GameBanshee Forums

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

Originally posted by Beldin
Is that OK for you @Sleepy ?

Works for me, cheers

It looks like the archdiocese of Boston is trying to "get tough" and settle all court cases as quickly as possible:

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local ... 172002.htm

Too bad the considerable wealth of any of the established churches (Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal) isn't available to local parishes to settle such disputes.

Originally posted by fable
@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 cannot say for certain (because I don't know all of the facts or any of the parties to the crimes), but there are lots of ways to "know" things while retaining "plausible deniability" ("wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more").

I am not Catholic, so I don't want to seem like I'm bashing the RCC, but I believe that the culture they have of avoiding secular authorities, the unwillingness of American prosecutors to go after priests and the church's penchance for settling out-of-court has led abusive priests to believe that they will never face earthly justice. It is my opinion that the upper echelons of the church believe that turning sexual predators over for prosecution diminishes their power and authority; for them it's not so much about protecting abusive priests as it is about maintaining their stature.

Take for instance the case of Cardinal Law in Boston. Despite tremendous pressure, church officials did not want to see him resign. They knew he covered for several abusors, but they felt that if Law were pressured into resignation, other cardinals and bishops would then be vulnerable. At that point the issue changed from bringing abusive priests to justice to protecting the "best interests" of the church.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Take for instance the case of Cardinal Law in Boston. Despite tremendous pressure, church officials did not want to see him resign. They knew he covered for several abusors, but they felt that if Law were pressured into resignation, other cardinals and bishops would then be vulnerable. At that point the issue changed from bringing abusive priests to justice to protecting the "best interests" of the church.

I've been reading today that Church donations in Boston have fallen off drastically--and that Law was still leading the PR campaign to get donations. A Professor of Management at Boston University pointed out that while Law's finely oiled machine had brought in the cash before, now it's a terrible liability. Apparently, though, nobody has the authority to talk sense to him; yet another weaknes of rigid, top-down management.

I just heard an hour-long interview with a pair of journalists who were part of the investigative team that broke the Boston archdiocese pedophilia story for the Boston Globe, this past year. They spoke of getting an order that in effect opened and disclosed all the documents relating to the Church deals, which had been sealed after each legal agreement with a victim had been made. The RCC had fought the Boston Globe in court, threatened the newspaper with counter-suits and tried to get their access restricted on a number of fronts, without success. These reporters had gone through more than 20,000 pages worth of documentation, at least half of it relating to one particular priest.

What struck the investigative team were two facts. First, that in all the documentation back and forth by the Church and its various consultants and priests, there was not a single mention made of the victims. Second, that in all the many letters sent by Bishop Law to the various pedophile priests he dealt with over the years, there is never a mention made of the pedophilia, itself. There are always euphemisms in use--"your illness," or "your disease." There has been some speculation recently that the pedophile's traditional inability to accept their own guilt and deeds may have been exarcerbated by the Church's soothing, evasive letters.

Meanwhile, the RCC has been hit by lawsuits totalling more than 40 million dollars. Its lawyers are stating that they can't quite manage that much. The Church has stated that it will need to cutback operations. Interestingly, the operations it has slated for removal are soup kitchens and shelters in the poor areas of Boston, rather than selling high-income land or schools. From an investment POV I suppose that's savvy, but as a public relations move, it seems to leave something to be desired.

Honestly i am revolted by the whole turn of events, with the church not dealing with these men properly. I have stated by opinion on the issue before, but heck the ones covering up deserve a bit of the punishment as well. I am not very familiar with the US legal system, but is there anyway the US govt can step in and take those guys to jail? The evidence is everywhere and all they need to do is take it to court and get it over with.

There is probably a lot the government can do in terms of prosecution, although in some instances, the statute of limitations may prohibit criminal charges being brought against pedophile priests. The problem is that there is a traditional reluctance on the part of the government to prosecute powerful religious groups for fear of being seen as a government interferring with the internal matters of a church.

My wife pointed out to me a cheesy bit of news footage on the evening news a few weeks back. One of the most highly profiled pedophile priests in the Boston scandal, now retired in California, was shown led off in handcuffs from his apartment by federal marshalls. As news it was pure fluff, since there wasn't anything smelling of news about it; and the actual press conference given at roughly the same time, describing the reasons for the event, were almost completely ignored by the media. (Why get words explaining something, when you can get an image that says nothing, but looks good?) The fact that the whole thing had been carefully released to the press before the priest-in-retirement was arrested sent out the signal that the law enforcement arm of the federal government was getting involved. I'm just not sure why, at this point, unless it's to score some popularity in an FBI and CIA that look very, very bad.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
There is probably a lot the government can do in terms of prosecution, although in some instances, the statute of limitations may prohibit criminal charges being brought against pedophile priests. The problem is that there is a traditional reluctance on the part of the government to prosecute powerful religious groups for fear of being seen as a government interferring with the internal matters of a church.

This is so revolting - is the church supposed to be above the law? How is pedophilia an internal matter of the church? I absolutely do not understand the US legal system - do priests enjoy something similar to diplomatic immunity?

That is just crap. Sorry to say but what use is the US govt esp. if wish to protect its people, when it won't go after pyschos like these. They should go in and forcibly remove the preists if need be. If i am getting all this right, the US govt is not going to get involved. The Preists will sit around with a desk job still being paid, the problems will or might go on and only the normal average joe shoe gives a damn?

Originally posted by C Elegans


This is so revolting - is the church supposed to be above the law? How is pedophilia an internal matter of the church? I absolutely do not understand the US legal system - do priests enjoy something similar to diplomatic immunity?

Unfortunately for all intents and purposes they do. We can but hope that this will change over time, and members of the clergy will be treated no differently to any other citizens.

Originally posted by C Elegans
do priests enjoy something similar to diplomatic immunity?

Not necessarily, but both the secular authorities and church officials (and I'm speaking about all denominations, not just the Roman Catholics) would prefer to keep things under wraps, avoid prosecution, settle civil suits out of court and not go to trial.

The government likes it that way because then they don't look like they're going after churches. It also just so happens that churches command a lot of money and are very influential in the way their members vote, so elected officials are hesitant to take on the major denominations for fear of losing political support.

The churches like it that way because unless an abused person files charges, it is not a criminal matter. The Catholic church has apparently been quietly paying damage settlements for years to keep things out of the press and it's worked out for them until just recently.

I suspect that this unwritten agreement between the government and the churches is about to change drastically, and it's a shame that it's taken so many years.

This is going to be a one liner.
But hell that sucks.

As a side note, remember the play-made-film, Becket? The hero (played in the film by clarion-voiced Richard Burton) was a close friend of an early Renaissance English king whom the latter appointed Archbishop of London, in the hopes of gaining some control over the Church. Then, when a priest was accused of committing some secular offense in town, Becket refused to turn him over for civil prosecution. The structure and content of the play is designed to make us feel morally aligned with Becket. We are supposed to believe he is the "little man," the dissident, fighting the forces of big government, opportunism, cronyism, immorality.

But all this is a bunch of modern anachronistic thought. Becket was merely taking the tough new line that the RCC had recently laid out for its own protection of its representatives in secular states, establishing their invulnerability before secular law. And there's a direct correlation (as I see it) to today's Churchly mentality that ignores the victims in this pedolphile scandal while concentrating on protecting the priests. Becket could just as well (not that he was, in fact) have been protecting a priest from charges of "unnatural carnal acts with a merchant's son" in the 13th century. The policy never changed.

I cannot seem to reconcile...

...what the RCC is preaching with what they are doing... are they doing more harm than good by protecting the alleged suspects without the due process of the law?

This would be a bad precedent...

...I wouldn't be surprised to see a sudden influx of perverts entering the seminaries and put their "disease" on hold till they get their confirmations...

... after that they can proceed again with what they fantasize in doing...

Re: I cannot seem to reconcile...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...what the RCC is preaching with what they are doing... are they doing more harm than good by protecting the alleged suspects without the due process of the law?

This would be a bad precedent...

@Maharlika, as I just wrote, this is a precedent that's been in existence since the 13th century AC.

As for "perverts entering the seminaries," I strongly doubt it. Seminaries are not high schools for sexual deviants. They have extremely difficult curricula, and are designed to weed out all applicants that have the slightest doubt about the priestly vocation. In any case, pedophilia typically emerges in adulthood, not before.

Which leads me to this unnerving question...

Originally posted by fable


They have extremely difficult curricula, and are designed to weed out all applicants that have the slightest doubt about the priestly vocation. In any case, pedophilia typically emerges in adulthood, not before.

...why then do we get an alarming number of reports if they were suppose to weed out these kind of potential problem?

BTW, I'm not just talking about pedophilia here, I'm also talking about priests who "take advantage" on vulnerable females... also (I think) that these pedophiles are predominantly homosexuals (one can be aware that he is a homosexual without having to reach "the ripe age of adulthood") since (I heard) most of the victims are young boys...

Re: Which leads me to this unnerving question...

Originally posted by Maharlika
also (I think) that these pedophiles are predominantly homosexuals (one can be aware that he is a homosexual without having to reach "the ripe age of adulthood") since (I heard) most of the victims are young boys

Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals, even if their victims are of the same sex. Pedophilia is considered a disease and is not related to sexual orientation.

I think that no matter what seminaries do to weed out sexual predators, some will always slip through. What the different denominations need to do is develop a comprehensive and universal policy that deals with the pedophiles and abusors who make it into the priesthood. This is where the RCC has dropped the ball. By covering for the sexual predators in the ranks of their clergy, they are covering their own asses at the expense of those they are supposed to protect and minister.

Thanks, HLD...

...for enlightening me on this point.

I agree with you 100% that this problem be properly addressed by the RCC without fear of losing face and constituents...

Re: Which leads me to this unnerving question...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...why then do we get an alarming number of reports if they were suppose to weed out these kind of potential problem?

As mentioned, pedophilia clinically appears in adulthood, so the priests wouldn't find it among students. I think we should be more concerned about coverups within the priesthood by the RCC hierarchy rather than any presumed failure to spot the thing in the seminary. There are definitely other things wrong with the mindset the seminary ingrains in its students (from my perspective), but I don't think failure to spot pedophiliacs is a problem they own.