Vatican III Agenda

Originally posted by lucifershammer
AFAIK, you cannot monetarily settle a criminal case - or is US law different?

Wherever, it's the same old hustle with the muscle, if he got a good suit on or if he wear a funny hat, a racket is something that it's good to be in on.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


I would think that the US Church would've realised that such "gag orders" are counterproductive in the post-scandal environment and, therefore, they would not be routine now. orfeo's post suggests that's the case in other countries that have faced similar scandals.

You would be naive to believe it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You would be naive to believe it.

I would be naive to believe they no longer occur. I would not be naive to believe they are no longer routine.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We're not talking about confidentiality clauses in general - just the ones that prevent criminal prosecution. It is this specific class that goes to your assertion.

I would think that the US Church would've realised that such "gag orders" are counterproductive in the post-scandal environment and, therefore, they would not be routine now. orfeo's post suggests that's the case in other countries that have faced similar scandals.

I didn't mean to suggest that the church here has seen the error of its ways IN GENERAL. Certainly there are individual clergy who now understand the damage caused by secretive settlements, but I'm not at all sure that the church as a whole has learnt not to listen to lawyers who are applying principles from non-church contexts.

Originally posted by orfeo
I didn't mean to suggest that the church here has seen the error of its ways IN GENERAL. Certainly there are individual clergy who now understand the damage caused by secretive settlements, but I'm not at all sure that the church as a whole has learnt not to listen to lawyers who are applying principles from non-church contexts.

Of course it hasn't. When we see victims routinely getting settlements AND pressing criminal charges and publicly disclosing their cases, then we'll know that it has.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course it hasn't. When we see victims routinely getting settlements AND pressing criminal charges and publicly disclosing their cases, then we'll know that it has.

For the sake of the last future victims.

Originally posted by orfeo
I didn't mean to suggest that the church here has seen the error of its ways IN GENERAL. Certainly there are individual clergy who now understand the damage caused by secretive settlements, but I'm not at all sure that the church as a whole has learnt not to listen to lawyers who are applying principles from non-church contexts.

Do you have any reason to think that is the case?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course it hasn't. When we see victims routinely getting settlements AND pressing criminal charges and publicly disclosing their cases, then we'll know that it has.

Are you saying that victims today are not routinely getting settlements or pressing criminal charges or publicly disclosing their cases?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you have any reason to think that is the case?

The fact that the flow of complaints about the church's actions and the subsequent contrition from clergy who see the error of past decisions doesn't seem to have dried up yet.

Originally posted by orfeo
The fact that the flow of complaints about the church's actions and the subsequent contrition from clergy who see the error of past decisions doesn't seem to have dried up yet.

What is the proportion of new complaints as opposed to those that occurred years, even decades back?