's title was:
Top Advisor to Pope on Pedophile Priests Arrested in Pedophelia Sex Ring

Now, the article at the link has been changed to:
Priest in Archdiocese of Advisor to the Pope on Pedophile Priests Arrested in Pedophelia Sex Ring.

Because this was changed at the link, I'll change my OP, but not because some hothead is calling me a liar.

But you knew that.

I hope you're at least half as cute as you think you are. Never works out that way, though.

of making an "inartful, indirect accusation" by using the word "lying headline" when the OP's title contained an outright falsehood.

See link. Or not. Don't care - it's fun to watch tag teams.

2) pnwmom & i regularly cross swords.

Oh. My.

And that you're so threatened by the idea of people disagreeing with you that you apparently see tag teams everywhere.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072613,00.html?xid=rss-world

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

The latest sex-abuse case to rock the Catholic Church is unfolding in the archdiocese of an influential Italian Cardinal...


Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-year-old parish priest in the village of Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, was arrested

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072613,00.html#ixzz1NUVDgYcE

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2072613,00.html#ixzz1NUV5gKMM

I hope your insults give you pleasure.

I wondered who that was...

you keep insisting an advisor to the pope was arrested.

sadly, reality says otherwise.

When we're discussing serious accusations like this, we should at least correctly identify the accused.

And the Archbishop isn't accused of anything. He's the head of a large archdiocese, and one of the priests in one of the churches in that archdiocese has been accused of these crimes.

...but not surprising.

:puke:

Would that you could unrec so many times the thread just disappeared, but that's not the way it works.

If you have your own demons to exorcise, that's your business, not mine, and not my concern. I suppose your histrionics have served to move the subject away from its root, but reality still won't budge an inch. This is just the latest in a series of hundreds of Catholic priests who have raped little boys because that's what they do.

you posted a headline which completely misrepresented the facts.

sorry you are so offended to have that noted.

(Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) who appears to have used his position to molest vulnerable victims.

Your grouping is valid, if you want to talk about religious leaders of all stripes being guilty of pedophilia. But of course, the Catholic church has stood out in this regard. They're also the only one of the religions you mentioned with a strong, centralized organization that has spent many millions of dollars to hide and otherwise attempt to lessen what they've systematically done as a group. The top leadership of the church is indistinguishable from a rape cult. They own that charge, and it around their necks, nowhere to hide.

let's sum up the personal attacks so far:

1) red-baiting
2) apologist for rich pedophiles
3) person with psychological issues


how much abuse one gets for pointing out a lying headline. it's really amazing.

You're no red. You're not even pink. You're New Labour.

priest, though the headline claimed the opposite, = "handwaving to protect a rapist".

what a bunch of crap.

lets see, aren't you the one who just called me "comrade"? now you're saying i'm not a comrade?
this is a new category of personal insult, let me think on it.

... I was using it ironically (that is, a word used to convey the opposite of its literal meaning) because as I said, you're New Labour.

And yes. You're doing a LOT of handwaving over this rapist and the organization that protected him for so long. It's very very rich organization, and very powerful. Some people find that ... irresisitable. New Labour types, for example.

completely misrepresented the facts. no "advisor to the pope" was arrested. a parish priest was arrested. the "advisor to the pope" was the priest's archbishop, about 2 steps up the hierarchy.

the rest of my remarks have consisted of fending off personal attacks by you & others.

spin things as you will, them are the facts.

sorry you're so offended by them.

about identifying the correct guy. If one man's guilty, all men are guilty, right?

All men are basically rapists, and all priests are men, so all priests are rapists. Why do we even bother trying to identify the guilty ones? Off with all their . . . never mind.

:sarcasm:

that you correctly name the person you're accusing.

It seems very odd that any progressive wouldn't understand this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1179812&mesg_id=1180645

i don't care *how* you claim youi were using it.

the man accused of very serious crimes.

The person accused wasn't the Archbishop. He was one of hundreds of priests among many churches in the archdiocese.

It is no more fair to accuse all priests of being guilty of this crime than it is to accuse all men of being guilty of this crime.

:rofl:

Not every priest is poor - just like there are some who aren't rapists.

One person whispers something in his neighbor's ear and that person passes it on. By the time you get to the last person, the message is pretty much lost.

this thread is about something else.

or at least that's what it was intended to be before it was completely sidetracked with noise and idiocy.

it's funny how the outraged love to use explicit language to describe sex crime.

Have you looked at the thread? Yes, I've been outraged by the Catholic church for a long time for their systematic and widespread rape of children. How anyone else could feel differently utterly escapes me. However, I'm not particularly re-enraged by this specific story, as it is not at all surprising. I think it's fair to conclude you've displayed vein-popping rage from your first post in this thread. Again, don't know where you're coming from or why you're so upset, but no, I won't edit my words because they make you feel squeamish. Anal rape is what happened, and you'll not be able to excuse it, nor will you be successful in making everyone shut up about it. Catholic priests rape boys. The Catholic church leadership comprises a pedophile rape cult, and this is hideous. I don't really think I should be quiet about something so serious just because you want me to, and nothing you've said compels me to find a nicer way to talk about child rape by priests.

"I think it's fair to conclude you've displayed vein-popping rage from your first post in this thread."

lol. you are so deluded. i have been laughing all the way through this thread. lol.

children if not work with them? Derailing a thread about pedophiles is poor form. Your posts are noise. He was in error to mislead with original post which has been changed, but now you are the runaway train here.

A fucking priest molested more kids and potentially gave them HIV. Can we now discuss that?

would have been it.

instead, denial, half-assed "correction" and an army of character assassins. people attack me, i correct them. they attack again, i correct again.

the problem is with people who can't admit they're wrong and can't admit their own biases lead them to accept anything that confirms them without bothering to even *read* it, apparently.

don't bother to tell me off again, i can just reread the other posters' threads if i want to be told off.