castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Pope John Paul II Defrocks Md. Priest


December 23, 2004 9:16 AM EST
BALTIMORE - A priest facing trial next month for allegedly molesting a former altar boy who later shot him has been defrocked by Pope John Paul II, The Associated Press has learned.

Maurice Blackwell 58, is scheduled to go on trial Jan. 3 on four counts of child sexual abuse against Dontee Stokes.

Blackwell was shot by Stokes in May 2002, in the midst of the national scandal involving Catholic priests. In the aftermath, Baltimore prosecutors reviewed Stokes' allegations and charged the priest with molesting Stokes.

The pope decided in October to dismiss Blackwell, and the Archdiocese of Baltimore received the official paperwork earlier this month from the Vatican, archdiocese spokesman Sean Caine said Wednesday.

Blackwell's trial has been postponed five times, and the archdiocese received word from Rome just before one of his previous trial dates. Caine said the archdiocese decided then not to make a public statement about Blackwell's defrocking out of consideration for how it could affect potential jurors.

But after receiving requests from the AP for information about Blackwell's status and discussing the matter with the prosecutor's office, the archdiocese "decided it would be prudent for us to acknowledge that the pope has signed this decree, and it is in effect and Maurice is no longer considered a priest in the eyes of the church," Caine said.

Defrocking, which the church calls laicization, is applied in extreme cases of misconduct. It comes about only after a long process involving the Vatican.

The alleged abuse began in 1989 and ended in 1992 - a decade before the Baltimore barber shot Blackwell in front of the priest's home.

Blackwell has denied sexually abusing Stokes, who was a teenager at the time. Kenneth Ravenell, Blackwell's attorney, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Mark Serrano, a board member with the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests, described the pope's decision as "long overdue."

"The Blackwell case is a particularly anguishing one, because the Archdiocese of Baltimore had all the information they needed 10 years ago that Father Blackwell was a threat to children," Serrano said.

Blackwell, who was a pastor at a Baltimore church from 1979 until 1998, was stripped of his church authority after acknowledging having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy in the early 1970s. But Cardinal William Keeler returned Blackwell to his post after he underwent psychological treatment and no other accusers came forward. Keeler barred Blackwell from direct ministry with children.

Keeler removed Blackwell from the pulpit in 1998 following other abuse allegations.

Stokes was acquitted of attempted murder in December 2002 but was convicted on gun charges. He testified he had an "out-of-body experience" at the time of the shooting. He served a sentence of home detention.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press.

[Che]

It's not only the RCC that has problems. It seem's about once a week... there is a newspaper article about an evangalical youth-minister getting caught for being a pedophile.

[Brf]

JuntaJoe wrote: Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests

I am sure this is credible.... but you still gotta love these acronyms. It sounds like something made up by a humourist.

[JuntaJoe]

Imo, sex crimes in general are up.

When will humanity recognize the obvious?

Sexual frustration does weird things to weak minds.

It certainly wouldn't solve the problem completely, but legalized prostitution could cut it down substantially.

A little gratification could keep some of the marginal types on the right side of the law.

[Brf]

I doubt legalized prostitution would have much effect on sex crimes against children.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok, let me float you a theory.

One of the little known facts about this Joe is that during college he managed a video store.

This wasn't your average store either.

The owner used to own a few porno video stores and opened a new one on a main freeway here. The local civic association got pissed and his cpa also told him that he'd better computerize at the same time. So he comes up with an idea. Hire a young whiz kid who is a movie buff.

Enter Joe into the scene answering an ad in the paper. "Remake my new store into a semi-respectable joint", he says. So I become manager, bring in computers, mainstream movies, and to distinguish ourselves, began stocking art movies, cult classics, and oldies. But we still had a "backroom", if you know what I mean. It was actually a pretty cool place to work during those lean college years. Boss paid me under the table so I could claim destitution on my college grant requests.

We had several sets of crowds. Yuppies who really thought my hard-to-find regular movies were the bomb. I had quite the following in that area there. We had our usual locals who were too lazy to drive a half mile to the Blockbuster and appreciated my extra day I gave them over the competition. And we had the "backroom" customers. Actually, those were a pretty normal crowd, though mostly men. But I did notice something about people and their porn habits.

The porn customers fell roughly into 2 types. The businessman types with normal lives, who just liked porn. Then there was the group that rented porn because it was clear that their dating life was pretty non-existant. Obesity, shyness, fugly, whatever.

The first group always seemed to consistantly rent the same types of movies over time, whatever that type may be. The other group would degenerate over time. They started with "everyday" sex movies and over the months and years would end up watching the fetish and deviant types of movies.

So I had a theory pop in my head over this trend. Lack of HUMAN sexual contact tended to drive people with normal libidos and poor social skills into deviancy.

I'd love to see per-capita rates of places like Holland and Nevada for sex crimes as compared to a US/EU general average to test this theory.

[Morticcia]

The literature definitely suggest that pedophilia is a pyschological dsyfunction. It is an impulse control distorder probably, much like, but far more dangerous than people with say foot fetishes.

This is definitely a separate issue from loner types spiraling towards deviant sexual turn-ons. You don't become a pedophile, imo, you are born one. It is not a learned behavior, it is genetically determined, like your sexual preference. Human biology is a myriad thing. Not everyone fits the same mold.

Like sociopaths, these people are missing something which stops them from acting against societal rules. Yet unlike sociopaths, they can emotionally acknowledge what they do is wrong, they just can't stop themselves.

Though, it's a wonder how sociopaths, rapists and pedophiles are most exclusively men. I can understand the limitations of a woman becoming a rapist, but a female would have no problem with subduing a child or killing.

[Morticcia]

Coming from the state that put the pedophile priest phrase into our national lexicon, and being an athiest, the horrors of the church's negligence is incalcuable to me. I think every single person that passively or actively allowed this to happen should be criminally charged. Plus the current pope should be forced into retirement, as jail would not be an option due to his frailty.

The one problem with being an athiest, though, is that I don't even get the satisfaction of knowing he'll get his in the afterlife.

M.

[JuntaJoe]

Imo, Tish, there are two kinds of pedophiles.

There is the kind you are describing that gets excited by pre-pubescent children. These youngsters have no exhibited sexual behavior and I think the excitement comes from corrupting something so "pure". It's clearly a sociopatic deviancy.

Then there is the pedophile who gets excited by post-pubescent teens. Let's face it, a 16 year old girl looked hot when I was 16 and nothing has changed except my attitude. They are still darn cute, but I'm no longer excited by them. Parental "drives" that stem from taking care of nieces and nephews and just plain age make me see them in a different light. And their minds do not stimulate me at all. But they are still darn cute just to look at. And they are "sexual creatures" now even though they are unsure of the game.

It's this latter group of pedophiles that I feel are caused by degeneration of their libido. They crave sex and human interaction. And they have a deficiency in social skills to tackle a partner their own age. It's really not hard to "wow" a teenager. Adults have money, power, and more access to things no teen can have yet. Drive past a teen in a hot car, display some "bling", and serenade them with your worldliness. How hard could that be?

In any case, my comment was about sex crimes in general. Rape of adults seems up these days too.

I believe that having legal outlets for sex cravings might help reduce the total number of sex crimes. That's why I'm interested in seeing statistics for places that permit prostitution. Hey, I'm not declaring a fact here. I just have a hypothesis based on opinion and anecdotal evidence. It would be interesting to see how the demographic stats mesh with my idea.

[Morticcia]

Someone who desires a post-prepubescent is not a pedophile, I don't think. The merrium webster uses the world children and in my mind that is someone who is pre-pubescent. Generally that is less than a 12 year old. Or more importantly, a young person whose body has not begun to reflect woman- or man-hood.

I wasn't making any argument regarding sexual deviants and statistics on sex crimes. Making prostitution legal will make no dent to the pedophile crime rate as lack of adult sex is not the cause of pedophilia.

I do think prostitution should be legal, alongside illicit drugs. Prohibition only generates crime.

[Batchman]

And here, I show that I am becoming far more a libertarian than a republican ... I have to agree with this.

I firmly disapprove of both drugs and prostitution ... but following the bill of rights and a belief in personal freedoms, I have to conclude that people should have a right to do this, if they wish ... with a caveat about strong punishments for irresponsible behavior while in either condition.

ie driving while under the influence of drugs.

ie working as a prostitute (or paying for the services) of one while carrying an STD without making the other person fully aware of it.

Any thoughts on this?

[Brf]

Nope... no driving under the influence of drugs. For one thing, driving is a privilege -- not a right -- so it is not protected by the constitution. For another thing, driving DUI, whether by alcohol or drugs, is plain stupid.

As far as spreading STDs.... you have a point. First thing, we will have to pass a law against STDs and lock-up anyone who has one. Once we do that we can prosecute those who spread them.

[Batchman]

Brf, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so I'm not sure if you were being serious, sarcastic, or what.

But I can't see arresting people for being sick. That wouldn't be right. But if one knows one is sick with something uncurable (and controlable is not the same as curable), and chooses to pass it on without letting the other person be aware of it, that is just plain wrong, and should be a crime. Though in many cases, proof and prosecution would be difficult.

I would stand behind testing of prostitutes, in the interest of public safety.

[Che]

Brf, are you sure that this is what you really meant to say...

Quote: First thing, we will have to pass a law against STDs and lock-up anyone who has one.

I'm assuming you were being sarcastic.

[Brf]

Sarcastic maybe....

But wouldnt it be easier to just lock-up everyone that had such diseases? It would prevent spreading it.

[Batchman]

Brf wrote: Sarcastic maybe....

But wouldnt it be easier to just lock-up everyone that had such diseases? It would prevent spreading it.

It would ... but it would be unreasonably harsh for somebody who catches the disease through no fault of their own. Maybe 99.9 percent of the STDs are transmitted through unwise sexual behavior, but what about the .1% that comes from improperly cleaned medical equipment or donated blood that is tainted? Or what about the wife who is good and faithful and careful, but her husband is a scumbucket?

[Brf]

The flu can be deadly for some people, especially the very old and the very young. Maybe we should make it illegal to sneeze in public if you might have the flu.

As an aside... it was illegal in Illinois to spit in public -- because that was one way to spread tuberculosis -- until 1970 I think.... Maybe it is still technically illegal if that law is still in effect.

[Eddy]

Wouldn't it be better to treat the disease instead?

[Brf]

OK.... we will pass a law.... Anyone who has any disease will have to go get treated....

[Batchman]

The flu is also curable.

For most people it isn't going to hang around for the rest of their lives, and never go away.

Also, it is much more easily spread, and more difficult to prevent the spread of.

Finally, if you imprison people for having the flu, you are going to imprison them for about a week. If you imprison a person for having some STDs (as opposed to intentionally spreading an STD), you're going to be putting them in prison for life.