The Catholic church has long believed it is a society unto itself and not answerable to civil society. Punishment is is god’s domain. This was all internal issues between the church and its members.
But I’ll be these rapists had to say like a BILLION Hail Marys and Our Fathers as penance.
:rolleyes:
I don’t mean to sound rude, but you clearly have no idea how this particular converstion got to this point. If I had to guess, I’d guess you read the last two or three posts on this subject - reporting laws – and then, full of righteous indignation, leapt in to write this post.
The answer to your question, though, is a mixed one. There are some instances in which I think you are absolutely a good person if you know someone has raped children and yet fail to report it. One classic example would be a lawyer who hears such a confession from a prospective defendant. Another would be a priest who hears a confession from a penitent. These are privileges recognized in the law, and they serve an extremely important societal purpose.
They are not really relevant to the conversation as it developed here. But then, neither is your question.
Perhaps you could quote the text of the law you believe applied, then.
That’s a general link to a google search on laws in general and a timeline for laws, but nothing in the way of specifics.
No, I was answering the claims made in the string of this thread that began in post 272.
No.
But you appear not to understand that I was continuing discussion of a claim that began in post 272.
Did you not read that one?
In other words, Idi Amin not a cannibal.
Thank you for your answer, I thought that was what you would say, because I do believe you are a decent man.
I’ve been following the whole thread, so yes, I got your point. However, even though you are a lawyer, nitpicking this shit is not reflecting on you well. Hell, you might even win a case with this. I’m not a lawyer, so I really don’t know.
The point you seem to miss is that this thread is not interested in the defense of the RCC’s actions in the matters being discussed. The consensus seems to be that the hierarchy committed some egregious crap. There seems to have been a huge coverup, committed in part by the Pope no less, of child rape. It doesn’t matter whether the law required them to report to civil authorities or not. They didn’t. That’s wrong, or sinful, if you prefer. It’s also illegal to keep knowledge of felonies a secret in many jurisdictions. No, I’m not going to cite law on this, you know it better than I do.
Unless you’re being paid to defend the RCC’s actions as an attorney, Bricker, this is not serving you well. I don’t mean this with any malice. I’m actually trying to persuade you to drop the nitpicking because, while you may win a point here or there, this isn’t a battle you can win or break even on. 
Why couldn’t a priest make the rapist turning himself in and coming clean part of his penance? Why would a good person do any less?
Let’s just hope they don’t study the medical literature on the rare cases of full-term ectopic tubal gestations that survived.
A priest can, and in fact should, in my view.
But that has nothing to with the fact that he can’t, and should not, report the confession to anyone else, which is what I was answering.
Sure.
And if the consensus of another thread was that Idi Amin was a lying, murderous, psycopathic, evil, cannibalistic dictator, and I was speaking to a bunch of people with strong opinions on Idi Amin, I suspect I’d get a similar statement: the nitpicky details of our criticism of Amin are not important. What is important is that Amin is guilty of some egregious crap, and you don’t help yourself when you defend him.
At which point I should… what? Slink away, saying to myself, “Does it really matter?”
Or say, “I’m not disputing the lying, murderous, psycopathic, evil part, but the man was simply not a cannibal, and although it’s perhaps nitpicking to point this out, I feel this site exists because there’s some value in getting the record straight.”
Good, so the Catholic Church had no reason to let it’s pedos go free.
Further the priests have to be quite rule is a bit extreme. If someone is rapes children and is has access to children, maybe you should damn the religion and call the cops. Would Jesus want you to be silent and let more children be raped?
Would you make the same argument about a lawyer?
You know, given the question, there’s really only one answer that can apply (and if it’s not absolutely linear, in a classic cause-effect progression, well, that’s just too bad). Anyway, the answer is:The Aristocrats!
No, because the constitution provides protections against self-incrimination, as well as providing a right to counsel.
I don’t see how society benefits by having the law respect the seal of the confessional.
Been following this thread, and Bricker’s varying apologetics of the RCC therein. I can’t hold my tongue any longer.
If I could publicly piss on some copy of Canon Law, I’d do so with delight. Or maybe rip up a photo of Ratzi on the occasion of my next appearance of Saturday Night Live. “Catholic bashing?” Count me in!
As long as it’s only with words.
I like bashing my bishop.
…or with piss or torn photos, that is.
Could you quote the text of the other 49 states? The fact of the matter is that you are relying on a non-specified exception to the law in one and only one state, when the obligation to report child abuse existed since the 60s. First you said it was only a few years old. When that was demonstrated as incorrect, you decided on only Massachusetts. Only the Pope knows why Massachusetts is the controlling jurisdiction when this has gone on in every damn state of the union. I don’t have a MA law library, nor access to one on the net absent spending hundreds of dollars outside my subscription. I don’t really think there is a point to it.
The sorry state of affairs is that the authority and secrecy of the RCC has led to this happening for centuries. It was one of the things my grandfather left the church over. He was an alter boy in 19th century Germany, and it was a scandal then. It remains a scandal today in large part because there is no mea culpa, there is no fixing the problem, there is only finger pointing outside an ancient set of authoritarian rules that exacerbate the problem.
The Pope is just a man. He isn’t infallible and he has had too many people kissing his ass for too long to understand that the RCC is dead wrong on this. It is a cancer on the RCC. The RCC has enormous potential for doing great good in the world. But before that happens, it must accept responsibility and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
We must assume you aren’t talking about lawyers raping children, but rather keeping silent about the details a client provides her with of the crimes the client has committed. This is an exception created by the attorney client privilege. It does not allow a lawyer to fail to report a reasonable threat of a crime: silence then would be unethical. Lawyers are also typically not the titular head of schools for children or the day to day administrators of the same. No privilege would apply in that situation.
Attorney client privilege isn’t something the RCC can hide behind here, even by analogy. That privilege is necessary to ensure that the rights of the accused are not trampled by the state and to make sure that the state proves its case. It is also a shield and not a sword: a lawyer, once knowing the details, cannot suborn perjury from the client, but can help steer the client around the elements that the state needs to prove its case.
I’m guessing that you are trying to make the best possible defense for the church as an arguing exercise. Sometimes the best defense is to accept responsibility and express genuine remorse. The RCC hasn’t been getting that. The laity is being deprived of the benefits that expressing remorse would bring in allowing the RCC to get about it’s business. Now, I understand that statements of remorse have been made. The general public has ample reason to regard these statements as insufficient and insincere.
Bricker, just what court do you think you’re in here?
We’re discussing morality. That’s the reason for the organization “on trial” here to exist - to profess morality. Your "defense’ is that some technicalities in the law and wome wording in the defendants’ own policy manual obviate any moral discussion whatever. In that cause, you yourself are aiding and abetting, as well as excusing, child rapists.
And you profess to have your feelings hurt when you are called dishonest and amoral along with the organization you so ardently apologize for. Those are just statements of fact, based on ample evidence.
Seriously, what would Christ think of this church, one of many that use His name? What would Christ think of you?