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

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Dauric » Sat May 07, 2011 6:17 pm UTC

Axman wrote:Hey, can we at least keep this Catholic-bashing thread civil?
gmalivuk wrote:[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.


Their job is to not obstruct secular justice, which they've routinely done.

Linkage

Wikipedia wrote: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.


In Ireland out of court settlements included a stipulation that
Wikipedia wrote:The agreement also stipulated that any victims who accepted monetary settlements would waive their right to sue both the church and the government,[75] and that the identities of the accused abusers was to be kept secret.[74]


I believe the same thing was placed in settlements in the U.S. until the U.S. Catholic Conference agreed to rules that required informing local authorities, but I've not found a source to cite on that.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Sat May 07, 2011 7:58 pm UTC

Axman wrote:The Church does everything they can to prevent child abuse and does not attempt to hide it.
Right. Now you're just flat-out making shit up.

And you're doing so with little regard for...what Catholics believe.
Why is what they believe relevant? My complaint is that the church hierarchy frequently aids and abets the rape of children by obstructing (secular) justice. Their beliefs don't enter into it, except inasmuch as it *also* makes them huge hypocrites when they claim moral authority, instead of just being evil bastards.

That's hate speech, man.
Criticizing criminal behavior without worrying about the criminal's religious beliefs and practices is hate speech, now? I could see the exact opposite being somewhat true, but my calendar doesn't list today as opposite day, so I'm really unsure what you're on.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Sporky McForkinspoon
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:36 pm UTC

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Sporky McForkinspoon » Tue May 10, 2011 8:01 am UTC

Axman wrote: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.


As has been noted repeatedly in this thread, you're full of shit. For more than fifty years the church hid child molesting priests from accusations, primarily to give them a new church, and many of them to re-offend. In some cases, the priest was required essentially to pray, or attend something akin to AA for child abusers, but still kept strictly within the church, lest people get the right impression of what happened. Damn near all of them were repeat offenders, because nothing of any substance was done to stop the problem. That isn't hate speech, it has nothing to do with what Catholics believe, it speaks directly to what the Catholic church did, and probably continues to do, since every so often another priest gets accused, and there are more claims that he was a rogue priest, and that we're really sure we've got all of them this time. Hell, they even, as has been mentioned by others, hold their own trials, and decide whether or not the pedophile is guilty, and then decide whether or not to consider handing him over to the authorities. The church is complicit in shielding child rapists from justice. Not just in this life, but in, as they believe, the next, since they absolve them of sins regardless of likely hood to continue raping children. Fuck. That. Shit.

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Chen » Tue May 10, 2011 12:16 pm UTC

Why is exactly is it up to the church to tell the authorities about their priests being accused of being child molesters? Shouldn't these things be investigated by the authorities to begin with?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 10, 2011 1:55 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Why is exactly is it up to the church to tell the authorities about their priests being accused of being child molesters?
The same reason it's up to school employees to tell the authorities about their kids' parents being accused of child molesting.

And in any case, it should at the very least be up to the church *not* to shuffle child rapists quietly off to a different church so they can repeatedly escape justice.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Cathy » Tue May 10, 2011 9:29 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Chen wrote:Why is exactly is it up to the church to tell the authorities about their priests being accused of being child molesters?
The same reason it's up to school employees to tell the authorities about their kids' parents being accused of child molesting.


It's the law. There are laws in ALL 50 states that require anyone who works with children to report the suspicion of child abuse with authorities. And no, not the church authorities.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue May 10, 2011 10:18 pm UTC

But school employees should do so whether it's the law or not. The law reflects the obligation, rather than vice versa. Likewise, morality obligates the Catholic Church not to enable abusers even if the law does not.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 10, 2011 10:20 pm UTC

Right, but that just makes Cathy's point stronger. Because even if the Catholic church think it's their moral right to obstruct justice, they don't have that right legally, as the law requires them to report suspicions of child abuse to the real authorities.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue May 10, 2011 10:29 pm UTC

Ah, I see. I assumed that she was disagreeing with you and misread her.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Cathy » Tue May 10, 2011 10:42 pm UTC

Sorry about that, my post was meant to back up gmalivuk's, not contradict it.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Wed May 11, 2011 2:11 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:
Chen wrote:Why is exactly is it up to the church to tell the authorities about their priests being accused of being child molesters?
It's the law. There are laws in ALL 50 states that require anyone who works with children to report the suspicion of child abuse with authorities.
This is not true, as there exists penitent-priest privilege which is an exception to mandating reporter laws in all 50 states (and the district of Columbia); these laws are protected by the first amendment as a freedom of religion. Furthermore, only a fraction of the clergy are priests, and therefor not mandated reporters. The reason this goes through Church channels is because the laws that exist allow it to do so.

This is hate speech, it's gotta stop. Through iterative speculation, people conflate the bad things about organizations they hate into conspiracy. In this case it's child abuse but it doesn't matter, it could be anything, and it doesn't even have to be bad. It's no different than saying "Jews control the media."

Let's put it into another context.

Suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is a fact of life. Many suicide bombers are Muslims performing acts of terrorism. It is the same bigoted brand of iterative speculation that conflates the fact that there are suicide bombers and all the things that make suicide bombers into a Muslim conspiracy and calls for the complete dismantling of Islam.

There's no difference between this and that or any other form of antisemitism; it's bigotry. When it's directed towards Catholics it takes the fact that priests have molested children, compounds that by the secretive actions of the Church, and conflates it into a conspiracy that runs straight to the Vatican, and calls for the dismantling of the Church.

The worst part is that the bigotry extends the blame towards all Catholics; the Church is not a democratic nation, their faith keeps them tied to it, but they're still held responsible for the things that they have no control over. These cases of child abuse can happen in different dioceses, on different continents, and yet it's all who are blamed. And if this bigotry didn't stem from both hatred and ignorance, it'd be known that the Pope isn't even the patriarch for all Catholics, that not all Catholics are Roman. But somehow, despite all this, the actions of a dead man are used to channel hate towards other people for reasons irrational.

If this wasn't hate speech it'd be a conversation about what the Church could do to help prevent child abuse rather than an angry mob of blame and ill-will. This has to stop.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Dauric » Wed May 11, 2011 2:28 pm UTC

Axman wrote:But somehow, despite all this, the actions of a dead man are used to channel hate towards other people for reasons irrational.


Query: Which "dead man" are you referring to? If you're saying that it's one priest responsible for a limited number of incidents again I have to draw your attention to the John Jay Report (commissioned by the Unites States Conference of Catholic Bishops) where there were allegations against 4,392 priests in the United States alone. It also states that of the 10,667 cases -reported-, 6,696 of them had an investigation done, and ~80% of those investigations the allegations were found to be substantiated.

Some people may be hyperbolic to the extreme of accusing everyone in the catholic church of being complicit, but you're engaging opposing hyperbole claiming that this is all about one person, which is just as false and it hurts your argument.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Belial » Wed May 11, 2011 2:31 pm UTC

Axman wrote:This is hate speech, it's gotta stop. Through iterative speculation, people conflate the bad things about organizations they hate into conspiracy.


Dude, where do you live? This isn't a fucking conspiracy theory, these are things that actually happened. The church did do this. It happened. Pointing it out is not hate speech. Saying it is does not chasten anyone, it makes you look delusional.

If we generalized it to "every priest is a child molester" you'd have something, but the only person hearing that is you. As it is, you're responding to the idea that an organization is in any way responsible for its own actions with "Oh me yarm HAETSPEECH" and flat denials of reality. And it's making you look like an idiot.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Zyphlin
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:23 am UTC

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Zyphlin » Wed May 11, 2011 2:59 pm UTC

Look, I'm a (lapsed) catholic, but there's no denying that there have been molestation of Children within the ranks of the church and at BEST that the church failed horribly in cleaning up its own ranks. Its not hate speech to suggest that. You would perhaps have a point if people were in here suggesting most catholic priests are pedophiles, or that the Catholic Church should be banned or raided by the government because they're child molestors, or something like that which some idiots say regarding Islam.

The "Jews control the Media" comparison is ridiculous. At least with the Islam one you're going in the correct general direction. But neither the "muslims are terrorists" or "catholics are pedophiles" is really a conspiracy theory. The Jews Control the Media theory is all based around some covert secretive jewish plot perpetrated by a group of powerful hebrews who work together to control the media of the country. Maybe if they were saying that Catholics control Huggee's as a secret plot to put their stamp on every babies ass, then you'd have a point. But really there's no comparison between those two situations.

The "Oh woe is me, my poor group is so targeted" attitude annoys the heck out of me regardless of who its coming from. Yes, Catholics get stereotyped to a bit...so does everyone. That's not hate speech, its society.
[Insert Catchphrase Here]

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 11, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Axman wrote:This is not true, as there exists penitent-priest privilege
Great, so if a priest confesses to raping kids, maybe someone else isn't required to report it (unless they think it will happen again). But that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with someone who is told, *outside* of a confessional, that children might be getting molested.

This is hate speech, it's gotta stop.
Again with the flatly making shit up. That has got to stop. It is not hate speech to point out that child molestation has happened at the hands (and other parts) of Catholic clergy, and that those higher up in the Catholic hierarchy have often done nothing to bring those clergy to justice, and have even gone so far as to actively prevent justice from happening by shuffling said priests around.

Those are just straight-up facts. If you find them hateful, maybe you shouldn't be whining to us about it, but to the people who are actually doing the terrible shit.

The worst part is that the bigotry extends the blame towards all Catholics
You're the *only* one in this thread who is anywhere close to delusional enough to think that. No one else has said it.

what the Church could do to help prevent child abuse
They could stop obstructing justice, for a start.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Heisenberg » Wed May 11, 2011 6:17 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
what the Church could do to help prevent child abuse
They could stop obstructing justice, for a start.

Hey, they did that.
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People wrote:ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question.
Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor.
In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and support this right.
Last edited by Heisenberg on Wed May 11, 2011 6:29 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 11, 2011 6:28 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
what the Church could do to help prevent child abuse
They could stop obstructing justice, for a start.
Hey, they did that.
Well, they said they would do that. The important thing is whether that's actually what happens in practice going forward, but it's definitely a good start.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Heisenberg » Wed May 11, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

Here's the report from the annual compliance audit.
During the 2010 audit period, thirty allegations were made by current minors. Of these, eight were considered credible by law enforcement, seven were determined to be false, twelve were determined to be boundary violations, and three are still under investigation.
Six hundred fifty-three victims/survivors whose abuse happened in the past came forward for the first time during the 2010 audit period to share their stories with the Church. Allegations were made against 574 priests and eight deacons. Of the accused clerics, 253 are deceased, 67 had already been laicized, 172 had been already removed from ministry, and 275 had been named in previous audits.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Cathy » Wed May 11, 2011 11:14 pm UTC

Axman wrote:
Cathy wrote:
Chen wrote:Why is exactly is it up to the church to tell the authorities about their priests being accused of being child molesters?
It's the law. There are laws in ALL 50 states that require anyone who works with children to report the suspicion of child abuse with authorities.
This is not true, as there exists penitent-priest privilege which is an exception to mandating reporter laws in all 50 states (and the district of Columbia); these laws are protected by the first amendment as a freedom of religion. Furthermore, only a fraction of the clergy are priests, and therefor not mandated reporters. The reason this goes through Church channels is because the laws that exist allow it to do so.


Wait, so, my psychiatrist and psychologist have to report it to the proper authorities if they think I am a danger to myself, others, or if I'm abusing a minor or am being abused, but a priest doesn't because it's FREEDOM OF RELIGION!? What the fuck?
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Thu May 12, 2011 3:32 am UTC

You've got it a bit wrong. Your doctors and counselors are not required to report past crimes to authorities, in fact, they're forbidden to do so unless you're presenting a danger to yourself or others, and merely being a repeat offender does not constitute an imminent threat. You have to say something like, "Tomorrow, I'm going to [insert details of crime here]." Otherwise they have to act on your behalf to maintain your relationship.

It's the same with clergy privilege. First of all, you can't confess something you haven't done, so that wouldn't fit into the box. But you can confess something you have done and they're required, like doctors and counselors, to keep it secret. It doesn't have to be in confession, it just has to be in confidence.

In fact, the idea of doctor and counselor's privilege comes from the Church, because there was a time when your doctor and counselor were clergymen. It wasn't until after other organizations started producing doctors and counselors that new forms of privileged communication were created.

There are other problems tied to mandated reporting, not just that they damage confidential relationships, and that's that they make public information pertaining to victims.

There's a reason why so many children, or rather the families of children, settle out of court under the condition of anonymity, and it's the same reason why so many people don't report any rapes: it's humiliating. Many people prefer the comfort of restitution and privacy over any kind of human justice, which puts them at the center of scandal. It's not to protect abusers, it's not sinister like that.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu May 12, 2011 5:17 am UTC

Axman wrote:You've got it a bit wrong. Your doctors and counselors are not required to report past crimes to authorities, in fact, they're forbidden to do so unless you're presenting a danger to yourself or others, and merely being a repeat offender does not constitute an imminent threat. You have to say something like, "Tomorrow, I'm going to [insert details of crime here]." Otherwise they have to act on your behalf to maintain your relationship.

Not actually true. It varies between jurisdictions; some require doctors to report if they suspect child abuse - at which point law enforcement has the option to pursue prosecution (but rarely does, because they have little to go on most of the time) and if they don't the report is anonymized into statistical data and discarded (this is how it works in Washington).

Federal rules of evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege at all. But that has nothing to do with reporting.

It's the same with clergy privilege. First of all, you can't confess something you haven't done, so that wouldn't fit into the box. But you can confess something you have done and they're required, like doctors and counselors, to keep it secret. It doesn't have to be in confession, it just has to be in confidence.

Also false, and in fact I already linked you to the US DHHS page covering that.

In fact, the idea of doctor and counselor's privilege comes from the Church, because there was a time when your doctor and counselor were clergymen. It wasn't until after other organizations started producing doctors and counselors that new forms of privileged communication were created.

Um... while I can't find any evidence to support this, it defies reason - which would dictate that physician-patient privilege exists because patients cannot receive good care if they can't trust their doctor. Sort of how if you show up in the ER with bullet holes in you and powder burns on your hand, they're not going to ask if there are bullet holes in the other guy. Said privilege is extended to counselors because they are also health professionals.

There are other problems tied to mandated reporting, not just that they damage confidential relationships, and that's that they make public information pertaining to victims.

Not actually a problem. Again working from Washington state law (but when I researched this a couple months ago most jurisdictions were similar), when doctors report suspected abuse to the state DHHS it's handed off to state-level law enforcement and used as statistical data, then discarded. The State Patrol (what we call it here) then has the option to pursue investigation but again, very rarely does - and victims' anonymity factors heavily into that decision. In fact because of exactly that WA state law does not allow the State Patrol to pursue investigation unless there are repeated credible reports of abuse.

There's a reason why so many children, or rather, the families of children settle out of court under the condition of anonymity, and it's the same reason why so many people don't report any rapes: it's humiliating. Many people prefer the comfort of restitution and privacy over any kind of human justice, which puts them at the center of scandal. It's not to protect abusers, it's not sinister like that.

No, of course the fact that being a rape survivor is considered humiliating doesn't protect rapists and is in no way sinister.

...wait, what?

This is what's meant by rape culture. That's really outside the scope of this thread, but... it's not an excuse to protect abusers. I mean, yes, society is downright mean to rape survivors. Thus it is possible for a plaintiff to be a Doe (anonymous) and court records can be sealed - that is how you protect victims.

But no, you're saying we should just sweep abuse under the rug because it's humiliating to be raped.
Image
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 12, 2011 8:50 pm UTC

Axman wrote:You've got it a bit wrong. Your doctors and counselors are not required to report past crimes to authorities, in fact, they're forbidden to do so unless you're presenting a danger to yourself or others, and merely being a repeat offender does not constitute an imminent threat. You have to say something like, "Tomorrow, I'm going to [insert details of crime here]." Otherwise they have to act on your behalf to maintain your relationship.


It's slightly more complicated than this. Privileged speech of this manner is interpreted in different ways by different jurisdictions, and a many places make particular exemptions that reporting of abuse of children is always mandatory, regardless of privilege. It's worth pointing out that other jurisdictions take a much less favourable view of the issue: in the UK, for example, priest-penitent privilege is not protected at all.

Axman wrote:The worst part is that the bigotry extends the blame towards all Catholics; the Church is not a democratic nation, their faith keeps them tied to it, but they're still held responsible for the things that they have no control over. These cases of child abuse can happen in different dioceses, on different continents, and yet it's all who are blamed. And if this bigotry didn't stem from both hatred and ignorance, it'd be known that the Pope isn't even the patriarch for all Catholics, that not all Catholics are Roman. But somehow, despite all this, the actions of a dead man are used to channel hate towards other people for reasons irrational.


I don't recall anyone actually blaming Catholics as a whole for this mess. A number of people have expressed shock and frustration about how little the average Catholic seems to actually care about this issue (as in, they're still, on average participating in and giving money to the Church and aren't demanding reform), but nobody is claiming that Catholics as a whole are responsible. People are saying that the Vatican bears a significant responsibility for the results of the scandal, not because they allowed pedophiles into their ranks, but because they as a matter of policy covered up hundreds of cases of abuse as far back (that we can determine) as the 1930s.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Belial » Thu May 12, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Bigot. Hatespeech. Etcetera.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Fri May 13, 2011 12:11 am UTC

Very good Belial, your hatespeech recognition skills are improving very quickly.

First of all, he makes the sweeping assumption that Catholics don't "to actually care about this issue...and aren't demanding reform."

LaserGuy then goes on to take this statement (here is the actual letter) which is a warning by the Congregation for the Clergy that complying with Ireland's mandatory reporter laws may violate canon. The entire purpose for the Congregation for the Clergy is to make sure that the clergy follow canon law. This would be like your attorney sending you a letter reminding you to get a permit before you remodel your house. While clergymen can break the seal of confession, and have, and do, to comply with local laws, they first need to get permission, or later face potential ramifications from within the Church.

He then goes on to use it to promote the idea that the Vatican makes a matter of policy to cover up cases of child abuse. This, at best, comes from a place of ignorance, and at worse, a place of hate.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Belial » Fri May 13, 2011 12:54 am UTC

A dark and evil place of facts.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Cathy » Fri May 13, 2011 1:33 am UTC

Axman wrote:While clergymen can break the seal of confession, and have, and do, to comply with local laws, they first need to get permission, or later face potential ramifications from within the Church.


Seems a ridiculous policy to have to ASK to follow the LAW!
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri May 13, 2011 1:36 am UTC

Anyone else notice the one being a condescending cock to the admin is trying to say a letter telling people that their organization is so far above the law that if you follow the law you might face repercussions for doing so is just like a letter telling people to make sure they conform to the law?

And yes; that is exactly the Vatican making it a policy (but one you can request a variance of - I wonder if that was ever asked (much less granted), or if those who would have asked didn't bother or feared asking) to cover up child abuse - and threatening retribution against those who resist to boot.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Fri May 13, 2011 2:20 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:And yes; that is exactly the Vatican making it a policy...to cover up child abuse - and threatening retribution against those who resist to boot.
No, it's just saying follow all the Catholic rules, too, one of which is that you have to follow all local laws; if they're unjust you're supposed to change them from within the system, but you still have to abide by them. The letter threatens embarrassment, not excommunication, because it would be an embarrassment if the Church's clergy didn't follow canon law; if the clergy doesn't follow the rules, what's to stop the laity?

Canon law doesn't supersede secular law and doesn't even govern the sort of stuff that secular law does. It's the legal system used by the Church to guide and sanction Roman Catholics.

These restrictions prevent the clergy from going off the reservation, and helps laity do right. There are no Catholic Terry Joneses. Catholics aren't supposed to go to abortion rallies because they themselves disrespect life with those sick posters. Catholics have to embrace science as it's a gift of the Holy Ghost to man; there are no Catholic creationists. There are a lot of Catholic atheists, but other Catholics aren't allowed to judge them for it.

Cathy wrote:Seems a ridiculous policy to have to ASK to follow the LAW!
They're not asking permission to follow the law, they're asking permission to break the seal of confession, or go against any other canon laws that may get violated in the process of mandated reporting.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Fri May 13, 2011 2:39 am UTC

Axman wrote:They're not asking permission to follow the law, they're asking permission to break the seal of confession, or go against any other canon laws that may get violated in the process of mandated reporting.
They are asking permission to do what they have to in order to follow the law. Dress it up however you like, but that's what they're doing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

I didn't dress anything up I was being pendantic for clarity

Postby Axman » Fri May 13, 2011 3:20 am UTC

Yeah. So what? It's exactly the same with public school policy.

Teacher suspects child abuse. Teacher goes to the principal. Principal calls the police, the superintendent, the board of directors... the superintendent calls the lawyers and they all go in there to make sure it gets taken care of right.

It's the same with social workers or the police, too. Suspect a crime, call it in, everyone gets together and takes care of it. Just because there's a Catholic policy doesn't mean the policy is functionally any different.

And actually, there's more here. There's not some mystical Catholic property that cultivates abuse conspiracy; there's shit-tons of sex abuse in public school, there's even cover-ups and conspiracies in them, with heads of districts involved. Teachers get moved to new schools and repeat themselves. Nobody's saying the the Department of Education aides and abets their abusers, and nobody's calling for Margaret Spellings to face charges of crimes against humanity.
Last edited by Axman on Fri May 13, 2011 3:34 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri May 13, 2011 3:33 am UTC

Yeah, no matter how you phrase it... it's a letter reminding priests they have to ask permission to not break the law.

And look: I don't fucking care who you are, when a religion's law conflicts with the real law, the latter always trumps the former - especially when the real law exists to protect other people and the religion's law exists for no reason other than to protect the religion. If nothing else because courts can throw you in jail and the worst a church can do is push you away, at which point you're probably better off anyway.

Axman wrote:Yeah. So what? It's exactly the same with public school policy.

Things public schools do not do: hide accusations of abuse. Oh, sure, call in the lawyers to protect the school, and that's their prerogative - but not at the cost of obstruction of justice. Call the police - take care of the children - then worry about how it reflects on the school. Because, shit, I guarantee it's going to look a whole hell of a lot better if you can honestly stand up and say "the first thing we did was call the police and put the accused on administrative leave" than if a memo gets leaked saying "first thing you do is call the board and ask permission to call the police, and if they don't give it see what you can do to silence the accuser and reassign the accused".
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Fri May 13, 2011 3:36 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:"first thing you do is call the board and ask permission to call the police, and if they don't give it see what you can do to silence the accuser and reassign the accused".
Show me this memo.

netcrusher88 wrote:Things public schools do not do: hide accusations of abuse.
The U.S. Department of Education says otherwise.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Belial » Fri May 13, 2011 3:47 am UTC

Axman wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:"first thing you do is call the board and ask permission to call the police, and if they don't give it see what you can do to silence the accuser and reassign the accused".
Show me this memo.

netcrusher88 wrote:Things public schools do not do: hide accusations of abuse.
The U.S. Department of Education says otherwise.


For it to be parallel, the department itself would have to be involved in the cover-up on a procedural level.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri May 13, 2011 4:18 am UTC

I stand corrected. However, as Belial pointed out, the difference is the Department of Education is publishing that information and working to change it. The Catholic church makes a habit of suppressing its own shortcomings as much as possible. When they do release information, if a grand jury is convened they consistently turn up many times the cover-ups the church will admit to. And when the church deigns to convene a lay council to investigate the church, they run into resistance and sealed records at every turn until they give up.

Also, when teachers are fired they cease to be tracked by the district. Now, yes, they should be tracked by someone else, but you can bet the Catholic church knows where every one of its priests is and has been, and chooses to hide and not use that information.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby LaserGuy » Fri May 13, 2011 5:05 am UTC

Axman wrote:Very good Belial, your hatespeech recognition skills are improving very quickly.

First of all, he makes the sweeping assumption that Catholics don't "to actually care about this issue...and aren't demanding reform."


You mean to say that Catholic laity are demanding reform en masse? I've heard of a few small groups in the United States calling for greater accountability, but if there's a grassroots movement within the Catholic laity calling for reform, they certainly don't appear to be doing very much. As I said, overall church participation and donations do not appear to have changed substantially in the wake of the scandal.

Axman wrote:LaserGuy then goes on to take this statement (here is the actual letter) which is a warning by the Congregation for the Clergy that complying with Ireland's mandatory reporter laws may violate canon. The entire purpose for the Congregation for the Clergy is to make sure that the clergy follow canon law. This would be like your attorney sending you a letter reminding you to get a permit before you remodel your house. While clergymen can break the seal of confession, and have, and do, to comply with local laws, they first need to get permission, or later face potential ramifications from within the Church.


Why do they need permission to follow secular laws? Why do they need permission to do what is absolutely and unequivocally the correct and moral thing to do? Why are they being threatened with punishment for doing the right thing?

Axman wrote:He then goes on to use it to promote the idea that the Vatican makes a matter of policy to cover up cases of child abuse. This, at best, comes from a place of ignorance, and at worse, a place of hate.


So the fact that there is evidence of cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests in multiple diocese spanning several countries is what, coincidence?

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Fri May 13, 2011 5:17 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:If there's a grassroots movement within the Catholic laity calling for reform, they certainly don't appear to be doing very much.
Actually, there's a sizable apostolic movement on the scale of Martin Luther's reformation going on in the U.S. Lines have been drawn.

LaserGuy wrote:Why do they need permission to do what is absolutely and unequivocally the correct and moral thing to do?
Because they also have the moral responsibility to keep statements made to them in confidence secret. Even if it's a bad secret. It's enigma territory.

netcrusher88 wrote:The Catholic church knows where every one of its priests is and has been, and chooses to hide and not use that information.

They aren't hiding it, though.

The worst part about all this is that I, personally, hate the Church for a whole lot of reasons, not limited to the grand scheme of social justice; I have a personal beef with it, too. Shit, I call Ratzinger the Panzerpapen. Der Luftpapst.

I'm not alone: Catholics everywhere also hate the Church for its constant treatment of women as a lesser class. The Vatican's OK with condoms if and only if you're a male prostitute. It doesn't even matter that the reason for this is a combination of AIDS risk factors and the whole Jesus loving prostitutes bit; Jesus' bitches were fucking women and even still women get short-shrifted.

Condoms are probably the best possible way to protect life; yes, it also prohibits the creation of more, but the current crop of STDs is so heinous that they should absolutely see it as a great thing, or at the very, very least, the lesser of all evils.

The Church's position on homosexuality need not be described. But if God hated gays so much, why does He keep making 'em?

The pope's description of women in the clergy was decried in the same, not-uncertain terms as child rape. What the fuckity fuck?

There's plenty to hate, even if the Church is probably the largest single charitable organization on the planet. But child abuse is the ghost of the elephant in the Vatican's room. It's a fiction; it's not a living problem. But it is injust to hold Catholics, even the Vatican, responsible for it. Especially when there's so much other undeniably fucked-up bullshit to pick on.

Oh, that and the word Catholic refers to all orthodoxies, not just the laity of the Holy See. Dressing-down Catholics for the decisions of the Vatican is like blaming Puerto Ricans for invading Iraq. I'm not saying not to hate the Church; I'm saying hate the Church for the right reasons.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby LaserGuy » Fri May 13, 2011 5:34 am UTC

Axman wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:If there's a grassroots movement within the Catholic laity calling for reform, they certainly don't appear to be doing very much.


Actually, there's a sizable apostolic movement on the scale of Martin Luther's reformation going on in the U.S. Lines have been drawn.


Do you have a link for it? That's very encouraging to hear, but it's the first I've heard of it.

Axman wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Why do they need permission to do what is absolutely and unequivocally the correct and moral thing to do?


Because they also have the moral responsibility to keep statements made to them in confidence secret. Even if it's a bad secret. It's enigma territory.


For an organization that believes in absolute morality, this should be pretty easy to figure out. Hell, even with my atheistic semi-relative morality, I can still recognize that (revealing secret will prevent great harm to one or more people) is morally superior to (keeping secret that will cause great harm to one or more people). How does the saying go, "The easiest way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing".

User avatar
Axman
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby Axman » Fri May 13, 2011 9:27 pm UTC

Here's an article about American schism fears. Things petered out for a while after the '80s but picked up steam when, for the 2004 elections, the pope asked Catholics not to vote for any politician that was pro-choice. While that's not an endorsement of any politician or political party, given the way our politics work makes it function in that way. Catholics lean to the left and that sort of shit doesn't fly well. The pope always does this and bishops ask the same for local elections. But 2004 was different, it meant more Bush.

A lot of people are just waiting to see who the next pope will be.

I personally am opposed to an American schism. I think it wouldn't do anything to make the Church more progressive and could even make it more conservative. I also think it would come with a cost of life.

But there would have to be a catalyst. Not changing might do it but I doubt it. And of course, all the Church has to do to prevent it would be to a) pick a more liberal pope next time, or b) pick an American pope. Doesn't really even matter from what country or whether or not he's conservative. Americans feel under-represented.
Last edited by Axman on Fri May 13, 2011 9:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby gmalivuk » Fri May 13, 2011 9:30 pm UTC

Axman wrote:I also think it would come with a cost of life.
What, like a Crusade?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Obama one step closer to making Pope John Paul II a Sain

Postby broken_escalator » Fri May 13, 2011 9:35 pm UTC

You must sacrifice 2000 "Life" boardgames to prevent a schism. y/n?
>>


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eran_rathan and 28 guests