GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by fable


Think of what you're writing: known sex offenders. What establishes the status of being a "sex offender?" Not until they're found guilty in a court of law is a person considered a sex offender, and until now, none of the cases has gone to court because the RCC has paid hush money to gag the families of abused children.
[/i]

How about the victim and their families - have they not decided the status of sex offender? What about all the cases that never go to court? I don't see how this 'status' requires more definition, especially if 'hush money' has been paid...surely that in itself titles them 'known sex offenders' to the victims and the RCC...

Originally posted by Yshania


How about the victim and their families - have they not decided the status of sex offender?

Not legally, for the same reason that if I accused you of sex offenses against a minor, you would not automatically become the thing you are accused of being. If a family has accepted money not to bring charges, testify, or speak to anyone concerning the instances they know of sex abuse by priests, they're effectively and legally gagged.

Now, however, with the change of atmosphere, at least the immediate likelihood of any such cover-up is greatly reduced in the US, and the RCC. But I can't help thinking, on the basis of responses that I've heard from various clergy over the last week, that they're being dragged kicking and screaming into this. Even yesterday, when I heard a BBC roundtable discussion among representatives of the RCC, the Anglicans, and the Russian Orthodox Church that included child molestation by priests, the Roman Catholic priest insisted that the problem would eventually be defined as not related to the clergy, but a generalized coverup of pedophilia throughout society. I couldn't help but remark to my wife, "He seems to be missing the point, doesn't he?"

I think in many (if not all) states it is a crime not to report child abuse that you know is occurring. I ran into this when I was a small group leader at a youth conference in North Carolina. We were told that North Carolina law requires people to report incidents of abuse. This is done so that people who deal with confidential information (counselors, teachers, etc.) do not have to balance the option of betraying the confidence of a patient against that person's well-being if they are in iminent harm.

The youth conference made a big deal out of this because confidentiality is the cornerstone of a good small group dynamic; if the members of the group do not believe that what they say in the group will not become the conference's gossip, the group will fail. However, I always prefaced the confidentiality agreement by telling everyone that if they were abused and it came out during the week, I was required by law to report it.

I believe that most other states have similar laws, but I am not sure. I also believe that even those states who require people to report abuse almost never prosecute unless it occurs on a massive and institutional scale. Where this culture of covering for abusive priests will hurt the church is in civil suits where they will either pay out massive damage awards or pay lots of money to settle out of court (as has been their practice in the past).

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think in many (if not all) states it is a crime not to report child abuse that you know is occurring.

@HLD, is it your belief that dioceses in Masachusetts and other states where sexual abuse by priests have occurred were illegally withholding information? Or were they twisting the law by playing on the fact that these were "alleged" instances of sexual abuse?

I am very miltant in my views. There are some crimes which are worthy of a death sentence. Rape is one, and sexual abuse of children is another. These clergy men should not be kept in church, they should be tried in a open court, and then sent off to jail, where I hope they get beaten to a pulp there. Such crimes, are by choice not a disease or a illness.

I'm with you on this one, Fas...

Originally posted by CM
I am very miltant in my views. There are some crimes which are worthy of a death sentence. Rape is one, and sexual abuse of children is another. These clergy men should not be kept in church, they should be tried in a open court, and then sent off to jail, where I hope they get beaten to a pulp there. Such crimes, are by choice not a disease or a illness.

...if indeed, these priests are guilty (if the RCC's own investigations would likely show but they would keep mum on it) then they should have lost their credibility to be priests. Not only was it against their sacred vow of being chaste for the rest of their lives, but it's everything against what they are supposed to stand for.

No wonder a lot of people "make fun" of us Catholics and a number of those who used to believe turn the other way... it's people like these (among others) who give the Faith a bad name.

Re: I'm with you on this one, Fas...

Originally posted by Maharlika
... it's people like these (among others) who give the Faith a bad name.

Not only those....IMHO the RCC (as an institution that is - ) has now for centuries been a retreat for the social outcasts everywhere. But that POV is open to discussion...


No worries,

Beldin

Social outcasts...

Originally posted by Beldin


Not only those....IMHO the RCC (as an institution that is - ) has now for centuries been a retreat for the social outcasts everywhere. But that POV is open to discussion...

...is a very broad term. Lepers and Aids victims are one. Needless to say, the flaws of the institution and its members are mainly man's flaws by nature.

When I talk about The Faith, I mean my personal relationship with God as being brought up as a Catholic.

A great number of the Spanish friars in the Philippines during the colonial days were very much guilty (and more) as these American preists (allegedly).

Re: Social outcasts...

Originally posted by Maharlika

When I talk about The Faith, I mean my personal relationship with God as being brought up as a Catholic.

@Mah: The distinction is quite clear to me - I don't have a problem with true "believers" (I hope that's the correct term..) - but with the institutionalized church.

I think that:

By enforcing the celibacy (sp ?) onto their priests they open the door to some very nasty habits - just because "the pressure" (read: the sexuality) in those men can't be released the "usual way" there's always been a certain amount of homosexuality and/or worse going on in "the church"...up to the point where homosexuals (who are in frequent cases socially outcast - even if I can't see why..) often went for priesthood to escape the cruel "real" world of sexual relationships....

I also think that some men who joined "the church" think of females as something "below" human....and that's where violence (rape ?) come into play....


(I know this POV could get me into some heavy flaming, but I'm sure we could keep this civilized...)

No worries,

Beldin

Believers is the right term, @Beldin. There are a few others, but believers will do.

IIRC there was talk about the RCC easing up on it's requirement on priests being celibate a while ago, what happened with that?

No disagreement there, Beldin...

Originally posted by Beldin



@Mah: The distinction is quite clear to me - I don't have a problem with true "believers" (I hope that's the correct term..) - but with the institutionalized church.

I think that:

By enforcing the celibacy (sp ?) onto their priests they open the door to some very nasty habits - just because "the pressure" (read: the sexuality) in those men can't be released the "usual way" there's always been a certain amount of homosexuality and/or worse going on in "the church"...up to the point where homosexuals (who are in frequent cases socially outcast - even if I can't see why..) often went for priesthood to escape the cruel "real" world of sexual relationships....

I also think that some men who joined "the church" think of females as something "below" human....and that's where violence (rape ?) come into play....

...cause I know also what happens behind convent walls and seminary chambers...

...but in my country, a lot of us are still true believers despite the flaws of some members of the priesthood. Afterall they are not God, but messengers and to an extent, a "proxy" if I may say so myself.

There are some gay priests that I think I know of, but they do a heck of a good job and many truly believe that these priests don't do any hanky-panky. Others would say that (naively or not, I don't care) that it's their way of staying away from sin and also as something to compensate for what they think as sinful.

Good point @Mah, but this opens up a completely new line of discussion....

Let me put it THIS way - supposedly GOD (as a being) is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniknowing (??) ...and a couple of other "omnis".

So - GOD (I won't get into the discussion if he exists or not. ) is able to hear/see/feel me wherever I am, whatever I do.

Correct ?

So IF I can talk to "the boss" WHY should I bother with his ground staff?

no worries,

Beldin

As not to stray from fable's thread...

Originally posted by Beldin

So IF I can talk to "the boss" WHY should I bother with his ground staff?

... I'll try to keep this close to the topic.

These American Bishops (and the rest of the RCC's clergy) are suppose to be teachers too and act as role models. That is why it is so disheartening for us and hypocritical on their part if they continue to serve as priests (esp. with lofty positions).

To answer your question, think of those who believed in Him through the 12 disciples without having to meet Jesus first hand. The priests and other members of the religious are supposed to make us more aware and recognize God's presence, the rest is up to us to follow it up on our own.

I can't remember the exact wording but Jesus said something like this: "Blessed are those who haven't seen Me and yet still believe in Me..." or something to that effect.

Agreed...

..@Mah .

But If the're here to serve as an example to us "mere mortals" then they sholdn't be able to HIDE behind "mother church"....

That's exactly the point...

Originally posted by Beldin


But If the're here to serve as an example to us "mere mortals" then they sholdn't be able to HIDE behind "mother church"....

...as we Catholics would quote the Bible: "Let the Truth set you free..."

There are so few things worse than betrayal and abuse of trust...

Re: Agreed...

@Beldin, i am removing those comments, i feel they are unnecessary to the debate at hand and could offend.

Re: Re: Agreed...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
@Beldin, i am removing those comments, i feel they are unnecessary to the debate at hand and could offend.

Feel free..... ....It's nevertheless my opinion on HOW to proceed with them.

Re: Re: Re: Agreed...

Originally posted by Beldin


Feel free..... ....It's nevertheless my opinion on HOW to proceed with them.

I am not trying to silence your opinion, i would just prefer if you put it across in a less inflammatory way, i am sure that many Catholics (and GB has a few) would not be happy with that kind of comment.

Re: That's exactly the point...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...as we Catholics would quote the Bible: "Let the Truth set you free..."

There are so few things worse than betrayal and abuse of trust...

I've never understood how giving your soul to another (ie God) is setting yourself free. IMO freedom is found within, not without.

I have to agree with you here though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
...
in a less inflammatory way....

ROFL @Sleepy...you have a way with words...

OK - then let's just settle for
"I don't like to see them go unpunished, and I would like to see the punishment to be something SUITABLE. "

Whereas you could define "suitable" as any punishment that the RCC in its history has seen fit to inflict on its opponents...


Is that OK for you @Sleepy ?