Crimes by Priests

[Quiddity]

Ad hominems will not solve the systemic problems with the Catholic Church - nor is it good debate style. I'm reminded of the mythical behavior of the ostrich and the posture that image portrays.

I really doubt you have the slightest intention to "solve" any systematic problems.
I hope you prove me otherwise.

~Victor

 

[BUDDY]

I really doubt you have the slightest intention to "solve" any systematic problems.
I hope you prove me otherwise.

~Victor

Victor,

Do you not think that there is a problem within the catholic church concerning the clergy and the sexual abuse of children? Do you think that the church is doing enough about the problem?

 

[Quiddity]

Victor,

Do you not think that there is a problem within the catholic church concerning the clergy and the sexual abuse of children? Do you think that the church is doing enough about the problem?

EEWRED, I think my past post can answer your question. [ post#8 ] among others.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

I really doubt you have the slightest intention to "solve" any systematic problems.
I hope you prove me otherwise.

~Victor

The unfortunate point is that you do not have the "slightest intention to 'solve' any systematic problems" within. Secular courts seems to be the only answer to a religious ostrich with head buried in the sand. Having succeeded in exhausting the statue of limitations, the only thing left seems to be the shame that will accrue from public knowledge.

So, you could say I do have intentions of solving the problem and defending those, like Bangbang, who are attacked when bringing more light on the problem - whatever their motives.

 

[Quiddity]

The unfortunate point is that you do not have the "slightest intention to 'solve' any systematic problems" within. Secular courts seems to be the only answer to a religious ostrich with head buried in the sand. Having succeeded in exhausting the statue of limitations, the only thing left seems to be the shame that will accrue from public knowledge.

So, you could say I do have intentions of solving the problem and defending those, like Bangbang, who are attacked when bringing more light on the problem - whatever their motives.

Bringing the issue to light is something I support. But I wish I can say that was all that was going on in this thread.

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ad hominems will not solve the systemic problems with the Catholic Church - nor is it good debate style. I'm reminded of the mythical behavior of the ostrich and the posture that image portrays.

Then why do you persist with them? It's convenient to make all sorts of sordid accusations against the Catholic church and then complain that we suspect your intentions. Apparently, I am not the only one to "call a spade a spade".

This will be the third or fourth time I bring this up with no rebuttal: WHERE ARE THE POLICE??? WHY AREN'T THEY MAKING THE VERY SAME ACCUSATIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE MAKING? THESE WOULD BE CRIMINAL OFFENCES IF TRUE. WHERE ARE THE ARRESTS? WHY AREN'T THE DOCKETS FULL??? But they aren't true. They are of the same stuff the National Enquirer thrives on. They are part and parcel the fancy of fear mongers who are bent on spreading fear, lies and their own brand of bigotry. Compared to these self styled "truth seekers" the Swift Boat Veterans look positively tame. Next thing you know one of you will blame rape victims for being a victim. Wait... that already happened.

 

[Scuba Pete]

BTW, lest there be any confusion: the debate is centered around an alleged cover up: not whether priest have committed abuses. I abhor the former without any conclusive evidence and fully realise that the latter is sadly true. The initial poster said that the priests were afforded "SPECIAL PROTECTION" and that the alleged cover up included both sexual abuses and murder. Pah took exception with my calling the initial post a troll (go figure), as have various others.

 

[John Eastern]

God sees all, hears all, feels all... and out of that, comes compassion for all.

 

[BUDDY]

Then why do you persist with them? It's convenient to make all sorts of sordid accusations against the Catholic church and then complain that we suspect your intentions. Apparently, I am not the only one to "call a spade a spade".

This will be the third or fourth time I bring this up with no rebuttal: WHERE ARE THE POLICE??? WHY AREN'T THEY MAKING THE VERY SAME ACCUSATIONS THAT Y'ALL ARE MAKING? THESE WOULD BE CRIMINAL OFFENCES IF TRUE. WHERE ARE THE ARRESTS? WHY AREN'T THE DOCKETS FULL??? But they aren't true. They are of the same stuff the National Enquirer thrives on. They are part and parcel the fancy of fear mongers who are bent on spreading fear, lies and their own brand of bigotry. Compared to these self styled "truth seekers" the Swift Boat Veterans look positively tame.

NetDoc, I commend you on your defense of the church and not wanting a braod brush to be used. I would not want to label an entire organization for the acts of a few either. But, my opinion is based on facts, and acts that the church has committed over the years, which indicates to me that the Catholic chrch has a history of ignoring the problems facing them in this regard. Here is some documentation that I have used to. I hope it helps you see that I am not just making "sordid accusations" or that I am a "fear monger bent on spreading fear, lies and my own brand of bigotry". Enjoy.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/documents/nhag_aube_31.htm
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/documents/nhag_chalifour_81.htm
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/documents/paquin.htm
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/overview/
Here is a great document that I found outlining the step by step process of dealing with priests who have, as they put it "solicited". No where that I could find does the document outline that the authorities are to be contacted if a law is believed to be broken.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf
Father Bissey is reported to have told police that: ‘I told them what was happening in detail; they would regularly absolve me, telling me that everything would work out. During Lent...I did not commit acts. I tried to make an effort.’
see: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=coverup
Invoking the So-called Church Autonomy Doctrine to Resist Discovery
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030410.html

And the list goes on and on ND.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Bringing the issue to light is something I support. But I wish I can say that was all that was going on in this thread.

I agree. We can all learn from each other, but sometimes issues that lend themselves to personal remarks have away of taking away that learning aspect.

Maybe we can start another thread, not exclusively on any faith, but of clergy and religious officials and what should be done if they use their position of power or influence in order to abuse others. I know that there are some unsavory Pagan groups where the leaders sometimes convince others that 'sexual rites' are necessary for advancement in the group. I'd like to discuss or debate the degree to which they should be held accountable, both by their faith and the specific group they were in.

 

[Quiddity]

Invoking the So-called Church Autonomy Doctrine to Resist Discovery
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030410.html

I've never heard of this doctrine. Would you be so kind as to tell me what it is.

~Victor

 

[BUDDY]

I've never heard of this doctrine. Would you be so kind as to tell me what it is.

~Victor

Victor, did you read the article?

"I say "so-called" because the Supreme Court has never identified such a doctrine. Rather, some attorneys representing religious organizations have tried to create such a doctrine by stringing together dicta - that is, language that does not determine the outcome of a case, and thus has no legal force - from various cases. Based on this language - and not on actual outcomes in the Court's cases - proponents of the doctrine claim that it keeps the government, including the courts and the legislatures, from interfering with a church's inviolable sphere of activity. Mahoney is claiming that his oversight of priests falls within those parameters."

 

[John Eastern]

I was baptized by Southern Baptists, but not my fault. And later I learned, from a sex-offending Catholic priest, that I had been excommunicated from his church (I was brought up...? my mind is blank). I felt so relieved, and almost born-again after that. Jesus Heals!

 

[John Eastern]

Ok, I'm sorry. Where's that little Michel dude?

 

[BUDDY]

Here is another good example of what the article is talking about Victor:

"A judge yesterday rejected the argument of the Archdiocese of Boston that hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church should be dismissed because they violate the First Amendment's separation of church and state.


Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney ruled that the lawsuits should proceed toward trial because the cases will not delve into religious principles, such as church doctrine, but the handling of allegedly abusive priests by their superiors.

To accept the church's argument, Sweeney wrote, would be akin to granting the church blanket immunity from civil lawsuits.

''If the court were to recognize the defendants' sweeping church autonomy doctrine ... the result would be that church representatives could exercise all the rights and privileges the secular law affords yet not be burdened by any of the essential civil laws that protect the safety of all members of society, particularly children,'' she wrote.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories4/022003_suits.htm

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, did you read the article?

"I say "so-called" because the Supreme Court has never identified such a doctrine. Rather, some attorneys representing religious organizations have tried to create such a doctrine by stringing together dicta - that is, language that does not determine the outcome of a case, and thus has no legal force - from various cases. Based on this language - and not on actual outcomes in the Court's cases - proponents of the doctrine claim that it keeps the government, including the courts and the legislatures, from interfering with a church's inviolable sphere of activity. Mahoney is claiming that his oversight of priests falls within those parameters."

Yes I did. That's why I asked. I understand and disagree [with the bishop] based on the information you presented. But until shown otherwise, do understand that the "autonomy doctrine" is something used by legalists and journalists. I have never heard of it being an actual doctrine within the Catholic Church.

~Victor

 

[BUDDY]

Yes I did. That's why I asked. I understand and disagree [with the bishop] based on the information you presented. But until shown otherwise, do understand that the "autonomy doctrine" is something used by legalists and journalists. I have never heard of it being an actual doctrine within the Catholic Church.

~Victor

And that is how I presented it. IT was a law review article and they see this from a legal aspect. But, the catholic church is somewhat responsable because they have hired these lawyers to make the defense in this manner. Catholic doctrine, no. Catholic indication of belief; well in my opinion only, yes

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would not want to label an entire organization for the acts of a few either.

Which is prescisely what is happening here. You are taking the word of a sex offender who does not seem to identify that this is HIS problem. Do you think that any Bishop in his right mind would do what this man indicated? Last I checked, there are two sides to EVERY story. I don't see that the church tried to exonerate the priest in question. However, I do believe that the church is awakening to the fact that forgiveness alone does not mean that they are "cured". Christianity is BIG on forgiveness: too bad the people sitting in judgement of the church have no idea what that is.

 

[Quiddity]

And that is how I presented it. IT was a law review article and they see this from a legal aspect. But, the catholic church is somewhat responsable because they have hired these lawyers to make the defense in this manner. Catholic doctrine, no. Catholic indication of belief; well in my opinion only, yes

Please attach that only to the bishop/s. And not to what we believe.

~Victor

 

[BUDDY]

Which is prescisely what is happening here. You are taking the word of a sex offender who does not seem to identify that this is HIS problem. Do you think that any Bishop in his right mind would do what this man indicated? Last I checked, there are two sides to EVERY story. I don't see that the church tried to exonerate the priest in question. However, I do believe that the church is awakening to the fact that forgiveness alone does not mean that they are "cured". Christianity is BIG on forgiveness: too bad the people sitting in judgement of the church have no idea what that is.

It is one thing for the church to forgive one of its clergy members for child molestation, and another for the church to them reassign them to another parrish, and not report the incident to the aythorities. Thise is the case in the articles and research that I have presented. There are numerous cases, that I have shown to you, where the priest has admitted what they have done, the church has forgiven their behavior, and then they have assigned them to a place where they have the opportunity to do the exact same thing again, and they didn't notify parents or take proper precautions to insure child safety from these monsters. That is fact and it is documented. Why you continue to deny that Catholic church's role in this is puzzling to me. IT really happened ND. This not science fiction or some made up story.