Anti-Gay Minn. Archbishop Denies Touc...

Anti-Gay Minn. Archbishop Denies Touching Minor

There are 12 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 18, 2013, titled Anti-Gay Minn. Archbishop Denies Touching Minor. In it, EDGE reports that:

In this Dec. 15, 2013 file photo Archbishop John Nienstedt, head of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, talks to the media at Our Lady of Grace Church in Edina, Minn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Dec 18, 2013
I have my doubts about this one.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Dec 18, 2013
This is the church's reward for claiming a butt is a sex organ
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Dec 18, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
This is the church's reward for claiming a butt is a sex organ
Oh look, hillbilly trash.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Dec 18, 2013
If he were abusing power in a sexual context there would have been other complaints by now, what with all the publicity. And they don't tend to do it in public, even by a casual, "accidental" brushing of some adolescent's buttocks to get a tiny thrill.

Here's his presumed crime, the coverup, imo, as usual:

"At a news conference Tuesday, St. Paul police Chief Thomas Smith did not provide details about NienstedtÂ’s case. But he said the archdiocese has not cooperated fully with its other ongoing investigations and has declined to make clergy available to investigators."

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#5 Dec 19, 2013
Inasmuch as the clergy has been so much in the news lately in regards to sexual abuse, I would advise any of them not to touch another person in any way that could be construed at sexual. However, even if he did touch one boy on the buttocks, it would depend upon the circumstances. Good lord, if touching a man or boy on the buttocks is a sexual move in all cases, Monday Night Football would have a whole new connotation. This case is much ado about nothing if there are no other viable claims.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Dec 19, 2013
RalphB wrote:
Inasmuch as the clergy....
But it _is_ obviously homoerotic when heterosexually identified (publicly) pat each others butts.

But that is not the same as an abuse or the appearance of abuse of a power relationship, as all this stuff with RCC clergy is...in multiple contexts, not merely in a sexual context.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7 Dec 20, 2013
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
But it _is_ obviously homoerotic when heterosexually identified (publicly) pat each others butts.
But that is not the same as an abuse or the appearance of abuse of a power relationship, as all this stuff with RCC clergy is...in multiple contexts, not merely in a sexual context.
I see parents pat their children on the butt all the time. Is that homoerotic also? When I was a child I can remember grownups patting me on the butt as I walked by, which I assumed was a form of affection, not sexuality. Granted, this guy may very well be a pedophile, but are we to judge that from one instance of this sort? I need much more information in order to come to a conclusion.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Dec 20, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see parents pat their children on the butt all the time. Is that homoerotic also? When I was a child I can remember grownups patting me on the butt as I walked by, which I assumed was a form of affection, not sexuality. Granted, this guy may very well be a pedophile, but are we to judge that from one instance of this sort? I need much more information in order to come to a conclusion.
I don't know - perhaps you have trouble distinguishing between various things:

Such as "child" versus "adult football player."

"Potential boyfriend" versus "altar boy in your parish."

Or "family member" versus "non family member." (Although in a sick family, sure, a pat on the butt of a child could well be sexualized.)

In other words - as virtually anyone can see - this RCC guy involves age (when under age) and power differences. That is the key which is the problem, obviously.

In my previous post I allowed this RCC potentate probably has not actually diddled any of his flock or (I think) those complaints already would have surfaced by now.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#9 Dec 20, 2013
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know - perhaps you have trouble distinguishing between various things:
Such as "child" versus "adult football player."
"Potential boyfriend" versus "altar boy in your parish."
Or "family member" versus "non family member." (Although in a sick family, sure, a pat on the butt of a child could well be sexualized.)
In other words - as virtually anyone can see - this RCC guy involves age (when under age) and power differences. That is the key which is the problem, obviously.
In my previous post I allowed this RCC potentate probably has not actually diddled any of his flock or (I think) those complaints already would have surfaced by now.
I have no problem distinguishing between the different motives. And family members are not the only ones to pat a butt of a child. EVERYTHING is not sexual in nature or motive, except perhaps, in your mind.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Dec 20, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem distinguishing between the different motives. And family members are not the only ones to pat a butt of a child. EVERYTHING is not sexual in nature or motive, except perhaps, in your mind.
You do have trouble distinguishing between various things, because in relation to this RCC poobah you invoked:

A parent touching his or her child.

A pro football player touching another pro football player.

I explained why those cases are inapt comparisons. You couldn't follow along.

I also allowed that this RCC poobah probably just displayed poor boundaries. If he were another abuser of power relations in a sexual context then I think there would be other complaints against him. They are not. That we know of....

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#11 Dec 20, 2013
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
You do have trouble distinguishing between various things, because in relation to this RCC poobah you invoked:
A parent touching his or her child.

...
And you evidently also do not realize you have a reading comprehension problem. I said people other than family, and here ya are, back at family.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Dec 20, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
And you evidently also do not realize you have a reading comprehension problem. I said people other than family, and here ya are, back at family.
Even if, a random adult touching someone else's child similarly does not reach the abuse of a power relationship matter.

Perhaps that phrase is elusive for you: It would mean things like a priest and congregant (underaged or not) or a teacher and a student.

I guess your concept of the football players touching one another did, thankfully, go by the wayside.

Anyway, this dispute is hardly the most important one to be found in these threads, so I think I'll go back to "discussing" things with the homophobic bigots.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wedding 2 hr rocket158 1
News Naked Man In Bridal Shop Window Nabbed 5 hr beatlesinthebog 3
News Bryan Fischer: Christians Baking Cake for Gay W... (Jun '14) 6 hr Rose_NoHo 35
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 220
News Bill Clinton tells a love story to make his cas... 9 hr Mikey 5
News Community mourns the loss of Kent Tocher Fri Welly 1
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Fri lightweb 160
More from around the web