1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudereeks messed up this post
[b]Personally, I think most of the criticism of the RCC in the matter of alleged priest molesters is unfair and irrational. Parents who had their children molested by priests should have been going to the police to file charges, not to the local archbishop to file some sort of a complaint (often requesting monetary compensation). If your child was molested ...[text shortened]... riminal matter, and child molestation is more serious, thus it should be taken even more seriously.)
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but if Wal-Mart *did* receive such a complaint, they should investigate it properly.
Personally, I think most of the criticism of the RCC in the matter of alleged priest molesters is unfair and irrational. Parents who had their children molested by priests should have been going to the police to file charges, not to the local archbishop to file some sort of a complaint (often requesting monetary compensation). If your child was molested by a cashier at Wal-Mart, you wouldn't complain to customer service.
Also, contrast this to professional counselling organisations, who for the most part properly investigate allegations of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client, and take appropriate action. (In the case of an adult client, this is a civil rather than criminal matter, and child molestation is more serious, thus it should be taken even more seriously.)
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's only to support their basic cost of living, which isn't the same thing as receiving a greater amount of money from a private organisation like a church.
[b]You say Law is 'out of commission.' Sure, he has no meaningful role in shaping the life of the Church (thank goodness), but he still lives better than 85% of the world -- he lives in a house with heat, with plenty to eat, and with a job with no responsibilities.
Couldn't the same be said of the child sex offenders in US jails at the mome ...[text shortened]... our taxes?
EDIT: Although the Church should probably have suspended him just to make a point.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerQuite possibly. That's only 20 victims per offender, and some offenders have thousands of victims.One in five girls and one in ten boys may be sexually abused in childhood (Finkelhor 1994).
http://www.families.qld.gov.au/projectaxis/incidence.html#incidence
With a 50-50 split of boys and girls that means about 15% of children in the US are sexually abused.
[quote]72.3 million, or 26 percent of the U.S. population, were under ...[text shortened]... pdf
That's 10 million sexually abused children.
Think 500,000 offenders account for them?
Originally posted by karnachzNo, Wal-Mart would probably tell you to call the police.
No, but if Wal-Mart *did* receive such a complaint, they should investigate it properly.
Also, contrast this to professional counselling organisations, who for the most part properly investigate allegations of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client, and take appropriate action. (In the case of an adult client, this is a civil rather than cri ...[text shortened]... nal matter, and child molestation is more serious, thus it should be taken even more seriously.)
"Inappropriate sexual relationships" between adults even in a counselling-client relationship, are not crimes. Child molestation should be taken more serious i.e. as a crime. The police and courts handle those, not the alleged criminal's employer. My comments stand.
Originally posted by lucifershammerShould men be banned from the priesthood, since most reported sexual offending is committed by men? How about ethnic groups that are over-represented in crime statistics? Or age ranges?
The strong correlation between ephebophily and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.
How about if a positive correlation were found between being celibate (with respect to adults) and causing child molestation -- would this be grounds for not allowing people to be priests if they're celibate?
I was going to say that molestation of girls is committed mainly by heterosexual men, but you've said elsewhere that you think society protects girls better than boys (I agree, at least with respect to male offenders). I don't necessarily think that invalidates the point, but I'll leave that one.
Originally posted by NemesioAre you assuming that mere allegations should be accepted as absolutely true? Where is the proper place for the determination of the truth of such charges: an archbishop's office or a courtroom?
Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]That is, if you, as bishop of a diocese, found out Father X was molesting kids, I have no
doubt that you would toss him to the curb. How different is this from Bishop Y, who
knowingly harbored and protected Father X?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderPrecisely.
Are you assuming that mere allegations should be accepted as absolutely true? Where is the proper place for the determination of the truth of such charges: an archbishop's office or a courtroom?
When they don't go to the courtroom and priests are protected from
accusation, in the case that the priest is in fact guilty, he is enabled
to harm more and more children as was obviously the case.
There have been more than a few priests that were shipped from parish
to parish after 'treatment' only to molest children again.
No doubt, the parents who knew about the abuse and cowed to the bishop
should be ashamed for their desire to protect the priest and helping to
enable the priest to harm other children. But, in those cases where the
bishop was congnizant of repeated abuse accusations and permitted that
priest to continue to interact with children without investigation is criminal.
Bernard Law was one such (arch)bishop. And yet he is still in the employ of
the RCC.
This is wholly disgusting and the RCC ought to be ashamed to keep him on
their payroll, he who knowingly enabled priests to molest children.
Do I think every priest accused is guilty? Of course not. But when
the Church decides the matter in the bishop's office, it's doing so in an
effort to protect itself from scandal, not to mediate in good conscience and,
that too, is shameful.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioBernard Law was one such (arch)bishop. And yet he is still in the employ of the RCC.
Precisely.
When they don't go to the courtroom and priests are protected from
accusation, in the case that the priest is in fact guilty, [b]he is enabled
to harm more and more children as was obviously the case.
There have been more than a few priests that were shipped from parish
to parish after 'treatment' only to molest children again.
...[text shortened]... t itself from scandal, not to mediate in good conscience and,
that too, is shameful.
Nemesio[/b]
This is wholly disgusting and the RCC ought to be ashamed to keep him on their payroll, he who knowingly enabled priests to molest children.
If Law is guilty under the law, why isn't he behind bars?
And would you rather the Church threw him on the street to starve?
EDIT: It isn't clear to me exactly what you propose the Church do with Cardinal Law.
EDIT2: And the statement I cited from the USCCB isn't "vague" - it's a plain statement of apology.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHe's not behind bars for the same reasons that the many priests who
If Law is guilty under the law, why isn't he behind bars?
And would you rather the Church threw him on the street to starve?
EDIT: It isn't clear to me exactly what you propose the Church do with Cardinal Law.
EDIT2: And the statement I cited from the USCCB isn't "vague" - it's a plain statement of apology.
were protected by the Church are not behind bars: systematic coverups.
Just because he is not behind bars does not mean he is not guilty of
moral and legal crimes.
And, yes, I'd rather the Church say: you are an abomination and do not
deserve to retire in luxury after a long history of knowingly abetting
child-abusers. You're a bright guy, go find a job.
Are you saying that a principal who finds a teacher abusing children
should keep the abuser on the payroll? That's absurd!
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerThink about the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Two concepts within that
And the statement I cited from the USCCB isn't "vague" - it's a plain statement of apology.
Sacrament are 'contrition' and 'penance.' The first entails that a person
is sincerely sorry, the second (predicated on the first) entails that a person
will strive to make reparations for the sin and avoid it in the future.
Thus, a contrite person who has stolen from another person will repay the
value of the theft. A person who has lied will tell the truth. A person who
has wronged their parents will strive to make up for it in other ways.
The Church has 'sorry.' Big deal. Have they turned over all the documents
that pertain to the issue, or do the prosecuting lawyers have to supoena them?
Have they pointed out and removed those priests from their payroll who abused
or abetted it?
What they have done is responded by implying that being gay has something to
do with this affair (which it doesn't).
Their apology has no demonstration of contritition and thus is utterly meaningless.
They are continuing to harbor and protect priests who are guilty of moral crimes.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioAre you saying that a principal who finds a teacher abusing children
He's not behind bars for the same reasons that the many priests who
were protected by the Church are not behind bars: systematic coverups.
Just because he is not behind bars does not mean he is not guilty of
moral and legal crimes.
And, yes, I'd rather the Church say: you are an abomination and do not
deserve to retire in luxury after a long histor ...[text shortened]... s a teacher abusing children
should keep the abuser on the payroll? That's absurd!
Nemesio
should keep the abuser on the payroll? That's absurd!
And there lies the problem with your view - you're still talking about jobs and payrolls as though the priesthood were simply another job. That may be true in the denominations you're used to - but that is simply not the case with the Catholic Church.
A more apt analogy would be to compare membership in the Church to citizenship. Earlier, I asked you whether the US Government feeds, clothes and houses convicted rapists, child molesters and murderers. Why does the Government do that? If a released convict is unemployed, does he not get unemployment benefits? Why?
And, yes, I'd rather the Church say: you are an abomination and do not deserve to retire in luxury after a long history of knowingly abetting child-abusers.
I'm sorry - I'd rather my Church were a loving and forgiving Church rather than a vindictive Church (funny - if we were talking about the Inquisition, I think it would be you advocating this position). I'd rather my Church be one that is willing to give its members the chance to repent and have a second chance*. The Church has a responsibility to provide for the welfare (material and spiritual) of its members in every way it can.
---
* Before some wise a$$ comes up with it, I'm not saying that known molesters should be given a "second chance" to commit more crimes. What I am saying is that people should be given the chance to make a positive contribution in whatever capacity they can.
Originally posted by no1marauderMany conservative organised religious groups wouldn't even encourage the complainant to call the police. Also, an organisation which claims to have divine authority surely has greater obligations, since their congregration has greater dependence on them and puts more trust in them than a commercial employer. Some people consider their church to have clout over matters eternal/spiritual as well as temporal/earthly, and so they hold their church in an esteem that's comparable to how they view the law. (This is a bad idea, IMO, but it's how some people think and this could be a factor in why some people keep turning to the church for help rather than going through the police in the first instance.)
No, Wal-Mart would probably tell you to call the police.
"Inappropriate sexual relationships" between adults even in a counselling-client relationship, are not crimes. Child molestation should be taken more serious i.e. as a crime. The police and courts handle those, not the alleged criminal's employer. My comments stand.
At the very least, the church should either investigate the matter properly or else recommend that the victims talk to the police so the police can investigate it. Furthermore, a priest should not be exposed to children while being investigated.
I acknowledged in my previous post that child molestation is a criminal rather than civil matter. Another thing to consider there is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in a criminal court, whereas an employer should not expose a potentially dangerous suspected criminal to a vulnerable group such as children, even if there isn't sufficient proof to find the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt.