False Clergy Abuse Accusations

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not spiderman, but it’s not really outrageous, you said this yourself above.

How is covering up child molestation, primarily for a self serving reason (to avoid a scandal as you say), not a calculated act of evil? [/quote]

Because avoiding scandal while taking care of the problem is not an act of evil. Preventing scandal and covering up a crime…two different things. Priests mean former, did latter. They did wrong and should be punished. You should probably read up on the situation before you talk, eh?[/quote]

How the fuck did they take care of the problems? They didn’t take care of any problems at all. They simply moved sexual predators from one place to another. Taking care of the problem would have meant reporting any offenders to the police. Rather than do that, they tried to cover it up to avoid any scandal. Their actions did nothing to serve the victims, yet did everything to serve themselves. Seems pretty self serving to me.

[/quote]

Obviously your reading comprehension isn’t up to par, let me…reiterate. I was speaking to Gambit…not you. He thought preventing scandal (loss of faith) was the same as covering up child molestation…I corrected Gambit by saying, “Because avoiding scandal while taking care of the problem is not an act of evil.” I was countering your claim to Gambit of a calculated act of evil, which would constitute that they would have to plan in advance to commit the crime, instead all proof points to a reactionary crime. I never said they took care of the problem (they are now taking care of the problem in the last 10 years or so, but in the passed have not), I said they could have “prevent scandal or cover up a crime…two different things,” Some meant the former, but instead did the latter.

I hope you’ll be able to put your emotions aside and be logical and maybe your reading comprehension will kick in and you can discern that I’m not saying that the people that committed crimes had some noble cause, or did something noble. I’m not. My track record in this area is proven, I detest the dissenters of the Catholic faith and such atrocities as child molestation and wish that they’d be executed. However, just because someone commits a crime does not mean you or I have a pass to be ignorant of the facts.

Basically, stop being an emotional jerk and look at the facts of the case.[/quote]

Reiterating doesn’t make a difference. You are still wrong. In fact I would go so far as to say you are deluded.

"Because avoiding scandal while taking care of the problem is not an act of evil. Preventing scandal and covering up a crime…two different things. Priests mean former, did latter. They did wrong and should be punished. You should probably read up on the situation before you talk, eh? "

You did type that didn’t you? They moved the offenders to prevent scandal, and by doing so covered up the crime. Who cares which one was their primary goal? The end result is still the same. They failed to report sex offenders.

And the only reason they have for “taking care of the problem” is that it has recently gained more media focus and they have been forced to. They aren’t doing it through choice.

I tell you what, I will work on my reading comprehension when you work on your grammar and writing skills. It is “past”, not “passed”. When you use a perfect tense, you must remember to change you verbs. “They could have preventED”, not “they could have prevent”. Also, you shouldn’t use the present continuous to make a statement connecting the past to the present. Instead of " they are taking care of the problem in the last ten years" you should have said “they have been taking care of the problem in the last ten years”.

I guess my reading comprehension can’t be too bad if I can spot so may mistakes in your awfully typed post.

And also try not to come across as so patronising when you post, especially when what you are posting is complete crap.

22

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:

Reiterating doesn’t make a difference.[/quote]

Obviously, because you’re still acting ignorant.

[quote]
"Because avoiding scandal while taking care of the problem is not an act of evil. Preventing scandal and covering up a crime…two different things. Priests mean former, did latter. They did wrong and should be punished. You should probably read up on the situation before you talk, eh? "

You did type that didn’t you? They moved the offenders to prevent scandal, and by doing so covered up the crime. Who cares which one was their primary goal? The end result is still the same. They failed to report sex offenders.[/quote]

See…you have no grasp of the situation, you are running off ignorance. They did not cover up the scandal…the perpetrated and magnified scandal. Yes, and therefore did not “avoid scandal while taking care of the problem,” they did neither avoid scandal or take care of the problem. Is that so hard for you to understand, or am I going to have to ignore you because you’re to bigoted to understand what I am saying?

Spelling mistakes and such do not invalidate my argument (they make it more difficult to understand, I know, but that’s what I get for posting on my phone), I’ve been using a phone to post on here since my computer has been in the shop. I don’t proof read as my fingers are too big to be trying to get all over the screen so…I just write and post and hope everything is good. Sue me.

Reading comprehension =/= editorial skills. I never said that those that abused children and covered up didn’t commit and evil act, I said they didn’t commit a calculated evil act.

[quote]
And also try not to come across as so patronising when you post, especially when what you are posting is complete crap.[/quote]

It is quite hilarious, you think I am patronising…yet you show no obvious or significant knowledge of the situation except what the commentators have spouted off. THEN, you say what I write is completely crap). And yet you can’t even see in my post that I’m calling for those that abused child and covered it up to be executed…in case you don’t know what executed means…I mean for them to be legally killed, erased, put in the ground, strung from the high oak tree, send 'em on down the river, put them down, shoot them like a dog, give them to the undertaker, put them on death row, slaughter them. I’m not sure if you got it this this time, hopefully you did. :slight_smile:

23

You say ignorant. I say disagreeing with someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about and is blinded by his love for the Catholic Church.

I do see that. I have also seen you post that in other threads. I never once called into question your attitude toward the paedohpiles themselves. My problem is that you can’t see that the Catholic Church was covering up the scandal. You look at the situattion and say;

I say bullshit. I say they knew what they were doing. They were trying to protect themselves from scandal and, as a result of this, created an environment where paedohpiles were simply moved to another area. Any decent moral human being would not have priorities like that. How can anyone in their right mind put anything ahead of the prevention? Take off your rose tinted glasses and see the Catholic Church for what it really is, an institute that actively covered up sex crimes rather than deal with negative press.

Except preventing scandal and covering up a crime are one and the same in this situation. They may well have been motivated by preventing scandal, but their actions meant that they (the Church) was covering up.And is wasn’t just the paedos that were covering up, the cover up was pretty far reaching. Anyone who knew about the crimes yet did nothing more than move them are equally as guilty. It is a shame that you are too blinded to see that. I pity you.

Here is a story from The Catholic Cover up

[quote]Earlier this month two other bishops, Donal Murray of Limerick and Jim Moriarty of Kildare, quit following the Nov. 26 publication of a three-year investigation into why so many abusive Dublin priests escaped justice for so long.

The government-ordered investigation found that Dublin church leaders spent decades shielding more than 170 pedophile priests from the law. They began providing information to police only in 1995 - but continued to keep secret, until 2004, many files and other records of reported abuse.

In a joint statement Walsh and Field said they hoped their resignations “may help to bring the peace and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to the victims (and) survivors of child sexual abuse. We again apologize to them.”[/quote]

Now lets make this simple so even you can get it. Who covered it up? The Church. Who benefited from the cover up? The Church. I think this is pretty self serving.

I think it is also fair to say it was calculted as it went on for decades.

Your choice. Either way, I won’t be losing any sleep.

24

I win.

25

The RCC did both: Attempted to avoid scandals AND covered up crimes. There is little point in attempting to rationalize semantic differences between the two phrases. The bottom line is the same. The RCC thought they were above the law…plain and simple.

26

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
The RCC did both: Attempted to avoid scandals AND covered up crimes. There is little point in attempting to rationalize semantic differences between the two phrases. The bottom line is the same. The RCC thought they were above the law…plain and simple.[/quote]

This.

27

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
The RCC did both: Attempted to avoid scandals AND covered up crimes. There is little point in attempting to rationalize semantic differences between the two phrases. The bottom line is the same. The RCC thought they were above the law…plain and simple.[/quote]

Okay, dude posted an article that clearly said the leaders of Dublin, not the leaders of the RCC.

28

“Late Bishop Manuel D. Moreno of Tucson, Arizona, USA repeatedly attempted to have two local abusive priests defrocked and disciplined, pleading unsuccessfully in a letter of April 1997 with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have one of them, who was first suspended in 1990 and convicted by the church in 1997 of five crimes including sexual solicitation in the confessional, defrocked. The two were finally defrocked in 2004.[134] Bishop Moreno had been heavily criticized for failing to take action until details of his efforts became public.”

Here is an example of a Bishop trying to do the right thing yet not being able to because of those above him. I reckon that the Cardinal that is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith could eb consiederd a Church leader.

This comes from The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse

“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State”.

Sure they may have been motivated by avoiding scandal but it all amounts to the same thing, coevring up sexual abuse and not following the law. In this example it is a cover up being lead by and Arch Bishop (unless he was totally unaware of what was happening in his own archdiocese which is unlikely), another igh ranking Church official.

That is two examples of cover ups connected to higher ranking Church official (the leadership).

29

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
“Late Bishop Manuel D. Moreno of Tucson, Arizona, USA repeatedly attempted to have two local abusive priests defrocked and disciplined, pleading unsuccessfully in a letter of April 1997 with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have one of them, who was first suspended in 1990 and convicted by the church in 1997 of five crimes including sexual solicitation in the confessional, defrocked. The two were finally defrocked in 2004.[134] Bishop Moreno had been heavily criticized for failing to take action until details of his efforts became public.”

Here is an example of a Bishop trying to do the right thing yet not being able to because of those above him. I reckon that the Cardinal that is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith could eb consiederd a Church leader.
[/quote]

Cardinal Ratzinger is the current Pope Benedict XVI, and here is a statement from the above article:

Tucson Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas said delays in cases here were not due to any Vatican office, including Ratzinger’s.

“The frustration that you can sense in (Moreno’s) letter, when put in the context of the delays experienced in our diocese, clearly refers to the challenges of getting the case resolved locally and did not refer to a frustration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Kicanas wrote in an e-mail response to Star questions."

Another part of the report:

The report criticized four archbishops â?? John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell â?? for not handing over information on abusers to legal authorities.

[quote]
Sure they may have been motivated by avoiding scandal but it all amounts to the same thing, coevring up sexual abuse and not following the law. In this example it is a cover up being lead by and Arch Bishop (unless he was totally unaware of what was happening in his own archdiocese which is unlikely), another igh ranking Church official.

That is two examples of cover ups connected to higher ranking Church official (the leadership).[/quote]

Okay, so out of the two situations, you have both of them being halted at the diocese level.

If you wish for me to explain the legal process which it takes to defrock a priest, and why it is so lengthy I can delve into that. But that is like asking why it took the the U.S. Federal Court System two years to convict Timothy McVeigh. Because, it is a legal process and you have to have evidence, and there are appeals. Sure, we can go hang every person we suspect of crimes against humanity, but that’s not really due process then, is it?

30

But it isn’t simply a matter of a lengthy legal process. It is a process that was made even lengthier by the witholding of evidence and inactivity of the Church.

This is from a letter written by Kicanas in 2004;

“In our own Diocese, we have become aware that from 1950 through the present there have been 100 credible allegations of sexual misconduct with minors made against 26 priests who served in the Diocese over that period of time. For 24 of those priests, 89 of the 100 allegations relate to the period of time the priests actually served in the Diocese. Those allegations involve at least 85 persons who were children or teenagers when the sexual misconduct occurred. More than 80% of those allegations have to do with the 30 year period from 1960 to 1990.”

He goes on to say;

"Our Diocese has identified publicly all the priests against whom there is a credible allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor. Ten of the 26 priests have died. Seven are retired and are prohibited from ever again ministering as a priest. The remaining nine priests all have been suspended from ministry. Of the nine, three are in prison. The Diocese is pursuing removal from the priesthood of four of the nine, including the two diocesan priests who are in prison. "

So you are looking at sex offenders that commited their crimes from the 1950s until the recent present, yet action has only recently taken place. I know that the process of defrocking a priest takes a long time. It takes even longer when action isnt’t taken for over 50 years. The Church had a responsibility to report them to the police before dealing with the matter internally. Religious institutions are not above the law, and all of those with credible allegations made against them should have been dealt with by the law and not a canonical court/Ecclesiastical court (?).

I know that Ratzinger is the current Pope and that is what makes me dubious about anything I read from either side about his connection in this whole mess. I instantly assume anything from a Catholic source will be trying to paint him in a good light. On the other hand I assume anyone that is anti-Cathlic or aethiest would do anything they could to implicate him as he would be a bloody big fish to fry.

31

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
But it isn’t simply a matter of a lengthy legal process. It is a process that was made even lengthier by the witholding of evidence and inactivity of the Church.

This is from a letter written by Kicanas in 2004;

“In our own Diocese, we have become aware that from 1950 through the present there have been 100 credible allegations of sexual misconduct with minors made against 26 priests who served in the Diocese over that period of time. For 24 of those priests, 89 of the 100 allegations relate to the period of time the priests actually served in the Diocese. Those allegations involve at least 85 persons who were children or teenagers when the sexual misconduct occurred. More than 80% of those allegations have to do with the 30 year period from 1960 to 1990.”

He goes on to say;

"Our Diocese has identified publicly all the priests against whom there is a credible allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor. Ten of the 26 priests have died. Seven are retired and are prohibited from ever again ministering as a priest. The remaining nine priests all have been suspended from ministry. Of the nine, three are in prison. The Diocese is pursuing removal from the priesthood of four of the nine, including the two diocesan priests who are in prison. "

So you are looking at sex offenders that commited their crimes from the 1950s until the recent present, yet action has only recently taken place. I know that the process of defrocking a priest takes a long time. It takes even longer when action isnt’t taken for over 50 years. The Church had a responsibility to report them to the police before dealing with the matter internally. Religious institutions are not above the law, and all of those with credible allegations made against them should have been dealt with by the law and not a canonical court/Ecclesiastical court (?).

I know that Ratzinger is the current Pope and that is what makes me dubious about anything I read from either side about his connection in this whole mess. I instantly assume anything from a Catholic source will be trying to paint him in a good light. On the other hand I assume anyone that is anti-Cathlic or aethiest would do anything they could to implicate him as he would be a bloody big fish to fry.[/quote]

I have no problem with justice being served, and it is kind of bad that the higher officials in the Church had to basically force, through penalty, those who are in charge in the diocese to report crimes. I try to keep an eye on the news and I’ll read a study on the situation if I get a chance, and what I can see is that there is substantial evidence against some of the priests (several witness, with concrete stories) and evidence against diocese leaders for interference against persecuting and reporting these people to authorities.

I understand there are some people that want to put everything associated with the Church as perfect and angel like. However, that is not true and never has been, I mean that just goes against the truths of the Church, the individual members are not perfect, so to expect that there won’t be trouble with individuals in Church is ridiculous. On the other hand, there are some, and this has been how it has been from the start, that want to paint the entire Church with broad strokes, and that simply isn’t true.

So, there are two things I am skeptic of generally…people being possessed by demons and during the legal process. Shadow of a doubt thing.

I want full justice to be served, no doubt about it. I just haven’t seen the evidence that these problems extended past the local level, too much ambiguity.

32

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse

33

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse[/quote]

I was just about to post that. Seems pretty damning to me.

34

Okay…correct me if I am wrong, but the letter came from the diplomat to Ireland…?

35

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Okay…correct me if I am wrong, but the letter came from the diplomat to Ireland…?[/quote]

Yep, one Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II’s diplomat to Ireland.

36

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
There is a big difference between making a mistake and purposely covering up decades of child abuse.[/quote]

You don’t think purposely covering up decades of child abuse is not a mistake?[/quote]

He meant (or what I think he meant) that a “mistake” is a simple slip up, like an accident. But covering up decades of abuse (if that is what happened) is beyond a simple mistake that most people can and should be forgiven for. That kind of cover up is too much of a conscious effort, too devious.

spiderman,

Correct me if I’m wrong.

37

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not spiderman, but it’s not really outrageous, you said this yourself above.

How is covering up child molestation, primarily for a self serving reason (to avoid a scandal as you say), not a calculated act of evil? [/quote]

Because avoiding scandal while taking care of the problem is not an act of evil. Preventing scandal and covering up a crime…two different things. Priests mean former, did latter. They did wrong and should be punished. You should probably read up on the situation before you talk, eh?[/quote]

Chris,

They tried to cover up a crime (allegedly) in order to prevent scandal.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

If you agree, do you feel they are on in the same, because the end (preventing scandal) is meant to justify the means (covering up crimes) ?

38

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Okay…correct me if I am wrong, but the letter came from the diplomat to Ireland…?[/quote]

Yep, one Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II’s diplomat to Ireland.[/quote]

It’s actually not Archbishop, it is just Apostolic Nuncio Luciano Storero.

39

Well I am disappoint. I read the article last night and decided to do some searching for the actual letter becauase the letter was unreadable…hmmm…I wonder why. :wink:

So, I looked around and nothing, well this morning I woke up and into my lap came the answer, if anyone wishes to read the actual letter written by Apostolic Nuncio Luciano Storero, he was not an Archbishop, he was an Ambassador, you can follow this link and read the letter in its entirety unlike in the original article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/the-1997-letter-vatican-message-sent-to-irish-church/article1874546/

Well, I read the letter myself and came to the conclusion that the letter basically says to the Bishops of Dublin is that you need to make sure your plan of attack when it comes to cases of child abuse are canonically tight.

Basically that the plan follows the constitution of the Church (Canon Law), that is so that there aren’t priests falsely punished and predator priests just let go. And, if they don’t make sure their plan is canonical then when a priest makes an appeal to Rome, Rome could possibly over turn the Bishops case because like civil court if you do something unconstitutional in order to convict someone, it can be turned over for misconduct on the prosecutions side.

Here is an article that explains it a little bit more: "Vatican Warned Bishops Not To Report Child Abuse"!| National Catholic Register

40

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
There is a big difference between making a mistake and purposely covering up decades of child abuse.[/quote]

You don’t think purposely covering up decades of child abuse is not a mistake?[/quote]

He meant (or what I think he meant) that a “mistake” is a simple slip up, like an accident. But covering up decades of abuse (if that is what happened) is beyond a simple mistake that most people can and should be forgiven for. That kind of cover up is too much of a conscious effort, too devious.

spiderman,

Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

I didn’t think I let go without notice that by mistake, I didn’t mean slip up, I guess I’ll have to explain better. Of course not, those that are guilty of holding up justice (not reporting it, &c) as well as those that committed injustice should be punished severally, but they will have go through the proper courses of recourse in order to do that. Oh, I have no doubt that it was conscious effort, but a calculated act of evil in the sense that you get 3rd degree murder for calculation of that murder, no. I have not seen evidence that it was calculated, I have seen it is as reactionary effort by some bishops to hide their priest’s actions.