False Clergy Abuse Accusations

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]PonceDeLeon 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]

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) ?[/quote]

You prevent scandal by having strong catechesis and to stop scandalous things from happening, not covering up crimes. That is why I said, they wanted or thought they were preventing scandal, but they only really covered up a crime which didn’t prevent scandal. So, you’re right in a sense, but I would say more like this: They covered up the crimes in a false attempt to prevent scandal and eventually created larger scandal because of their actions.

No, the ends never justify the means. And, the fact that they didn’t actually reach their ends doesn’t matter. Even if they did prevent scandal, it would not have justified letting justice go undone.

I think any rational person can realise that you do not judge an organization by those that don’t actually follow what the organization teaches. So, if I was a Bishop in Dublin I would have no problem taking them to Rome to get them laicized and handing them to the Civil courts to be punished to the full extent of the Law.

42

[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]

No correction needed. You are spot on.

43

I hardly think the National Catholic Register can be relied upon to be any less biased than Laurie Goodstein.

44

Wait… so who is paying Mr. Steier to do this “investigation”? Or is he just doing it out of the lovely goodness of his heart?

Because to me, it seems like he’s nothing more than a church-paid attorney that put out this document.

Which would make this just a bit of a sham.

45

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I hardly think the National Catholic Register can be relied upon to be any less biased than Laurie Goodstein.[/quote]

Okay, so you just throw it out because it is the National Catholic Register? Well who do you want to explain the Catholic Church? Someone that isn’t from the Catholic Church…and there is a difference between Goldstein and the NCR, the former is known as a sensationalist, the NCR is not. And, why don’t you address the argument. The actual letter that she is writing about I posted a link to, and it is not what she says it is.

46

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Wait… so who is paying Mr. Steier to do this “investigation”? Or is he just doing it out of the lovely goodness of his heart?

Because to me, it seems like he’s nothing more than a church-paid attorney that put out this document.

Which would make this just a bit of a sham.[/quote]

What are you talking about? I’m being serious, I am not recalling a Mr. Steier.

47

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Wait… so who is paying Mr. Steier to do this “investigation”? Or is he just doing it out of the lovely goodness of his heart?

Because to me, it seems like he’s nothing more than a church-paid attorney that put out this document.

Which would make this just a bit of a sham.[/quote]

What are you talking about? I’m being serious, I am not recalling a Mr. Steier. [/quote]

Read your original post genius.

48

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I hardly think the National Catholic Register can be relied upon to be any less biased than Laurie Goodstein.[/quote]

Okay, so you just throw it out because it is the National Catholic Register? Well who do you want to explain the Catholic Church? Someone that isn’t from the Catholic Church…and there is a difference between Goldstein and the NCR, the former is known as a sensationalist, the NCR is not. And, why don’t you address the argument. The actual letter that she is writing about I posted a link to, and it is not what she says it is.[/quote]

Goldstein, a known sensationalist, can’t have her article taken on face value. I have no qualms with anyone wanting to scrutinize what she writes.

Do you honestly think an article on a website named The Catholic Register is going to be unbiased? You don’t think that there might be a conflict of interest in regards to how it reports the news regarding the Church?

Who do I want to explain the Church? Nobody. In this case I don’t need the Church explained. I am looking for interpretations or opinions on the letter in question, not an explanation of the Church.

If you really believe that a website named the National Catholic Register is going to be impartial then you are a pretty naive guy.

And no need to get your panties in a bunch about an unaddressed argument. It was almost 2am when I posted the last thing and I was half asleep. My humble apologies for the inconvenience of the time difference.

I will post more but, alas, I have to leave for work in 20 minutes. Pesky time difference :frowning:

49

Don’t you also find it funny that some attorney just took it upon himself to do this study?

I sure do. Especially so it could be posted to exclusively catholic websites.

Makes me wonder who funded his research…

50

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
I hardly think the National Catholic Register can be relied upon to be any less biased than Laurie Goodstein.[/quote]

Okay, so you just throw it out because it is the National Catholic Register? Well who do you want to explain the Catholic Church? Someone that isn’t from the Catholic Church…and there is a difference between Goldstein and the NCR, the former is known as a sensationalist, the NCR is not. And, why don’t you address the argument. The actual letter that she is writing about I posted a link to, and it is not what she says it is.[/quote]

Goldstein, a known sensationalist, can’t have her article taken on face value. I have no qualms with anyone wanting to scrutinize what she writes.

Do you honestly think an article on a website named The Catholic Register is going to be unbiased? You don’t think that there might be a conflict of interest in regards to how it reports the news regarding the Church?
[/quote]

I read the letter this morning before I read the article from the NCR, I posted it because he explained it much better than what I was trying to say. No, they have been critical of the priests involved in the molestations all along (of course there are a few op&eds, but I am not counting those), but the MSM has been trying to prove that Pope JPII had his hand in it, and there is no proof of it.

The letter came from an Ambassador to the Dublin Bishops, I was trying to explain the letter, and merely posted an article that went deeper into the explanation than I could.

I always look for bias, but the MSM were caught with their pants down on this one. The letter does not say what they says it does. It flatly doesn’t.

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Don’t you also find it funny that some attorney just took it upon himself to do this study?

I sure do. Especially so it could be posted to exclusively catholic websites.

Makes me wonder who funded his research… [/quote]

Do you really think that the MSM would have taken on the story? Even if it was proven that it was funded by someone not affiliated with the Catholic Church? No, because they do not care. They just want to persecute something, Catholic Church just happens to be a hot button. Aren’t you a journalist, I would think you would know this.

52

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Do you really think that the MSM would have taken on the story? Even if it was proven that it was funded by someone not affiliated with the Catholic Church? No, because they do not care. They just want to persecute something, Catholic Church just happens to be a hot button. Aren’t you a journalist, I would think you would know this.[/quote]

I am part of the “MSM” and what I can tell you is that we don’t give a fuck about “studies” done by defense lawyers that are so clearly funded by the church. That’s like Charles Manson’s defense lawyer reviewing his case and coming to the conclusion that Manson was innocent. Well, no shit he’s going to say that. What’d you expect.

But even if by some chance there was a neutral party that did the study, it would be reported on- but nobody would care.

Keep in mind that you people buy the papers when there’s a scandal or something that catches your eye. Stories like this are passed over because you people pass them over, not because they’re not written about.

And even your conservative bastion of the WSJ didn’t pick it up- not even the fascist Weekly Standard. And if they don’t take it seriously, why would the rest of us?

53

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Do you really think that the MSM would have taken on the story? Even if it was proven that it was funded by someone not affiliated with the Catholic Church? No, because they do not care. They just want to persecute something, Catholic Church just happens to be a hot button. Aren’t you a journalist, I would think you would know this.[/quote]

I am part of the “MSM” and what I can tell you is that we don’t give a fuck about “studies” done by defense lawyers that are so clearly funded by the church. That’s like Charles Manson’s defense lawyer reviewing his case and coming to the conclusion that Manson was innocent. Well, no shit he’s going to say that. What’d you expect.

But even if by some chance there was a neutral party that did the study, it would be reported on- but nobody would care.

Keep in mind that you people buy the papers when there’s a scandal or something that catches your eye. Stories like this are passed over because you people pass them over, not because they’re not written about.

And even your conservative bastion of the WSJ didn’t pick it up- not even the fascist Weekly Standard. And if they don’t take it seriously, why would the rest of us?[/quote]

Didn’t know I was a conservative or a fascist. Thanks for the information, I’ll put it on my facebook info right away.

54

That’s a good answer to give when you know you’re wrong.

55

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s a good answer to give when you know you’re wrong.[/quote]

Thank you, again, for telling me what I think.

56

@FightingIrish

No, I do not find it funny that an attorney took it upon himself to do a study, when he has been involved with over a hundred cases. And the study wasn’t posted exclusively on Catholic Websites, it was posted on Newbusters.org, which, is not a Catholic website. And, the original study was given to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

You are being fallacious by writing off the study because the guy is a lawyer. Unless you want to dig into the study, just saying the guy is a lawyer is not going to help your argument. He repeated showed after polygraphing his clients that many showed that they were truthful in denying they abused the accuser. Then the accuser in those cases would deny taking a polygraph themselves, why? I don’t know, could be coincidence or could be correlation?

This is not the same as Manson’s lawyer, this is a polygraph test and a lawyer handing over the results.

I thought polygraphs were neutral parties, the DA can run a polygraph tests themselves to varify the claims.

And, I don’t know if you noticed…but I didn’t pass over the story. I don’t care for yellow journalism, not saying you do that, just saying most of the MSM does that, and I don’t pay attention to them I find alternative sources for my news.

57

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
@FightingIrish

No, I do not find it funny that an attorney took it upon himself to do a study, when he has been involved with over a hundred cases. And the study wasn’t posted exclusively on Catholic Websites, it was posted on Newbusters.org, which, is not a Catholic website. And, the original study was given to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
[/quote]

You guys are funny.

I suggest you research newsbusters.

It’s actually a project of the Media Resource Center, based in Virginia. The MRC, which encompasses a few different propaganda organizations, was founded by Leo Brent Bozell III, who just happens to serve on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Yup. Newsbusters sure has no reason to write about THIS.

I’m not saying all of them were truthful- I have no doubt that there’s ambulance chaser types who just want a settlement as well.

However, his numbers can’t be trusted. Polygraphs are worthless in court, and Steier has been referenced in other articles as a “defense lawyer for the church.”

It’s exactly the same.

[quote]
And, I don’t know if you noticed…but I didn’t pass over the story. I don’t care for yellow journalism, not saying you do that, just saying most of the MSM does that, and I don’t pay attention to them I find alternative sources for my news. [/quote]

Most of the people who take part in “yellow journalism” are the ones that are on TV, and both sides of the aisle do it.

The mainstream media is much less biased than you people would purport. You saying that we all engage in yellow journalism is laughable and baseless, and tells me that you’re really not sure what yellow journalism is, but you probably heard it in a college classroom and seized on it.

58

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
@FightingIrish

No, I do not find it funny that an attorney took it upon himself to do a study, when he has been involved with over a hundred cases. And the study wasn’t posted exclusively on Catholic Websites, it was posted on Newbusters.org, which, is not a Catholic website. And, the original study was given to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
[/quote]

You guys are funny.

I suggest you research newsbusters.

It’s actually a project of the Media Resource Center, based in Virginia. The MRC, which encompasses a few different propaganda organizations, was founded by Leo Brent Bozell III, who just happens to serve on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Yup. Newsbusters sure has no reason to write about THIS.

I’m not saying all of them were truthful- I have no doubt that there’s ambulance chaser types who just want a settlement as well.

However, his numbers can’t be trusted. Polygraphs are worthless in court, and Steier has been referenced in other articles as a “defense lawyer for the church.”

It’s exactly the same.

[quote]
And, I don’t know if you noticed…but I didn’t pass over the story. I don’t care for yellow journalism, not saying you do that, just saying most of the MSM does that, and I don’t pay attention to them I find alternative sources for my news. [/quote]

Most of the people who take part in “yellow journalism” are the ones that are on TV, and both sides of the aisle do it.

The mainstream media is much less biased than you people would purport. You saying that we all engage in yellow journalism is laughable and baseless, and tells me that you’re really not sure what yellow journalism is, but you probably heard it in a college classroom and seized on it. [/quote]

Naw…I saw it all the time when I worked for different papers when I was thinking about becoming a journalist.

59

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Naw…I saw it all the time when I worked for different papers when I was thinking about becoming a journalist.[/quote]

Well I’m glad you stayed away from the profession, because you’re a bit naive and don’t seem to be very good at doing your background research.

60

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Naw…I saw it all the time when I worked for different papers when I was thinking about becoming a journalist.[/quote]

Well I’m glad you stayed away from the profession, because you’re a bit naive and don’t seem to be very good at doing your background research.[/quote]

Naive how? Explain to me what real journalism is in the main stream media, if I am mistaken about what I saw not being the norm then I will happily retract my statement, but most of the journalist I saw made up interviews from confidential sources, mislabeled who made the statements, used pictures that had nothing to do with the actual subject of the article, and other wonderful journalist techniques. The only people I saw that were doing research where either old dudes or out of college journalist or the people who were on page eight of the paper.

Now, if that isn’t how papers do it in the bigger cities, fine I only worked in Phoenix. I can admit that my experience isn’t universal because of my limited exposure to the papers in my state.

I wouldn’t say I’m great at doing research, but I do occasionally get paid to do it.

Division of Vatican officials in their efforts to correct the situation in Ireland: http://www.osv.com/PopeBenedictXVIandtheSexualAbuseCrisisBlog/tabid/8019/entryid/84/Default.aspx