Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused

The Bishop of Tenerife provided an interesting explanation for the vast numbers of children raped by Catholic priests: They asked for it.

In 2007, when the American Catholic Church was reeling from sex abuse scandals but not so much Europe, the Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez, made some interesting Christmas holiday comments.

In a Christmas Eve interview with La Opinión de Tenerife, Bishop Alvarez said that there are children who want to be abused:

There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you.

That’s right, the rapists aren’t the priests. It’s those seductive tempters and temptresses, fresh-faced whores all, bending over in front of priests, flaunting their taut, young, moist flesh, just begging to be used as the sexual playthings of perverted pedophiles (and hebephiles) who have sworn to be celibate for life.

It’s probably their plan to sue later and retire on the Catholic Cult’s ill-gotten loot. After all, so many seem to be doing it!

Bishop Alvarez got some bad press shortly thereafter:

The controversial comments drew immediate criticism, including from the Spanish government, which hinted that it might review its relations with the Church unless action was taken against the Tenerife Bishop. Gay rights groups and child welfare associations called on the authorities to prosecute the Bishop for inciting and defending abuse of minors, while left-wing political parties demanded that the Pope sack Alvarez immediately.

In 2008, the Spanish Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals (FELGT) filed a criminal complaint against him for “identifying homosexuality with the sexual abuse of minors” and for “promoting an attitude of violence and discrimination” against homosexuals:

“It seems that he is justifying the abuse of minors, coming from an institution that has been condemned the most times in the world for sexual abuse,” said [FELGT president Antonio] Poveda. “It is necessary for the hierarchy to be respectful and to know that as citizens they have freedom of expression, but they also have to respect the standards that are set by the laws in this country and in this case they have passed that boundary, therefore we hope that the Attorney General will intervene to prevent such lamentable declarations from being made again.”

Despite the outcry at the time, it appears to have been a flash in the pan. The most recent story on Bishop Alvarez? The 2009 reopening of the Bishop’s Palace in La Laguna, damaged by fire in 2006.

La Laguna – 11.07.2009 – Before blessing the building, the Bishop of Ten­erife, Bernardo Álvarez, summed up his feelings in just two words, “satisfaction and thanks”. Satisfac­tion with the work done, and thanks to the thou­sands of people, institu­tions, companies, parishes and many more, “without whose support and soli­darity it would not have been possible to complete the work”.

Seems Alvarez is still Bishop, and likely still blaming children for being raped. Perhaps the Vatican will hire him as Benedict’s new PR agent!

180 Responses to Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused

  1. avatar AtheistsRFascists

    There isn't a Catholic in the world who wouldn't be shocked and disgusted with these comments, IF they are true. Is this an accurate translation? If so then the "bishop" should be sacked immediately! Catholicism and every other form of Christianity completely condemn child abuse and always have done. Many Atheists, however, are campaigning for child abuse to be legalized.…

    • There are many Catholics who are not only not shocked and disgusted by Alvarez's comments, but support them in word and deed. They are called priests, bishops,cardinals, popes… As for your pathetic jab at atheism, I followed the link you provided. This "party" consisted of three people and nowhere in the article does it suggest that they are atheists. I guess you are so used to the lies told in your church, and the theists eating them up without fact checking that you thought it would work here too. Sorry Charlie, we atheists actually know what we are talking about and we fact check.

    • Atheists are fascists?! What an incredibly ignorant statement. All fascist movements in Europe have been intrinsically Christian… from Mussolini's to Hitler's and ending with Franco's. If you don't know what you are talking about its better not to say anything. "si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses"

    • You, ARF, are a stupid liar and a con artist. Speaking as a Catholic, if the church condemned child abuse and always has done so..then why did they hide it when it was happening? As for "atheists are fascists" show a disturbing ignorance of what fascism is.

    • As Nancy has pointed out, this group involved three pedophiles, and I don't see where they claim to be atheist. From YOUR LINK:

      The Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, PVND) was a Dutch political party with no representation in parliament,[1] and only three known members.[2] It was commonly known as "pedopartij" ("pedo party") in the media, due to its advocacy for legalization of child pornography and the lowering of the age of consent to age 12.[1] PVND was founded on 31 May 2006 by three self-described pedophiles.

    • Show me where in that article that Atheism is linked to that topic or the people mentioned in it. I sincerely hope you get whatever bad is coming to you.

    • You stupid little narrow minded theist prick! How dare you… By now I hope you have read the replies to your poisonous post and realize what a twat you are. I hope you will think much harder before responding to something you obviously know nothing about.

    • avatar GawdLoversRIdiots

      Fuck you … you are the fascist here obvoiusly with a nickname like that … In your case I hope hell exists and you will roast for all eternity for your lack of tolerance and forgiveness … unfortunatly I KNOW it doesnt't and you're getting away with your obnoxious atitude … what a shame !!


      Ha…..Christianity has the longest and oldest record of pedophilia in human history and you put up a wiki entry about three guys and try to shift it to atheists? fuggin christians….own your own shit…don't pass the buck to atheists

    • What an ass you are!! Your link to wikipedia is for a Dutch political party founded by pedophiles–not atheists. It's obvious that you don't even know the definition of atheism.

    • actually, the bible is ok with having sex with people over the age of 12, most people have no real clue as to what is in that book and pay attention to either….what they hear and read at church OR they ignore the bits they do not like and go with the rest. There is not one true christian among the planet, not if you follow it all right down to the letter. I am not defending what the priest said btw it is disgusting, i am just replying to your message.

    • You're hilarious!!! Catholic Church is the reason for all the suffering in the world…my gawd will you poeople get off your high horses and stop the insanity…the god you worship is the god of man and IN NO WAY resembles the true Creator Great Spirit…do your homework.

    • It also say's they were vegetarian's, but yet I see you don't say that "many vegetarian's and animal activist's are campaigning for child abuse to be legalised". Seriously mate, get your fact's straight before you let something stupid flow through your finger tips!

    • avatar atheist who cares

      what a typically shortsighted asshole thing to say. and hypocritical! you're going to call all atheists pedophiles when YOUR OWN FREAKING BISHOPS ARE RAPING CHILDREN!!! And there are many catholics in the world who support child abuse, most of them are the abusers. And it's not just the catholic church, child abuse goes on in many other christian branches. Quit living in such a shaded and sugared up world and face reality as it is. hypocrit. I know many atheists and they'd all like to beat the crap out of pedophiles. many of the people you are persecuting are victims of such. are you going to say they deserve it just because they don't believe in your god?! You want to judge and persecute someone, take a look in a mirror. You are no better than anyone and have no right to judge like you're god. Because you aren't. Get an education before you start spewing bullshit as such. As a victim of pedophilia in my life, people like you are about the worst because you know nothing and you'll blame what you don't understand. You offend people to the point you should be ashamed to be seen in public because you make yourself so small. I was abused by christians. Nothing was ever done about it either, and not for lack of trying. ignorance is a disgusting breed.

    • You are such an idiot that it actually blows my mind.

    • Where is the data saying this? In your Bronze age book written by frauds and morons? You sir are a fucking bigot. Not only are you a bigot, but you just used your all loving religion to justify it. Let me get this straight I am supposed to believe in your invisible sky dictator and give you respect, yet when someone that does not believe enters your point of view, you assume we want to legalize what? You're a poorly educated idiot f the 1st order. If you were Christian, you should be confessing your bigotry.

    • avatar Harold Ashley Jordan

      I fail to see where this disgusting party represents anyone other that the three members of said party. I don't see anything indicating a connection between these three creeps, who by the way should be rotting away in the worst possible prison, and atheists in general. Compare to a Catholic church that has spent how many untold decades covering up patterns of child molestation in the highest levels of the clergy. I certainly would hate to deprive people of their freedom of religion (or lack thereof), but IF the Catholic Church cannot or will not cooperate with authorities to get serial child abusers out of circulation I think secular governments need to look at radical measures to get the Catholic Churches off their soveregn soil, probably starting with massive taxation of church held land, which would also help these states balance their budgets.

    • Have you lost your mind, or did your church poison it? Your hatred of atheists has clearly overwhelmed your ability to separate truth from fantasy. You really want atheists to be horrible people because that would justify your hatred. Unfortunately for you, atheists are better people than the religious on average. They are better educated, work for social progress, protect women and children, and generally devote their lives to good. In short, many atheists do without a creed or supernatural prod what most Christians are unable to do with the support of their church and their god.

    • avatar ChristiansRFascists

      Of course. Didn't you know? It was agreed in our 1st Atheist Canon that an atheist is necessarily pro-pedophilia. We all agreed on that. It's a mark of an atheist. If you are not a pedophile, you do not get to the atheist heaven…. *SARCASM*…. I wonder if you are ignorant or if you do it willfully… I can make a nice list of detestable things that Christians all over the world are campaigning for not just because they are airheads, but because their Bible tells them so… Like witch-hunting in Africa, for example, or the criminalization and execution of gays… but of course, statistics say that if you are a Catholic, you probably dont know shit about your religion's history and about the Bible, except the seemingly cute bits… of course, those Christians in your opinion arent "real" Christians. You have robbed them from their belief in the Christian mythology. Besides, I wonder what kind of perverted sick fuck would believe that he and the rest of the world deserve to be tortured for an eternity for the sin of being born and for not having the "correct" beliefs on metaphysics. Just a though ;) Good day.

    • Wtf, in what facts and sources your opinion are based on to say "many atheists are campaigning for child abuse to be legalized"?

    • You sir need to burn in your own hell you manipulative lying motherfucker. People like you are the reason this earth is in the shit hole right now. Drop off the planet NOW, scum.

    • You had me until the last sentence. Idiot.

    • Wow it is people like you that pushed me away from the church, and the so called "Christians" of today's time. Stop to think before you post bile like this.

    • Them not saying they are Atheist is not what he sees. Having worked in Islamic countries many times, I see this is the mindset of all religions. If you find stolen goods on a Muslim, he is not a thief, he did not knowingly steal those goods. Why? Because the Koran says not to steal and that man in is a Muslim so he can't be a thief. Those pedophiles don't say they are Atheist, but Christians can't be pedophiles so as self professed pedos, they must be Atheist.

  2. Looked at the link – their is no indication of the religious sensibilities of these awful people. The fact that 39 to 44% of Dutch people identify as atheist, and the party failed to get 30 signatures in any one of the 19 voting districts to get on the national ballot, or that 82% of the population want them banned – indicate that you sir are a disgusting liar. In fact, if you follow up – you can see that one of the 3 members (yes just 3) of this party, attended Radboud University Nijmegen – which changed its name in 2004 after saint Radboud, a catholic bishop. Oh dear, the evidence for their atheism is not strong. In fact it is none existent. And the statements this group makes would not conflict with the world-view of this catholic bishop. Strange, ended last two paragraphs with catholic bishop. But to the point – in no way have you shown these people are atheist, or have the support of anyone in the atheist community. This bishop, in fact supports their view, that children are sexually aware and using it at an earlier age, and want to be abused (or have sex with an adult as he puts it) – rather than the experience of everyone else, who grew up from childhood – so has experience of this, have concluded. See, your religion has made your spout a demonstrative lie, saying look at these evil atheists, which you have no basis to make. Does that make you think a little – that your religion has made you justify lying (or more politely making false and unjustifiable assumptions), to characterise someone else, rather that seeking the truth? To demonize millions of people by the actions of 3 people, which has no "beliefs" which are of any part of atheism?

    • I think that its total bullshit that they the priests say that these innocent kids "want" to be molested and raped by these fuckin goddamn queers! The Priests are Fucked up in the head and should have their balls stuffed in their fuckin mouths!!! and then shoot em all dead! the fuckin kill the mother ship of all that Catholic bullshit!

      • So you don't believe that children don't masturbate and are therefore not sexually aware? Whether children ask for it or not is a moot point. Before you stuff their balls into their fuckin mouths and shoot them all dead, it might not be a bad idea to understand the context of the headline. I am not so sure Jenny Donati cares all that much if people do understand the context of the headline. Her conclusions in her article are dead wrong, how many on thei site understand the difference between fact and conclusion? Does she know that she is giving us the wrong impression? When she talks about herself in the third person, what standard is she talking about? Is it the standard where all she cares about is to do damage to the church and she doesn't care what the context of the truth is? You decide for yourself, as a free thinker. Don't take my word for it, don't take Jenny's word for it, you have a brain, use it. Are you going to be one of the lynch mob here, or are you going to be a free thinker?

  3. Sacked? I want him thrown in prison

    • Eh, how about not violating freedom of speech? – thanks. P.S. I'm an atheist and find his comments despicable.

      • Nice to see there is at least one person who believes in freedom of speech, on a site frequented by "freethinkers" I would have thought there be more, or more "likes" (for that I gave you one) As for his comments, if you dug a little deeper you'd find out its actually the news story that's despicable. That there is very little attempt to tell the truth, and a great deal of effort to give us the wrong impression.

  4. No point of argument and explain who is who. Priest "should, must and always be" an "Alter Christus. End of conversation.

    • Do you have any evidence to support the existence of this Christ you speak of other than in the collected works of 2000 year old ramblings from the bible?

      • Nope, because there's only that, and faith. Which basically means they have nothing to believe except what their told by others. A fantastic freedom in my view.

  5. The many athiests that AtheistsRFascists is commenting about is a group of 3 selfprofessed pedophiles. He or she is hoping that we do not check facts.

  6. All religion is mental illness and should be treated as such.

  7. Strangely, the Age of Consent in Spain seems to be 13, while in the Vatican (as in Italy where they take their laws from) it is actually 14, a bit higher..

  8. canada dave people like you are not worthy of my respect, you spread lie s, you are the lowest of the low.

    • Wow, "ignorance is bliss and you're a happy mother fucker." Spreading lies? "Many Atheists, however, are campaigning for child abuse to be legalized." ^ This is a lie, just like that sense of a superior morality you must have.

  9. He needs to put put on the rack and have a red hot Pope's Pear shoved up his Arse and another one shoved in his ugly mouthy.

  10. It takes 25 years for the mind to fully mature. Adult mental capabilities only begin to emerge at the end of age 12. Therefore, a 13 year-old is not old enough to mutually agree to sexual activity with an adult, who, by the way, has all the power. I recommend a documentary, “Deliver Us From Evil.” Yes, young adolescents are beginning to be sexual but they are not really ready to reify their sexual yearnings. (For example, girl’s reproductive organs often are not fully developed at this age.) This is child abuse and there are good laws to protect our children. Let’s strengthen them and NOT exempt predators, who frequently hide behind their religion and/or rationalize their exploitive deeds.

  11. this is sick and the Catholic's should be hung on a cross in the middle of some desert to burn to death all religion's are for control, hate, slavery and death.just sayin

    • lol. you're hatefully advocating violence in the same comment as you're admonishing it.

    • Oy. . . . That is terrible and horribly inaccurate. I will say this: the Abrahamic faiths all have hateful things in them. But what about Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Satanism, etc.? When have you heard of a Buddhist monk blowing himself up to kill non-Buddhists? How many Satanists have gone out preaching against gays? Please don't make such blanket and violent statements, it makes you look stupid.

  12. The bible was a tool used to 'control' the masses hundreds of years ago! Those in power (with money) knew that this old book would hand them ultimate power to control all others using fear and the threat of enternity in hell (whatever hell is supposed to be)! To think that in this day and age, that educated (or uneducated) people STILL believe in this old book is mind boggling as it defeats all logical thought? I also find it amusing that most Christians however pick and choose which verses from the bible to follow and "Gang Tackle" the easy ones such as Homosexuality. I say 'most' Christians because there are some very nice and logical Christians out there that choose to believe in God, but those that have been brainwashed at a young age are irrational and display little to zero common sense when discussing the issue. Give it another 50 years and the world will look back at Christianity and roll around on the floor with hysterical laughter! If you dont know what I mean by 'brainwashed' – then please watch the BIBLE CAMP video's on Youtube! AMEN…..Prrrffffftttt!!

    • Brain washing is a two edged sword you can wash kids brains with good moral choices based on God's laws and Christian principles or polluted them with modern decadent godless crap.

      • Or you can love them and teach them to think for themselves and see how they grow. Brainwashing does not have to be a childhood norm. God's laws do not teach good moral choices if the rich ministers and priests are any indication they teach hate and bigotry and fear.

  13. Hi fellow atheists. Please join American atheists so we can have a unified voice of reason so we can stand up to and defeat these groups of quaks. ie Christians and muslums.

  14. OMG. well I'm catholic & I am appalled now to say that.I am a catholic.This man disgusts me…He needs someone to rape him right up the ass.i didn't tell you i was practicing.I'm spiritual,this guy needs to needs to be exonerated from the church hood for ever.he doesn't deserve to serve his god.he'll get his.

    • "rape him up the ass"? your religiousness is showing

    • Lady….or Dude, You don't even understand your own religion let alone your own vocabulary. ex·on·er·ate    [ig-zon-uh-reyt] verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing. 1. to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating. 2. to relieve, as from an obligation, duty, or task. ——— Spiritual? Stop believing in invisible beings made up thousands of years ago. It is okay. Let go.

    • How interesting also, that Newt Gingrich is a "devoted" Catholic…been married 3 times…his wife is an "active parishioner" and sings in the choir if the National Cathedral. Talk about hypocritical all the way…..If you have money and power, you can do whatever you want. Nothing has changed since the Middle Ages…

    • i think you mean excommunicated, not exonerated.

  15. If we lived in a world with no religion what soever and then someone came up with it. It would be a ridiculous joke. Who could take a politician seriously when he says a raped woman should not be allowed to have an abortion because god wouldn't approve of the killing and life is a gift of god. But he supports capital punishment. Come on people start thinking, use simple reasoning and stop accepting bullshit. Do not vote in these nuts.

  16. Religion should be treated as a mental illness, because really you have to be mentally challenged to be an adult and believe in make believe stuff and use faith rather than logic. Believing something to be true without any evidence and . contrary to logic is crazy. Heaven is not a place I would ever like to go to anyhow, just imagine all the pedophiles, child abusers and sick twisted suicide bombers up there. No thanks

  17. It's not very long since Catholics were not even allowed to read the Bible for themselves. They had to follow the words of the priest without any way of proving what he was saying was the truth… They still do live just how they please, then go to confession and get forgiven, then they can start all over again…

  18. This so called man is not well..priest's should be able to marry.The only reason the Vatican won't allow this is because they own all the properties and they know if the husband dies the wife will inherit the property. GREED….The Catholic Church is great at taking but they don't like giving!!! All religion does is take money from vulnerable people and make them feel guilty. The world would be a happier place without religion. I prefer the heat anyway!! I don't want to go to 'heaven'!!!!

  19. Good point but if they could read the bible wouldn't find the truth in it anyhow..

  20. NYC Officials Fear Of Archbishop Dolan Impedes Justice For Church Abuse Victims…

  21. Where is the Benedict XVI????? Is he reading this information????? I am not a catholic but a human with respect for man-kind. This article needs to be addressed and this priest and everyone like him should be dismissed from the pulpit. This attitude is bringing down the sacred body of the church. One would think in times such as these when the political landscape of the world is imploding on humanity, the church would be that one sacred place that one could go to be safe, to know and understand trust, and to be guided by those that have paved the path before us. It is the head of the church that should be guiding those "promiscuous" individuals and addressing their weaknesses or attempting to find why they don't feel good about themselves and try to get to the bottom of their emotional upheaval. it is NOT the priests role to take advantage of their innocents. SICK!

    • If the Pope started to take responsibilities for wrongdoing now, it would open the door for harboring for yearsl the criminal pedophiles.

  22. Bet ya he also says the holocaust never happen… smuck

  23. avatar A very pissed off Phil

    They wanted to be abused…. Right. And this absolves the perpetrators of complying, does it? The question I must then ask is… does religion assess mental age regarding to their clergy? I accept that a teenager intent upon having a shag will manipulate in order to get it, but only the mentally immature adults have any excuse when it comes to their agreeing. It this makes any sense.

  24. Pingback: Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused | Why? |

  25. With Priest's like him…cut off his Holy Balls!

  26. this person is yet another reason to oppose theocracy at every turn.

  27. surely he should be prosecuted for an accessory before/after any abuse took place?,or at the very least encouraging abuse?.something seriously needs to be done to stop this in-humane treatment of our future generations who's only crime is wanting to find out about religion…not get raped for years on end by the man/woman they have been told can do no wrong as they are working for god!?…or is it just accepted now that the clergy is nothing more than a child abuse organisation!?.

  28. Condemning the Bible/Christianity based on the actions of organised religions is totally illogical. Practically all Christian denominations take thier core beliefs from the Catholic pervertion of Christianity. Catholicism is an amalgamtion of pagan beliefs, festivals and idolatory with Christianity which occured when the Church was founded by Emperor Constantine – a political move to control the populace. Wars arent Christian, abuse isnt Christian, hellfire isnt even Christan. I detest the churches because they lead people away from spirituality and create atheists due to hypocrisy. This doesnt prove there's no God or higher entity, How many Atheists study the bible to actually know what it says rather than the common held beliefs as to what is says? Practically none I'd guess, but I bet they still celebrate Christmas (pagan festival of Saturnalia/winter solstice) and buy Easter Eggs (pagan fertility rite). I'm not saying what I believe, "believe" is a strong word, but I'm open minded enough to consider the possibilities.

  29. ). I'm not saying what I believe… "believe" is a strong word… but I'm open minded enough to consider the possibilities. Atheism will only have a true argument when scientists combine lifeless proteins and amino acids to create a living cell. They know the ingredients but cant create life. Every scientific test so far shows that only life begats life. Therein lies the paradox and the flaw in Darwinism, the religion of Atheists. So dont kid yourselves… Atheism is a religion because its an unfounded belief system built upon the desire to believe in something and it can therefore be argued to be just as illogical as any belief in God. As for this Catholic pervert… you can add him to the list of Catholic clergy, poiliticians, rich businessmen, bankers, high level police, royals and dirty raincoated nonces all over the world, all of whome make up the worlds worse abusing scum. There's so many of them now it makes my skin crawl. Bastards all !!

    • Run a google search – you're way outdated on your information. We've already created fully synthetic, replicating living cell in labs. Oh and yes – also the primordial soup thing? Got the first self-replicating RNA strings in the lab and first membrane-isolated cells, too. Good morning, 2012 here.

      • Sorry to burst your bubble In Shade but even Venter himself does not maintain that he created life. He used living bacteria and yeast cells to stitch together the base pairs. Once again EXISTING LIFE WAS REQUIRED. Outdated? Nope !! Get your facts straight next time and stop making out that scientists have achieved more than they themselves even claim. This kind of unfounded claim only weakens your argument and strengthens mine. Thanks for proving my point for me.

      • Oh and yes – also the primordial soup thing. Try doing it with activation agents that would have actually existed at the time. The agents used have been synthetically created through intelligent design…. a point which Darwinists and Atheists cant stand hearing. When you add a constant into an equation you cant then chose to ignore it when working out the answer to that equation… it simply isn't accurate mathematics. Secondly, it is interesting that when it is pointed out that it is highly questionable that RNA even qualifies as life, scientists say that this is just "semantics". RNA and DNA are not the same thing. You might as well say that Nylon and Cotton are the same. Good Afternoon – sarcasm still alive and well in the Atheists world of condescension 2012.

    • I throughly agree with you Nejjy!

      • Bless you, Gina. Nice to see there's someone out there with an open mind. Too often I find that people take data and try to make it fit the picture they have of the world rather than standing back with no preconceived conceptions and seeing where the facts lead. Knowledge is a journey. Atheists spend all their time trying to disprove the existence of a God or higher entity and in so doing completely close their minds to the possibility that life can exist as pure energy rather than matter… a whole area of physics ignored. Also with E=MC2 we understand the interchangeability of energy into matter and creation becomes scientifically explainable. There really is no mystery. Whether a person chooses to deify an entity is a matter of faith but to deny the possibility of its existence is sheer close mindedness.

        • Nejjy, it appears you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word atheist. It is a falsehood to claim that atheism is a religion. It is a Greek term meaning 'without a god'. As an atheist I have no interest in disproving those of specific belief systems. Indeed, an atheist does not necessarily reject he power of earth and water energy, which is separate to what in general the atheist generally rejects; the deity. I hope that clears up your confusion regarding atheism as religion – we do not believe in a higher power and are not an organised or affiliated lot.

          • Angel…… I'm afraid you are arguing semantics. Atheism is a belief system. The non existence of a higher being cannot be proved any more than the existence of one. Both views are based purely on faith. Both views attract a mass of followers. Followers of each belief mass together in their mutual belief systems. Both groups share information amongst their respective believers to build a social network and further strengthen the beliefs of one another (such as this site). Both belief systems create a foundation upon which to base moral codes as to which things they believe are acceptable in society. I could continue with a seemingly endless list of parallels but time is fleeting.

          • Nejjy, I'm afraid you are confusing gnostic atheism with agnostic atheism. Most self-described atheists are "agnostic atheists". Their thinking is generally as follows: "I do not believe there are leprechauns, because I have never seen evidence adequate to support belief in leprechauns. However, I recognize that it is not possible to prove a negative . . . so show me your evidence that leprechauns exist." The "gnostic atheist" does take a leap of faith, because she says that it IS possible to prove a negative, and to be absolutely certain that there are no beings we might describe as leprechauns floating about. However, this is a minority of self-described atheists.

          • Mike……. more semantics. I'm moving on. No-one on this site knows how to debate. You're all too busy living in a state of denial, trying to avoid the obvious truth. You all think you're so clever that you understand enough about the quantum universe in which we live that you can categorically state for a fact what can and cannot exist… wow, you people are big-headed, not to mention boring.

          • Amazing. I explain to you that the vast majority of atheists do not make such a claim, that gnostic atheists are in fact a minority, and yet you reiterate that all atheists are "categorically stating what can and cannot exist". Part of having a discussion, Nejjy, is actually listening to the other participant. You can't bother to do so. This means that you, in fact, are the one in the state of denial. You have made up your mind, and no evidence to the contrary will sway you. You have decided that all who don't believe in your god are "big-headed", "boring", and "in denial". This makes you a bigot. Good day.

          • Oh you mean like we Christians like to state for a fact what can and cannot exist? Most atheists I've known have never said "God doesn't exist and thats fact" they've said they don't believe that God exists. Two different things.

        • Nejjy, it appears you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word atheist. It is a falsehood to claim that atheism is a religion. It is a Greek term meaning 'without a god'. As an atheist I have no interest in disproving those of specific belief systems. Indeed, an atheist does not necessarily reject he power of earth and water energy, which is separate to what in general the atheist generally rejects; the deity. I hope that clears up your confusion regarding atheism as religion – we do not believe in a higher power and are not an organised or affiliated lot.

  30. At first glance Álvarez looked very much like the comedy actor John Sessions so I imagined his comments were part of some sketch show. Then again the situation comedy "Carry on the Catholics" has been running far too long.

  31. This is absolutely disgusting. I was brought up in the Catholic church. I knew many very good and respectful priests. Those who've forced themselves sexually on young children have a place reserved for them in Hell.

    • And if hell doesn't exist? Then what? It is wonderful to think that someday they will pay for their crimes but as an atheist I believe that since hell doesn't exist they are just going to get away with it and as I always hear from my religious friends what if you are wrong and I am right?

    • I would prefer that pedo-priest have a cell reserved for them in prison, preferable with a weightlifter named bubba

  32. If true he should be sacked as a Catholic this is my opinion. However You all are very angry at Catholic or religion in general or maybe God, In addition Checking with Wikipedia there is no Bishop of Tenerife the closest thing to it is the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Cristóbal de La Laguna. There is no Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez there is a man named Bernardo Álvarez Afonso Bishop of San Cristóbal de La Laguna. I think Secular community (those who claim the use of the name ) should be fair to believer and nonbelievers and the just be a hate sheet to slander people who dare to believe. You know if there is no God then religion and all its evils are the creation of man On the other hand Jesus never said invent WMDs and kill as many people as possible or rape children or any of that nonsense that occurred out of the imperfection of man which is a given under any system of beliefs.

  33. My family is Catholic, I am Methodist. I was sexually molested by an ATHEIST when I was 12. Don't go pointing fingers at certain groups of people, because there are JUST as many atheist or other "religious" people that do these awful things and there are JUST as many who DON'T do these things. Know your FACTS.You are more likely to get sexually abused by someone you know and trust. And trust me when I say it doesn't matter WHO does it. It's all disgusting and wrong. I AM NOT mentally ill, but your atheist hatred is really just sad. You don't have anything to fill that void. We do and I'm sorry that obviously bothers you. No one has forced me to believe in anything, I was a practicing Wiccan for years. one Christian does not speak for all. Just like one Atheist doesn't. You can claim Atheism is better, but when I look at all the hatred, I call foul. You're no better the the people you try to smear. So very sad for the people on here. You all have my prayers.

    • “You are more likely to get sexually abused by someone you know and trust.” …like your priest, or any person you respect due to the religious authority they hold? Organized religion might not cause rape, but it sure encourages situations that make it easier.

    • Let me know when some atheist group covered up said sexual molestation and justified it.

  34. Being a person who is more spiritual and philosophical, I've found that Atheists have more love and compassion for their fellow man than "Christians" or the like. I hear time and time again that church is for "broken" people and this is supposed to be their explanation for how they can treat people so shitty and still proclaim to be people of "God." I'd like no part of that thank you, so I'd just like to say to them…. Quit shoving your "religion" down everyone's throat!!!

  35. You know if he didn't say "children want to be abused" then secularism is bias. Since there is no Bishop of Tenerife or a person named Bernardo Álvarez or a Diocese of Tenerife it is doubtful. This article may be refer to Roman Catholic Diocese of San Cristóbal de La Laguna and Bernardo Álvarez Afonso. Consider the tone of the article on this web site and its not fair. Secular mean separate from religion not opposed to religion, this has been forgotten. I guess we all need a hobby.

  36. Pingback: Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused « Cooley?

  37. Pingback: Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused « Cooley?

  38. avatar Mitchell S. Gilbert

    and the Pope wants you to know that; "Same Sex Marriage is Undermining the Future of Humanity"

  39. My first time here at Secular News Daily. The article is good, but the comments are depressing. I cannot believe how badly so many of you got trolled by AtheistsRFascists. The comments remind me of the vile rhetoric that comes from the keyboards of uneducated theists. Further to sounding uneducated, almost all the comments are full of spelling and grammar mistakes. I’ll read a few more articles, but if that’s the level of comments all around, I think I’ll stick to secular publications with a readership that has a higher level of intellect.

  40. Catholic church: nothing more or less than a criminal organization. They should all be send to jail

  41. i feel sick to call my self catholic went this happens

    • When what happens, Susan? What did he say, what was the context in what he said. Did he say it was ok to abuse children? Are these all conclusions that you draw, or conclusions that the news news reporter drew. I can't understand that nobody can see that this is such a trash news job, and that is actually what is so disgusting. So before everyone her shoots their BIG mouth off, get to the bottom of the actual story.

  42. and i hear bishop barny wants a broom stick shoved up his ass

  43. What an ass, for someone of the "Cloth" would make an ignorant remark like that. sooo glad I'm not Catholic.

  44. Is everybody too stupid here to draw their own conclusions that you need a trash news job to do it for you? What did he actually say? Did he say it was ok to abuse children? What were the ignorant remarks exactly? What was the context in which he said it?

    • Well since you seem to be so interested..why don't you go answer the questions and report back to us.

      • There are a couple of problems with that, first of all I am not his spoke person, I can't speak for him, and secondly you shouldn't need my conclusions anymore than you need the conclusions of the "reporter" of this "news" story. I can talk in generalities and really as a public person the bishop should have known better, that there are things you can't say without people jumping to conclusions. Things in the news are perceived in a certain way, but that doesn't mean that they really are that way.

        • Yeah well, speaking as a Catholic, I can't really say there is any context that makes what that nitwitted priest said at all palatable. Because what he said is more or less a pedophile's version of a rapist saying "But Judge, she was dressed so sluttily that she was asking for it." Sorry, Person A is not responsible for Person B's sexual urges, perverted or not. Especially when Person A is a child and is therefor not an adult. So that Priest's "defense" even if he's not defending himself is no defense at all. It's nothing more then a stupid rationalization to cover their own asses.

          • There are plenty of quotes out there if you are willing to look for them where the bishop believes it is horrible and despicable when a priest abuses a child, as far as I can tell he has no interest in defending those priests. I imagine what he was trying to say was that sexuality is complex, that there are children out there who are neglected, and therefore adapt to find love where they can find it. There might be children out there for example who are coming to terms with the fact that they are gay, and have no where to turn to, and are therefore vulnerable. It is a moot point whether they ask for it or not, because children don't have the maturity level to make those decisions for themselves.

  45. As someone raised by devout Catholics (though at this point barely practicing and highly critical on many points), growing up surrounded by an immigrant community of both devout Catholics and those raised up in Catholicism from their motherland (Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina), I must say to those who read this article and automatically assume the Church in its entirety (throughout time and the institutions various parts) and by extension all of its baptized/adherents, are morally decrepit, psychologically deprived or whatever mean and base thing you can say, are unfair to say so. Though, as I've alluded to above, having strong reservations, at least in today's age, of many aspects of the Church's institutions, believing there could be reform here and there to catch up with certain aspects of the age, still I see nothing wrong with the faith itself. It's common, at least amongst die-hard atheists (who espouse, I believe, a faith as prone to negative action as any hardline nationalism or religiosity), to view those who are devout in whichever religious belief as somewhat less intelligent, more prone to extremism, less willing to think and more to rashly act, unable to advance along with the rest of "civilization", etc. etc. In short, they espouse a form of 'superiorism' vis-a-vis the community of faithful. Yet somehow civilization has progressed. And people like my parents have adapted accordingly without losing their faith nor espousing disgusting assertions such as "children splay their taught flesh before priests". If anything, it's the secular culture that informs how people treat people. In my parents' culture, one whiff of any sexual abuse to their children by someone held with the utmost trust would sooner be dead by the parents' hands than the thought of any repercussions to themselves, legal or otherwise, would enter their head. The amount of murder, rape, theft, lying, cheating, and distrust in general that one hears about and experiences especially here in North America compared to many parts of Europe, my parents' Homeland included, is at times exponentially, but still always higher. So to blame the Church and its believers for many of the sins that do happen is absolutely absurd. Abolish the Church and brainwash all forms of religiosity out of ever individual on this planet and, supposing we replace every political institution in the world with a liberal-democratic form, not only will all these sins still be present, but I wouldn't doubt they would increase. I'm not saying the Church is fundamental to keeping people in line. No, my point is that at most it doesn't cause these things – that is purely a human fact – at best, for the most part, makes good people like my parents.

  46. Enter text right here! this is not a church going person this person has problems and should not be with any church . People like him should be taken out and jailed for what he said .HE probable rape a child as he is agreeing with a rapest

    • But you don't know, do you? Do you believe in free speech? If so, then no, he shouldn't be jailed for what he said. He has every right to say it. And you know what, I agree with him on the issue of childhood sex. Can you say it has never happened that a thirteen year old has tried to seduce a priest into sex? Don't turn into a fascist just to fight against child-rape. I'd rather have a child rapist go free than lose free speech.

  47. Does anybody else want to respond to what Daisy said about an hour ago. I am assuming that many responding on this site consider themselves atheists, and that many take that to mean that they are free thinkers. I see so much galactic stupidity on this site, it boggles my brain, not from everyone but many, I was just wondering if anybody else want to respond to I quote"HE probable rape a child as he is agreeing with a rapest" Believe you would do yourselves a favor by deleting this whole post. It's embarrassing.

    • We all understand what Daisy is trying to say! Some people may not have English as their first langauge, or may not have had the educational opportunites that you and I were granted as a child, thus on occasions words are mis-spelt and Grammar may not be correc t, so your comments (which are made to offend and/or embarass) are immature! The topic here is not spelling, it is child molestation and (what seems to be) the ingrown love of child molestation amongst priests and those that hold high positions in religious groups, mainly Christians and Catholics! Dont get on your "Spelling High Horse"………..its very unattractive!

      • I couldn't care less about Daisey's spelling or grammar, I am not even so sure mine is all that great most of the time. That wasn't what I was getting at at all. What I was getting at was that you should listen to the news critically, and not blindly accept someones conclusions. When you draw your own conclusions shouldn't they be from what the bishop actually said, and understand the context in which he said it? To me if you consider yourself a free thinker shouldn't that be important to you? We'll likely never agree on whether or not religion is harmful to society or not. Where I hope that there could be agreement is that this news story is a piece of trash, and that it belongs in the garbage.

    • Sparky, I'm not even sure to whom Daisy is responding. Is she suggesting that the Bishop of Tenerife is not a church-going person? As for what Bishop Álvarez actually said, there are quotes in the article, and links to the source of those quotes.

      • I don't think Daisy speaks English and she ran it through a translator, I do think she is talking about the bishop, and she is trying to say he can't be a good christian. (good person) I don't have an issue with the quotes, and really the bishop should have known better him being a public person and everything. Saying the things he did it doesn't surprise me, that people jump to the wrong conclusions. That still doesn't take away from the fact that these quotes were taken out of context. Don't confuse conclusions with fact and perception with reality.

  48. First off, fuck Spain, those left wing groups, the gay rights organizations, and anyone else who tried to legally punish this man for his speech. Free speech is a principal and I will not sacrifice it just so assholes can punish people they don't like for saying something that we find to be offensive. Secondly the bishop is right. Can you say, conclusively, that there are no thirteen year old girls or boys that have purposely tried to have sex with clergy? Come on, people, you know it and I know it. At that age hormones are wild, and for some they may come to find a preacher sexually appealing. If that happens, they may or may not try to seduce that preacher. I understand that most of you find pedophilia and hebophilia to be repulsive, but let me tell you something, you are fucking wrong. Pedo's and hebos are people too, and they have a sexual orientation like any other. It's not as if they wake up one morning and say to themselves: "Hey, let's be the most hated sexual minority! That sounds fun!" Go back a good 100 or 200 years. Here in the US and in many other countries we used to allow marriages between 11-12 year olds and fifty year old men, in fact, that was commonplace. Not all pedophiles or hebophiles commit rape, and in some cases of adult-teen or adult-child sex there is consent on both sides, sometimes it is the younger party that initiates it. I understand that these cases tend not to make it to the top of the news, as the media focuses on the rapes and those who have done legitimate harm, but all it takes is a little thought and some research into the subject (there are forums all over the internet that have women and men who claimed to have had sex with an adult at a variety of young ages and enjoyed it, some even claim to have initiated it) to see that that is the case. To be perfectly honest, I hate this pedophobia that has taken the world by storm. You people are willing to throw free speech and free expression under the bus just to harm someone for their opinion on sexuality. If that isn't wrong, I don't know what is. I understand that you all want to stop children from being harmed, but are you really willing to become fascists to do it? If so, then I suppose my faith in the human race was ill placed.

    • they may try to seduce the preacher, BUT, the preacher should aknlowledge that it is a minor, so he should reject the advances, if hs doesn´t he´s comiting a crime.

      • The Bishop does actually, Alex, implicitly from this quote: Tenerife – 31.03.2010 – Bishop Bernardo Alvarez said the actions of priests who had abused youngsters were 'horrible and reproachable' but the culprits were a tiny minority of the church's half a million priests worldwide. 'Two thirds of child sex abuse takes place in the family environment but nobody is calling for all adults to be kept away from children, yet there is an agenda to do just that with priests' said the Bishop. 'There is a clear motive behind the current campaign to keep cases that occurred, in some instances, 50 years ago in the limelight' he added.

      • Well, first of all, whether he is committing a crime or not depends on his country. Some countries have the age of consent as young as 12 and 13. To me, personally, age doesn't matter. What matters is consent, and consent gotten without the use of coercion in the case of the young. If girls are hitting on priests, maybe even promising certain sex acts (tell me, men, if a fourteen year old girl you knew for years began stripping and said she'd blow you, and you knew it would be covered up and that you'd get away with it, what would you do? You're anonymous on here, answer freely. I'll be honest, I totally would. But then, I'm 19 so maybe that isn't too bad to you people.) to preachers who have been celibate for years, chances are they will take the sex. How old she is will probably be the last thing on their mind as they enter the carnal ecstasy they have denied themselves for years.

        • Some countries allow the stoning of women for being raped…. that doesn't make it right.

          • Some countries throw people in jail for speaking their mind, oh no wait you do believe that is right.

          • Sex vs Stoning Sex feels good, and when it is not forced on someone is usually a happy memory. In fact, there are entire forums filled with men and women who say that they had consensual sex with an adult as young as 6 and 7 and actually enjoyed the experience. So, based on that and our physiology, sex at any age has the potential to be enjoyable (though, at younger ages certain acts must be omitted simply due to the possibility of physical harm, but other forms of sexual conduct can still occur without damage), so long as it's voluntary on both ends and proper precautions are taken by the adult. Should a young girl get pregnant from the sex, the man responsible will be legally required to pay child support or for an abortion if the girl so chooses (not her parents. Whether she keeps her baby should be her choice, not her parents.). Stoning kills women slowly and painfully (there are actual rules on how large the stones have to be. Not too large to cause instant death and not too small to just hurt), they usually don't survive it, and, in the case you describe, they are being punished for no good reason while their rapist gets away with raping them. There is a BIG world of difference between those two things. How do you define wrong? I define it as the taking of freedom from other people OR the infliction of undesired and unwarranted harm. Anything that meets one of those categories is morally wrong. So, I don't care how young a girl or boy is, if they are willingly engaging in sexual conduct with a priest or any other adult, no one should punish the priest, unless he knows he has an STD and passes it to the child. Why? They obviously want it in the cases this priest describes and it is not doing any harm because consent is involved (and at thirteen there is no risk of vaginal or anal tearing, unless the priest is overly endowed.), so I see no reason to punish the act or even put an end to it. That's the parent's job. If you find out your daughter is having sex with a priest at your local perish and you don't want her to, break it up. It's quite simple, really.

          • The problem with what you are saying that there really can't be consent from a child to have sex and when sex isn't consentual its wrong. Children just dont have the maturity level capable of giving consent.

        • i realy like agnostic n a free thinker,but u impress me..’adulthood’ is relative

    • Grammar Nazi. People have a right not to be censored, not free from criticism. Learn what free speech means, dickwad. I chose that name because I am literally a Satanist. It seemed fitting. Don't like it? I don't give a fuck! And did I say that insults were intelligent discourse? No, I didn't did I? I gave my argument, let's hear yours. You've failed to convince me so far that I'm wrong, in fact, every person I've debated on this topic has failed in that goal. Who hurled the first insulting statement directed at a single person? Oh yeah! That's right! One of you assholes! I was told that I was a sick individual that should check myself into a mental institution. Why? Because I disagree with you people. So I must be crazy to disagree with the majority? That seems kind of arbitrary and a rather foolish assumption. How am I hypocrite again? Some of you fuckers want to jail/kill this man for his opinion alone, all I have done is point out your stupidity. Your reaction proves you are quite unable to debate rationally.

  49. Oh, and I forgot one thing. I think his comments on homosexuality are terrible. But he has every right to say it. If you guys had been stopped from speaking we'd still have a society where being gay is considered wrong. Free speech is necessary if you want anything done. One consequence of it is that even assholes get to give their opinions and some times you will hear things you find absolutely despicable.

  50. avatar FollowerofChrist

    This “bishop” is disgusting. I hate when supposed Christians in power abuse their power to spread their own misinformed ideas.

  51. Pingback: Catholic Bishop: Children Want to Be Sexually Abused | Attalan's Blog

  52. No matter one's view of the Bishop's opinion, I don't see any need at all for this imagery in the article: "It’s those seductive tempters and temptresses, fresh-faced whores all, bending over in front of priests, flaunting their taut, young, moist flesh, just begging to be used as the sexual playthings of perverted pedophiles (and hebephiles)…" It suggest to me that the writer's own libido is coming a little too close to the surface for good taste.

  53. Haisatan – you are one sick disturbed individual! We are not talking about open consensual sex between a child and an Adult here (which I am certain does occur frequently)! We are talking about filthy dirty men of the cloth who abuse their position and sexually abuse children! Are you that ignorant that you really believe that all Priests who have had sex with a child have done so with the childs consent! You idiot! These dirty God Fearers have spent their entire life obstaining from the sexual desires that we as human beings have running through our vains, and have gotten to a point where they have no sexual confidence with other adults, so they abuse children instead because they are weak disgusting men! Its that simple. This is not about hating a sexual minority – its about protecting children from pests. Pests that have not only dedicated their life to a fairy tale, but pests who have no morals, they lie to us and lie to themselves – then ruin a childs life because they are too weak to stop themselves. Death to them all!

    • Now that you are done your rant, what is your response to what the Bishop said in this quote: Tenerife – 31.03.2010 – Bishop Bernardo Alvarez said the actions of priests who had abused youngsters were 'horrible and reproachable' but the culprits were a tiny minority of the church's half a million priests worldwide. 'Two thirds of child sex abuse takes place in the family environment but nobody is calling for all adults to be kept away from children, yet there is an agenda to do just that with priests' said the Bishop. 'There is a clear motive behind the current campaign to keep cases that occurred, in some instances, 50 years ago in the limelight' he added.

    • Actually, sir, I am responding to his statement that there are cases where thirteen to fourteen year olds are seducing priests. Did I say anywhere in my entry that I think EVERY case is consensual? I certainly don't recall it. In fact, I believe I said these were in the minority, though I don't feel like rereading my old post to check. For those priests that are actually going out and forcing themselves on kids (And yes, that does happen in most of the cases. It isn't voluntary, the child is told you'll go to hell if you don't do X. I view that as a type of coercion) I have nothing but contempt. In fact, I'd like to see them executed. Although my problem with that is that I don't think it makes a lot of sense to kill someone who hasn't killed someone else (therapy can help a raped child and they might recover. Kill a priest and they can never recover. It doesn't seem to match). As for your statement about them being weak-willed: Yes, they are. Do you want to know why? There's a very good reason. Most of them haven't fucked in years! I doubt they can even masturbate, after all, that is probably still considered a sin for clergy. These priests you consider men of god are still, at the end of the day, biological human beings. As a result, they have sexual urges which are unfulfilled in their line of work. So imagine each time they have one of these teen girls or teen boys (some priests are gay, but afraid to admit it) in their chambers, and essentially under their power. It takes will power for them not to whip out their cock and try to get it into the teenager or child, and understandably so. If I had been denying my self sexual release for ten, twenty, or thirty years I'd probably go completely crazy, maybe even do what some of these priests do. You see, when man fights his true, carnal nature bad things happen. People get hurt. Denying yourself sex might not kill you in the short term, but it is probably just as nerve-wracking as denying yourself food, sleep, or drink, especially when a delicious meal, a warm bed, or cold drink is sitting right in front of you, open for the taking, the only thing stopping you is your will power. Unless you are strong, or somehow cheating (I bet you anything that the majority of priests masturbate to porn or mental fantasy.), you will fail, for you are fighting what you are born to be, your very genetic makeup is opposed to what you're doing. Plato called our apetitive soul a multiheaded hydra, for when you cut off one head two more grow in it's place, and when you deny it any sustenance it grows more ravenous and wild. Our Reason and Spirit must tame this beast by giving it just enough to calm it but not so much that it grows stronger than Reason and Spirit. If the pope wants to end sexual abuse in the vatican all he need do is take away the vow of chastity from priests and allow them to marry. It was an idiotic move by one of the medieval popes because sex was so taboo that the church didn't even want it occurring in marriage without the express reason or procreation. Why do you think that the catholic church has more sexual abuse in it than in any other church, as far as I know? This is why I'm a Satanist. We give in to our natures, and guess what, we, for the most part, don't rape people. Please, read my post fully before responding to such things.

  54. I do not have a solution to cure the world of Sex Offenders! I do not believe there is a solution! The difference between a regular person molesting a child and a priest molesting a child is simply this! Priests supposedly represent all that is good and this goes totally against all that they supposedly stand for! The fact that this is widespread in the church (even though a small percentage – it is still widespread) demonstrates to me and every other Non Believer that there is a strong stench of contradiction once again within the church! They preach the bible and “Gods Word” (whatever that is), then cover up these sick crimes (which is what they are) at the highest level to protect the church and the money that the church generates for these individuals! If however these crimes against children were punished as they should be I would likley have less to say about the issue! The main issue here is not that Priests are the ONLY ones who do these sick things, but that the Church does not condem it in the way of proper punishment! The Church makes excuses for these men. Its sad. Its sick. It demonstrates that some of these priests are disturbed in the head – which is what we Athiests have been saying all along. I am sure (I am 100% certain) that there are many good honest priests out there that 100% believe in what they do and spend their entire lives caring for others and spreading their love to those who feel they need it, but there are too many wrong doings and contradictions for me to change my views of Christians in particular, who i feel are brain washed and lazy individuals that refuse to take repsonsibility for their own life and simply follow the words of an old book written many years ago!


    • All caps makes it looks like you are screaming and really more stupid than you actually are. If you took the time and got to the bottom to the actually story you wouldn't be saying any of this.

  56. This horrifying corruption goes straight to, and includes, THE TOP. For example, after Cardinal Bernard Law had to step down in utter disgrace from the Boston Diocese because he covered for so many rapist-priests, Pope Benedict gave him a very cushy job at the Vatican, which Law still holds. I repeat, the Pope did not demote or defrock the disgraced Cardinal Law, he rewarded him with a cushy, prestigious, new job. In the documentary film Chicken Hawks, all the pedophiles blame their victims, describing 7 year olds (!) as seductive, describing themselves as the helpless victims of child seducers. This is Alvarez's reasoning, exactly.

  57. This horrifying corruption goes straight to, and includes, THE TOP. For example, after Cardinal Bernard Law had to step down in utter disgrace from the Boston Diocese because he covered for so many rapist-priests, Pope Benedict gave him a very cushy job at the Vatican, which Law still holds. I repeat, the Pope did not demote or defrock the disgraced Cardinal Law, he rewarded him with a cushy, prestigious, new job. In the documentary film Chicken Hawks, all the pedophiles blame their victims, describing 7 year olds (!) as seductive, describing themselves as the helpless victims of child seducers. This is Alvarez's reasoning, exactly.

  58. I think he should be publicly raped with a pitchfork and then hanged

  59. Pingback: Neues von der …-Sekte – Der Schockwellenreiter

  60. I am an atheist. I have never been a Catholic and I find the child sex abuse scandal to be abhorrent. I'm not sure what context the pullquote in question was pulled from, but let's examine the statement shall we? "There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you." Is the statement true or false? Am I the only one here who remembers being 13? Am I the only one here who had teenage friends who had sex at an early age with people older than them? Are you serious? Sexuality is a complex issue and this statement should not be taken to condone the behavior of pedophiles. It seems more a word of caution to priests who may be tempted by sexually active or curious youth. I had a friend when I was 15, she was 13, and she dated a 21 year old. No one ever made a big deal about it. Maybe we should have, but she wasn't forced into anything and she turned out fine. She never blamed him for something she wanted as much as him. This was not an isolated incident. It's quite common actually. Abuse of power and forced assault are different altogether. All this man seems to be saying is that kids going through puberty get horny, and yeah, I was, and so were most of you

  61. God is not the problem here. It is the freaks who claim to follow him. I meant to type priests…wait. No I got it right. If you think the Catholic church represents God that is the problem. Organized religion-now that is the problem-not God.

    • No here the problem is Jenny Donalti who completely takes the Bishop's words out of context, she is counting on the stupidity of the majority of atheists who go to this site, and she is not disappointed.

      • Since you are so vehement in your defense of this particular bishop, and so insistent in your accusations that Jenny took something out of context, I have no doubt you can provide the full text (in English) of the 2007 speech from which the quote is taken, and don't doubt you have read it. Where is it? Can you provide a link? When I look at the source Jenny linked to, I don't see any "context" that she ignored. Do you? Thanks!

        • This seems to be the quote that Donati is referring to, and I will assume for the purpose of this discussion that this quote is accurate: "His comments were that there are youngsters who want to be abused, and he compared that abuse to homosexuality, describing them both as prejudicial to society. He said that on occasions the abuse happened because the there are children who consent to it. ‘There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you’, he said." First fo all the Bishop sais "On occasion", he sais that only sometimes there are 13 year olds who consent to sex, he is right there is anedodotal evidence to support this. The problem with the article is Donati's interpretation of that quote, and her so called evidence of that interpretation. It was never the Bishop intention to say that it was ok, or even understandable for the priests to fall vitum to these "empters and temptresses". It was only his intention to say that sexuality is a complex issue. You can see in this quote which should have been part of the article: "A later statement from the Bishop's residence on Tenerife explained that the Bishop did not intend to imply that ‘an event as condemnable as the abuse of youngsters’ could be justified." In another article: "Tenerife – 31.03.2010 – Bishop Bernardo Alvarez said the actions of priests who had abused youngsters were 'horrible and reproachable' but the culprits were a tiny minority of the church's half a million priests worldwide. 'Two thirds of child sex abuse takes place in the family environment but nobody is calling for all adults to be kept away from children, yet there is an agenda to do just that with priests' said the Bishop. 'There is a clear motive behind the current campaign to keep cases that occurred, in some instances, 50 years ago in the limelight' he added." What is her evidence for her interpretation? "Bishop Alvarez got some bad press shortly thereafter:" That doesn't prove anything one way or the other that the government wants to distance themselves from what he said. (This is my interpretation) Because it is so easy to twist the Bishop's words into something else. And again this site is an easy example of that. "In 2008, the Spanish Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals (FELGT) filed a criminal complaint against him for “identifying homosexuality with the sexual abuse of minors” and for “promoting an attitude of violence and discrimination” against homosexuals:" That again doesn't prove anything about the context of what the bishop was trying to say. Again if you want to get at the context of what the Bishop was trying to say you don't go to other groups and look at their interpretation, to go to the source itself. What is that quote about exactly? Does it relate to what we are talking about, or does it relate to his views on homosexuality which has nothing to do with what we are talking about here? There is nothing in her quotes to support her interpretation, nothing. You have to do more than use a very poorely worded headline to accuse someone of saying something. You have to read the article, and you have to figure out the difference between what is fact and what is interpretation, what is preception and what is reality. When you read someone interpretation, look at the facts to support that interpretation.

          • You mention "other articles" and "the source", yet even though I asked for that information, you have provided no links to those "other articles" or the text of the speech in question.

          • The first quote I used was from the same article that Donati used: "A later statement from the Bishop's residence on Tenerife explained that the Bishop did not intend to imply that ‘an event as condemnable as the abuse of youngsters’ could be justified." He is saying that the statement that some children would consent to sex doesn't mean that in anyway justifies the abuse of youngsters. It is the same article, just link through the article that Donati used. In other articles he condemns priests who abuse calling it "horrible and reproachable" It is easily Googled , I don't think I got it through this link earlier but this link works.… Nowadays with the internet it is not hard to get that the truth and get the right context, it takes a little bit of digging but not a lot, in this case one only had to read the same article Donati used, so there is really no excuse. I would disagree with a lot of things that the Bishop believes especially his views on homosexuality, but I thought it was pretty ironic he would get condemned for the one thing that was actually pretty courageous to say and insightful.

          • Thank you for the other article. However, it is about statements he made in 2010, which do not in any way reference his own earlier statement but instead complain about people going after the church. The article Jenny got her quote from refers to part of a speech he made in 2007. Where is the text of that speech? You insist the quote is out of context; the only way we can see if it is not conveying the intent of the original speech is by reading the text of that speech . . . not "later statements". A "later statement" may be interpreted as, "Oops, I said something bad, I need to make a clarifying statement now that everyone is mad at me".

          • This is the entire text as it relates to what we are talking about: Reporter: The difference between a homosexual relation and an act of abuse is clear. Bishop: Of course, but why is an abuser of minors sick? Reporter: To begin with, the abuse is a relationship that is not consented to. Bishop: There might be minors who consent to it, and in fact, there are. There are adolescents of thirteen years of age who are minors and are totally in agreement and furthermore desire it. Even if you take care they provoke you. This aspect of sexuality is somewhat more complex than it appears. _____________________________________________________________ All the Bishop said was that the abuse of children isn't always when there isn't consent. Some children who are abused consented to the sex and further more desire it. I agree with him on that point, I remember being 13, I was never abused but when I masturbated I was certainly desirous of it. Under certain circumstances I can see how it would have been an enjoyable experience. It doesn't take away the fact that it is abuse, and again the Bishop never said it wasn't abuse, he simply said there are cases of abuse where there is consent. Now that you have everything, you tell me if Donati took the Bishop words out of context.

          • Can you provide a link to that or not? I don't know where that''s coming from. For all I know, you made it up. But it seems that the bishop was also saying that abusers of minors aren't sick. Do you think sex with kids is OK? Is that what you're defending?

          • I Googled: The Bishop of Tenerife 2007 speech and this is what I got:… Note: I must admit it did substitute the "Q" for "reporter" and the "A" for "Bishop" for clarity, but that is all the editing that I did. When the Bishop asks"Of course, but why is an abuser of minors sick?" He is asking the reporter a question, he is not making a statement. I do think he is interested in seeing what the response of the reporter would be to that question. The reporter responds by saying that abuse is a relationship that is not consented to. The Bishop then gives an example you can actually have an abusive situation where there is consent. The Bishop is entirely within his right considering this was all that he said at that time, to clarify his position later on so that people would not take his words out of context which would be easy to do. Why aren't you giving the Bishop given the same opportunity you are giving me now asking your question "Do you think sex with kids is OK? Is that what you're defending? Why aren't you doing the same thing most everyone else would be doing on this site and accuse me of defending pedophillia like Donati is doing with the Bishop? It is interesting to me that you asked me that question. Why isn't the Bisphop given the same opportunity? You are not even allowing him the opportunity to clarify his position later on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>