As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal

Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModerator mod
edited April 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
This thread is for the civil discussion of recent issues in the Catholic Church surrounding sexual abuse and the related coverups.

Make sure that you stay civil and respectful in this thread.

Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Catholics, etc. :you do not have license to flat-out abuse people for their cherished beliefs, nor does membership in a religion imply tacit endorsement for everything that happens within a religion. Be nice.

Catholics: you do not have the presumption of correctness on your side, nor are your religious beliefs or institution disallowed from being challenged. Be nice.

Wqdwp8l.png
Irond Will on
«13456

Posts

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Since the row in my poorly-worded thread, two new lines of discussion have been made public regarding Ecumenical issues from or of the Holy See:

    - The Vatican officially took The Beatles off of their "tools of Satan" list, to which Ringo Starr asked, "Um, don't you have something better to be doing? Like the whole child rape thing?"
    - A priest in Massachusetts has called for the resignation of the Pope and more accountability from the Vatican, to which his immediate superior Archbishop told him basically to STFU.


    First off, the Ringo Starr thing probably isn't all that important, other than it showing the Vatican's poor grasp on what does and doesn't constitute a good PR campaign.

    Secondly, the Clergy the world over aren't doing themselves any favors by attacking those speaking out against abuse. Again, massive PR fail.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Catholic Church: Hey, I know! We should REPORT child abuse! Like, to the POLICE! We're GENIUSES!
    VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Monday made clear for the first time that bishops and other church officials should report clerical sex abuse to police if required by law. But the policy failed to satisfy victims who charge that the church deliberately hid abuse for decades.

    Victims, government inquiries and grand juries have all charged that the Catholic Church created what amounted to a conspiracy to cover up abuse by keeping allegations that priests raped and molested children secret and not reporting them to civil authorities.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Catholic Church: Hey, I know! We should REPORT child abuse! Like, to the POLICE! We're GENIUSES!
    VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Monday made clear for the first time that bishops and other church officials should report clerical sex abuse to police if required by law. But the policy failed to satisfy victims who charge that the church deliberately hid abuse for decades.

    Victims, government inquiries and grand juries have all charged that the Catholic Church created what amounted to a conspiracy to cover up abuse by keeping allegations that priests raped and molested children secret and not reporting them to civil authorities.

    This is actually a quote from the priest in question from the second article in my post above, and it's a great one:

    ""The last temptation, the greatest treason, is to do the right thing for the wrong reason."

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Apparently they're replacing Mahoney with Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio as the new Archbishop of Los Angeles. This effectively makes Gomez the highest ranking Latino in American Catholicism and effectively completes the Vatican's "hey, look over here!" maneuver.

    I'm happy for Gomez, but the whole thing is just overtly smacks of overshadowing the coverup.

    Witch_Hunter_84 on
    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    My brother-in-law is a priest in CT, and is a bishop's personal secretary or whatever it is they call it. Basically, he drives him all over the place, handles his appointments and appearances, and plays a lot of golf with him.

    That's all in the spirit of full disclosure--because get a load of this shit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/?hpt=T1
    Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

    Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

    The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

    The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

    The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.

    The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.

    The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.

    "The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving them access to the courts."

    Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.

    "They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar high," Bye said.

    The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.

    The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

    The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Apparently they're replacing Mahoney with Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio as the new Archbishop of Los Angeles. This effectively makes Gomez the highest ranking Latino in American Catholicism and effectively completes the Vatican's "hey, look over here!" maneuver.

    I'm happy for Gomez, but the whole thing is just overtly smacks of overshadowing the coverup.

    About that. Oopsie.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    - The Vatican officially took The Beatles off of their "tools of Satan" list, to which Ringo Starr asked, "Um, don't you have something better to be doing? Like the whole child rape thing?"
    This seems like a terrible PR move, if only because it calls attention to the fact that up until today, the Beatles were on the Catholic church's "tools of Satan" list.

    How fucking out of touch can you possibly be?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    - The Vatican officially took The Beatles off of their "tools of Satan" list, to which Ringo Starr asked, "Um, don't you have something better to be doing? Like the whole child rape thing?"
    This seems like a terrible PR move, if only because it calls attention to the fact that up until today, the Beatles were on the Catholic church's "tools of Satan" list.

    How fucking out of touch can you possibly be?

    Yeah, I mean, until I read this I had no idea there even WAS a tools of satan list. Why would you want to call attention to that?

    Also, that post is on page 1 of a google search for "vatican tools of satan list." So I'm calling bullshit on this one. Reading the CNN article, it's implied that the Beatles had been sent to the doghouse because John Lennon said they were "bigger than Jesus." Seems pretty standard Vatican behavior.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    The ScribeThe Scribe Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I am not a Roman Catholic, but I love the Roman Catholic Church, and I am heartsick over this scandal. :cry::shock::oops:

    The ultimate reason, I believe for it, is the insistence on priestly celibacy. It reduces the number of men who become priests. This means that clerical authorities have difficulty replacing problem priests, so they are inclined to keep giving them chances.

    The Scribe on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    - The Vatican officially took The Beatles off of their "tools of Satan" list, to which Ringo Starr asked, "Um, don't you have something better to be doing? Like the whole child rape thing?"
    This seems like a terrible PR move, if only because it calls attention to the fact that up until today, the Beatles were on the Catholic church's "tools of Satan" list.

    How fucking out of touch can you possibly be?

    I know, right?

    As quick as the Vatican is to try to sweep shit under the rug and make people forget, this is just a total boner.


    Pun not intended.




    Oh, hell, I don't know. It probably was.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    - The Vatican officially took The Beatles off of their "tools of Satan" list, to which Ringo Starr asked, "Um, don't you have something better to be doing? Like the whole child rape thing?"
    This seems like a terrible PR move, if only because it calls attention to the fact that up until today, the Beatles were on the Catholic church's "tools of Satan" list.

    How fucking out of touch can you possibly be?

    That reasoning is probably the main reason the beatles were still on the list

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Catholic Church: Hey, I know! We should REPORT child abuse! Like, to the POLICE! We're GENIUSES!
    VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Monday made clear for the first time that bishops and other church officials should report clerical sex abuse to police if required by law. But the policy failed to satisfy victims who charge that the church deliberately hid abuse for decades.

    Victims, government inquiries and grand juries have all charged that the Catholic Church created what amounted to a conspiracy to cover up abuse by keeping allegations that priests raped and molested children secret and not reporting them to civil authorities.

    Note the bolded and golded.

    If no law compels you to report clerical sex abuse, by all means continue to cover that shit up, m i rite?
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    My brother-in-law is a priest in CT, and is a bishop's personal secretary or whatever it is they call it. Basically, he drives him all over the place, handles his appointments and appearances, and plays a lot of golf with him.

    That's all in the spirit of full disclosure--because get a load of this shit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/?hpt=T1
    Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

    Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

    The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

    The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

    The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.

    The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.

    The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.

    "The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving them access to the courts."

    Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.

    "They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar high," Bye said.

    The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.

    The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

    The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.

    This is fucking indefensible. I dare somebody to argue otherwise.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm just honestly confused at the Vatican's actions here, do they really not have any competent PR people to do some damage control? No Bishop or Archbishop willing to at least make the correct looking moves even if nothing really changes? Honestly does anyone know who does public relations for the Vatican anyways?

    Z0re on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The Scribe wrote: »
    I am not a Roman Catholic, but I love the Roman Catholic Church, and I am heartsick over this scandal. :cry::shock::oops:

    The ultimate reason, I believe for it, is the insistence on priestly celibacy. It reduces the number of men who become priests. This means that clerical authorities have difficulty replacing problem priests, so they are inclined to keep giving them chances.

    Why, if you don't mind me asking?

    I'm not trolling I really want to know why an outsider would love the church

    override367 on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Z0re wrote: »
    I'm just honestly confused at the Vatican's actions here, do they really not have any competent PR people to do some damage control? No Bishop or Archbishop willing to at least make the correct looking moves even if nothing really changes? Honestly does anyone know who does public relations for the Vatican anyways?

    The worst thing to have as a PR rep is a stubborn client. I mean, look at the whole tiger woods mess.

    And this is the vatican we're talking about. You think they're listening to some suit who tells them they should really just come clean and get it over with?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    That's all in the spirit of full disclosure--because get a load of this shit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/?hpt=T1

    This was actually the impetus for the OP back in the hate-mongering thread of yesterweek.

    But yeah, totally sketchy. I grew up moderately religious, but Protestant, but I know that if my preacher had ever come to the parishioners and asked us to campaign against anti-child molestation laws, I'd have told him where to stick my tithing.


    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    Again, PR Fail. Just the last two weeks alone could provide enough fodder for a masters' class in what not to do as a flack.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Though it's silly that The Beatles were at all condemned by the Church, especially for so long, it was because of Lennon's statement (which still doesn't make sense, considering the actual context of the statement). It's not like they were saying the music itself was super evil.

    Also, calling it the 'tools of satin' list is pretty sensationalist, since that's not really at all what it is, and detracts from one's arguments regarding the Church. The Church certainly is out of touch, and there are many legitimate criticisms against them. Let's keep it civil and discuss this like adults though.

    TubularLuggage on
  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ross wrote:
    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    You don't think its valid, from their standpoint, to essentially say "Look, if the abuse did occur, and this goes to trial, how are we supposed to mount an effective defense?" In fact shouldn't you also be asking how the prosecution is able to make a legit case?

    As revolting as the abuse is, and the church's feet dragging that allowed it to continue in the first place, is - they still have the right to defend themselves.

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    They're improving

    only 60 years in the past now!

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    That's all in the spirit of full disclosure--because get a load of this shit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/?hpt=T1

    This was actually the impetus for the OP back in the hate-mongering thread of yesterweek.

    But yeah, totally sketchy. I grew up moderately religious, but Protestant, but I know that if my preacher had ever come to the parishioners and asked us to campaign against anti-child molestation laws, I'd have told him where to stick my tithing.


    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    Again, PR Fail. Just the last two weeks alone could provide enough fodder for a masters' class in what not to do as a flack.

    HAHAHA. I was trying to remember where I read it!

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ED! wrote: »
    Ross wrote:
    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    You don't think its valid, from their standpoint, to essentially say "Look, if the abuse did occur, and this goes to trial, how are we supposed to mount an effective defense?" In fact shouldn't you also be asking how the prosecution is able to make a legit case?

    As revolting as the abuse is, and the church's feet dragging that allowed it to continue in the first place, is - they still have the right to defend themselves.

    Well, the situations where it would be most effective is when victims reported abuse to church officials, who then covered up the incidents. The church shouldn't be able to benefit from a statute of limitations when the actively obstructed justice.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ED! wrote: »
    Ross wrote:
    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    You don't think its valid, from their standpoint, to essentially say "Look, if the abuse did occur, and this goes to trial, how are we supposed to mount an effective defense?" In fact shouldn't you also be asking how the prosecution is able to make a legit case?

    As revolting as the abuse is, and the church's feet dragging that allowed it to continue in the first place, is - they still have the right to defend themselves.

    this doesn't remove their right to defend themselves. It only makes it "harder" insofar as more people are now able to bring suit than were before. The church's whole argument that 'everyone involved is dead and we lost all the paperwork' should make it easier for them to defend themselves, not harder.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    Ross wrote:
    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    You don't think its valid, from their standpoint, to essentially say "Look, if the abuse did occur, and this goes to trial, how are we supposed to mount an effective defense?" In fact shouldn't you also be asking how the prosecution is able to make a legit case?

    As revolting as the abuse is, and the church's feet dragging that allowed it to continue in the first place, is - they still have the right to defend themselves.

    Well, the situations where it would be most effective is when victims reported abuse to church officials, who then covered up the incidents. The church shouldn't be able to benefit from a statute of limitations when the actively obstructed justice.

    I'm no lawyer but the fact that they keep secret records on this stuff tells me their obstruction of justice continues.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ED! wrote: »
    As revolting as the abuse is, and the church's feet dragging that allowed it to continue in the first place, is - they still have the right to defend themselves.

    I'm not really sure how mounting a defense against the allegations of a person 48 or younger is all that different than allegations of someone 49 or older.

    "Defending themselves" has gotten the Church where it is now.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »

    This is fucking indefensible. I dare somebody to argue otherwise.

    The current statue of limitations is 30 years. I don't think its THAT unreasonable to say "Look, if someone can bring a case 70 years after it happened...the guy in question is dead, almost everyone involved is dead, how are we supposed to defend that?" (though the point of it being equally hard to prosecute is a good one)

    The Church obviously doesn't have whiter-than-snow intentions here, of course, but the law is a bit overkill. The first article you quoted is worse- if that's their best case for reform...yikes.

    Now this next bit is REALLY indefensible.

    Short version: The Vatican's secretary of state thinks that the entire problem is because of homosexuality. Never mind all those FEMALE abuse victims, they didn't really happen. Really.
    Visiting the Chilean capital Santiago on Monday, Cardinal Bertone told a news conference: "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.

    "That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem."

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Apparently they're replacing Mahoney with Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio as the new Archbishop of Los Angeles. This effectively makes Gomez the highest ranking Latino in American Catholicism and effectively completes the Vatican's "hey, look over here!" maneuver.

    I'm happy for Gomez, but the whole thing is just overtly smacks of overshadowing the coverup.

    About that. Oopsie.

    Oh COME ON!

    Witch_Hunter_84 on
    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Apparently they're replacing Mahoney with Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio as the new Archbishop of Los Angeles. This effectively makes Gomez the highest ranking Latino in American Catholicism and effectively completes the Vatican's "hey, look over here!" maneuver.

    I'm happy for Gomez, but the whole thing is just overtly smacks of overshadowing the coverup.

    About that. Oopsie.

    Oh COME ON!

    HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I really doubt there is a high Church official that hasn't been involved in a cover-up at this point. The abuse was/is too widespread.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know I'm starting to think South Park's interpretation of the sex abuse is accurate (father maxi goes to the vatican where everyone is upset that the children keep talking - rather than being upset about the abuse)

    I'm just waiting for the fucking queen spider to show herself

    override367 on
  • Options
    The SpecialistThe Specialist Happy Face Happy PlaceRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »

    This is fucking indefensible. I dare somebody to argue otherwise.

    The current statue of limitations is 30 years. I don't think its THAT unreasonable to say "Look, if someone can bring a case 70 years after it happened...the guy in question is dead, almost everyone involved is dead, how are we supposed to defend that?" (though the point of it being equally hard to prosecute is a good one)

    The Church obviously doesn't have whiter-than-snow intentions here, of course, but the law is a bit overkill. The first article you quoted is worse- if that's their best case for reform...yikes.

    Now this next bit is REALLY indefensible.

    Short version: The Vatican's secretary of state thinks that the entire problem is because of homosexuality. Never mind all those FEMALE abuse victims, they didn't really happen. Really.
    Visiting the Chilean capital Santiago on Monday, Cardinal Bertone told a news conference: "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.

    "That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem."


    Now that we've moved past the argument in the last thread, I gotta say, I find this to be disgusting. I am genuinely interested in what all of this means to actual practicing catholics though. I left my church when it was discovered that our pastor was sleeping with another mans wife and was apparently misusing church funds (I don't really know the details behind the bit about the church funds though). Any catholics here want to weigh in (if you haven't already)?

    The Specialist on
    y54ucrle5wx0.png
    Origin Handle - OminousBulge
    XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge

  • Options
    Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Apparently they're replacing Mahoney with Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio as the new Archbishop of Los Angeles. This effectively makes Gomez the highest ranking Latino in American Catholicism and effectively completes the Vatican's "hey, look over here!" maneuver.

    I'm happy for Gomez, but the whole thing is just overtly smacks of overshadowing the coverup.

    About that. Oopsie.

    Oh COME ON!

    HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

    So they deflect accusations of abuse, by throwing up someone who's part of the coverup of the abuse, hoping to become so recursive that eventually everything will disappear in a puff of logic?

    Z0re on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The Scribe wrote: »
    I am not a Roman Catholic, but I love the Roman Catholic Church, and I am heartsick over this scandal. :cry::shock::oops:

    The ultimate reason, I believe for it, is the insistence on priestly celibacy. It reduces the number of men who become priests. This means that clerical authorities have difficulty replacing problem priests, so they are inclined to keep giving them chances.

    Why, if you don't mind me asking?

    I'm not trolling I really want to know why an outsider would love the church

    I guess cause it's a unique culture

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know I'm starting to think South Park's interpretation of the sex abuse is accurate (father maxi goes to the vatican where everyone is upset that the children keep talking - rather than being upset about the abuse)

    I'm just waiting for the fucking queen spider to show herself

    Well, at least someone will get to play Pitfall in order to change the law.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Initially the main focus of the Clerical child abuse scandals was here in Ireland.

    There were two government reports commissioned last year: The Ryan Report and The Murphy Report.

    Naturally after these were published all fucking hell broke loose, the government danced around the issue on account of the fact that they're too used to dancing to the Vatican's tune but four bishops were forced to step down though others mentioned in the report retained their position.

    Benedict then wrote this letter to the people of Ireland concerning the scandal. It was regarded as an apology but not a mea culpa.

    Since then it's been revealed that the Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady made two victims sign a vow of silence, essentially gagging them, he's refused to step down.

    So honestly I'm with Sinead O'Connor when she says if Jesus was alive today he'd be burning the Vatican to the ground and I'd be helping him.

    Saint Madness on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »

    This is fucking indefensible. I dare somebody to argue otherwise.

    The current statue of limitations is 30 years. I don't think its THAT unreasonable to say "Look, if someone can bring a case 70 years after it happened...the guy in question is dead, almost everyone involved is dead, how are we supposed to defend that?" (though the point of it being equally hard to prosecute is a good one)

    The Church obviously doesn't have whiter-than-snow intentions here, of course, but the law is a bit overkill. The first article you quoted is worse- if that's their best case for reform...yikes.

    Now this next bit is REALLY indefensible.

    Short version: The Vatican's secretary of state thinks that the entire problem is because of homosexuality. Never mind all those FEMALE abuse victims, they didn't really happen. Really.
    Visiting the Chilean capital Santiago on Monday, Cardinal Bertone told a news conference: "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.

    "That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem."

    Alternately, it's all the fault of the Jews.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yep, it's all the fault of Jews and the gays, nice to see that they're settling back into their old habits.

    Saint Madness on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ED! wrote: »
    Ross wrote:
    Plus, the Clergy's whole, "Aw, geez guys, it may lead to more frivolous lawsuits against against priests! And we don't want that, do we?"

    You don't think its valid, from their standpoint, to essentially say "Look, if the abuse did occur, and this goes to trial, how are we supposed to mount an effective defense?" In fact shouldn't you also be asking how the prosecution is able to make a legit case?

    As revolting as the abuse is, and the church's feet dragging that allowed it to continue in the first place, is - they still have the right to defend themselves.

    Rapists have a right to defend themselves, too. They get lawyers, and trials, and everything. With rights even.

    But if a rapist tried to lobby a state legislature to change the statute of limitations on rape to...wait, when did I rape that chick again? Sunday?...make that two days, then they'd be laughed off the fucking planet.

    But I guarantee that the Catholic Church probably got a non-zero number of followers to take their side in this.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Z0re wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Apparently they're replacing Mahoney with Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio as the new Archbishop of Los Angeles. This effectively makes Gomez the highest ranking Latino in American Catholicism and effectively completes the Vatican's "hey, look over here!" maneuver.

    I'm happy for Gomez, but the whole thing is just overtly smacks of overshadowing the coverup.

    About that. Oopsie.

    Oh COME ON!

    HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

    So they deflect accusations of abuse, by throwing up someone who's part of the coverup of the abuse, hoping to become so recursive that eventually everything will disappear in a puff of logic?

    Well, the article said that initial findings suggest that he wasn't trying to cover the abuse up. But they'll probably find something . . .

    Witch_Hunter_84 on
    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • Options
    The SpecialistThe Specialist Happy Face Happy PlaceRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Maybe I'm just naive but its still hard to accept that this is so widespread within the church.

    I mean, ok, a few bad eggs here and there... but this is like every catholic priest in existence has either actively commited the crimes in question or has covered it up in some way.

    The Specialist on
    y54ucrle5wx0.png
    Origin Handle - OminousBulge
    XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge

  • Options
    TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Now that we've moved past the argument in the last thread, I gotta say, I find this to be disgusting. I am genuinely interested in what all of this means to actual practicing catholics though. I left my church when it was discovered that our pastor was sleeping with another mans wife and was apparently misusing church funds (I don't really know the details behind the bit about the church funds though). Any catholics here want to weigh in (if you haven't already)?

    I view the faith as being much larger than those currently in charge of it. Yes, some people did some terrible things, and there's some corruption in the current leadership.
    That being said, that's an issue with those people and the current hierarchy, and not the religion itself. There's no reason for me to stop attending my local church. I'm understandably quite upset with those who have committed and hid the atrocities in question, and I hope they are brought to justice. It has nothing to do with my following of my faith though.

    TubularLuggage on
Sign In or Register to comment.