Priest arrested over nuns rape claim

#1
Priest arrested over nun's rape claim (c) The Telegraph

A Franciscan priest famous in Italy for the religious conversion of a leading porn star was in custody last night on charges of sexual harassment after a nun alleged that she was forced to take part in orgies at his monastery.

Fr Francesco Bisceglia, 68, and his deputy Antonio Gaudio, 39, were arrested yesterday after the unnamed sister made a police complaint against them.

Italian police also seized copies of videotapes allegedly filmed inside a Franciscan community centre at Cosenza in Calabria.

According to the Italian media, police had been tapping Fr Bisceglia's telephone for several weeks prior to the arrest and there were also other witnesses who may testify against him.

"I feel persecuted like Jesus," the priest, known in Italy as Fr Fidele, said on his arrest. "It is all evidence fabricated against me. She [the nun] is mad."

The nun, who the Italian newspaper La Repubblica said had passed psychiatric tests, also claimed that she was filmed being raped by several men although detectives have not so far uncovered any evidence to back up her allegations.
Every time I read a story regarding (alleged and proven) sexual abuse by Catholic priests and monks I ponder the role of enforced chastity and the associated guilt about sins of the flesh. Each time, my philosophical mind argues that humans are distinct from other animals due to the proven ability of logical and rational thought, but my physiological mind tells me that humans are nonetheless animals and that sex is a primeval urge that takes an awful lot of suppressing. Saying that, there are a mere handful of Buddhist monks accused of sexually assaulting anyone and their vows of celibacy are as severe, if not more so, than a Catholic priest’s. I know that there are relatively few allegations compared with the number of Catholic priests and monks, but I also think that like rape, there are more cases than ever get alleged.

I am nominally CofE and have no motive in posting this other than to ask what other people think regarding whether celibacy is actually needed to achieve spiritual enlightenment and true religious devotion, bearing in mind rabbis, vicars and imams can marry and have sexual relations.
 
#2
surely if celibacy is required to achieve spiritual enlightenment then only priests (and the incredibly ugly) should bother with religion as they are the only ones who have a chance of achieving enlightenment.

The rest of us are going to be too busy with fornication and such like.

(waits for lightening strike............)
 
#3
theoriginalphantom said:
surely if celibacy is required to achieve spiritual enlightenment then only priests (and the incredibly ugly) should bother with religion as they are the only ones who have a chance of achieving enlightenment.

The rest of us are going to be too busy with fornication and such like.

(waits for lightening strike............)
I can sell you some size 10 wellies .... should give you some ground insulation :)


J
 
#7
Let's all wait for an outburst from a rabidly Left-footed Moderator, who'll no doubt try and defend this behaviour!
 
#8
Queensman said:
Let's all wait for an outburst from a rabidly Left-footed Moderator, who'll no doubt try and defend this behaviour!
As opposed to a rabidly right-footed anti-Catholic bigot like you? Don't like Catholics? - pity about you. :twisted:
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#9
gallowglass said:
Queensman said:
Let's all wait for an outburst from a rabidly Left-footed Moderator, who'll no doubt try and defend this behaviour!
As opposed to a rabidly right-footed anti-Catholic bigot like you? Don't like Catholics? - pity about you.
And, as both of you are heretics I don't see what all the fuss is about...
 
#11
benjaminw1 said:
gallowglass said:
Queensman said:
Let's all wait for an outburst from a rabidly Left-footed Moderator, who'll no doubt try and defend this behaviour!
As opposed to a rabidly right-footed anti-Catholic bigot like you? Don't like Catholics? - pity about you.
And, as both of you are heretics I don't see what all the fuss is about...
Oh Lord, don't tell me Queensman is an anti-Catholic Catholic? 8O
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#12
gallowglass said:
benjaminw1 said:
gallowglass said:
Queensman said:
Let's all wait for an outburst from a rabidly Left-footed Moderator, who'll no doubt try and defend this behaviour!
As opposed to a rabidly right-footed anti-Catholic bigot like you? Don't like Catholics? - pity about you.
And, as both of you are heretics I don't see what all the fuss is about...
Oh Lord, don't tell me Queensman is an anti-Catholic Catholic? 8O
Nah! I'm Russian Orthodox....
 
#13
benjaminw1 said:
gallowglass said:
benjaminw1 said:
gallowglass said:
Queensman said:
Let's all wait for an outburst from a rabidly Left-footed Moderator, who'll no doubt try and defend this behaviour!
As opposed to a rabidly right-footed anti-Catholic bigot like you? Don't like Catholics? - pity about you.
And, as both of you are heretics I don't see what all the fuss is about...
Oh Lord, don't tell me Queensman is an anti-Catholic Catholic? 8O
Nah! I'm Russian Orthodox....
Ah yes, the Great Schism...shocking business. Wonderful liturgy in the Orthodox Church mind you. :D
 
#14
Surely chastardy is the death of religion.

To not have sex is to not to reproduce (not including medical intervention, im talking at the base level). No reproduction means no children and thus no one to carry on the religion. So there has to be some "evil" to populate the church.

And surely in th religous point of view, the best dad would be a priest as they could start teaching from birth.....
 
#15
Oneshot said:
Surely chastardy is the death of religion.
Is that Charridy's sister by any chance?
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#16
Oneshot said:
Surely chastardy is the death of religion.

To not have sex is to not to reproduce (not including medical intervention, im talking at the base level). No reproduction means no children and thus no one to carry on the religion. So there has to be some "evil" to populate the church.

And surely in th religous point of view, the best dad would be a priest as they could start teaching from birth.....
Who says it's evil? A sh@g in marriage is considered a top hole thing. Anywhere else - burn baby burn...

Our lot have both; married "white" parish priests, and unmarried "black" monastic priests who are the only ones that can become bishops (no nepotism..)

Anyhoo; off to Small Compline and Vespers....
 
#17
benjaminw1 said:
Oneshot said:
Surely chastardy is the death of religion.

To not have sex is to not to reproduce (not including medical intervention, im talking at the base level). No reproduction means no children and thus no one to carry on the religion. So there has to be some "evil" to populate the church.

And surely in th religous point of view, the best dad would be a priest as they could start teaching from birth.....
Who says it's evil? A sh@g in marriage is considered a top hole thing. Anywhere else - burn baby burn...

Our lot have both; married "white" parish priests, and unmarried "black" monastic priests who are the only ones that can become bishops (no nepotism..)

Anyhoo; off to Small Compline and Vespers....
Does the Commission for Racial Equality know about this? :lol:
 
#19
DozyBint said:
Every time I read a story regarding (alleged and proven) sexual abuse by Catholic priests and monks I ponder the role of enforced chastity and the associated guilt about sins of the flesh. Each time, my philosophical mind argues that humans are distinct from other animals due to the proven ability of logical and rational thought, but my physiological mind tells me that humans are nonetheless animals and that sex is a primeval urge that takes an awful lot of suppressing. Saying that, there are a mere handful of Buddhist monks accused of sexually assaulting anyone and their vows of celibacy are as severe, if not more so, than a Catholic priest’s. I know that there are relatively few allegations compared with the number of Catholic priests and monks, but I also think that like rape, there are more cases than ever get alleged.

I am nominally CofE and have no motive in posting this other than to ask what other people think regarding whether celibacy is actually needed to achieve spiritual enlightenment and true religious devotion, bearing in mind rabbis, vicars and imams can marry and have sexual relations.
My own opinion is that as regards sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, ‘enforced chastity and the associated guilt about sins of the flesh’ don’t really have a role, and that to focus on these things is to effectively take one’s eye off the ball. I know that we are very much in the age of the ‘wayhay!’ laddish ‘culture’ but I don’t accept that most people, and certainly not most priests are raging volcanoes of barely-suppressed lust, and that it’s all they can do to keep their wilder passions at bay. Even if they are, then it is unlikely that they are going to be attracted to the religious life.

If one looks at the details of only a sample of recent abuse cases, it can be seen that it is not the doctrine or religious stance of the Church which is to blame, but rather the institutional failure, caused by the moral failure of individual clergymen in the execution of their duty to stop these abusers early-on, which is the reason that there is such an apparent avalanche of abuse cases.


Oneshot said:
Surely chastardy is the death of religion.

To not have sex is to not to reproduce (not including medical intervention, im talking at the base level). No reproduction means no children and thus no one to carry on the religion. So there has to be some "evil" to populate the church.

And surely in th religous point of view, the best dad would be a priest as they could start teaching from birth.....
Ummm no. The Catholic Church is not an hereditary institution - no more so than the Church of England is, despite having a married clergy - so the survival of the Church would not be dependent upon its priesthood being allowed to marry. Personally, as a practising Catholic (something of an 'ultra' actually) I would have no objection to the clergy being allowed to marry. The rule on celibacy is man-made, and was introduced in (if I recall correctly) the 11th or 12th centuries to avoid the widespread abuse of nepotism which was making the Catholic Church an hereditary church by default (though even as late as the late 1400s/early 1500s, the Borgia family effectively made the Papacy an hereditary office). The institutional and political reasons for introducing and maintaining celibacy have now passed, so by all means press ahead with a married clergy. However, I think that it is naïve to believe that such abuse scandals as that highlighted at the beginning of this thread would have been avoided had celibacy been optional – an abuser or sexual predator will hardly be dissuaded from their activities by the mere fact of celibacy being optional or done away with altogether. The abusers in the Catholic Church – as elsewhere – made the conscious decision to perpetrate the acts they did; nobody made them do it, so it is a little rich for them or anti-clerical/anti-Catholic elements to point to the celibacy rule and engage in the Alice-in-Wonderland thinking that somehow ‘all will be well’ if the Church jettisons celibacy. The numerous abuse scandals that have unfortunately characterised the Catholic Church over the last number of years have little, if anything, to do with celibacy, but are rather attributable to a number of facts. Firstly, the position that the Catholic Church occupied in society world-wide, and at numerous levels within society, meant that abusers within the Church had greater scope for their activities. Secondly, the ‘reforms’ of the Second Vatican Council effectively, and disastrously re-wrote and redefined the Church’s attitude towards sin, and specifically evil; namely, the age old distinctions between sin and good, right and wrong, were done away with and a rather grey form of moral relativism was slipped in. Stemming from this, Catholics (both lay and clergy) were from that point on to favour compassion as opposed to condemnation. Therefore, whereas before errant priests or full-blown abusers within the Church would have been defrocked and handed over the authorities (or in not-so-earlier times burnt at the stake), a new situation emerged which saw a ‘softly, softly’, ‘ours is not to judge’ policy being adhered to, which meant that little, if any action was taken against abusers, and a rather wishy-washy ‘tut, tut, isn’t that awful, but ah sure wasn’t the poor man not well…’ attitude held sway, which most dangerously of all viewed abusers as just another category of sinners, whose ‘illness’ needed to be understood.

Another minor point to bear in mind is that much of the spate of abuse within the Catholic Church took places within the Irish Catholic Church, be that in Ireland itself, or in Irish religious orders abroad, such as in Canada, the UK, the US, Australia etc. The Irish Catholic Church is a markedly different creature to the rest of the Catholic Church, and I refer here primarily to Continental Europe. Whilst undoubtedly Catholic, it is quite puritanical in its mentality, and this can be attributed to the fact that the most powerful institution in the Irish Catholic Church has been the Seminary at Maynooth, which was established by the British Government in c.1800 in the aftermath of the French Revolution and specifically the 1798 Rising, in which certain Catholic priests (though not the wider Church) had participated; the British Government also wished to break the centuries-old link with the European clerical seminaries and Ireland; politically speaking, it made sense for the British Goverment to have the Catholic Church 'on side' in order to ensure the stability of the majority Catholic population. The Irish Catholic Church in Ireland, certainly during the Penal Period (1691-1829), saw its role as not so much religious, or even spiritual, but one of moral leadership, as the traditional leadership of the Catholic Irish was either dead or in exile. Therefore, the Church in Ireland intruded into peoples’ lives to an enormous degree (and can be said to have done so even up to quite recently). For a long time, the priest represented the only educated man in a locality, so that the predominantly peasant people naturally looked-up to him as a figure of authority and respect (before anyone laughs at ‘boggies’, the peasants were kept that way because of the Penal Laws, which effectively denied their existence). Moving into more recent times, it should therefore come as no wonder that there was a marked reluctance to firstly believe and secondly confront abusers within the Church, as the general thinking was that morally speaking the clergy could do no wrong.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#20
Storeman Norman said:
Oneshot said:
Surely chastardy is the death of religion.
Is that Charridy's sister by any chance?
No, when religous 'chastardy' is broken it results in bastardy.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top