famous survivors, victims

famous survivors, victims
Doesn't sound selfish at all to me. Sounds more like this is your way to recover. Everyone's way is somewhat unique to each of us.

MR
 
Would this site's members start sending PMs and posts to that celebrity for whatever fan-based reason?
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't what I meant.

I meant having someone work with the organization from the development side totally separate from the discussion board.

Say if someone with the user name of Roland contacted me, told me they were Clint Eastwood and were interested being on the advisory committee or signing letters of appeal, that activity would be totally separate from the discussion board and nobody would know the difference.

They would only still be known on the discussion board as their user name and their real identity would still be kept anonymous. I agree having someone famous on the discussion board would be a distraction.
 
Sorry Roland if what I said seemed like an attack. Never meant that. I was speaking more from the point of view of a celebrity than a regular person in society.

I now understand your point of view thanks to your clarification above.

Thanks
MR
 
I turned on the tv this morning and came across "The View", the women were discussing someone who blamed his abuse by priests for messing up his life; he would be married and have a house and kids if he hadn't been abused. I watched hoping they'd say who they were talking about again, but they didn't. Anyone know anything about the story?
 
Galapogos--

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1823176,00.html


Basically, New Yorker, J. David Enright IV--a scion of blue-blood New York families Van Renselaer and de la Grange--is claiming that repeated sexual abuse at the age of 7 at the hands of a Catholic priest turned him into a homosexual.

Enright, supposedly worth millions, is suing the Catholic Church for $5 million in damages.

Enright claims that if he had not been sexually molested by this Catholic priest, he would today be living in a spacious home in Greenwich, Connecticut with a wife and four kids in private boarding school.

**************************************

I think that this is one case which the church will try like hell (no pun intended) to settle out of court.

If it proceeds to trial, it would be difficult to claim that the abuse never happened.
Father Romano, who became a chaplain to the Albany Fire Department, is now 65 and living in Florida. He was suspended by the diocese in 2003 after a church review panel found claims that he sexually abused children in the 1970s and 1980s to be credible.
Click to expand...
If that hurdle is passed, there is the question of liability. Did the abuse make him gay? If they say no, to avoid liability, must they then claim that homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation, like left-handedness?

Would the church go to the best medical and scientific evidence available and perhaps even claim that homosexuality is genetically determined?

Perhaps they will stick to the latest, more "humanistic" dogma, that homosexuality IS God given, but that it is still inherently disordered, and a special, extreme, "Cross to bear" that God gives to gay people, due to Original Sin, and blah, blah, blah, and we love you all, but keep it in your pants, OK???

How could they answer this suit? I think it will be impossible to accept liability, and unthinkable to deny it because of the implications. That's why I don't think it will ever see a courtroom, unless Mr. Enright has other ideas.

Is Enright out to force the church into making a stance? Is this suit a reaction to the church's statements that the abuse scandal is predominantly about Gay priests having sex with adolescents and young men (many of whom, it is claimed, seduced the poor priests), rather than pedophilia?

Is Mr. Enright deluded or crazy like a fox? Is Enright trying to force the church to admit something?

The church has very publically announced it is going to keep gays from becoming priests. It is cracking down with a vengence on those gay priests and seminarians that already exist. I guess the "special" cross they bear is just a little too extreme, a little too distasteful to be tolerated.

Is this suit a defense of those priests and seminarians? I wish I knew. It will be interesting to see if this proceeds any further.
 
Hey MR, I never saw that as an attack, no worries. I saw immediately that I wasn't clear at all, or at least convey my entire thought.
 
Don,

You raise a number of challenging questions with your post.

It'll be interesting to follow this case.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top