We are closing this thread for now.

Coy and dumb works at SNAP, your former haunt.

Shoo, shoo.

When a "Billy" is believed, it is because it is in the believers interest to do so.

I wonder if the "credible evidence" standard for convicting "Billy" of false witness will be as shallow (if even detectable/measurable) as it is for convicting innocent priests?

Do I smell a double-standard?

In fact everything have directed at me is irrelevant (except for the part about me being a "princess" – I will "own that" ha ha).  I am dead on about you which is what makes you spew your nonsensical vitriol at me.  And on top of all that you are obviously a homophobe, having mentioned "deviant homosexuals" numerous times in your posts.  As if homosexuals are the only ones in the Church guilty of pedophilia?  Perhaps you have fallen prey to some of the media bias you speak of here?  The vast majority of the cases we hear about are of priests molesting young boys, perhaps because it is more sensational than a male molesting a female.  But you cannot possibly believe that homosexual priests are the only guilty ones, or that young boys are the only victims.

I do not believe in these particular priests because drug addict or not, I simply believe "Billy's" story.  I would believe his story whether he accused a Boy Scout leader, a youth team coach, etc.  If it turns out later that he is proven to be a fraud – which to date has not been the case by any credible evidence-I will be the first one to come back to this site and issue a full apology to those wrongly convicted for his false accusations. Would that be "owning it" enough for you?

Also, I am not only concerned about the victims of priests.  When the whole Jerry Sandusky scandal was breaking, I wrote a letter to Penn State regarding the lack of action that Mike McQuery took during the shower episode he witnessed.  So we both seem to be mis-characterizing eachother, don't we?  You got defensive, I snapped back, and it is counter productive.

Ken – Yes, it is a possibility – I am willing to "own" that.

Here we go, again- (but, no, there is no media bias against the Church, no way, no how…)-

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/11/CNN-Uses-Resignation-News-to-Trash-Pope-Catholic-Church

No one here, aside from SNAP peons and other Catholic-hating frauds portraying themselves as something else, is defending guilty priests (say it real loud forty times, in CAPS, in your head).

Your attempts at personal insults are infantile, but they actually reveal your true intent. Your intent is not honest dialogue or debate about the bias against the Church (name-calling is not dialogue or debate; but, beware, we can give as good as we get if you like it that way). Your intent is to continue to pile on to the Catholic Church. You just don't have the cajones to "own" it. Your lack of sophistication regarding your real position reveals your contempt for the Church, and her faithful, in almost every word you have contributed thus far.

Incidentally, you should look the the Catholic Church for exactly how to own up. No other institution or entity has followed their lead; a devastating fact for all those [current] victims for which you claim to shed all those tears. You are disproportionately only concerned about priests victims, oddly.

Suggestion: when it's time to register your child for public school, pray that they have "owned" their dirty little secret as publicly and effectively as the Catholic Church. Same goes for any athletics, Boy Scouts, day care, summer camp, and any other places where children interact with adults, particularly deviant homosexuals. You might actually want to consider a Catholic school- they are the safest institutions for children, after all.

Now, less about me and you, and more about why you tend to believe discredited phony victims but not clearly innocent priests. See if you can put "that" within any other context but antiCatholic bias and still pass the laugh test-

I am going to do a comment on it. (Please note: just so it’s easier for non-viewers to follow the bouncing ball, I am going to use the script-writing protocol of putting the character’s name in all-caps; this is not ‘shouting’ as we understand all-cap words to be in web-commenting, but rather it is merely an accepted way of keeping the unfolding of the development clear.)

THOMAS, a male servant at the mansion, is a closeted gay man (the plot takes place in 1920s England). He had developed an attraction for JIMMY, a new and somewhat younger (say mid-20s) male servant. One night, egged on by O’BRIEN, an older female servant trying to ruin THOMAS for her own purposes, he is led to believe that JIMMY also finds him attractive.

One night he sneaks into JIMMY’s room in the servants quarters where JIMMY is asleep. THOMAS sits on JIMMY’s bed and kisses the sleeping form. At that point JIMMY leaps up in shock and anger. ALFRED, a third male servant, hears the noise and quickly enters the room to see JIMMY yelling at THOMAS.

At the insistence of O’BRIEN the next morning, JIMMY goes to the chief butler and servant, CARSON, and complains that he is going to go to the police if THOMAS is not dismissed forthwith. Further, JIMMY wants THOMAS to be fired without a ‘reference letter’, that vital piece of documentation that allows somebody seeking employment to prove that he has served well in prior employment sites, because, JIMMY says, he doesn’t want THOMAS to be able to work for other families and put them or their servants through this.

CARSON is repelled but not so much surprised by what JIMMY tells him. He assures JIMMY that the matter can be handled without “scandal” to the House and Family (of the EARL of Grantham).

CARSON interviews THOMAS and THOMAS admits he did it, and that ‘nothing happened’ and nothing will happen. CARSON nevertheless informs THOMAS that he will have to leave.

MRS. HUGHES, the second-ranking of the servants, confers with CARSON and eventually opines that neither she nor CARSON should be surprised since they had “known” THOMAS to be different all along. But, she acknowledges, now CARSON knows it “officially” and he cannot ignore it.

Meanwhile, BATES – an older male servant who has just returned from prison where he served some time on a false murder charge that has finally been proven to be false – reflects that he would not wish prison on anybody. Further, he observes, it’s a terrible thing to see one’s life slipping away to destruction and not be able to do anything about it.

BATES goes to the EARL (BATES is his private valet) and reports the whole development. The EARL notes off-handedly that if he – the EARL – had yelled every time somebody had tried to kiss him at Eton, he would have been hoarse within a week.

While BATES is conferring with CARSON, JIMMY comes in to see how the dismissal is coming along. BATES confronts JIMMY: you’re in one piece and why would you want to destroy a man’s entire life over this? JIMMY – egged on by O’BRIEN behind everybody’s back – insists that if he doesn’t take these steps then everybody will think he too is ‘that way’.

The EARL comes up with a solution: he will promote JIMMY to a higher rank among the servants (JIMMY is not incompetent or incapable of the new responsibilities) and sort of presumes out loud that JIMMY will let the whole matter drop. JIMMY happily agrees.

However at that moment, a pair of police detectives show up. ALFRED, repelled by “evil”, has called the police on his own. As the pair of detectives explain to CARSON and the EARL that they have received a call from ALFRED, the EARL quickly says to them that he will go find ALFRED and sort the matter out. The detectives say they’ll go along with him, but CARSON moves in front of them and declares that the EARL is perfectly capable of seeing what’s going on himself.

The EARL finds ALFRED, and in response to ALFRED’s query – should I let evil go unpunished then, my lord? – the EARL replies that one must temper concern for eradicating evil with a certain humane-ness in regard to exacting retribution. ALFRED eventually agrees and the police are assured that it was all a mistake – and off they go.

The EARL also decides that THOMAS doesn’t deserve to have his life ruined (to be dismissed after ten years’ service, and without a ‘reference’ letter, would virtually guarantee never being employed again) and that THOMAS will be kept on.

Thus the sub-plot.

I do not present it here in any way as dispositive of anything or to make any particular point in regard to the Abuse Matter. Rather, I present it here merely as an occasion for thought.

Is concern for ‘scandal’ a sufficient concern? Was there a cover-up? If so, when did it begin? Was the EARL insufficiently sensitive to JIMMY’s issues? Was the EARL insufficiently sensitive to sexual assault generally? Was JIMMY insufficiently sensitive to his own victimization? Was ALFRED being fussy about his concern for eradicating evil? Was CARSON trying to ‘cover-up’? Did the EARL and CARSON act improperly in arranging for the matter to be kept from the police? Did ALFRED betray his responsibilities as a private citizen by backing off his report? Was ALFRED pressured by the EARL into doing so? Was JIMMY pressured into doing so and did JIMMY betray his responsibilities as a victim? Were MRS. HUGHES and BATES complicit in the whole thing? Whose priorities were proper and whose were otherwise? Where does humane-ness end and insufficient sensitivity begin? Where does cover-up begin?

I fully expect that commenters will have – and hardly improperly – differing opinions on all of these questions. As I said, I don’t propose this bit from the show as any sort of ‘trump’ – merely as food for thought about how things were done. Nor do I submit to the readership that every aspect of the Abuse Matter is included in this episode of the show here.

And I suppose I have now put TMR into the list of websites that have a comment on “Downton Abbey”.

Delphin – I can see you are one of those Catholics that is blindly consumed by the "poor church", your self righteous indignation, and that you specifically enjoy playing the victim.  Here's an excercise for you and that single minded brain of yours:  If anyone actually decided to procreate with you, imagine if one of your children came to you and told you that they  had been molested by your priest?  Would you ruthlessly attack your own child and call them a fraud?  You either are not a parent or are a hypocrite of the highest order, just like so many other "real Catholics".  Go pray your rosary now, and do make sure that you attend mass on Sunday, because you are so much more Catholic than anyone else.  It's the Catholics like you that have caused such a dramatic decline in church attendance – no one wants to be around your phony holiness.  Save your BS for the other "good" Catholics, because I don't have time for it.  If I was a "Catholic hater" I would not have had my son Baptized as a Catholic.  I guess I am also a "College Football Hater" because I was outraged by Jerry Sansusky's crimes.  Or was Jerry Sandusky falsely accused as well?  Are you going to rush to his defense too?  Or do you save all your rediculousness for the Catholic Church?

AGAIN – STOP PLAYING VICTIM.  OWN THE CRIMES THAT PRIESTS HAVE PERPETRATED AGAINST THE INNOCENT YOUTH THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE AND CHERISH.