Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Saint

[Dauric]

So without netcrusher screaming in their ear the horrible things some guy in Wisconsin did 20 years ago...

Uhmm. some linkage for you.

Sexual abuse of minors in the priesthood has received significant media attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, and Germany, while cases have been reported throughout the world.
In addition to cases of actual abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report abuse allegations to the civil authorities and who, in many cases, reassigned the offenders to other locations where the alleged predators continued to have contact with minors and had opportunities to continue to sexually abuse children.[3] In defending their actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[4] Members of the church hierarchy have argued that media coverage has been excessive.[5]

The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.
The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.
The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

It's not about "one guy in Wisconsin ,20 years ago." It's a pretty widespread problem in the Catholic hierarchy with a significant number of cases worldwide.

And since the thread is about Pope JPII:

In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."[6] With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States claimed to institute reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers, while opposing extensions of the statutes of limitations in sex abuse cases.[7]

So a mixed bag there. At best it's "Better late than never" from JPII, but it looks like the hierarchy that's supposed to follow the pope's example isn't following as closely as they probably should.

[Wodashin]

...where they will be sure not to let slip that the priest handing out cans of soup was shielded from prosecution or even investigation after being credibly accused of child abuse in the next diocese over last year. Using money that would have been better used buying more soup.

I agree with netcrusher. You don't know how common this is, man. We've had like, how many has it been now, 5 priests arrested mid-sermon in the last year for charges of child molestation. Once they can't pay the bribes to whoever gets the money, they get arrested.

Seriously, if you see a priest handing out soup, he's a pedophile. It happens so often that it's relevant enough to tell you all.

[podbaydoor]

Wodashin, I'm not sure where it says in the New Testament that being a complete butt is an effective way of showing compassion for your enemy. Even if netcrusher is going overboard, you are totally not helping your case here and everyone's been ignoring you for the last page.

I guess this is why all the preaching about humility and meekness never impressed me in any church. It never stopped anyone from being butts. Unless it's a secret strategy I never heard about. "Warrior Butts for the Lord."

[netcrusher88]

Overboard a bit, yeah. My point is, this is not some removed thing that happened once a while ago somewhere far off. It's not just that trickle of money that goes to the gilded pocket of Rome that constitutes the only nation on Earth that's also a church, this happens at all levels, all over the place.

And that you lose the right to take pride in being a charity when you exclude people for being in a class you hate (or, in my opinion, for causing people to need your charity). If you disagree with that statement... would you if it was based on race?

[Dark567]

It's not just that trickle of money that goes to the gilded pocket of Rome that constitutes the only nation on Earth that's also a church

Ever hear of the Church of England? Not that I think its as bad as the Catholic church or anything.

[LtNOWIS]

It's not just that trickle of money that goes to the gilded pocket of Rome that constitutes the only nation on Earth that's also a church

Ever hear of the Church of England? Not that I think its as bad as the Catholic church or anything.

In fairness, an official state religion isn't the same as, "The nation is also a church," e.g. Vatican City. The Church of England doesn't take ambassadors. Although it is pretty interesting that the top dude in the Anglican Communion is also a member of British parliament, by virtue of his position.

I mean, unless homophobia, anti-choice, and "charities" which exclude people they think it's okay to hate are inherent in your brand of Christianity. I would say that, yes, I hate that.

That sounds like most denominations. Or at least a large minority? It's pretty much impossible to count up and categorize all the "liberal" and "conservative" churches.

Obviously, what you describe is also a big part of other religions and societies that constitute a large part of humanity.

[netcrusher88]

Ever hear of the Church of England? Not that I think its as bad as the Catholic church or anything.

Eh. There's rather a difference between a nation ruled by a church and a church nominally ruled by a head of state. The Church of England - the Anglican church - isn't England's government. Vatican City literally is ruled by the Catholic church.

Obviously, what you describe is also a big part of other religions and societies that constitute a large part of humanity.

Yes. And I would say that, yes, I hate that. I don't quite get it - are you saying it's okay because a lot of people think that way? That's argumentum ad populum - it's fallacious.

[dedwrekka]

The Vatican didn't have any direct control or involvement in the cover-up, but once it was exposed the offending priests were imprisoned, excommunicated,, and many were forced to leave the church or were defrocked. Much as it was with what Ferdinand and Isabella did with their local churches, the Vatican has little information or control over local diocese. This does not mean that the Vatican gets a pass on taking a hand with correcting what some people did within the church, but they are taking it in hand and people are getting punished for it.

Oh, okay. Sending priests credibly accused of child abuse off to some retreat and then to some other residence (the location of which I'm sure they never deign to disclose) in perpetuity while shielding them from the law (serious punishment, that) totally makes up for all the other ways the Catholic church has shielded priests credibly accused of child abuse from the law for decades. And continues to.

Um, no, read the article. Those who were guilty of the crimes and were still eligible to be prosecuted under the law were turned over to the law to face prosecution. Only those who were accused (but not necessarily guilty), but could not be prosecuted under the law were given the option of resigning or facing house arrest. There is no conspiracy on the part of the Vatican, the Vatican took more of a hand in punishing their people than most corporations or major organizations would. The Vatican was not trying to hide people from the law they were turning them over to the law. You seem to be upset about any situation that arises out of it. The Vatican doesn't burn people at the stake anymore, so nothing seems likely to appease you.

Perhaps no one at the Vatican ever heard of any of these goings on until, what was it, about 2001? I find that implausible (certainly his Hollandaiseness the current Pope knew about it before he took office as it were), but let's run with it.

Did you read that article?
Alright, first the guy was not found to have molested anyone at the time, and had gone into therapy to seek treatment. Ratzinger was notified, and actually took an interest in it and kept checks on the priest in question. The priest was showing that he knew his feelings were wrong, and tried to seek help. Ratzinger took a gamble on that and decided to release him to his duties where he was supervised and Ratzinger kept updated on the situation. The gamble failed, but it doesn't sound like it was through any fault of Cardinal Ratzinger as he couldn't send the priest in for prosecution because he hadn't actually done anything, and the man was actively seeking help and recognized that he was doing something wrong, meanwhile the priest was still under continued scrutiny to try and look for any lapses. It sounds like Ratzinger did pretty much everything a boss could do without simply flipping out which would have definitely sent the priest off the deep end.

Secondly, there were problems with chain of command and the fact that it wasn't even Ratzinger who made the call. If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy, you'd know that the upper management really doesn't get a lot of details on what's happening with individual people.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a problem endemic to the Catholic church as a whole.

Again, you're unrealistically calling everyone in the church into the conspiracy and calling them all pedophiles.

A lot of the reports of child abuse by clergy have come from the US (all over the US, of course); but there have also been many from Ireland, Belgium, Germany, and England. Just off the top of my head. This is not a problem limited to just a few occurrences in one or two places.

But neither is it happening with everyone in the church as you're implying. Of the first two countries you named, there are hundreds of Catholic Churches. Germany probably in the upper hundreds. Even if it happened once in every 100 churches (Which is way more than it has actually been happening) it wouldn't be as wide-spread as you're claiming. It's bad for it to happen once. But people are claiming that it's happening everywhere, in all churches, and that everyone is a pedophile. I'm sorry, but the scaremongering has to stop sometime, and the education on what to look for, avoid, and how to prevent it has to begin.

Not that the Vatican has handled it well once they did admit to knowing about it anyway. It wasn't until May 2010 the church leadership deigned to admit the church held any responsibility whatsoever. Not that I find that particularly credible - a month later the Pope condemned Belgian authorities' investigation of the church's activities there as "deplorable".

I also want to point out that, to date (and to my knowledge), the Catholic church has yet to tangibly punish or defrock a bishop for participating in covering up child abuse, which is what we call in the real world "obstruction of justice".

Umm.. no, obstruction of justice is what would have happened if the Vatican, upon learning of the problems and attempted cover up, had refused to turn over the offenders to custody. Which they haven't.

As to defrocking

I mean, I guess it might come off as a bit hypocritical seeing as how they elected one as Pope.

So, with no evidence to support it, and no information backing it up, you're calling the Pope a pedophile. Damn, I knew I smelled troll.

Umm? What?

The Catholic Church did not say that condoms would exacerbate the problem. What Pope Benedict said was that condoms were a part of the breakdown of "sexual morality" and that the use of artificial birth control was part of a trend of pre-marital sex that was helping to spread sexually transmitted diseases.

The church does not state that condoms do not help prevent the spread of the disease, but they do say that the better method of not catching or transmitting the disease sexually is through abstinence.

I see your articles from 2005 and 2006 (the latter being the Pope backpedaling on comments that distributing condoms increases the spread of AIDS) and raise you one from March 2009, with the pontiff at it again: "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

Not a direct quote, and still part of the link that I gave. Again you're twisting the words to fit your agenda, because the Pope was not backpedaling on saying that condoms spread aids. What was said was
"The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a "breakdown in sexual morality", and church teachings should not be ignored.

"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added. "
What you apparently heard was "BLARG CONDOMS SPREAD AIDS!", but what the "contraception mentality" means is the mentality that because birth control is out there, and can help prevent the spread of AIDS that people therefore have nothing to worry about and can have sex as they feel like it. This isn't true. Aids can still be spread, just as people can still get pregnant when using condoms. The better answer is to not take chances. The Popes have been keeping an eye on the situation and continued to hold discussions on the issue. Recently the decision was made that people are not listening wholly to the church and were continuing to have pre-marital sex without condoms (because they somehow viewed one as impossible but thought that the other was forgivable), so they reversed the decision on condom usage.

This isn't about who Catholics fuck or don't fuck, or if they fuck; this is about the Catholic church trying to stand in the way of others exercising their, what's the word, oh yes personal choice safely.

Not really, they could still practice their right to choose. In fact you just stated that they were already practicing that right in the last five words of that sentence. The problem comes down to ignorance and the lack of information. It's not the Church that gives that (though they've never said that condoms do not prevent the spread, simply that they are not fitting with the Church's stance on procreation), it's the people, the educators, the government. There are people separate from the RCC that still think that virgins or magic potions cure AIDS and STDs. There needs to be education to prevent the spread, not simply "Condoms or no condoms".

[Kulantan]

Not a direct quote, and still part of the link that I gave. Again you're twisting the words to fit your agenda, because the Pope was not backpedaling on saying that condoms spread aids. What was said was
"The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a "breakdown in sexual morality", and church teachings should not be ignored.

You are wrong. Nor was he misquoted. More over, the links you gave don't actually contain that instance of the Pope taking, unless they are prophecies not articles.

[netcrusher88]

It is never the place of a private entity to determine whether an accusation of crime is credible - the powers law enforcement is given exist for that exact purpose, and due to those powers they are generally more capable of doing so than any other entity. I know of no other organization which makes the same habit - as a matter of policy - of hiding accusations from police unless they decide it's credible - with the possible exception of some colleges for on-campus incidents, and I do not believe this counts as those which do not have their own precinct require staff and students to agree to give campus security carte blanche investigative powers that far exceed those afforded law enforcement.

I never in any way called the Pope a child abuser (which is a different thing from pedophile, you should keep them straight), nor did I say that no one had been defrocked for child abuse. I said that no one has been defrocked for participating in covering up accusations of child abuse, and I said that the current Pope had done so - both of which are true.

I have no further interest in arguing with people who are going to ignore what I say in favor of attacking or mocking deliberate misrepresentations of my positions.

Now, if anyone would like to converse in a manner that does not consist entirely of fallacious attacks, arguing that doing good things makes up for any and all bad things an entity does as a matter of policy (a ludicrous position), or arguing that homophobia is totally okay if it's based in religion (fuck you), please, do so.

[Axman]

People know the Church can't defrock anyone for something they did in the past, right? What with forgiveness being what it is as a core belief?

They have to be convicted of a crime, which the Church can't divulge knowledge of if confessed, and must forgive. Rock, meet fucking hard place.

Almost wrote that as "hard fucking place," heh.

[netcrusher88]

Actually, child abuse is an exception from the confidentiality privilege that clergy have with their congregation. Much like it is with doctor-patient confidentiality. Certainly if it comes up outside of confession.

[LtNOWIS]

Obviously, what you describe is also a big part of other religions and societies that constitute a large part of humanity.

Yes. And I would say that, yes, I hate that. I don't quite get it - are you saying it's okay because a lot of people think that way? That's argumentum ad populum - it's fallacious.

No, I am not saying that.

[Axman]

Rendering unto Caesar aside, that's not necessarily the position of the confessor.

[netcrusher88]

Obviously, what you describe is also a big part of other religions and societies that constitute a large part of humanity.

Yes. And I would say that, yes, I hate that. I don't quite get it - are you saying it's okay because a lot of people think that way? That's argumentum ad populum - it's fallacious.

No, I am not saying that.

I'm not sure what you meant, then. I'm well aware that these things and these ideas are popular; they are no less wrong.

[alexh123456789]

People know the Church can't defrock anyone for something they did in the past, right? What with forgiveness being what it is as a core belief?

I've never heard of that; it seems to indicate that a priest could commit some horrible atrocity, go to confession, and then continue on being a priest without any negative consequences from the church itself.

[Axman]

Well, yes, that's because that is the case, provided the confessant is penitent and accepts J.C. as Lord and savior. Specifically that you must receive the Holy Spirit and seek absolution. After that, it's between you and God. It's not up to the Church to seal your fate, it's up to you*, nobody has the right to question your faith; the Church has to forgive you and accept you.

That's kinda why it's been around so long.

Although I haven't been to church since Christmas nor met him personally, my impression is that my priest started out as a child soldier in Africa. That's hardcore penitence right there.

If the Church isn't hard on sex offenders it's because they maintain a very strict tenet w/r/t idealism. I'm not sure it's OK to pick on the Pope for being too idealistic. You have to love everyone, even the guy who abuses his position to rape children. The same thing's the case with birth control; it's not like anyone on the entire planet is pro-abortion. Nobody wants an abortion. It's just that or the crippling burden of unwanted parenthood. The Church maintains that every single life is sacred, so don't ruin any of it.

The Church says birth control is bad; that doesn't make them evil. Once again and for the record: nobody on earth wants an abortion. Pope just wants everyone to not fuck if that's a possible result. Wind up preggers? Love the unborn like it's sacred, even if it's double-secret shitty. Just love.

And in the end, if you use birth control, well, confess it and all's forgiven. Not the end of the world. See? Forgiveness. Or don't confess anything, because they still love you; just be nice. That's nice.

*It's not up to you, it's up to God, and God is love. That's handy.

[Eowiel]

It is never the place of a private entity to determine whether an accusation of crime is credible - the powers law enforcement is given exist for that exact purpose, and due to those powers they are generally more capable of doing so than any other entity. I know of no other organization which makes the same habit - as a matter of policy - of hiding accusations from police unless they decide it's credible - with the possible exception of some colleges for on-campus incidents, and I do not believe this counts as those which do not have their own precinct require staff and students to agree to give campus security carte blanche investigative powers that far exceed those afforded law enforcement.

I never in any way called the Pope a child abuser (which is a different thing from pedophile, you should keep them straight), nor did I say that no one had been defrocked for child abuse. I said that no one has been defrocked for participating in covering up accusations of child abuse, and I said that the current Pope had done so - both of which are true.

I have no further interest in arguing with people who are going to ignore what I say in favor of attacking or mocking deliberate misrepresentations of my positions.

Now, if anyone would like to converse in a manner that does not consist entirely of fallacious attacks, arguing that doing good things makes up for any and all bad things an entity does as a matter of policy (a ludicrous position), or arguing that homophobia is totally okay if it's based in religion (fuck you), please, do so.

In a lot of cases it's the victims themselves that don't want law enforcement involved. In most of the cases where someone in the hierarchie of church is aware of a child abusing priest, it's because the victim came forward and told someone in the church, the same victim that could just as well go to the police if he or she wanted. The large majority of the cases are from a long while ago, most victims that come forward now are older than 40 and while they obvious must have (had) some psychological issues, most of them are pretty normal stable people with normal lives who 'd rather not want their story in the press. Also, in many cases, the victims themselves know that the facts are beyond the statute of limitations and involving law enforcement will have no effects anymore. Is it really the task of the Church to go to the police anyway in those cases, in spite of the wishes of the victims? Maybe it is, but I wouldn't describe someone who thinks otherwise as "evil". Ethically, it's not really clear to me.

The link about Belgium you provided for example was just that. In Belgium, the church had started a commission to investigate cases of child abuse and to help the victims. Over the years many victims found their way to this commission and told them their story. These victims could just as well have told their story to the police but for some reason choose not to. At some point the police does a search in the building of this comission and seizes all the files with the stories from the victims. After that they also drill some tombs because they suspect there to be hidden evidence. It's this search the church has called deplorable, and the justice department agreed since they ruled the whole search illegal. So it's not like the church had no reason to call it deplorable.

The church has clearly made faults when handling these cases, but the reality is much more nuanced than your vision on what happened.

[Belial]

I know of no other organization which makes the same habit - as a matter of policy - of hiding accusations from police unless they decide it's credible

Not that it changes anything, but I can. The Jehovah's Witnesses are even worse about this.

[Axman]

I know of no other organization which makes the same habit - as a matter of policy - of hiding accusations from police unless they decide it's credible

I know the medium is dying, but Shirley you've read a newspaper. Or done business with a corporation. Or spoke to a lawyer or gone to a doctor, or eaten at a restaurant that uses immigrant labor, or... or...

The act of withholding information from authorities is so ubiquitous I'm having a hard time imagining any position within adulthood that doesn't in some form or another have that as a matter of policy. The Church's sacrament of confession certainly adds a layer* to the nature of their privacy policy but it's not really that different than any other organization, especially one that has plans on existing for multiple centuries.

Re: Witnesses. It's my understanding that in order for a crime to be existent, two or more non-participating Witnesses have to see it go down. A lot of shit hits the Church with regards to child abuse. The truth is that the Church is no more likely made up of sexual predators than any other organization or demographic (roughly 3%, IIRC). Witnesses, on the other hand, get their own branch office of the FBI.

*Seriously, though, wanting the Pope to order the Church to violate the sacrament of confession is like wanting Muslims and Jews to start eating pork because it's good for the swine industry. It's a little crass.

[gmalivuk]

The truth is that the Church is no more likely made up of sexual predators than any other organization or demographic

Yes, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, other demographics typically
1) Don't claim to speak for God and be the highest moral authorities on Earth, and
2) Don't have a huge institution backing them up that will happily shuffle them around whenever there's a complaint that one of them might be raping children.

[Axman]

When all your morals are derived from, or iterations of, "love everything in existence" it does make finding fault in them difficult. Infallibility refers to God and the lineage of the Church to Jesus, not the state of man. Everyone knows people make mistakes and men of the cloth are no exception. And seeing how the Church is run by old white guys who are themselves very conservative, it makes sense that the Church is a century or so behind the times. They will catch up eventually. Look how far they've come already--no floggings, no torture, the whole Inquisition is now the Jesuits...

And it can't possibly be the case that they happily conceal child rape. But without confession there is no absolution, and no one can accept communion without being in a state of grace; with out communion there's, well, excommunication (bad). The Church isn't in the butt business, they're in the immortal soul business. They can't judge priests any more than they can any other offenders, they must forgive and not question anyone's faith in the process.

Like I said, rock and a hard place.

[gmalivuk]

Everyone knows people make mistakes and men of the cloth are no exception.

Then they shouldn't pretend to be moral authorities!

And it can't possibly be the case that they happily conceal child rape.

Fine, maybe they're unhappy about it. They still seem to do it with quite alarming regularity, which gives the priests in question the opportunity to start raping kids in a whole new parish, with none the wiser.

I don't give a fuck about how absolution and forgiveness work within the Catholic Church, because the complaints about them aren't "They're endangering pedophile priests' immortal souls". The complaint is "They're letting (and sometimes even helping) pedophile priests get away with raping children."

[Axman]

Then they shouldn't pretend to be moral authorities!

Cocking things up doesn't make them less authoritative; everyone can know right and do wrong, that's the very center of our belief in law and justice.

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest moral authorities of the modern era but Letter from a Birmingham Jail basically reads "We can do it my way or we can do it Malcolm's, your choice."

Gandhi beat the shit out of his wife so bad her friends couldn't recognize her, but no one's saying the world is a worse place because of him.

Hell, Jesus got ripped and partied with hookers all the time. Dude was a love machine.

The complaint is "They're letting (and sometimes even helping) pedophile priests get away with raping children."

They're going to have to change, as they have in the past. As it stands now, they have to do it that way. If you don't like the rate at which the Church turns its gears, you can always go to seminary, heh. They also accept money, but shhh, don't tell anyone. Indulgences are so 14th century.

I'm not defending it. I wish the Church would set up a monastery for all the priests who get the calling to stay the fuck away from kids. It wouldn't be hard and I'm sure there's a very nice stretch of Russian permafrost that has very low mortgage rates. If they don't like it they can always call their own asses out from under the cloth. But as soon as the Church starts punishing people they lose all of their moral leverage. Glass houses, meet rocks.

I'm explaining it. Forgiveness of all sins, no questions asked is tantamount to Christianity's greatest value, and it has to be, because they go hand-in-hand. It's the very center of the religion, dying for other people's sins and all that.

There's no greater love, after all.

[Belial]

If you don't like the rate at which the Church turns its gears, you can always go to seminary, heh.

I would settle for not being an apologist.

[Zamfir]

If you don't like the rate at which the Church turns its gears, you can always go to seminary, heh.

I would settle for not being an apologist.

That means something different in this context.

[Belial]

Tee hee.

But no, seriously, you don't need to enter the church to change it. You can just as easily sit outside it and just...not make excuses for their bullshit. I don't care if their bad behaviour happens to line up with their dogma, because I do not give one single half-hearted drunken fuck about their dogma. It has no value to me, and therefore its ability to excuse their wrongdoing is exactly zero. No one is accusing them of being hypocrites, they're accusing them of being bastards. Dogmatically consistent bastards? Still bastards.

You know what will never change the church? Bending over backwards to concoct reasons why everything they do is okay. That is a really cool way to make sure nothing ever changes and everything continues apace.

[Axman]

I'm not apologizing for anything; the Church's no-exceptions rule on forgiving anyone of anything is a good thing. The minute they start judging people they've taken a flying leap backwards through time. They've only now started to become alright with the idea of talking about birth control, quietly, and only about the prevention of STDs, and if that dam breaks I have to point out that they're still pretty anti-homosexuality and nobody needs another group judging gays.

They're not bastards for sheltering anyone and they're absolutely opposed to child rape; from all the hate you'd swear the lights in the Vatican ran on gaping assholes. The Church has a bad history when it comes to taking control and it's better for everybody that they stick to practicing what they preach and nothing else.

[gmalivuk]

the Church's no-exceptions rule on forgiving anyone of anything is a good thing.

You think I give a fuck about divine forgiveness for priests' immortal souls? Forgiving and forgetting are different. Forgiving and enabling are even more different. Forgive the rapists all they want, but don't fucking hide them and protect them from secular authorities! Because all that does is gives them *more* opportunities to rape *more* children and fucking get away with it.

The minute they start judging people they've taken a flying leap backwards through time.

Fine. Then let the secular authorities judge them like they judge all the child rapists who *aren't* protected by their church.

They're not bastards for sheltering anyone

Yes, they really are. In some cases this amounts to aiding and abetting the rape of children, because their "shelter" so often amounts to just shuffling clergy around so an accused rapist can get a fresh start somewhere no one knows about the kids he's fucked.

[alexh123456789]

I'm not apologizing for anything; the Church's no-exceptions rule on forgiving anyone of anything is a good thing. The minute they start judging people they've taken a flying leap backwards through time. They've only now started to become alright with the idea of talking about birth control, quietly, and only about the prevention of STDs, and if that dam breaks I have to point out that they're still pretty anti-homosexuality and nobody needs another group judging gays.

They're not bastards for sheltering anyone and they're absolutely opposed to child rape; from all the hate you'd swear the lights in the Vatican ran on gaping assholes. The Church has a bad history when it comes to taking control and it's better for everybody that they stick to practicing what they preach and nothing else.

Nobody wants the church to start judging random people; we just want the church to play by the same rules everybody else does and not obstruct justice and enable child rape. I don't care if they don't defrock a priest or whatever, that's their own choice as a private institution, but the problem comes when they try to ignore the law- as somebody said before, it's not the church's place to decide whether somebody is guilty and should go on trial; that's the place of the government.

[gmalivuk]

I don't care if they don't defrock a priest or whatever, that's their own choice as a private institution

Yeah, Axman doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of things we don't care about:
1) Whether clergy child rapists are defrocked or not
2) Whether clergy child rapists are excommunicated or not
3) Whether clergy child rapists receive in-house counseling for pediphilic urges
4) Whether clergy child rapists get to go to heaven when they die
5) Whether clergy child rapists are morally judged in any official way by the Church
6) Whether Catholic dogma has anything at all to say about clergy child rapists

And basically one thing we do care about:
1) Whether clergy child rapists ever face some hint of human justice, instead of being aided and abetted by a giant organization that likes to claim it has some moral authority over how the rest of humanity ought to behave.

[Heisenberg]

And
2) Proclaiming this position loudly in any thread tangentially related to the Catholic Church.

[broken_escalator]

This may sound strange but its, like, kind of a big deal or something.

[gmalivuk]

And
2) Proclaiming this position loudly in any thread tangentially related to the Catholic Church.

To be fair, I think a thread about making a Catholic Pope into a Catholic saint is somewhat more than tangentially related to the Catholic Church.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

And it's not just that the thread is about the Catholic Church, but that it's about lauding a guy who was actually complicit in some pretty awful shit. Talking about that awful shit is… quite relevant.

[gmalivuk]

I think Heisenberg meant the position of moral authority the Catholic church claims it has.

[Heisenberg]

And it's not just that the thread is about the Catholic Church, but that it's about lauding a guy who was actually complicit in some pretty awful shit. Talking about that awful shit is… quite relevant.

JPII was not complicit in any cases of child molestation. People critique his response, but there's no evidence he had a hand in any of the awful shit that went on.

I think Heisenberg meant the position of moral authority the Catholic church claims it has.

I was pointing out that the position of "and they're all child molesters" comes up in pretty much any topic relating to Catholocism.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I mean "complicit" rather broadly, so as to include poor response from people whose job it is to respond. In other words, people who didn't have a hand in anything but perhaps kept their hands too far out. But I mean more to say that whatever accusations are relevant than that they are correct.

[gmalivuk]

People critique his response

Which makes it relevant to this thread, which is about how saint-worthy he was.

I was pointing out that the position of "and they're all child molesters" comes up in pretty much any topic relating to Catholocism.

No one ever said they're all or even mostly child molesters. The problem of protecting the ones who are will of course come up, naturally, because it's kinda a big deal. And the discussion of it wouldn't have dragged on this long if not for fuckers like Axman coming in to those same discussions with the sole intent, it seems, of making excuses for why the Church isn't really all that bad for aiding and abetting the rape of children.

[Axman]

Hey, can we at least keep this Catholic-bashing thread civil?

[One] thing we do care about: Whether clergy child rapists ever face some hint of human justice...

That's not their job, that's our job. That's the difference between a belief system and a justice system.

The Church does everything they can to prevent child abuse and does not attempt to hide it. There isn't some Papist conspiracy. When a priest seeks absolution, you can be sure his confessor only grants it on the condition that the molester go seek treatment and/or turn himself in.

You're taking all your fear and hate of child abusers and, instead of directing it at the abusers themselves, or our society which is so ashamed of sex, consenting or otherwise, that it would rather consciously not investigate abuse than deal with it, or our secular authority which issues a statute of limitations on sex offenders and lets them go free without treatment or justice, and you're directing it at the Church, at the Pope, at Catholics, and me, while completely ignoring other religions, even those that are actually plagued with sex abuse, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, fundamental Islam, Hasidic Jews, or the Amish. Just the Catholics.

And you're doing so with little regard for how the Church functions or even what Catholics believe. That's hate speech, man.