To give it some context, that instruction is similar to the law of secrecy concerning grand jury proceedings. It prevents someone from sharing testimony that comes about in the context of a church trial. It doesn’t stop anyone from reporting crimes or sharing the results of pre-trial investigations.
Thank you.
If you’d like to retract or apologize your accusation of lying, that’d be just peachy as well.
Keep reading. It IS a lie.
To be clear, YOU didn’t lie.
But that accusation IS a lie.
This article? (emphasis supplied):
I would humbly submit that use of ad hominem is instead the last “defense of the indefensible”. It indeed comes in handy when logic and reason are no longer part of one’s rhetorical arsenal.
Accusations of lying are not allowed in Great Debates. Don’t do this again.
As a general reminder:
This is GD and this thread is getting overwhelmed by personal swipes and broadsides about the RCC and religion. It’s time to dial it back.
As I said in post #123, I had no intention of accusing Munch of lying – my intent was to say simply that the claim was not true, as, indeed, it isn’t.
So let’s continue from that: the claim is not accurate.
I appreciate that (and I did see your subsequent posts). The remainder of my note was not only in response to your exchange with Munch, however.
In reviewing the sticky, I see that my statement was indeed over the line. My heartfelt apologies.
Let me reply directly to you, Munch. I let my frustration cloud my perception on the implications of what I was saying. I had no doubt you were simply relating the cite you read, and doing so in perfectly good faith. But in trying to type too much, too quickly, and with too little governance, I posted a pretty offensive shortcut that I didn’t at all intend. The claim itself is wrong. You, yourself, did nothing wrong, and I certainly apologize for suggesting otherwise.
It need not have been so premeditated.
A more charitable explanation is that they devoutly held a faith that forbid them to act on their sexual preferences, and made hetero marriage unattractive prospect. . Thus the vow of celibacy was not as strong a deterrent as it would be to a man with acceptable (within catholicism) urges.
They may have also entered into the priesthood in an attempt to mend their evil ways…much as I joined the boy scouts when I saw myself becoming a juvenile delinquent.
My take is that most of these pedo-priests are trying to behave, but are like the Alcoholic who keeps going back to AA after falling off the wagon. I really can’t imagine a pedo-preist willingly tolerating the day in and day out condemnation of who he knows himself to be just so he can have a bit easier access to the children, and a bit of air cover from the higher ups. As a lefty it is a bit annoying to work with people who routinely spout idiotic fox news talking points. But hey, I’m not a pedo, so I can’t really say how much crap one is willing to put up with for the joy of kiddie dideling.
Bricker,
If the church authorities had done the moral thing and reported Geoghan to the civil authorities immediately. the statute of limitations would not have run out and those charges would not have to have been dismissed.
So the church took advantage of the statute of limitations to aid a child molester in escaping responsibility for his crime.
I also love the way you talk about the “Vatican law” that prescribed a five-year statute of limitations, when the first argument of any defender of child rapists is that the individual dioceses govern themselves, so the Vatican can’t be held responsible.
Bricker - thank you.
I do respect the position you’re trying to defend (or, at least, the act of doing so). I myself was a staunch defender of the faith for many years, but it was a matter of many many straws building up and breaking my camel’s back. Each straw could probably be strongly defended and justified - but it became too much for me. The institutional processes of the church certainly have a purpose, a history and usefulness. But I think there was an opportunity for the church to rise above those restraints and do the right thing and they didn’t do so - and that’s something that I personally cannot forgive.
So I’m going to bow out of the thread now, because attacking the institution and the processes of the church is futile - they’re all internally consistent and justifiable to an extent, and attacking them is only going to frustrate me and annoy you.
In the case of Geoghan… yes. In the case of Fr.Murphy, the church DID report the charges and the police and prosecutors declined to prosecute.
In the case of Geoghan, yes. In the case of Fr. Murphy, no.
Yes. It’s quite similar to our system, in which, say, Minnesota is the only entity that can prosecute a robbery in Minneapolis, but is constrained by the federal constitution’s basic rights guaranteed to criminal defendants.
I’m glad you love it; I think our system of dual sovereignty is outstanding, even though at times it causes Minnesota to lose the opportunity to prosecute criminals.
Except Minnesota is required to respect the rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. In the final analysis, the barrel of an M-1A1 Abrams is what requires that. Respecting the Vatican’s rules is a voluntary thing. They should have no legal standing in the United States.
If you are a Catholic in the US, follow them at your will. But if they come into conflict with US law, then expect time in prison to follow as a result.
But the complaint was that the Vatican failed to defrock a priest. US law is silent on that point.
Except there’s no conflict. What the hell are you talking about?
Check the OP again. There is no case under discussion. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of cases under discussion. The discussion is not whether one specific priest should have been defrocked in his dotage, but rather what should we think of an organization that values its own interests ahead of the interests of the children in its care. An organization that shelters criminals from the law, and provides them with fresh victims when they are exposed.
There were specific cases in posts 45-46 that I have been responding to.
More generally, I was rejecting the notion that the Vatican, as opposed to local dioceses, had culpabale conduct.
Any idea how many local dioceses were involved in culpable conduct? Did they just all happen to act similarly without any knowledge by the Vatican?
Call it institutionalized child abuse by anti-social deranged individuals who’d rather protect abusers rather than make the choice to be moral.
It’s a tragedy so many people continue to choose to let them abuse their children. It’s one of the perks of religion.
I don’t know how many, but when one is doing something wrong, one does not wish to call attention to oneself. So your use of “just happen” is incorrect. The local dioceses did not “just happen” to act similarly; they acted similarly in the same way that, say, burglars around the country act similarly, without needing to imagine a national conspiracy to train burglars.