The Murphy Report

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The question is whether or not the answer is deceptive and it is. The example states, "If [b]someone asks a priest...". It's not just about what you take as an understanding between you and priests. Besides, just because you and any given priest may have an understanding between you that he is willing to lie doesn't change the fact that he is lying. ere was a secret to hide. This is so obvious that it is tiresome to have to prove.[/b]

[/b]Wow. If the police were to ask anyone else that question and they said, "No", would you consider it to be a lie? Just because a man is given the title of "priest" doesn't change the fact that he is lying.

You can chose to speculate whatever you want, but the fact remains that it is neither a confirmation or denial. The response should be the same regardless of what the priest may or may not know. If they stuck to it, they wouldn't have to resort to lying and trying to spin it as something else. You may buy the lipstick on that particular pig, but I see no reason for anyone else to.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not believe that the Pope had such knowledge nor do I believe that he shares in any culpability for the scandal.

Well, for one thing, there wasn't any "assuming" going on in my statement.

For another, what's the basis for such a belief? Given the Church's attempts to avoid paying the victims restitution, it certainly can't be because you see Popes as being above placing the well being of the Church ahead of the well being of individuals.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Wow. If the police were to ask anyone else that question and they said, "No", would you consider it to be a lie? Just because a man is given the title of "priest" doesn't change the fact that he is lying.

You can chose to speculate whatever you want, but the fact remains that it is neither a confirmation or denial. The response should be the same r ...[text shortened]... . You may buy the lipstick on that particular pig, but I see no reason for anyone else to.[/b]

Wow. If the police were to ask anyone else that question and they said, "No", would you consider it to be a lie? Just because a man is given the title of "priest" doesn't change the fact that he is lying.

Police are not bound by absolute secrecy. So if they said 'No' I would understand that to mean 'No.' However, when a priest says 'No', I understand that there must be a mental reservation because he feels himself bound to secrecy. I would apply the same reasoning to medical doctors and counselors who are also bound to secrecy.

Context matters. If I ask someone 'How are you?' as a greeting, and they respond 'Great' when in fact they are miserable, I do not understand this to be a lie. It is a formulaic salutary response. However, if I am a psychiatrist, and the question is an inquiry into the person's mental health, it would be a lie. The situation does change whether something is a lie or not.

You can chose to speculate whatever you want, but the fact remains that it is neither a confirmation or denial. The response should be the same regardless of what the priest may or may not know. If they stuck to it, they wouldn't have to resort to lying and trying to spin it as something else. You may buy the lipstick on that particular pig, but I see no reason for anyone else to.

It is confirmation because I can infer that he did. If the man did not confess to murder, then the priest would not say 'I am bound by the seal of confession'; he would answer plainly. By saying 'I am bound to secrecy', he is plainly revealing that a confession has been made. It is not just a matter of speculation; it is bleeding obvious.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, for one thing, there wasn't any "assuming" going on in my statement.

For another, what's the basis for such a belief? Given the Church's attempts to avoid paying the victims restitution, it certainly can't be because you see Popes as being above placing the well being of the Church ahead of the well being of individuals.

Well, it is an assumption. And compensation is a responsibility of the local church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Wow. If the police were to ask anyone else that question and they said, "No", would you consider it to be a lie? Just because a man is given the title of "priest" doesn't change the fact that he is lying.

Police are not bound by absolute secrecy. So if they said 'No' I would understand that to mean 'No.' However, when a priest says 'No', I underst ...[text shortened]... been made. It is not just a matter of speculation; it is bleeding obvious.[/b]

Police are not bound by absolute secrecy. So if they said 'No' I would understand that to mean 'No.' However, when a priest says 'No', I understand that there must be a mental reservation because he feels himself bound to secrecy. I would apply the same reasoning to medical doctors and counselors who are also bound to secrecy.

Context matters. If I ask someone 'How are you?' as a greeting, and they respond 'Great' when in fact they are miserable, I do not understand this to be a lie. It is a formulaic salutary response. However, if I am a psychiatrist, and the question is an inquiry into the person's mental health, it would be a lie. The situation does change whether something is a lie or not.

What difference does it make whether or not the police are bound by secrecy? Let's say an autoworker and a priest were told by a man that he committed murder and both were sworn to secrecy. When questioned by the police, both the autoworker and the priest say that the man didn't. In both cases it is an untruth told with full knowledge that it is untrue and therefore a lie.

It is confirmation because I can infer that he did. If the man did not confess to murder, then the priest would not say 'I am bound by the seal of confession'; he would answer plainly. By saying 'I am bound to secrecy', he is plainly revealing that a confession has been made. It is not just a matter of speculation; it is bleeding obvious.

You can infer whatever you like about anything. So what? It doesn't necessarily make your inference true and you have no direct confirmation. If priests want to be in the business of keeping secrets they should always answer 'I am bound to secrecy' whether or not they have knowledge. That way they wouldn't also feel the need to be in the business of lying. The business a spiritual leader should be in is that of truth. That of doing the right thing. If the spiritual leader has knowledge of a wrongdoing he should encourage the perpetrator to admit his guilt and accept the consequences. If the perpetrator fails to do so, the spiritual leader should reveal it and place the wrongdoing in the "light of truth". Any spiritual leader who wouldn't reveal it is operating outside the "light of truth" and isn't worthy of being a spiritual leader. Most certainly not one who purports to be a follower of Jesus.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, it is an assumption. And compensation is a responsibility of the local church.

Well, it is an assumption.
Read what I wrote again:

"Not only Bishops, but anyone (including the Pope) with such knowledge that allowed this practice."

There is no assumption made here. ANYONE and that means ANYONE WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGE THAT ALLOWED THAT PRACTICE should face a prison sentence.

And compensation is a responsibility of the local church.

That the Church does not acknowledge a moral obligation to do the right thing and make sure that restitution is made speaks volumes. Instead it has structured itself in such a way as to limit liability much as large corporations split themselves into many legal entities. Like I said earlier it is clear that Popes are not "above placing the well being of the Church ahead of the well being of individuals." This includes the welfare of innocent children. Even if the Church was unaware, which seems extremely unlikely, of the widespread and consistent practice of moving pedophiles from parish to parish instead of turning them over to the police, the least they could do make sure that monetary restitution is made. While it is common for large corporations to lack a moral compass, that the Church similarly lacks one speaks volumes.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Police are not bound by absolute secrecy. So if they said 'No' I would understand that to mean 'No.' However, when a priest says 'No', I understand that there must be a mental reservation because he feels himself bound to secrecy. I would apply the same reasoning to medical doctors and counselors who are also bound to secrecy.

Context matters. If I ader. Most certainly not one who purports to be a follower of Jesus.[/b]

What difference does it make whether or not the police are bound by secrecy? Let's say an autoworker and a priest were told by a man that he committed murder and both were sworn to secrecy. When questioned by the police, both the autoworker and the priest say that the man didn't. In both cases it is an untruth told with full knowledge that it is untrue and therefore a lie.

You do not seem to understand what a mental reservation actually is. A strict mental reservation is a statement not spoken but which all speakers can reasonably infer. Now since a priest is always bound by the seal of confession, there is always a reservation 'as far as I know without breaking the seal of confession'. So if a priest says 'No', I know that the whole statement is 'No, as far as I know without breaking the seal of confession'. That is not a lie.

In this example, yes, it is a lie. The police are not aware of any oath to secrecy. They cannot infer that any words have been mentally reserved. So when the autoworker and priest speak, the police are deceived. That does constitute a lie. No doubt.

Anyway, I don't get the point of this argument. All I was saying is that the mental reservation is not a justification for the Cardinal concealing the abuse of funds. It is not a way of 'lying without lying'; it applies only in a limited number of circumstances.

You can infer whatever you like about anything. So what? It doesn't necessarily make your inference true and you have no direct confirmation. If priests want to be in the business of keeping secrets they should always answer 'I am bound to secrecy' whether or not they have knowledge. That way they wouldn't also feel the need to be in the business of lying. The business a spiritual leader should be in is that of truth. That of doing the right thing. If the spiritual leader has knowledge of a wrongdoing he should encourage the perpetrator to admit his guilt and accept the consequences. If the perpetrator fails to do so, the spiritual leader should reveal it and place the wrongdoing in the "light of truth". Any spiritual leader who wouldn't reveal it is operating outside the "light of truth" and isn't worthy of being a spiritual leader. Most certainly not one who purports to be a follower of Jesus.

Firstly, that would mean that the priest would have to say 'I am bound by the seal of confession' in any question posed to him about a man who has gone to him for confession. That commits you a weird kind of formalism (the priest must always speak those words, even if those words are still yet understood). It means that if the priest is asked a question about one of his parishioners, he can never answer. Weird.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Well, it is an assumption.
Read what I wrote again:

"Not only Bishops, but anyone (including the Pope) with such knowledge that allowed this practice."

There is no assumption made here. ANYONE and that means ANYONE WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGE THAT ALLOWED THAT PRACTICE should face a prison sentence.

And compensation is a responsibility of the ...[text shortened]... corporations to lack a moral compass, that the Church similarly lacks one speaks volumes.[/b]

That the Church does not acknowledge a moral obligation to do the right thing and make sure that restitution is made speaks volumes. Instead it has structured itself in such a way as to limit liability much as large corporations split themselves into many legal entities. Like I said earlier it is clear that Popes are not "above placing the well being of the Church ahead of the well being of individuals." This includes the welfare of innocent children. Even if the Church was unaware, which seems extremely unlikely, of the widespread and consistent practice of moving pedophiles from parish to parish instead of turning them over to the police, the least they could do make sure that monetary restitution is made. While it is common for large corporations to lack a moral compass, that the Church similarly lacks one speaks volumes.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have both urged the dioceses to ensure proper compensation. Pope Benedict did in this my own country just last year. He has also made legislative changes which ensure that allegations of abuse are also reported to Rome. There is change. Both Popes have appointed bishops particularly to resolve these problems. One example is Cardinal O'Malley who controversially had to sell numerous churches for compensation to victims. The appointment of Archbishop Martin to Dublin, who commissioned the Murphy report, is a sign of the church making progress.

Finally we have the first resignation. Donal Murray has left his post as Bishop of Limerick at St Johns Cathedral. Maybe he'd now like to take himself down to his local police station and answer a few questions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
That the Church does not acknowledge a moral obligation to do the right thing and make sure that restitution is made speaks volumes. Instead it has structured itself in such a way as to limit liability much as large corporations split themselves into many legal entities. Like I said earlier it is clear that Popes are not "above placing the well being o ...[text shortened]... artin to Dublin, who commissioned the Murphy report, is a sign of the church making progress.

look compensation is not an issue. tell me about the measures taken to ensure that doesn't happen. tell me about pope personally coming to that bastard home and taking him to the police through repeated kicks and pokes with a cattle prod.

i want to hear that.
i don't want to hear about families being given money.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
look compensation is not an issue. tell me about the measures taken to ensure that doesn't happen. tell me about pope personally coming to that bastard home and taking him to the police through repeated kicks and pokes with a cattle prod.

i want to hear that.
i don't want to hear about families being given money.

Compensation was only given if the victim of abuse wavered their rights to publicly talk about what happenned.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
look compensation is not an issue. tell me about the measures taken to ensure that doesn't happen. tell me about pope personally coming to that bastard home and taking him to the police through repeated kicks and pokes with a cattle prod.

i want to hear that.
i don't want to hear about families being given money.

Well, firstly, there is the abolition of minor seminaries (schools geared for the priesthood for adolescents) which created a lot of psychosexual hangups. Also there is now a mandatory requirement that all seminarians undergo comprehensive psychological examinations (usually over four hours), police checks and the requirement of a recommendation from another priest and the vocations director. Bishops are also now compulsorily required to report allegations of abuse. Every diocese now has a formal program for handling abuse claims. Admittedly, these programs are not perfect. Some dioceses such as mine do not allow victims to speak about their abuse if they agree to compensation; the other dioceses in my country do not. Nonetheless, changes have been implemented.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What difference does it make whether or not the police are bound by secrecy? Let's say an autoworker and a priest were told by a man that he committed murder and both were sworn to secrecy. When questioned by the police, both the autoworker and the priest say that the man didn't. In both cases it is an untruth told with full knowledge that it is untrue a ked a question about one of his parishioners, he can never answer. Weird.

[/b]Who came up with such a ridiculous concept? The same entity that deemed it reasonable to move pedophiles from parish to parish so that they could continue to victimize the innocent? And kept moving some individual priests more than a dozen times allowing them to collect more victims and likely would have continued the practice had not many courageous victims came forward in sufficient numbers and locations that the entity's continued attempts at coverup were no longer viable? Perhaps you fail to realize that doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc. seem to have no problem with simply stating that they cannot speak due to confidentiality. They seem to be able to do so without inventing ways to lie with a clear conscience which it seems is utilized by the much more liberally than what you seem to want to believe. Such a construct encourages abuse. Imagine that. The Church having practices that encourage continued abuse. For whatever reason, you seem to be in denial about the reality of the Church and its practices.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
That the Church does not acknowledge a moral obligation to do the right thing and make sure that restitution is made speaks volumes. Instead it has structured itself in such a way as to limit liability much as large corporations split themselves into many legal entities. Like I said earlier it is clear that Popes are not "above placing the well being o artin to Dublin, who commissioned the Murphy report, is a sign of the church making progress.

[/b]Do you really believe that simply urging "the dioceses to ensure proper compensation" constitutes some sort of fulfillment of "a moral obligation to do the right thing and make sure that restitution is made"?

From MSNBC October 18, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33374255/

The Diocese of Wilmington is the seventh U.S. Catholic diocese to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection since the church abuse scandal erupted seven years ago in the Archdiocese of Boston. Dioceses in Davenport, Iowa; Fairbanks, Alaska; Portland, Ore.; San Diego; Spokane, Wash., and Tucson, Ariz., also sought bankruptcy protection.

If the Popes had a real sense of moral obligation, they would pay whatever shortfall individual dioceses had out of their own coffers rather than allow the dioceses to seek bankruptcy protection. This doesn't seem to be happening. They can say they "urged the dioceses to ensure proper compensation" all they want. If they had true moral fiber, they would INSIST on making these payments. If it were me, I know I would. Evidently they are satisfied with only providing lip service.

If you haven't seen it, you should watch "Deliver Us from Evil" to give you some perspective on this matter. http://documentaryfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/deliver_us_from_evil_sexual_abuse_in_the_church

How you can continue to have such reverence for such a blatantly twisted and corrupt institution is beyond me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Who came up with such a ridiculous concept? The same entity that deemed it reasonable to move pedophiles from parish to parish so that they could continue to victimize the innocent? And kept moving some individual priests more than a dozen times allowing them to collect more victims and likely would have continued the practice had not many courageous ...[text shortened]... or whatever reason, you seem to be in denial about the reality of the Church and its practices.[/b]

You have gone off into lala land. Mental reservation does not give a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse.