Bit about the legal aspects of the case.
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: Arrest The Pope!
Personally I don't think it anti-religious to want to arrest a paedophile.
Arrest the pope?
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1309802 wrote: Bit about the legal aspects of the case.
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: Arrest The Pope!
Personally I don't think it anti-religious to want to arrest a paedophile.
So, go ahead. Git 'er done.:yh_rotfl
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: Arrest The Pope!
Personally I don't think it anti-religious to want to arrest a paedophile.
So, go ahead. Git 'er done.:yh_rotfl
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1309802 wrote: Personally I don't think it anti-religious to want to arrest a paedophile.
Religion doesn't enter into it, of course. However, arresting the pope would not be on, since there's no evidence, or complaint, that he is one.
Religion doesn't enter into it, of course. However, arresting the pope would not be on, since there's no evidence, or complaint, that he is one.
Arrest the pope?
Bill Sikes;1309826 wrote: Religion doesn't enter into it, of course. However, arresting the pope would not be on, since there's no evidence, or complaint, that he is one.
You are correct in that he is not actually accused of being one nor is there evidence to suggest he was one. I should have phrased it more accurately. He did knowingly pervert the course of justice to protect paedophiles and cover up the crimes. there is plenty evidence for that.
The point being that his being the pope should not prevent that happening.
You are correct in that he is not actually accused of being one nor is there evidence to suggest he was one. I should have phrased it more accurately. He did knowingly pervert the course of justice to protect paedophiles and cover up the crimes. there is plenty evidence for that.
The point being that his being the pope should not prevent that happening.
Arrest the pope?
More to the point he's a Head of State and has diplomatic immunity. Since he's obliged to die in office there's no chance of waiting for the immunity to expire, either.
Christopher Hitchens is an utterly sickmaking prat anyway.
Christopher Hitchens is an utterly sickmaking prat anyway.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Arrest the pope?
spot;1309831 wrote: More to the point he's a Head of State and has diplomatic immunity. Since he's obliged to die in office there's no chance of waiting for the immunity to expire, either.
I don't understand that rule being applied to the pope.
He's not a democratically elected leader; he just runs a big religion (or cult). For consistency, they also need to extend diplomatic immunity to Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and all the other preachers in the U.S. convicted of criminal activities.
Since everyone can become a preacher at Universal Life Church, we never have to worry about the law ever again
I don't understand that rule being applied to the pope.
He's not a democratically elected leader; he just runs a big religion (or cult). For consistency, they also need to extend diplomatic immunity to Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and all the other preachers in the U.S. convicted of criminal activities.
Since everyone can become a preacher at Universal Life Church, we never have to worry about the law ever again
Arrest the pope?
yaaarrrgg;1309849 wrote: I don't understand that rule being applied to the pope.
He's not a democratically elected leader; he just runs a big religion (or cult). For consistency, they also need to extend diplomatic immunity to Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and all the other preachers in the U.S. convicted of criminal activities.
Since everyone can become a preacher at Universal Life Church, we never have to worry about the law ever again
I'm not talking about any modern-day equivalent of Benefit of Clergy, I'm talking about the recognized nation states of the world.
"Vatican City is an ecclesiastical or sacerdotal-monarchical state, ruled by the bishop of Rome - the Pope. The highest state functionaries are all Catholic clergymen of various nationalities. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See". It's a country in its own right. It has a Head of State. The fact that he's a priest is immaterial to my point.
By all means write to your Congressperson and ask that the USA formally revoke recognition of the Vatican State.
He's not a democratically elected leader; he just runs a big religion (or cult). For consistency, they also need to extend diplomatic immunity to Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and all the other preachers in the U.S. convicted of criminal activities.
Since everyone can become a preacher at Universal Life Church, we never have to worry about the law ever again
I'm not talking about any modern-day equivalent of Benefit of Clergy, I'm talking about the recognized nation states of the world.
"Vatican City is an ecclesiastical or sacerdotal-monarchical state, ruled by the bishop of Rome - the Pope. The highest state functionaries are all Catholic clergymen of various nationalities. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See". It's a country in its own right. It has a Head of State. The fact that he's a priest is immaterial to my point.
By all means write to your Congressperson and ask that the USA formally revoke recognition of the Vatican State.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Arrest the pope?
spot;1309857 wrote: I'm not talking about any modern-day equivalent of Benefit of Clergy, I'm talking about the recognized nation states of the world.
"Vatican City is an ecclesiastical or sacerdotal-monarchical state, ruled by the bishop of Rome - the Pope. The highest state functionaries are all Catholic clergymen of various nationalities. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See". It's a country in its own right. It has a Head of State. The fact that he's a priest is immaterial to my point.
By all means write to your Congressperson and ask that the USA formally revoke recognition of the Vatican State.
I will write...
Population - July 2009 estimate: 826
A lot of companies and churches have more people than that. The fact that they've managed to carve out total exception from the law reminds me more of a crime organization or mafia, than legitimate country, IMO he doesn't deserve to even be called a "mayor" of the "City".
"Vatican City is an ecclesiastical or sacerdotal-monarchical state, ruled by the bishop of Rome - the Pope. The highest state functionaries are all Catholic clergymen of various nationalities. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See". It's a country in its own right. It has a Head of State. The fact that he's a priest is immaterial to my point.
By all means write to your Congressperson and ask that the USA formally revoke recognition of the Vatican State.
I will write...
Population - July 2009 estimate: 826
A lot of companies and churches have more people than that. The fact that they've managed to carve out total exception from the law reminds me more of a crime organization or mafia, than legitimate country, IMO he doesn't deserve to even be called a "mayor" of the "City".
Arrest the pope?
spot;1309831 wrote: More to the point he's a Head of State and has diplomatic immunity. Since he's obliged to die in office there's no chance of waiting for the immunity to expire, either.
Christopher Hitchens is an utterly sickmaking prat anyway.
The queen is a head of state and will die in office. I trust you are not suggesting she should be above the law?
Nor should the pope.
The last time a monarch claimed a divine right to rule this country he got his head chopped off.
Just because the pope claims a divine right to rule does not mean we should accept that as a valid reason for not prosecuting. Were it any other type of organisation where there had been a deliberate cover up of a crime there would be no question of the perpetrators being immune from prosecution.
Hitchens may or may not be a prat but he does make a very good point.
Christopher Hitchens is an utterly sickmaking prat anyway.
The queen is a head of state and will die in office. I trust you are not suggesting she should be above the law?
Nor should the pope.
The last time a monarch claimed a divine right to rule this country he got his head chopped off.
Just because the pope claims a divine right to rule does not mean we should accept that as a valid reason for not prosecuting. Were it any other type of organisation where there had been a deliberate cover up of a crime there would be no question of the perpetrators being immune from prosecution.
Hitchens may or may not be a prat but he does make a very good point.
Arrest the pope?
It's not just a good idea, dude.
It's the Law.
It's the Law.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1309864 wrote: The last time a monarch claimed a divine right to rule this country he got his head chopped off.
The head chopper can then use the defence "I'm the *new* head of state." Thereby making them immune to prosecution.
The head chopper can then use the defence "I'm the *new* head of state." Thereby making them immune to prosecution.
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1309864 wrote: Were it any other type of organisation where there had been a deliberate cover up of a crime there would be no question of the perpetrators being immune from prosecution.
Good Lord, Pinochet fended off international prosecution on the basis of State Immunity and he'd been responsible for the deaths of thousands, along with his CIA advisers who'd brought him to power. The potential charges against Pope Benedict are utterly trivial by comparison.
Good Lord, Pinochet fended off international prosecution on the basis of State Immunity and he'd been responsible for the deaths of thousands, along with his CIA advisers who'd brought him to power. The potential charges against Pope Benedict are utterly trivial by comparison.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Arrest the pope?
spot;1309872 wrote: Good Lord, Pinochet fended off international prosecution on the basis of State Immunity and he'd been responsible for the deaths of thousands, along with his CIA advisers who'd brought him to power. The potential charges against Pope Benedict are utterly trivial by comparison.
Just because pinochet get away with it doesn't mean no attempt should be made.Time moves on and the days when people will just accept that political leaders are somehow above the law and shouldn't be called to account are passing. Maggie Thatcher thought he was wonderful because of the support chile gave during the falklands war and refused to countenance the idea that political leaders should be held to account for atrocities. We now have international courts to help go after people like him.
The point is surely, that there were attempts to prosecute him and if you remember he was arrested while visiting britain but released without trial by that idiot Jack Straw. he was protected by those who put him in power.
Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That the pope wasn't a mass murderer like pinochet while true and of passing interest is hardly germane to the point is it.
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing be done to prosecute such widespread child abuse and those who turned a blind eye?
Just because pinochet get away with it doesn't mean no attempt should be made.Time moves on and the days when people will just accept that political leaders are somehow above the law and shouldn't be called to account are passing. Maggie Thatcher thought he was wonderful because of the support chile gave during the falklands war and refused to countenance the idea that political leaders should be held to account for atrocities. We now have international courts to help go after people like him.
The point is surely, that there were attempts to prosecute him and if you remember he was arrested while visiting britain but released without trial by that idiot Jack Straw. he was protected by those who put him in power.
Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That the pope wasn't a mass murderer like pinochet while true and of passing interest is hardly germane to the point is it.
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing be done to prosecute such widespread child abuse and those who turned a blind eye?
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1309874 wrote: Just because pinochet get away with it doesn't mean no attempt should be made.Time moves on and the days when people will just accept that political leaders are somehow above the law and shouldn't be called to account are passing. Maggie Thatcher thought he was wonderful because of the support chile gave during the falklands war and refused to countenance the idea that political leaders should be held to account for atrocities. We now have international courts to help go after people like him.
The point is surely, that there were attempts to prosecute him and if you remember he was arrested while visiting britain but released without trial by that idiot Jack Straw. he was protected by those who put him in power.
Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That the pope wasn't a mass murderer like pinochet while true and of passing interest is hardly germane to the point is it.
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing be done to prosecute such widespread child abuse and those who turned a blind eye?
Courts don't operate on the law we wish was there it operates according to the law as written. Neither do they try cases according to the facts we wish were true.
The facts are that the Holy See is a recognised state with the Pope as its head and the law given the head of state immunity from prosecution. Wishing it were otherwise will change nothing.
That being said, no-one is suggesting that nothing be done to prosecute such widespread child abuse - just that our energies should be used where it can have a beneficial effect by going after those who can be brought to justice.
The more cases that are successfully brought to trial, the more paedophiles who are jailed the more untenable the Pope's position becomes and the more harm he does to the Catholic Church by remaining in office.
Keep publishing the evidence against him, denials without the evidence to back them up do more harm than good, but don't waste your breath trying to do the impossible and turn him into a persecuted martyr in the process.
The point is surely, that there were attempts to prosecute him and if you remember he was arrested while visiting britain but released without trial by that idiot Jack Straw. he was protected by those who put him in power.
Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That the pope wasn't a mass murderer like pinochet while true and of passing interest is hardly germane to the point is it.
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing be done to prosecute such widespread child abuse and those who turned a blind eye?
Courts don't operate on the law we wish was there it operates according to the law as written. Neither do they try cases according to the facts we wish were true.
The facts are that the Holy See is a recognised state with the Pope as its head and the law given the head of state immunity from prosecution. Wishing it were otherwise will change nothing.
That being said, no-one is suggesting that nothing be done to prosecute such widespread child abuse - just that our energies should be used where it can have a beneficial effect by going after those who can be brought to justice.
The more cases that are successfully brought to trial, the more paedophiles who are jailed the more untenable the Pope's position becomes and the more harm he does to the Catholic Church by remaining in office.
Keep publishing the evidence against him, denials without the evidence to back them up do more harm than good, but don't waste your breath trying to do the impossible and turn him into a persecuted martyr in the process.
Arrest the pope?
I agree with you Bryn. Karma will catch up with him sooner or later!:sneaky:
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
-
kathaksung
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:48 am
Arrest the pope?
634. Pope and Roman Catholic under attack (5/5/2010)
Here are some excerpts from news articles of San Jose Mercury News in recent weeks.
"Sex abuse scandal taints Palm Sunday services
....Cardinal Sean Brady.... as a youthful priest 35 years ago, had two boys sign papers not to reveal scandal. "The inquiry had the effect of shielding and prolonging the career of a priest who was exposed 15 years later as the most notorious child-abuser in the history of Irish church. But the Vatican has been buffeted by recent disclosures of inaction as well."
(New York Times, 3/30/2010)
"AP: Abuse case delayed for years
Vatican waited 12 years to defrock Arizona priest" (A.P. 4/3/2010)
"Vatican defends pope, criticizes New York Times
... an article describing failed efforts by Wisconsin church officials to persuade the Vatican to defrock a priest who had abused as many as 200 deaf boys from 1950 to 1974. The pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office when the case was referred there in 1996." (New York Times, 4/2/2010)
"Pope delayed defrocking
A former East Bay priest with a long record of sexually abusing children remained in the clergy for years while then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, bucked pleas from the from the Oakland Diocese to defrock him in the 1980s, according to an A.P. report citing church documents." (jsimerman@bayareanewsgroup.com , 4/10/2010)
"Pope's link to '90s Austrian abuse case under scrutiny" (New York Times, 4/27/2010)
"News of abusive priest hit Vatican year earlier
Rome was warned of molester in '95, not '96 as claimed" (A.P. 4/23/2010)
What do you learn from these news?
1. The cases mostly took place in '80s and '90s, some even were 50 years ago.
2. Most reports target at Benedict XVI when he was a Cardinal.
3. All these news appear in later March and April. It is exactly what Vatican called as a "campaign of attacks on the pope and the church.
What is the purpose of this propaganda campaign? Since this January, the Inside group works hard to frame a drug case and then to start the war on Iran. The war effort was especially active in April. As a leader of Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI is against war. Then we saw this campaign. It lowers the moral image of the Pope. Once the war starts, his anti-war voice would be weakened. How can Vatican criticize others when its own profile is tainted?
Media played important role in propaganda for the Iraq war. Now it beats the drum again for another war.
Here are some excerpts from news articles of San Jose Mercury News in recent weeks.
"Sex abuse scandal taints Palm Sunday services
....Cardinal Sean Brady.... as a youthful priest 35 years ago, had two boys sign papers not to reveal scandal. "The inquiry had the effect of shielding and prolonging the career of a priest who was exposed 15 years later as the most notorious child-abuser in the history of Irish church. But the Vatican has been buffeted by recent disclosures of inaction as well."
(New York Times, 3/30/2010)
"AP: Abuse case delayed for years
Vatican waited 12 years to defrock Arizona priest" (A.P. 4/3/2010)
"Vatican defends pope, criticizes New York Times
... an article describing failed efforts by Wisconsin church officials to persuade the Vatican to defrock a priest who had abused as many as 200 deaf boys from 1950 to 1974. The pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office when the case was referred there in 1996." (New York Times, 4/2/2010)
"Pope delayed defrocking
A former East Bay priest with a long record of sexually abusing children remained in the clergy for years while then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, bucked pleas from the from the Oakland Diocese to defrock him in the 1980s, according to an A.P. report citing church documents." (jsimerman@bayareanewsgroup.com , 4/10/2010)
"Pope's link to '90s Austrian abuse case under scrutiny" (New York Times, 4/27/2010)
"News of abusive priest hit Vatican year earlier
Rome was warned of molester in '95, not '96 as claimed" (A.P. 4/23/2010)
What do you learn from these news?
1. The cases mostly took place in '80s and '90s, some even were 50 years ago.
2. Most reports target at Benedict XVI when he was a Cardinal.
3. All these news appear in later March and April. It is exactly what Vatican called as a "campaign of attacks on the pope and the church.
What is the purpose of this propaganda campaign? Since this January, the Inside group works hard to frame a drug case and then to start the war on Iran. The war effort was especially active in April. As a leader of Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI is against war. Then we saw this campaign. It lowers the moral image of the Pope. Once the war starts, his anti-war voice would be weakened. How can Vatican criticize others when its own profile is tainted?
Media played important role in propaganda for the Iraq war. Now it beats the drum again for another war.
Arrest the pope?
kathaksung;1316302 wrote: 634. Pope and Roman Catholic under attack (5/5/2010)
Here are some excerpts from news articles of San Jose Mercury News in recent weeks.
"Sex abuse scandal taints Palm Sunday services
....Cardinal Sean Brady.... as a youthful priest 35 years ago, had two boys sign papers not to reveal scandal. "The inquiry had the effect of shielding and prolonging the career of a priest who was exposed 15 years later as the most notorious child-abuser in the history of Irish church. But the Vatican has been buffeted by recent disclosures of inaction as well."
(New York Times, 3/30/2010)
"AP: Abuse case delayed for years
Vatican waited 12 years to defrock Arizona priest" (A.P. 4/3/2010)
"Vatican defends pope, criticizes New York Times
... an article describing failed efforts by Wisconsin church officials to persuade the Vatican to defrock a priest who had abused as many as 200 deaf boys from 1950 to 1974. The pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office when the case was referred there in 1996." (New York Times, 4/2/2010)
"Pope delayed defrocking
A former East Bay priest with a long record of sexually abusing children remained in the clergy for years while then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, bucked pleas from the from the Oakland Diocese to defrock him in the 1980s, according to an A.P. report citing church documents." (jsimerman@bayareanewsgroup.com , 4/10/2010)
"Pope's link to '90s Austrian abuse case under scrutiny" (New York Times, 4/27/2010)
"News of abusive priest hit Vatican year earlier
Rome was warned of molester in '95, not '96 as claimed" (A.P. 4/23/2010)
What do you learn from these news?
1. The cases mostly took place in '80s and '90s, some even were 50 years ago.
2. Most reports target at Benedict XVI when he was a Cardinal.
3. All these news appear in later March and April. It is exactly what Vatican called as a "campaign of attacks on the pope and the church.
What is the purpose of this propaganda campaign? Since this January, the Inside group works hard to frame a drug case and then to start the war on Iran. The war effort was especially active in April. As a leader of Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI is against war. Then we saw this campaign. It lowers the moral image of the Pope. Once the war starts, his anti-war voice would be weakened. How can Vatican criticize others when its own profile is tainted?
Media played important role in propaganda for the Iraq war. Now it beats the drum again for another war.
Are you seriously suggesting all those victims threw themselves under a priest just so the catholic church could be discredited thirty years in the future?
Here are some excerpts from news articles of San Jose Mercury News in recent weeks.
"Sex abuse scandal taints Palm Sunday services
....Cardinal Sean Brady.... as a youthful priest 35 years ago, had two boys sign papers not to reveal scandal. "The inquiry had the effect of shielding and prolonging the career of a priest who was exposed 15 years later as the most notorious child-abuser in the history of Irish church. But the Vatican has been buffeted by recent disclosures of inaction as well."
(New York Times, 3/30/2010)
"AP: Abuse case delayed for years
Vatican waited 12 years to defrock Arizona priest" (A.P. 4/3/2010)
"Vatican defends pope, criticizes New York Times
... an article describing failed efforts by Wisconsin church officials to persuade the Vatican to defrock a priest who had abused as many as 200 deaf boys from 1950 to 1974. The pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office when the case was referred there in 1996." (New York Times, 4/2/2010)
"Pope delayed defrocking
A former East Bay priest with a long record of sexually abusing children remained in the clergy for years while then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, bucked pleas from the from the Oakland Diocese to defrock him in the 1980s, according to an A.P. report citing church documents." (jsimerman@bayareanewsgroup.com , 4/10/2010)
"Pope's link to '90s Austrian abuse case under scrutiny" (New York Times, 4/27/2010)
"News of abusive priest hit Vatican year earlier
Rome was warned of molester in '95, not '96 as claimed" (A.P. 4/23/2010)
What do you learn from these news?
1. The cases mostly took place in '80s and '90s, some even were 50 years ago.
2. Most reports target at Benedict XVI when he was a Cardinal.
3. All these news appear in later March and April. It is exactly what Vatican called as a "campaign of attacks on the pope and the church.
What is the purpose of this propaganda campaign? Since this January, the Inside group works hard to frame a drug case and then to start the war on Iran. The war effort was especially active in April. As a leader of Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI is against war. Then we saw this campaign. It lowers the moral image of the Pope. Once the war starts, his anti-war voice would be weakened. How can Vatican criticize others when its own profile is tainted?
Media played important role in propaganda for the Iraq war. Now it beats the drum again for another war.
Are you seriously suggesting all those victims threw themselves under a priest just so the catholic church could be discredited thirty years in the future?
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1316306 wrote: Are you seriously suggesting all those victims threw themselves under a priest just so the catholic church could be discredited thirty years in the future?kathaksung is a refugee from another forum, one that went under about a year ago. No one there ever considered him serious about anything.
I have not been following this thread, having just discovered it, but I'm curious of what civilly prosecutable crimes the opening poster and Hitchens believe the pope might be culpable.
If they're referring to poor administrative judgment as bishop (in Germany before becoming pope), I doubt that that constitutes a crime under German law.
There was nothing to prevent the victims from complaining to the civil authorities. If they decided to let the Church handle the matter internally, that was their choice. They still could have gone to the police if they were dissatisfied with the results of the ecclesiastical investigation.
If I'm missing anything here, I hope that someone will fill me in.
I have not been following this thread, having just discovered it, but I'm curious of what civilly prosecutable crimes the opening poster and Hitchens believe the pope might be culpable.
If they're referring to poor administrative judgment as bishop (in Germany before becoming pope), I doubt that that constitutes a crime under German law.
There was nothing to prevent the victims from complaining to the civil authorities. If they decided to let the Church handle the matter internally, that was their choice. They still could have gone to the police if they were dissatisfied with the results of the ecclesiastical investigation.
If I'm missing anything here, I hope that someone will fill me in.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319302 wrote: I have not been following this thread, having just discovered it, but I'm curious of what civilly prosecutable crimes the opening poster and Hitchens believe the pope might be culpable.
I would think fraud, obstruction of justice, and accessory to rape for starters.
I would think fraud, obstruction of justice, and accessory to rape for starters.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
yaaarrrgg;1319314 wrote: I would think fraud, obstruction of justice, and accessory to rape for starters.I would think so too.
Can you document each of those specifically?
I think not, it sounds like hyperbole to me, but having already admitted that I haven't been following the situation closely, please avail yourself of the opportunity to enlighten me.
In doing so, please limit yourself to civilly punishable offenses, not errors in judgment, and while you're at it, explain why the offended parties didn't press charges, or if they did, give the details.
Fair enough?
Can you document each of those specifically?
I think not, it sounds like hyperbole to me, but having already admitted that I haven't been following the situation closely, please avail yourself of the opportunity to enlighten me.
In doing so, please limit yourself to civilly punishable offenses, not errors in judgment, and while you're at it, explain why the offended parties didn't press charges, or if they did, give the details.
Fair enough?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Arrest the pope?
I just want that library opened up. Completely. Forget conspiracy, I reckon there's literary treasure on them thar shelves.
spot's right about the head of state bit. But we're definitely in diplomatic protest territory. Is any going on, does anyone know?
spot's right about the head of state bit. But we're definitely in diplomatic protest territory. Is any going on, does anyone know?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
Clodhopper;1319345 wrote: I just want that library opened up. Completely. Forget conspiracy, I reckon there's literary treasure on them thar shelves.
spot's right about the head of state bit. But we're definitely in diplomatic protest territory. Is any going on, does anyone know?Anyone know what the poster is referring to here?
spot's right about the head of state bit. But we're definitely in diplomatic protest territory. Is any going on, does anyone know?Anyone know what the poster is referring to here?
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319322 wrote: I would think so too.
Can you document each of those specifically?
I think not, it sounds like hyperbole to me, but having already admitted that I haven't been following the situation closely, please avail yourself of the opportunity to enlighten me.
In doing so, please limit yourself to civilly punishable offenses, not errors in judgment, and while you're at it, explain why the offended parties didn't press charges, or if they did, give the details.
Fair enough?
There was a documentary a while back called "Deliver Us From Evil" that covered these points in detail, if you are interested.
As for recent news:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2 ... 3_ST_N.htm
The alleged California victim, referred to only as Joseph Doe in the lawsuit, says he was duped into not suing earlier because he believed the archdiocese had removed Newell.
Can you document each of those specifically?
I think not, it sounds like hyperbole to me, but having already admitted that I haven't been following the situation closely, please avail yourself of the opportunity to enlighten me.
In doing so, please limit yourself to civilly punishable offenses, not errors in judgment, and while you're at it, explain why the offended parties didn't press charges, or if they did, give the details.
Fair enough?
There was a documentary a while back called "Deliver Us From Evil" that covered these points in detail, if you are interested.
As for recent news:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2 ... 3_ST_N.htm
The alleged California victim, referred to only as Joseph Doe in the lawsuit, says he was duped into not suing earlier because he believed the archdiocese had removed Newell.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
yaaarrrgg;1319487 wrote: There was a documentary a while back called "Deliver Us From Evil" that covered these points in detail, if you are interested.
As for recent news:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2 ... _N.htmWell, I read the USAToday article, I fail to see the connection with arresting the pope. How was he personally involved with this case? It's a rhetorical question, you know that he wasn't.
I've never heard of the documentary, I'll take your word that such a presentation exists, without seeing it I can't comment further, but if it suggests or advocates the arrest of the pope, then it's little more than rhetorical claptrap. If it's online and you can give a link I'll watch it.
Hitchens I will not watch, for the same reason that I wouldn't pick up a dog turd from the gutter and put it in my pocket, he is just too repulsive no matter what his subject matter.
But don't get me wrong here - the Church has handled this entire situation horribly. Still, it's hard to prosecute molesters if the victims won't complain to the civil authorities, as many seem reluctant to do, preferring to make unsubstantiated claims to the media.
As for recent news:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2 ... _N.htmWell, I read the USAToday article, I fail to see the connection with arresting the pope. How was he personally involved with this case? It's a rhetorical question, you know that he wasn't.
I've never heard of the documentary, I'll take your word that such a presentation exists, without seeing it I can't comment further, but if it suggests or advocates the arrest of the pope, then it's little more than rhetorical claptrap. If it's online and you can give a link I'll watch it.
Hitchens I will not watch, for the same reason that I wouldn't pick up a dog turd from the gutter and put it in my pocket, he is just too repulsive no matter what his subject matter.
But don't get me wrong here - the Church has handled this entire situation horribly. Still, it's hard to prosecute molesters if the victims won't complain to the civil authorities, as many seem reluctant to do, preferring to make unsubstantiated claims to the media.
Arrest the pope?
Then lets arrest Ban Ki-moon too. He's head of a world-wide organization that is corrupt, dangerous and evil, IMO.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
hoppy;1319508 wrote: Then lets arrest Ban Ki-moon too. He's head of a world-wide organization that is corrupt, dangerous and evil, IMO.
Great idea, he could share a cell with Dick Cheney.
Great idea, he could share a cell with Dick Cheney.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam:
Hello.
What I was referring to is the long held suspicion that the Vatican Library has long held copies of otherwise lost books. These include lost Classical treasures such as the poetry of Sappho, Aristotelian philosophy and perhaps some of the great Renaissance figures like Da Vinci. I'm not a Catholic and I don't care for the Papacy as an institution in general and this Pope in particular, so I don't trust them not to have those books hidden away somewhere no matter how much they deny it. And there's not a scholar in the world who doesn't itch to see those books. If they still exist.
Hope that answers your query. I assume the spot part is self explanatory. If not, ask again.
Hello.
What I was referring to is the long held suspicion that the Vatican Library has long held copies of otherwise lost books. These include lost Classical treasures such as the poetry of Sappho, Aristotelian philosophy and perhaps some of the great Renaissance figures like Da Vinci. I'm not a Catholic and I don't care for the Papacy as an institution in general and this Pope in particular, so I don't trust them not to have those books hidden away somewhere no matter how much they deny it. And there's not a scholar in the world who doesn't itch to see those books. If they still exist.
Hope that answers your query. I assume the spot part is self explanatory. If not, ask again.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
Clodhopper;1319521 wrote: Mark Aspam:
Hello.
What I was referring to is the long held suspicion that the Vatican Library has long held copies of otherwise lost books. These include lost Classical treasures such as the poetry of Sappho, Aristotelian philosophy and perhaps some of the great Renaissance figures like Da Vinci. I'm not a Catholic and I don't care for the Papacy as an institution in general and this Pope in particular, so I don't trust them not to have those books hidden away somewhere no matter how much they deny it. And there's not a scholar in the world who doesn't itch to see those books. If they still exist.
Hope that answers your query. I assume the spot part is self explanatory. If not, ask again.Fair enough, Clod, thanks for the explanation. It does seem somewhat removed from the topic of the thread, however.
I guess what confused me more was the reference to 'diplomatic protest'.
Hello.
What I was referring to is the long held suspicion that the Vatican Library has long held copies of otherwise lost books. These include lost Classical treasures such as the poetry of Sappho, Aristotelian philosophy and perhaps some of the great Renaissance figures like Da Vinci. I'm not a Catholic and I don't care for the Papacy as an institution in general and this Pope in particular, so I don't trust them not to have those books hidden away somewhere no matter how much they deny it. And there's not a scholar in the world who doesn't itch to see those books. If they still exist.
Hope that answers your query. I assume the spot part is self explanatory. If not, ask again.Fair enough, Clod, thanks for the explanation. It does seem somewhat removed from the topic of the thread, however.
I guess what confused me more was the reference to 'diplomatic protest'.
Arrest the pope?
posted by mark aspam
I have not been following this thread, having just discovered it, but I'm curious of what civilly prosecutable crimes the opening poster and Hitchens believe the pope might be culpable.
If they're referring to poor administrative judgment as bishop (in Germany before becoming pope), I doubt that that constitutes a crime under German law.
There was nothing to prevent the victims from complaining to the civil authorities. If they decided to let the Church handle the matter internally, that was their choice. They still could have gone to the police if they were dissatisfied with the results of the ecclesiastical investigation.
If I'm missing anything here, I hope that someone will fill me in.
You are talking about children who were raped by a priest it would have been up to the parents to have pursued matters not the victim. Just as it is nowadays there is a tendency not to believe a child who complains of being molested it was even more two or three decades ago, it is only as adults the victims are now speaking out for themselves. If the civil authorities won't press criminal charges (as also seems to have been the case) what chance would a child victim have in a civil case even assuming their parents could afford it?
Children are helpless and paedophiles choose their target very carefully.
Even now despite all the evidence and publicity about there are people who prefer to believe it didn't happen and priests wouldn't do something like that and dismiss it all as anti-catholicism and a smear campaign. Ask yourself what you would have been able to do as a ten year old child raped by a priest to get justice especially up against an institution like the church with parents intimidated in to silence for fear of being excommunicated and shunned by their community
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/au ... protection
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
I have not been following this thread, having just discovered it, but I'm curious of what civilly prosecutable crimes the opening poster and Hitchens believe the pope might be culpable.
If they're referring to poor administrative judgment as bishop (in Germany before becoming pope), I doubt that that constitutes a crime under German law.
There was nothing to prevent the victims from complaining to the civil authorities. If they decided to let the Church handle the matter internally, that was their choice. They still could have gone to the police if they were dissatisfied with the results of the ecclesiastical investigation.
If I'm missing anything here, I hope that someone will fill me in.
You are talking about children who were raped by a priest it would have been up to the parents to have pursued matters not the victim. Just as it is nowadays there is a tendency not to believe a child who complains of being molested it was even more two or three decades ago, it is only as adults the victims are now speaking out for themselves. If the civil authorities won't press criminal charges (as also seems to have been the case) what chance would a child victim have in a civil case even assuming their parents could afford it?
Children are helpless and paedophiles choose their target very carefully.
Even now despite all the evidence and publicity about there are people who prefer to believe it didn't happen and priests wouldn't do something like that and dismiss it all as anti-catholicism and a smear campaign. Ask yourself what you would have been able to do as a ten year old child raped by a priest to get justice especially up against an institution like the church with parents intimidated in to silence for fear of being excommunicated and shunned by their community
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/au ... protection
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319525 wrote: You are talking about children who were raped by a priest it would have been up to the parents to have pursued matters not the victim. Just as it is nowadays there is a tendency not to believe a child who complains of being molested it was even more two or three decades ago, it is only as adults the victims are now speaking out for themselves. If the civil authorities won't press criminal charges (as also seems to have been the case) what chance would a child victim have in a civil case even assuming their parents could afford it?
Children are helpless and paedophiles choose their target very carefully.
Even now despite all the evidence and publicity about there are people who prefer to believe it didn't happen and priests wouldn't do something like that and dismiss it all as anti-catholicism and a smear campaign. Ask yourself what you would have been able to do as a ten year old child raped by a priest to get justice especially up against an institution like the church with parents intimidated in to silence for fear of being excommunicated and shunned by their community
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/au ... tectionI'm not sure what any of that has to do with arresting the pope, which is supposed to be the theme of the thread.
Nor do I see how loyal Catholics complaining of abuse could be considered anti-Catholicism. Nor, I can say with 100% certainty, would my parents have been so intimidated, nor would making such accusations be, under ANY interpretation of canon law, grounds for excommunication, unless, of course, it could be proven that such charges were made falsely and maliciously.
So you are kind of 'all over the place' here.
But I'm like most Catholics, no such thing ever happened nor was alleged anywhere in my experience, the only 'scandal' we ever heard of was from time to time a young priest would realize that he had chosen the wrong vocation and run off with a young woman, in most such cases they lived happily ever after and remained practicing Catholics.
And I'm also like most Catholics in wanting every abusive priest punished civilly and every priest falsely accused exonerated. That would, of course, go for clergy of other denominations also.
Children are helpless and paedophiles choose their target very carefully.
Even now despite all the evidence and publicity about there are people who prefer to believe it didn't happen and priests wouldn't do something like that and dismiss it all as anti-catholicism and a smear campaign. Ask yourself what you would have been able to do as a ten year old child raped by a priest to get justice especially up against an institution like the church with parents intimidated in to silence for fear of being excommunicated and shunned by their community
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/au ... tectionI'm not sure what any of that has to do with arresting the pope, which is supposed to be the theme of the thread.
Nor do I see how loyal Catholics complaining of abuse could be considered anti-Catholicism. Nor, I can say with 100% certainty, would my parents have been so intimidated, nor would making such accusations be, under ANY interpretation of canon law, grounds for excommunication, unless, of course, it could be proven that such charges were made falsely and maliciously.
So you are kind of 'all over the place' here.
But I'm like most Catholics, no such thing ever happened nor was alleged anywhere in my experience, the only 'scandal' we ever heard of was from time to time a young priest would realize that he had chosen the wrong vocation and run off with a young woman, in most such cases they lived happily ever after and remained practicing Catholics.
And I'm also like most Catholics in wanting every abusive priest punished civilly and every priest falsely accused exonerated. That would, of course, go for clergy of other denominations also.
Arrest the pope?
Mark. My apologies. It was one of your earlier posts I meant to quote. I have amended it and it might make more sense now.
Mark Aspam;1319527 wrote: I'm not sure what any of that has to do with arresting the pope, which is supposed to be the theme of the thread.
Nor do I see how loyal Catholics complaining of abuse could be considered anti-Catholicism. Nor, I can say with 100% certainty, would my parents have been so intimidated, nor would making such accusations be, under ANY interpretation of canon law, grounds for excommunication, unless, of course, it could be proven that such charges were made falsely and maliciously.
So you are kind of 'all over the place' here.
But I'm like most Catholics, no such thing ever happened nor was alleged anywhere in my experience, the only 'scandal' we ever heard of was from time to time a young priest would realize that he had chosen the wrong vocation and run off with a young woman, in most such cases they lived happily ever after and remained practicing Catholics.
And I'm also like most Catholics in wanting every abusive priest punished civilly and every priest falsely accused exonerated. That would, of course, go for clergy of other denominations also.
But I'm like most Catholics, no such thing ever happened nor was alleged anywhere in my experience, the only 'scandal' we ever heard of was from time to time a young priest would realize that he had chosen the wrong vocation and run off with a young woman, in most such cases they lived happily ever after and remained practicing Catholics.
And I'm also like most Catholics in wanting every abusive priest punished civilly and every priest falsely accused exonerated. That would, of course, go for clergy of other denominations also.
So because you are unaware of any example close to you the allegations can't have any substance to them? Now put yourself in the position of a child victim and their parents knowing most around them would react like you disbelieving the accuser right from the outset. It boils down to the word of a child against that of a priest there is no way you can prove what happened in an isolated case. The thing is these are not isolated cases and you didn't know about them because they were covered up - successfully it would seem.
It is quite evident that the catholic hierarchy deliberately covered up cases of abuse and acted to protect the church over any concerns about protecting children and knowingly moved priests they knew were abusing children yet did nothing to prevent them doing it again or to see the priest prosecuted. The best case scenario is that they just didn't believe it was happening and that the allegations were false. In this cover up the now pope played a central part. No doubt he will answer to his maker - presumably he believes that - but why should he not he should also answer to the laws of man.
As someone who (literally) likes to pontificate and lecture everybody on how they should behave on the sheer hypocrisy of the pope is breathtaking.
Nor do I see how loyal Catholics complaining of abuse could be considered anti-Catholicism.
Nevertheless that is the accusation being levelled at them. The assumption seems to be they are all lying.
Dare I say a loyal catholic wouldn't complain or call for justice:sneaky:
Mark Aspam;1319527 wrote: I'm not sure what any of that has to do with arresting the pope, which is supposed to be the theme of the thread.
Nor do I see how loyal Catholics complaining of abuse could be considered anti-Catholicism. Nor, I can say with 100% certainty, would my parents have been so intimidated, nor would making such accusations be, under ANY interpretation of canon law, grounds for excommunication, unless, of course, it could be proven that such charges were made falsely and maliciously.
So you are kind of 'all over the place' here.
But I'm like most Catholics, no such thing ever happened nor was alleged anywhere in my experience, the only 'scandal' we ever heard of was from time to time a young priest would realize that he had chosen the wrong vocation and run off with a young woman, in most such cases they lived happily ever after and remained practicing Catholics.
And I'm also like most Catholics in wanting every abusive priest punished civilly and every priest falsely accused exonerated. That would, of course, go for clergy of other denominations also.
But I'm like most Catholics, no such thing ever happened nor was alleged anywhere in my experience, the only 'scandal' we ever heard of was from time to time a young priest would realize that he had chosen the wrong vocation and run off with a young woman, in most such cases they lived happily ever after and remained practicing Catholics.
And I'm also like most Catholics in wanting every abusive priest punished civilly and every priest falsely accused exonerated. That would, of course, go for clergy of other denominations also.
So because you are unaware of any example close to you the allegations can't have any substance to them? Now put yourself in the position of a child victim and their parents knowing most around them would react like you disbelieving the accuser right from the outset. It boils down to the word of a child against that of a priest there is no way you can prove what happened in an isolated case. The thing is these are not isolated cases and you didn't know about them because they were covered up - successfully it would seem.
It is quite evident that the catholic hierarchy deliberately covered up cases of abuse and acted to protect the church over any concerns about protecting children and knowingly moved priests they knew were abusing children yet did nothing to prevent them doing it again or to see the priest prosecuted. The best case scenario is that they just didn't believe it was happening and that the allegations were false. In this cover up the now pope played a central part. No doubt he will answer to his maker - presumably he believes that - but why should he not he should also answer to the laws of man.
As someone who (literally) likes to pontificate and lecture everybody on how they should behave on the sheer hypocrisy of the pope is breathtaking.
Nor do I see how loyal Catholics complaining of abuse could be considered anti-Catholicism.
Nevertheless that is the accusation being levelled at them. The assumption seems to be they are all lying.
Dare I say a loyal catholic wouldn't complain or call for justice:sneaky:
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Arrest the pope?
Fair enough, Clod, thanks for the explanation. It does seem somewhat removed from the topic of the thread, however.
I guess what confused me more was the reference to 'diplomatic protest'.
I appear to live in a sidetrack. Sorry. One of the first things that occurs to me when the Papacy is mentioned is missing books...
Diplomatic protest: well, if the Head of another supposedly respectable State has been involved in covering up for paedophiles, don't you think a few diplomatic questions would be appropriate? At the least?
I guess what confused me more was the reference to 'diplomatic protest'.
I appear to live in a sidetrack. Sorry. One of the first things that occurs to me when the Papacy is mentioned is missing books...
Diplomatic protest: well, if the Head of another supposedly respectable State has been involved in covering up for paedophiles, don't you think a few diplomatic questions would be appropriate? At the least?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319542 wrote: 1. So because you are unaware of any example close to you the allegations can't have any substance to them?
2. Now put yourself in the position of a child victim and their parents knowing most around them would react like you disbelieving the accuser right from the outset. It boils down to the word of a child against that of a priest there is no way you can prove what happened in an isolated case. The thing is these are not isolated cases and you didn't know about them because they were covered up - successfully it would seem.
3. It is quite evident that the catholic hierarchy deliberately covered up cases of abuse and acted to protect the church over any concerns about protecting children and knowingly moved priests they knew were abusing children yet did nothing to prevent them doing it again or to see the priest prosecuted.
4. The best case scenario is that they just didn't believe it was happening and that the allegations were false. In this cover up the now pope played a central part. No doubt he will answer to his maker - presumably he believes that - but why should he not he should also answer to the laws of man.
5. Nevertheless that is the accusation being levelled at them. The assumption seems to be they are all lying. Dare I say a loyal catholic wouldn't complain or call for justice?1. I never said or implied anything like that.
2. Here I think you are completely wrong. In such a situation, a reasonable person, be s/he parent, bishop, or prosecutor, would consider who had the stronger motivation for lying, the accuser or the accused. Also, if we are talking about true rape, there would very likely be physical evidence.
3. Well, in the link that the other poster provided, I agree entirely. The priest in queston should not be working with children in Tijuana, although that would be beyond the jurisdiction of his previous bishop in the USA. But it is not up to Church officials to 'see the priest prosecuted' unless, of course, they actually witnessed the abuse. That obligation falls on the parents as the accuser's legal representatives.
4. But now we are back to square one. What charges would be filed, by whom, etc. Be specific. I requested that of the other poster and he gave only an evasive reply.
5. Who assumes that? No Catholic that I know. You seem to be under the impression that the Church holds its laity in some sort of constant fear. The clergy are there to SERVE the faithful, not rule. I know of no Catholic who would tolerate any sort of clerical misbehavior other than something trivial, which child abuse definitely is not.
2. Now put yourself in the position of a child victim and their parents knowing most around them would react like you disbelieving the accuser right from the outset. It boils down to the word of a child against that of a priest there is no way you can prove what happened in an isolated case. The thing is these are not isolated cases and you didn't know about them because they were covered up - successfully it would seem.
3. It is quite evident that the catholic hierarchy deliberately covered up cases of abuse and acted to protect the church over any concerns about protecting children and knowingly moved priests they knew were abusing children yet did nothing to prevent them doing it again or to see the priest prosecuted.
4. The best case scenario is that they just didn't believe it was happening and that the allegations were false. In this cover up the now pope played a central part. No doubt he will answer to his maker - presumably he believes that - but why should he not he should also answer to the laws of man.
5. Nevertheless that is the accusation being levelled at them. The assumption seems to be they are all lying. Dare I say a loyal catholic wouldn't complain or call for justice?1. I never said or implied anything like that.
2. Here I think you are completely wrong. In such a situation, a reasonable person, be s/he parent, bishop, or prosecutor, would consider who had the stronger motivation for lying, the accuser or the accused. Also, if we are talking about true rape, there would very likely be physical evidence.
3. Well, in the link that the other poster provided, I agree entirely. The priest in queston should not be working with children in Tijuana, although that would be beyond the jurisdiction of his previous bishop in the USA. But it is not up to Church officials to 'see the priest prosecuted' unless, of course, they actually witnessed the abuse. That obligation falls on the parents as the accuser's legal representatives.
4. But now we are back to square one. What charges would be filed, by whom, etc. Be specific. I requested that of the other poster and he gave only an evasive reply.
5. Who assumes that? No Catholic that I know. You seem to be under the impression that the Church holds its laity in some sort of constant fear. The clergy are there to SERVE the faithful, not rule. I know of no Catholic who would tolerate any sort of clerical misbehavior other than something trivial, which child abuse definitely is not.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319493 wrote: But don't get me wrong here - the Church has handled this entire situation horribly. Still, it's hard to prosecute molesters if the victims won't complain to the civil authorities, as many seem reluctant to do, preferring to make unsubstantiated claims to the media.
The question you should ask is why none of the authorities in the catholic church reported these incidents to the civil authorities.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rat ... _the_Faith
...on May 18, 2001 Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church.[5] [6] This letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation.
IOW, don't go to the police. And what did Ratzinger and the CDF do? Nothing.
When all the cases around the globe have the same signature of suppression of evidence, inaction, and the transferal of serial rapists from one parish to another, it means that this policy was set at the top level.
The question you should ask is why none of the authorities in the catholic church reported these incidents to the civil authorities.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rat ... _the_Faith
...on May 18, 2001 Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church.[5] [6] This letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation.
IOW, don't go to the police. And what did Ratzinger and the CDF do? Nothing.
When all the cases around the globe have the same signature of suppression of evidence, inaction, and the transferal of serial rapists from one parish to another, it means that this policy was set at the top level.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319549 wrote:
4. But now we are back to square one. What charges would be filed, by whom, etc. Be specific. I requested that of the other poster and he gave only an evasive reply.
Evasive? If you want specifics read the news or watch documentaries about it. What you'll find is that you are asking the wrong questions.
4. But now we are back to square one. What charges would be filed, by whom, etc. Be specific. I requested that of the other poster and he gave only an evasive reply.
Evasive? If you want specifics read the news or watch documentaries about it. What you'll find is that you are asking the wrong questions.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
yaaarrrgg;1319557 wrote: The question you should ask is why none of the authorities in the catholic church reported these incidents to the civil authorities.
IOW, don't go to the police. And what did Ratzinger and the CDF do? Nothing.
When all the cases around the globe have the same signature of suppression of evidence, inaction, and the transferal of serial rapists from one parish to another, it means that this policy was set at the top level.No, I shouldn't ask that question because I already know the answer, and you should too.
That resonsibility rests with the victim or his/her legal representative.
If such an accusation is made, the bishop certainly has the obligation to investigate it internally.
yarg, I'm going to try to make this clear to you, but I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, your only purpose here seems to be to bash the Church. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just once more.
Let's create a hypothetical example. A young Catholic boy is alone with a priest, perhaps it is after Mass at which he was the acolyte. With me so far? Good!
The priest makes clearly improper sexual advances toward him. He immediately runs home and informs his parents.
The parents go to the priest's superior, which might be the pastor or the bishop.
Now the scenario splits. The accused priest either admits his indiscretion or denies it.
Let's assume he admits it and apologizes. In that case, the superior would probably ask the parents whether they would prefer to have the matter handled internally or go to the police. HE CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FORBID THEM TO GO TO THE POLICE.
If they choose to go to the police, then it is in the law's hands.
If, however, they willingly agree to have their Church handle the matter internally, then and only then are BOTH the parents and the Church officials sworn to secrecy for the term of the investigation. The reson for this should be obvious. A fair investigation can hardly be conducted if there is a legal case or a media circus in progress simultaneously.
Once the investigation is completed, the secrecy provision expires. If the parents are dissatisfied, they are still free to pursue the matter civilly.
OK? Now, if the accused priest denies the charges, then of course the burden of proof, as with any crime in any venue, rests on the alleged victim.
So what on earth does such a scenario have to do with arresting the pope?
IOW, don't go to the police. And what did Ratzinger and the CDF do? Nothing.
When all the cases around the globe have the same signature of suppression of evidence, inaction, and the transferal of serial rapists from one parish to another, it means that this policy was set at the top level.No, I shouldn't ask that question because I already know the answer, and you should too.
That resonsibility rests with the victim or his/her legal representative.
If such an accusation is made, the bishop certainly has the obligation to investigate it internally.
yarg, I'm going to try to make this clear to you, but I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, your only purpose here seems to be to bash the Church. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just once more.
Let's create a hypothetical example. A young Catholic boy is alone with a priest, perhaps it is after Mass at which he was the acolyte. With me so far? Good!
The priest makes clearly improper sexual advances toward him. He immediately runs home and informs his parents.
The parents go to the priest's superior, which might be the pastor or the bishop.
Now the scenario splits. The accused priest either admits his indiscretion or denies it.
Let's assume he admits it and apologizes. In that case, the superior would probably ask the parents whether they would prefer to have the matter handled internally or go to the police. HE CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FORBID THEM TO GO TO THE POLICE.
If they choose to go to the police, then it is in the law's hands.
If, however, they willingly agree to have their Church handle the matter internally, then and only then are BOTH the parents and the Church officials sworn to secrecy for the term of the investigation. The reson for this should be obvious. A fair investigation can hardly be conducted if there is a legal case or a media circus in progress simultaneously.
Once the investigation is completed, the secrecy provision expires. If the parents are dissatisfied, they are still free to pursue the matter civilly.
OK? Now, if the accused priest denies the charges, then of course the burden of proof, as with any crime in any venue, rests on the alleged victim.
So what on earth does such a scenario have to do with arresting the pope?
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319562 wrote:
If such an accusation is made, the bishop certainly has the obligation to investigate it internally.
The problem you are refusing to address, is that many of the internal investigations concluded the priest was guilty. Rather than operating within the framework of civil law, the church authorities most often just reassigned the priest to another parish so as to avoid bad press.
If such an accusation is made, the bishop certainly has the obligation to investigate it internally.
The problem you are refusing to address, is that many of the internal investigations concluded the priest was guilty. Rather than operating within the framework of civil law, the church authorities most often just reassigned the priest to another parish so as to avoid bad press.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319549 wrote: 1. I never said or implied anything like that.
2. Here I think you are completely wrong. In such a situation, a reasonable person, be s/he parent, bishop, or prosecutor, would consider who had the stronger motivation for lying, the accuser or the accused. Also, if we are talking about true rape, there would very likely be physical evidence.
3. Well, in the link that the other poster provided, I agree entirely. The priest in queston should not be working with children in Tijuana, although that would be beyond the jurisdiction of his previous bishop in the USA. But it is not up to Church officials to 'see the priest prosecuted' unless, of course, they actually witnessed the abuse. That obligation falls on the parents as the accuser's legal representatives.
4. But now we are back to square one. What charges would be filed, by whom, etc. Be specific. I requested that of the other poster and he gave only an evasive reply.
5. Who assumes that? No Catholic that I know. You seem to be under the impression that the Church holds its laity in some sort of constant fear. The clergy are there to SERVE the faithful, not rule. I know of no Catholic who would tolerate any sort of clerical misbehavior other than something trivial, which child abuse definitely is not.
1 That's why I asked for clarification. You did seem to be implying that because you hadn't heard of any cases none had happened.
2. Sexual abuse of children does not necessarily mean anal penetration there are forms of abuse that leave no physical trace on the body. It boils down to a child's word against that of a priest with the burden of proof on the child. What chance does a child have in a court if law where the assumption is that the priest is innocent?
3 if it is not up to the church to see a priest prosecuted unless they actually witnessed the abuse surely, if there are successive complaints about the same priest in different parishes, they have a moral duty to take action? How big a clue do they need to realise they have a paedophile on their hands.
4. He gave instructions that the matter be covered up to protect the church. How about perverting the course of justice? Concealing evidence? Sheltering a criminal - if anyone else helped cover for a paedophile there would be outrage at the action.
5. It seems many are prepared to speak out and for their pains they are being accused of lying in order to cause trouble for the church. You are one of the ones accusing them of lying. You ask why did they not complain at the time, in actual fact many did but it wasn't just the church authorities that refused to take action and turn a blind eye on child abuse. Have a look at some of the cases. All that is left when a criminal case is not brought is civil action, a lone parent against the system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8588427.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8059826.stm
The picture he paints is of an old boys' network, closing in to protect the group and its members.
For that is what the victims of paedophilia in the Catholic Church say they have been up against. They feel the Catholic Church has acted like a powerful group inclined to protect its own interests with scant regard for the victims.
The Vatican says things have changed - the Pope has pledged a policy of zero tolerance of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
The idea of the original post was to provoke discussion of the matter. As you may have gathered I am not religious. I find it appalling that any religion should consider itself above the law and treat with contempt those who have suffered while in it's care. The pope, while a cardinal, it appears played a large part in encouraging that kind of attitude. If that is the case I don't see why he shouldn't be held to account and the defence that is a head of state/ is a religious leader, is a ridiculous one imo. If it was any other organisation people would be baying for blood.
2. Here I think you are completely wrong. In such a situation, a reasonable person, be s/he parent, bishop, or prosecutor, would consider who had the stronger motivation for lying, the accuser or the accused. Also, if we are talking about true rape, there would very likely be physical evidence.
3. Well, in the link that the other poster provided, I agree entirely. The priest in queston should not be working with children in Tijuana, although that would be beyond the jurisdiction of his previous bishop in the USA. But it is not up to Church officials to 'see the priest prosecuted' unless, of course, they actually witnessed the abuse. That obligation falls on the parents as the accuser's legal representatives.
4. But now we are back to square one. What charges would be filed, by whom, etc. Be specific. I requested that of the other poster and he gave only an evasive reply.
5. Who assumes that? No Catholic that I know. You seem to be under the impression that the Church holds its laity in some sort of constant fear. The clergy are there to SERVE the faithful, not rule. I know of no Catholic who would tolerate any sort of clerical misbehavior other than something trivial, which child abuse definitely is not.
1 That's why I asked for clarification. You did seem to be implying that because you hadn't heard of any cases none had happened.
2. Sexual abuse of children does not necessarily mean anal penetration there are forms of abuse that leave no physical trace on the body. It boils down to a child's word against that of a priest with the burden of proof on the child. What chance does a child have in a court if law where the assumption is that the priest is innocent?
3 if it is not up to the church to see a priest prosecuted unless they actually witnessed the abuse surely, if there are successive complaints about the same priest in different parishes, they have a moral duty to take action? How big a clue do they need to realise they have a paedophile on their hands.
4. He gave instructions that the matter be covered up to protect the church. How about perverting the course of justice? Concealing evidence? Sheltering a criminal - if anyone else helped cover for a paedophile there would be outrage at the action.
5. It seems many are prepared to speak out and for their pains they are being accused of lying in order to cause trouble for the church. You are one of the ones accusing them of lying. You ask why did they not complain at the time, in actual fact many did but it wasn't just the church authorities that refused to take action and turn a blind eye on child abuse. Have a look at some of the cases. All that is left when a criminal case is not brought is civil action, a lone parent against the system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8588427.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8059826.stm
The picture he paints is of an old boys' network, closing in to protect the group and its members.
For that is what the victims of paedophilia in the Catholic Church say they have been up against. They feel the Catholic Church has acted like a powerful group inclined to protect its own interests with scant regard for the victims.
The Vatican says things have changed - the Pope has pledged a policy of zero tolerance of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
The idea of the original post was to provoke discussion of the matter. As you may have gathered I am not religious. I find it appalling that any religion should consider itself above the law and treat with contempt those who have suffered while in it's care. The pope, while a cardinal, it appears played a large part in encouraging that kind of attitude. If that is the case I don't see why he shouldn't be held to account and the defence that is a head of state/ is a religious leader, is a ridiculous one imo. If it was any other organisation people would be baying for blood.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
yaaarrrgg;1319600 wrote: 1. The problem you are refusing to address, is that many of the internal investigations concluded the priest was guilty.
2. Rather than operating within the framework of civil law, the church authorities most often just reassigned the priest to another parish so as to avoid bad press.1. No doubt. I'm not refusing to address that at all.
2. But, y, I'm trying to be patient here, you just keep going around in circles. Firstly, they have no obligation to do that. That is up to the victim. Secondly, I do not believe that a priest would "just" be reassigned in a situation like that. He might be given therapy, probably confined to a retreat house of some kind for a period of time, after which he might be re-assigned to another parish, and if he were allowed to mingle closely with children again, I agree with you that would be wrong, and no one is more outraged than Catholics that such re-assignments took place. Now, on the other hand, he might be defrocked. That is hardly rare. Then he could go on molesting children without the Church's supervision, and hopefully would be caught and punished.
2. Rather than operating within the framework of civil law, the church authorities most often just reassigned the priest to another parish so as to avoid bad press.1. No doubt. I'm not refusing to address that at all.
2. But, y, I'm trying to be patient here, you just keep going around in circles. Firstly, they have no obligation to do that. That is up to the victim. Secondly, I do not believe that a priest would "just" be reassigned in a situation like that. He might be given therapy, probably confined to a retreat house of some kind for a period of time, after which he might be re-assigned to another parish, and if he were allowed to mingle closely with children again, I agree with you that would be wrong, and no one is more outraged than Catholics that such re-assignments took place. Now, on the other hand, he might be defrocked. That is hardly rare. Then he could go on molesting children without the Church's supervision, and hopefully would be caught and punished.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319601 wrote: 1. It boils down to a child's word against that of a priest with the burden of proof on the child. What chance does a child have in a court [of] law where the [pre]sumption is that the priest is innocent?
2 ...if there are successive complaints about the same priest in different parishes, they have a moral duty to take action? How big a clue do they need to realise they have a paedophile on their hands.1. You are correct, and that is why many victims decide to have the matter settled internally, as the Church authorities are not bound by the rules of civil procedure.
2. Absolutely! In many cases, that was done, the offender being defrocked or reassigned to prevent contact with children. In cases where the oversight failed, Catholics are outraged - you seem convinced that they are somehow complacent. Of course, non-Catholics have a right to be outraged too. And by the way, as you should know, many other denoms have reported similar problems with abusive clergy. It's the ones that HAVEN'T reported such that should be suspect!
Now, regarding the remainder of your post, we're just going 'round in circles, that's unproductive and a misuse of the forum. What sovereign nation is going to bring such charges against the pope? Let's grapple with reality here. And what would be the purpose if they did?
Also, you keep alleging that in many instances civil authorites refused to prosecute such cases. Why do you think that is? Maybe, just possibly because a particular case had no merit? Or is any priest so accused automatically guilty?
2 ...if there are successive complaints about the same priest in different parishes, they have a moral duty to take action? How big a clue do they need to realise they have a paedophile on their hands.1. You are correct, and that is why many victims decide to have the matter settled internally, as the Church authorities are not bound by the rules of civil procedure.
2. Absolutely! In many cases, that was done, the offender being defrocked or reassigned to prevent contact with children. In cases where the oversight failed, Catholics are outraged - you seem convinced that they are somehow complacent. Of course, non-Catholics have a right to be outraged too. And by the way, as you should know, many other denoms have reported similar problems with abusive clergy. It's the ones that HAVEN'T reported such that should be suspect!
Now, regarding the remainder of your post, we're just going 'round in circles, that's unproductive and a misuse of the forum. What sovereign nation is going to bring such charges against the pope? Let's grapple with reality here. And what would be the purpose if they did?
Also, you keep alleging that in many instances civil authorites refused to prosecute such cases. Why do you think that is? Maybe, just possibly because a particular case had no merit? Or is any priest so accused automatically guilty?
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319627 wrote: 1. You are correct, and that is why many victims decide to have the matter settled internally, as the Church authorities are not bound by the rules of civil procedure.
2. Absolutely! In many cases, that was done, the offender being defrocked or reassigned to prevent contact with children. In cases where the oversight failed, Catholics are outraged - you seem convinced that they are somehow complacent. Of course, non-Catholics have a right to be outraged too. And by the way, as you should know, many other denoms have reported similar problems with abusive clergy. It's the ones that HAVEN'T reported such that should be suspect!
Now, regarding the remainder of your post, we're just going 'round in circles, that's unproductive and a misuse of the forum. What sovereign nation is going to bring such charges against the pope? Let's grapple with reality here. And what would be the purpose if they did?
Also, you keep alleging that in many instances civil authorites refused to prosecute such cases. Why do you think that is? Maybe, just possibly because a particular case had no merit? Or is any priest so accused automatically guilty?
I am not in any way suggesting Catholics are complacent. What I am suggesting is that there seems there was a systematic attempt to cover up child abuse that came from the very top of the catholic hierarchy. There is convincing enough evidence to suggest that was actually the case. That some priests were defrocked or reassigned to prevent contact with children is commendable but also makes those cases where nothing was done even more horrific. The archbishop of Ireland has apologised for his part in doing nothing about reported cases of abuse. a cynic might suggest it's only because he has been caught out that he apologised at all. Irish catholics are outraged about this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/450088.stm
This isn't fiction or some insane conspiracy theory this has actually happened. The biggest problem faced by children in the past was that no one would believe them hen they told their stories. It's not a case that there is more child abuse now than there was in the past it's just we have stopped pretending it didn't happen.
As to allegations that civil authorities refused to prosecute that is a bit more than an unsubstantiated allegation. there are references to it in the original link in the OP and also in the various articles I and other have posted. It's a separate issue but I would suspect the "authorities" police, prosecutors and the like would have trouble coming to terms with the idea that priests are capable of such things, or perhaps it was too much respect for a religious institution. The sheer scale of it must have beggared belief. That is something the respective governments concerned should look in to.
The arrest isn't being sought by any sovereign nation. Don't know where you get that idea from. Richard Dawkins is an American citizen now I believe. I don't know your nationality but in the UK and most of europe the judiciary is independent of government. This has nothing to do with governments. If an arrest warrant is issued it will be a court that does it after deciding there is enough evidence to make a case, not the government. We also have European courts of justice that can issue a pan-European arrest warrant. In the case of Pinochet the european warrant was issued by a spanish judge for the murder of spanish citizens in the football stadium. He was arrested in britain but subsequently released by the home secretary. But it was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws. That's the way laws are made - by statute or, as in this case, setting legal precedent.Jack straw might have got away with it in 1998 but twelve years later I would hope a british home secretary would honour a warrant. Let's face it if you want to tackle international crime you can't have governments deciding which criminals to arrest when presented with an arrest warrant. Italy is part of the eu so thinks might get interesting - maybe the pope will flee to the states, where they don't recognise the international courts, for sanctuary.
2. Absolutely! In many cases, that was done, the offender being defrocked or reassigned to prevent contact with children. In cases where the oversight failed, Catholics are outraged - you seem convinced that they are somehow complacent. Of course, non-Catholics have a right to be outraged too. And by the way, as you should know, many other denoms have reported similar problems with abusive clergy. It's the ones that HAVEN'T reported such that should be suspect!
Now, regarding the remainder of your post, we're just going 'round in circles, that's unproductive and a misuse of the forum. What sovereign nation is going to bring such charges against the pope? Let's grapple with reality here. And what would be the purpose if they did?
Also, you keep alleging that in many instances civil authorites refused to prosecute such cases. Why do you think that is? Maybe, just possibly because a particular case had no merit? Or is any priest so accused automatically guilty?
I am not in any way suggesting Catholics are complacent. What I am suggesting is that there seems there was a systematic attempt to cover up child abuse that came from the very top of the catholic hierarchy. There is convincing enough evidence to suggest that was actually the case. That some priests were defrocked or reassigned to prevent contact with children is commendable but also makes those cases where nothing was done even more horrific. The archbishop of Ireland has apologised for his part in doing nothing about reported cases of abuse. a cynic might suggest it's only because he has been caught out that he apologised at all. Irish catholics are outraged about this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/450088.stm
This isn't fiction or some insane conspiracy theory this has actually happened. The biggest problem faced by children in the past was that no one would believe them hen they told their stories. It's not a case that there is more child abuse now than there was in the past it's just we have stopped pretending it didn't happen.
As to allegations that civil authorities refused to prosecute that is a bit more than an unsubstantiated allegation. there are references to it in the original link in the OP and also in the various articles I and other have posted. It's a separate issue but I would suspect the "authorities" police, prosecutors and the like would have trouble coming to terms with the idea that priests are capable of such things, or perhaps it was too much respect for a religious institution. The sheer scale of it must have beggared belief. That is something the respective governments concerned should look in to.
The arrest isn't being sought by any sovereign nation. Don't know where you get that idea from. Richard Dawkins is an American citizen now I believe. I don't know your nationality but in the UK and most of europe the judiciary is independent of government. This has nothing to do with governments. If an arrest warrant is issued it will be a court that does it after deciding there is enough evidence to make a case, not the government. We also have European courts of justice that can issue a pan-European arrest warrant. In the case of Pinochet the european warrant was issued by a spanish judge for the murder of spanish citizens in the football stadium. He was arrested in britain but subsequently released by the home secretary. But it was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws. That's the way laws are made - by statute or, as in this case, setting legal precedent.Jack straw might have got away with it in 1998 but twelve years later I would hope a british home secretary would honour a warrant. Let's face it if you want to tackle international crime you can't have governments deciding which criminals to arrest when presented with an arrest warrant. Italy is part of the eu so thinks might get interesting - maybe the pope will flee to the states, where they don't recognise the international courts, for sanctuary.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319653 wrote: I am not in any way suggesting Catholics are complacent. What I am suggesting is that there seems there was a systematic attempt to cover up child abuse that came from the very top of the catholic hierarchy. Well, I don't question your sincerity here, but the discussion simply isn't going anywhere, so I think we're both wasting out time and the forum's bandwidth. Just a couple of closing points, themselves repetitive to some extent.
You have not shown, nor even alleged, that parents or guardians of abuse victims were prevented from or forbidden to go to the police by anyone in the Church clergy or hierarchy. Indeed, even if such a thing were foolishly attempted by a priest or bishop, it would be meaningless, that is beyond his authority.
Also, in your 'courtroom' scenario, you seem to be attempting to conjure up a picture of a poor, innocent child cowering before a stern judge and an arrogant priest loudly proclaiming his innocence. You know that trials are not conducted that way. The alleged victim would be represented by counsel, a tough criminal attorney who would be anything but cowering!
So where is the 'cover-up'?
The cardinal, now pope, was correct in reminding the clergy that such cases being handled internally by the Church with the consent, or at the request, of the victim's family, are not to be discussed externally. I don't see your problem here. The Church is hardly expected to conduct such investigations live on network television! It's an internal matter.
And as you yourself said, if you are religious, you believe in Divine justice in any case.
You have not shown, nor even alleged, that parents or guardians of abuse victims were prevented from or forbidden to go to the police by anyone in the Church clergy or hierarchy. Indeed, even if such a thing were foolishly attempted by a priest or bishop, it would be meaningless, that is beyond his authority.
Also, in your 'courtroom' scenario, you seem to be attempting to conjure up a picture of a poor, innocent child cowering before a stern judge and an arrogant priest loudly proclaiming his innocence. You know that trials are not conducted that way. The alleged victim would be represented by counsel, a tough criminal attorney who would be anything but cowering!
So where is the 'cover-up'?
The cardinal, now pope, was correct in reminding the clergy that such cases being handled internally by the Church with the consent, or at the request, of the victim's family, are not to be discussed externally. I don't see your problem here. The Church is hardly expected to conduct such investigations live on network television! It's an internal matter.
And as you yourself said, if you are religious, you believe in Divine justice in any case.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319656 wrote: Well, I don't question your sincerity here, but the discussion simply isn't going anywhere, so I think we're both wasting out time and the forum's bandwidth. Just a couple of closing points, themselves repetitive to some extent.
You have not shown, nor even alleged, that parents or guardians of abuse victims were prevented from or forbidden to go to the police by anyone in the Church clergy or hierarchy. Indeed, even if such a thing were foolishly attempted by a priest or bishop, it would be meaningless, that is beyond his authority.
Also, in your 'courtroom' scenario, you seem to be attempting to conjure up a picture of a poor, innocent child cowering before a stern judge and an arrogant priest loudly proclaiming his innocence. You know that trials are not conducted that way. The alleged victim would be represented by counsel, a tough criminal attorney who would be anything but cowering!
So where is the 'cover-up'?
The cardinal, now pope, was correct in reminding the clergy that such cases being handled internally by the Church with the consent, or at the request, of the victim's family, are not to be discussed externally. I don't see your problem here. The Church is hardly expected to conduct such investigations live on network television! It's an internal matter.
And as you yourself said, if you are religious, you believe in Divine justice in any case.
Thosed bbc links I posted. Have you actually looked at them or watched the accompanying videos? If you haven't please do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8059826.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8588427.stm
They sum up the crux of the matter. The victims trusted the church and that trust was betrayed. In some cases where the allegations were found to be true no attempt was made to remove the priest or take any kind of action to prevent it hapening again. It's in ireland, the states, germany, the UK. In the states dioces have been successfully sued in the civil court or paid up to prevent going to court. Why do that if there was no case to answer? various archbishops have made formal apologies, why do that if they have nothing to apologise for? There is great anger over this aat the church from many catholics, not so much that it happened but that when they knew about it nothing was being done to protect the victims but rather the main concern seemed to be the reputation of the church. It's the hypocrisy of it all that angers people. Now the pope is complaining about ignoble attacks on his integrity in the media.
Any other orgnisation the leaders would resign. Yes it is true it happens in other religious denominations as well but no one argues that the leader or those responsible be given special dispensation from prosecution. It can't sound any other way than anti-catholic but to dismiss the outcry as mere anti-catholicism ignores the fact those compaining the most and demanding justice are actually catholic and feel the most betrayed.
You have not shown, nor even alleged, that parents or guardians of abuse victims were prevented from or forbidden to go to the police by anyone in the Church clergy or hierarchy. Indeed, even if such a thing were foolishly attempted by a priest or bishop, it would be meaningless, that is beyond his authority.
Also, in your 'courtroom' scenario, you seem to be attempting to conjure up a picture of a poor, innocent child cowering before a stern judge and an arrogant priest loudly proclaiming his innocence. You know that trials are not conducted that way. The alleged victim would be represented by counsel, a tough criminal attorney who would be anything but cowering!
So where is the 'cover-up'?
The cardinal, now pope, was correct in reminding the clergy that such cases being handled internally by the Church with the consent, or at the request, of the victim's family, are not to be discussed externally. I don't see your problem here. The Church is hardly expected to conduct such investigations live on network television! It's an internal matter.
And as you yourself said, if you are religious, you believe in Divine justice in any case.
Thosed bbc links I posted. Have you actually looked at them or watched the accompanying videos? If you haven't please do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8059826.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8588427.stm
They sum up the crux of the matter. The victims trusted the church and that trust was betrayed. In some cases where the allegations were found to be true no attempt was made to remove the priest or take any kind of action to prevent it hapening again. It's in ireland, the states, germany, the UK. In the states dioces have been successfully sued in the civil court or paid up to prevent going to court. Why do that if there was no case to answer? various archbishops have made formal apologies, why do that if they have nothing to apologise for? There is great anger over this aat the church from many catholics, not so much that it happened but that when they knew about it nothing was being done to protect the victims but rather the main concern seemed to be the reputation of the church. It's the hypocrisy of it all that angers people. Now the pope is complaining about ignoble attacks on his integrity in the media.
Any other orgnisation the leaders would resign. Yes it is true it happens in other religious denominations as well but no one argues that the leader or those responsible be given special dispensation from prosecution. It can't sound any other way than anti-catholic but to dismiss the outcry as mere anti-catholicism ignores the fact those compaining the most and demanding justice are actually catholic and feel the most betrayed.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319722 wrote: The victims trusted the church and that trust was betrayed. In some cases where the allegations were found to be true no attempt was made to remove the priest or take any kind of action to prevent it hapening again. I find that hard to believe, as you state it, that is, that (1) the allegations were found to be true and (2) no action was taken.
It just doesn't ring true, BUT if that actually occurred, why didn't the parents hire an attorney (which they should have done in the first place), go to the police and file criminal charges? I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
I will watch the reports you linked, but the BBC is hardly to be trusted in such matters; their anti-Catholic bias is well-known.
It just doesn't ring true, BUT if that actually occurred, why didn't the parents hire an attorney (which they should have done in the first place), go to the police and file criminal charges? I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
I will watch the reports you linked, but the BBC is hardly to be trusted in such matters; their anti-Catholic bias is well-known.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319735 wrote: I find that hard to believe, as you state it, that is, that (1) the allegations were found to be true and (2) no action was taken.
It just doesn't ring true, BUT if that actually occurred, why didn't the parents hire an attorney (which they should have done in the first place), go to the police and file criminal charges? I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
I will watch the reports you linked, but the BBC is hardly to be trusted in such matters; their anti-Catholic bias is well-known.
Mark, you are obviously quite trusting of the authorities in the Catholic church. They won't steer you wrong, will they? If there's evidence that makes the church look bad in any light, you distrust the evidence.
Did it occur to you that the parents were equally trusting, and couldn't believe it either? That's what this whole issue is about... the exploitation and abuse of this trust.
There was a time when reporting a felony to the church carried as much weight as reporting it to the civil police. Perhaps more. The people didn't in their wildest nightmares realize that the church was rotten up to the core. You still don't realize this, despite all the evidence posted to the contrary.
The church got away with it for such a long time, simply, because they train their flock to wear blinders. What do you expect, when the leaders can convince people that they can talk to invisible people and have magical powers?
It just doesn't ring true, BUT if that actually occurred, why didn't the parents hire an attorney (which they should have done in the first place), go to the police and file criminal charges? I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
I will watch the reports you linked, but the BBC is hardly to be trusted in such matters; their anti-Catholic bias is well-known.
Mark, you are obviously quite trusting of the authorities in the Catholic church. They won't steer you wrong, will they? If there's evidence that makes the church look bad in any light, you distrust the evidence.
Did it occur to you that the parents were equally trusting, and couldn't believe it either? That's what this whole issue is about... the exploitation and abuse of this trust.
There was a time when reporting a felony to the church carried as much weight as reporting it to the civil police. Perhaps more. The people didn't in their wildest nightmares realize that the church was rotten up to the core. You still don't realize this, despite all the evidence posted to the contrary.
The church got away with it for such a long time, simply, because they train their flock to wear blinders. What do you expect, when the leaders can convince people that they can talk to invisible people and have magical powers?
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
yaaarrrgg;1319747 wrote: 1. Mark, you are obviously quite trusting of the authorities in the Catholic church. They won't steer you wrong, will they? If there's evidence that makes the church look bad in any light, you distrust the evidence.
2. What do you expect, when the leaders can convince people that they can talk to invisible people and have magical powers?1. Y, your entries to this thread approach trolling. Nothing I have posted here could, by any stretch of the imagination, be so interpreted.
2. And here you betray your bias, why didn't you say so in the first place? Like Dawkins, Hitchens and the other militant atheists, anyone who could possibly believe in anything spiritual has to be some sort of moron, right?
The question remains unanswered. Why didn't the parents, represented by counsel, go to the civil authorities?
2. What do you expect, when the leaders can convince people that they can talk to invisible people and have magical powers?1. Y, your entries to this thread approach trolling. Nothing I have posted here could, by any stretch of the imagination, be so interpreted.
2. And here you betray your bias, why didn't you say so in the first place? Like Dawkins, Hitchens and the other militant atheists, anyone who could possibly believe in anything spiritual has to be some sort of moron, right?
The question remains unanswered. Why didn't the parents, represented by counsel, go to the civil authorities?
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319766 wrote: 1. Y, your entries to this thread approach trolling. Nothing I have posted here could, by any stretch of the imagination, be so interpreted.
2. And here you betray your bias, why didn't you say so in the first place? Like Dawkins, Hitchens and the other militant atheists, anyone who could possibly believe in anything spiritual has to be some sort of moron, right?
The question remains unanswered. Why didn't the parents, represented by counsel, go to the civil authorities?Perhaps for the same reason followers of Jim Jones drank the lemonade.
2. And here you betray your bias, why didn't you say so in the first place? Like Dawkins, Hitchens and the other militant atheists, anyone who could possibly believe in anything spiritual has to be some sort of moron, right?
The question remains unanswered. Why didn't the parents, represented by counsel, go to the civil authorities?Perhaps for the same reason followers of Jim Jones drank the lemonade.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319735 wrote: I find that hard to believe, as you state it, that is, that (1) the allegations were found to be true and (2) no action was taken.
It just doesn't ring true, BUT if that actually occurred, why didn't the parents hire an attorney (which they should have done in the first place), go to the police and file criminal charges? I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
I will watch the reports you linked, but the BBC is hardly to be trusted in such matters; their anti-Catholic bias is well-known.
If you watch the reports you will see that this is now becoming such an issue because victims and their parents did in fact keep pursuing the matter and are still doing so. You can see what they were up against though - You just can't believe what has happened despite all the evidence being pointed out to you. The BBC incidentally is unbiased, that means they will report both sides of an argument. Reporting when the catholic church or any other organisation has done wrong does not indicate bias it is simply reporting. They would be failing in their duty if they DIDN'T report on the matter.
I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
There is little point responding to your requests when you refuse to even look at the answers you are given. I posted links for you to look at for simplicity since I am not going to spend hours listing every single case.
Look at the reports and you might get a better understanding of the issue.
The question remains unanswered. Why didn't the parents, represented by counsel, go to the civil authorities?
They did. I suggest you have a look at the various links, this goes back decades.
It just doesn't ring true, BUT if that actually occurred, why didn't the parents hire an attorney (which they should have done in the first place), go to the police and file criminal charges? I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
I will watch the reports you linked, but the BBC is hardly to be trusted in such matters; their anti-Catholic bias is well-known.
If you watch the reports you will see that this is now becoming such an issue because victims and their parents did in fact keep pursuing the matter and are still doing so. You can see what they were up against though - You just can't believe what has happened despite all the evidence being pointed out to you. The BBC incidentally is unbiased, that means they will report both sides of an argument. Reporting when the catholic church or any other organisation has done wrong does not indicate bias it is simply reporting. They would be failing in their duty if they DIDN'T report on the matter.
I keep asking, you never seem to give a straightforward response.
There is little point responding to your requests when you refuse to even look at the answers you are given. I posted links for you to look at for simplicity since I am not going to spend hours listing every single case.
Look at the reports and you might get a better understanding of the issue.
The question remains unanswered. Why didn't the parents, represented by counsel, go to the civil authorities?
They did. I suggest you have a look at the various links, this goes back decades.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319773 wrote: 1. You just can't believe what has happened despite all the evidence being pointed out to you.
2. The BBC incidentally is unbiased, that means they will report both sides of an argument. Reporting when the catholic church or any other organisation has done wrong does not indicate bias it is simply reporting. They would be failing in their duty if they DIDN'T report on the matter.
1. Well, I read the two most recent links you provided, and I did not see anything there that supported your assertion that, in at least one case, the parents took their accusation to the Church officials, who investigated, found the accusation to be true, and then did nothing. There has to be more to the story. If you can provide a link to this specific case, please do so, and I will certainly study it. You are the one who made the claim, you should be able to provide substantiation or at least admit that you have none.
2. I live in Germany part of the year and when I'm there I depend on the BBC for news in English. They have misstated RCC doctrine rather badly in several of their reports. Whether that is intentional or due to the ignorance of their news writers I'm not sure, I suspect the latter. In a couple of instances I even complained in writing and never received a reply.
2. The BBC incidentally is unbiased, that means they will report both sides of an argument. Reporting when the catholic church or any other organisation has done wrong does not indicate bias it is simply reporting. They would be failing in their duty if they DIDN'T report on the matter.
1. Well, I read the two most recent links you provided, and I did not see anything there that supported your assertion that, in at least one case, the parents took their accusation to the Church officials, who investigated, found the accusation to be true, and then did nothing. There has to be more to the story. If you can provide a link to this specific case, please do so, and I will certainly study it. You are the one who made the claim, you should be able to provide substantiation or at least admit that you have none.
2. I live in Germany part of the year and when I'm there I depend on the BBC for news in English. They have misstated RCC doctrine rather badly in several of their reports. Whether that is intentional or due to the ignorance of their news writers I'm not sure, I suspect the latter. In a couple of instances I even complained in writing and never received a reply.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
P.S. to the previous post:
gmc, just say 'The Church has handled the abuse scandal horribly" and I will agree with you; in fact, didn't I say exactly that a couple of pages back?
When you start making it up as you go, providing no substantiation, that is where I begin to get irritated.
gmc, just say 'The Church has handled the abuse scandal horribly" and I will agree with you; in fact, didn't I say exactly that a couple of pages back?
When you start making it up as you go, providing no substantiation, that is where I begin to get irritated.