RC Priest quits McKinney church after complaints about gay Web site

A longtime priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas resigned Tuesday from his new post at St. Michael the Archangel Church in McKinney amid complaints about his past participation with an Internet site for gay priests. The Rev. Arthur Mallinson "felt [resigning] was in the best interest of the parish, his family and the diocese," said Annette Gonzales Taylor, communications director for the diocese.

[Xavier]

The priest abuse scandal was more than eighty percent homosexual in nature and actually involved very little clinical pederasty. It was primarily homosexual.

[Pagan and Proud]

Another lie from Wil..

[elaygee]

Sorry, most priests who molested children molested girls, over 90% You sensationalize the ones who molest boys as if it were more horrible. Gay priests like MEN, grown men.

[BUZZZZZZZZZ]

elaygee wrote:

Sorry, most priests who molested children molested girls, over 90% You sensationalize the ones who molest boys as if it were more horrible. Gay priests like MEN, grown men.

LIE DETECTOR!!!!!
The priest abuse scandal was over 80% homosexual in nature, and primarily involved minor young men rather than children.
"The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PriestAbus...

[ACLU-Tom]

Hi, Wil. Spreading more lies, I see.

BUZZZZZZZZZ wrote:

<quoted text>
LIE DETECTOR!!!!!
The priest abuse scandal was over 80% homosexual in nature, and primarily involved minor young men rather than children.
"The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PriestAbus...

[Rick in Kansas]

Congratulations Buzzzzzz you have successfully managed to prove that your first post on this issue was in fact a lie. If your figures are indeed accurate, you have demonstrated that 72.9% of the male victims were in fact victims of pedophiles, which has already been proved to you to be crimes primarily perpetrated by heterosexuals. Children in the 11-14 yearl old age range are generally considered to be pre-pubescent and those 10 and under definitely are. So instead of proving, what you have always claimed, that the priest abuse scandal was primarily homosexual in nature, you have just clearly proved that they were crimes perpetrated by pedophiles, who, except in the rare instance, are naturally heterosexual.

[Reine]

ACLU-Tom wrote:

Hi, Wil. Spreading more lies, I see.
<quoted text>

Where's the lie, Wil?

There is full documentation for the claim. Where's yours?

Oops....*YOU* are the liar!

[Rick in Kansas]

Reine wrote:

<quoted text>
Where's the lie, Wil?
There is full documentation for the claim. Where's yours?
Oops....*YOU* are the liar!

the lie would be in your repeated claim that the priest abuse scandal was homosexual in nature when your own figures prove that it was in fact an issue of pedophilia which is primarily perpetrated by those who identify themselves as heterosexual even when their victims are children of the same sex. Your proof is our proof and you've just managed to prove yourself to be a liar. Any questions?

[BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ]

Sick Hick in a Kansas trailer wrote:

<quoted text>
the lie would be in your repeated claim that the priest abuse scandal was homosexual in nature when your own figures prove that it was in fact an issue of pedophilia which is primarily perpetrated by those who identify themselves as heterosexual even when their victims are children of the same sex. Your proof is our proof and you've just managed to prove yourself to be a liar. Any questions?

LIE DETECTOR!!!!

Sick Hick told another whopper, and was silly enough to do it on the same page with proof that he lied!

Pedophilia involves children before the age of puberty. The quoted statistics confirmt that the priest abuse was in fact primarily homosexual in nature. It primarily involved pederasty, a major focus of homosexuality.

Hick, if you really don't see what a silly liar you've again been proven to be, check a dictionary for the meaning of pedophilia versus pederasty.

[1noteasilyfooled]

wil.. get off the bottle!

[Spanku]

Xavier wrote:

The priest abuse scandal was more than eighty percent homosexual in nature and actually involved very little clinical pederasty. It was primarily homosexual.

Does not really matter since the crime is against children and it is no more right or wrong to judge the sex of the victims. But, bigots will latch onto anything they can to justify their hatred.

[Divine Alien]

elaygee wrote:

Sorry, most priests who molested children molested girls, over 90% You sensationalize the ones who molest boys as if it were more horrible. Gay priests like MEN, grown men.

That is why the leaders of other churches are married so that they could avoid immoral activities. They can do it anytime they like with their legal wives rather than wondering around looking for young victims in the street. For such Priest, it is good that he resigns rather continuing as a priest being a gay.

[Rick in Kansas]

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ wrote:

<quoted text>
LIE DETECTOR!!!!
Sick Hick told another whopper, and was silly enough to do it on the same page with proof that he lied!
Pedophilia involves children before the age of puberty. The quoted statistics confirmt that the priest abuse was in fact primarily homosexual in nature. It primarily involved pederasty, a major focus of homosexuality.
Hick, if you really don't see what a silly liar you've again been proven to be, check a dictionary for the meaning of pedophilia versus pederasty.

I keep telling you and telling you that you really ought to pay attention to that lie detector you claim to have, because it always seems to go off right before you start to post another one. While you are in your own sweet and charming way trying to explain the difference between pederasty and pedophilia to me, which I already know by the way, you ignore the fact that your own statistics prove that it was vry much a problem of pedophilia. You really should have read prior to the one you chose to respond to as it would have spared you from the embarrassment of being proved to be lying once again.
Just to refresh your memory, here it is again:

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Congratulations Buzzzzzz you have successfully managed to prove that your first post on this issue was in fact a lie. If your figures are indeed accurate, you have demonstrated that 72.9% of the male victims were in fact victims of pedophiles, which has already been proved to you to be crimes primarily perpetrated by heterosexuals. Children in the 11-14 year old age range are generally considered to be pre-pubescent and those 10 and under definitely are. So instead of proving, what you have always claimed, that the priest abuse scandal was primarily homosexual in nature, you have just clearly proved that they were crimes perpetrated by pedophiles, who, except in the rare instance, are naturally heterosexual.

So would you like to try again to explain how I am lying and you are not or are you just going to try to lie your way out of your own proof???

[Cap]

Sick Hick in a Kansas trailer wrote:

<quoted text>
I keep telling you and telling you that you really ought to pay attention to that lie detector you claim to have, because it always seems to go off right before you start to post another one. While you are in your own sweet and charming way trying to explain the difference between pederasty and pedophilia to me, which I already know by the way, you ignore the fact that your own statistics prove that it was vry much a problem of pedophilia. You really should have read prior to the one you chose to respond to as it would have spared you from the embarrassment of being proved to be lying once again.
Just to refresh your memory, here it is again:
<quoted text>
So would you like to try again to explain how I am lying and you are not or are you just going to try to lie your way out of your own proof???

Sick Hick, the study clearly shows that the priest abuse was OVER EIGHT PERCENT homosexual in nature, with a majority of the children NOT prepubescent (look that word up, Hick.) For the abuse to have involved pedophilia, they would have had to have been prepubescent.
The priest abuse primarily involved homosexuality. Since the Catholic Church clamped down on homosexual priests, the abuse has sharply declined. Accusations were also made at approximately the same percent of priests as of homosexuals in the general population.

[Rick in Kansas]

Cap wrote:

<quoted text>
Sick Hick, the study clearly shows that the priest abuse was OVER EIGHT PERCENT homosexual in nature, with a majority of the children NOT prepubescent (look that word up, Hick.) For the abuse to have involved pedophilia, they would have had to have been prepubescent.
The priest abuse primarily involved homosexuality. Since the Catholic Church clamped down on homosexual priests, the abuse has sharply declined. Accusations were also made at approximately the same percent of priests as of homosexuals in the general population.

Of course you went with attempt to lie your way out of your own proof option, which was what was to be expected, sadly. How can you possibly still claim that your proof indicates that the priest abuse scandal was more than 80% homosexual in nature when of the 80% more than 70% of the male victims were clearly the target of pedophiles as boys under the age of 14 are generally considered to be pre-pubescent and pedophiles are generally heterosexual regardless of the sex of the victim? What you seem to fail to realize is that the Catholic Church has forbade the ordination of homosexual priests and defrocked any who were discovered since the early 1960's and yet the scandal occurred anyways.

I guess I'm giving you yet another opportunity to lie to get yourself out of the proof that you were lying all along. Make the best of it and please try to look a little less foolish than you have so far...

[Troy]

Sick Hick in a Kansas trailer park wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you went with attempt to lie your way out of your own proof option, which was what was to be expected, sadly. How can you possibly still claim that your proof indicates that the priest abuse scandal was more than 80% homosexual in nature when of the 80% more than 70% of the male victims were clearly the target of pedophiles as boys under the age of 14 are generally considered to be pre-pubescent and pedophiles are generally heterosexual regardless of the sex of the victim? What you seem to fail to realize is that the Catholic Church has forbade the ordination of homosexual priests and defrocked any who were discovered since the early 1960's and yet the scandal occurred anyways.
I guess I'm giving you yet another opportunity to lie to get yourself out of the proof that you were lying all along. Make the best of it and please try to look a little less foolish than you have so far...

Hick, again you have posted laughable falsehood. Puberty in boys usually begins at about age 10.

The priest abuse scandal was clearly overwhelmingly homosexual in nature and primarily involved pederasty, a major focus of homosexuality.

[Rick in Kansas]

Troy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hick, again you have posted laughable falsehood. Puberty in boys usually begins at about age 10.
The priest abuse scandal was clearly overwhelmingly homosexual in nature and primarily involved pederasty, a major focus of homosexuality.

I gave you the opportunity to attempt to lie your way out and you chose a whopper. Nice try, but the reality is once again you have cited yet another source that proved your own argument to be a lie. So sorry...