Pastor John Lowe II Admits To “Adultery” Until the Victim Speaks!!! "I Was Only 16."

Heterosexual agenda in the church? What are they doing to our children?

 

He's a freaking Pastor!!!

 

when you molest the 16 year old because you talk to them into it it is sexual assault the pastor knew that when he did it but he did it anyway. You shouldn't just step down he should be prosecuted he did it to her he's probably done it to others.

 

No. I totally disagree with you. You are taking this too far. There is a spectrum between rape and not rape. It's not "black and white". You are taking this too far.
He committed adultery, he took advantage of her, this was even almost "molestation", but is was NOT "sexual assault". It did not quite reach that threshold here. Let's be honest.

 

Disagree it was sexual assault.

 

She was a 16 year old teen. This is not a little child. I agree it may be somewhere on the spectrum of "molestation", but a 16 year old teen should have enough sense to say no if they really don't like it. Especially if this happens multiple times.

In my opinion, about 14 years old might be the "boderline", halfway between "rape" and "not rape", but when the girl is 16, that gets closer to not being "sexual assault".

This isn't an entirely "black and white" thing.

This type of thing is the reason why "statutory rape" laws exists.

(By the way, I'm mostly against those type of laws, but this seems to be exactly the type of situation where they are appropriate)

 

yeah it's not okay

It's not up to the 16-year-old to do that.

It's his black and white as it yet sorry I don't see it your way we'll just have to agree to disagree there is a zero common ground we won't find it

 

This issue isn't whether it's okay or not.
I agree the man should get some punishment in this specific case.

I'm just claiming it doesn't quite constitute "sexual assault".

 

I am disagreeing with you a wholeheartedly it is absolutely assault.

 

She was willing to have sex with him again and again and didn't report it to anyone.

I'm sorry, but when I was 16 years old, there's no way I'd let anyone continue to keep doing that to me unless part of me enjoyed it.

 

So?

We're not talking about you.

 

I'd be curious to hear your take on this if it was your 16 year old daughter that was raped.

 

Can we at least recognize that a "halfway point" has to exist somewhere, and there is no sudden cut-off point?

How old does she have to be before it is no longer considered "rape"?

Anyway, part of the reason this woman is angry is because the man (who was married) led her into the sin of committing adultery.
She'd probably have been less angry at him if he hadn't already been married, in this story.

 

In education, it would be a firing offense with the perp probably never being able to get a job again.

Nobody would be hugging the perp and offering their support.

We see this in other denominations, too. We see pedophile priests being moved around to dodge prosecution and continuing to be allowed to work with young children.

I don't understand how you can dedicate yourself to defending these sexual predators.

 

No we don't. You're just making that up. That has been explained to you before.
No priest has been "moved around to dodge prosecution".

I refuse to discuss this with you here and derail the topic, but you're welcome to post a link to another thread if you want to debate it.

 

"For more than two decades, officials in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange covered up for priests who molested children, shuffling predators from parish to parish and diocese to diocese, protecting them from prosecution and failing to warn parishioners of the danger, according to church documents released Tuesday."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-may-18-me-ocpriest18-story.html

This has gone on all over the USA and in many other countries.

 

Luc, it's pointless. That one says that the men that received settlements from the Vatican for ignored reports of molestation by Catholic priests when they were children deserved what they got since they got paid.

<censoring myself>

 

Vague. So how did the church know about it? And why didn't the child tell their parents, and why did neither the child nor parents go to police?

I think rather the Church may have just had strong suspicions, but did not know for absolute certain.

Even if they shuffled them around, that does not mean that shuffling had anything to do with "protecting them from prosecution".

 

@WillReadmore and I know that you are spreading false information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_transfers_of_abusive_Catholic_priests

 

Notice how all the information in those articles is very vague. Not really specifics. I strongly suspect all these articles are misleadingly trying to characterize the Church's misconduct as worse than it actually was.

But like I stated before, if you actually wanted to debate this, you could have posted a link to another thread. So now it will just turn into a screaming "I'm right and you're wrong" match between us, if you continue to respond.

Back to the main topic of this thread?

 

NO!

If you want to know what happened, then read the reports of what happened.

NOBODY should be interested in you making up stories.

And, as a religious person, you have a duty to be truthful.

 

Start another thread and provide a link to two or three specific reports of stories that happened.

I would like to see actual facts about what the church did wrong, not general characterizations of what they supposedly did. You understand the difference, don't you?

 

I understand the difference between my cite and you stories.

If you want to know the truth, you can find it.