Well, I think, then, you’re answered the first question as well as it can be answered. The priests protect the rapists among them because a lot of the ones protecting the rapists are themselves rapists who just haven’t been accused yet, and the ones that aren’t are Just Following Orders. The comparison to the blue line is an apt one, except the Catholic Church is FAR more insular; it’s more than a millennium older than the modern concept of a civilian police force, much less an actual police force.
As to the laity, I think your explanation is kind of part of it, though remember we’re talking about a church that doesn’t exactly call itself the One True Way anymore; the RCC is explicity ecumenical and teaches that one need not be Catholic to be saved. Rather, it’s just that people rally around leadership figures, and the Catholic church is a bunch of leadership figures; it’s not just hierarchical, it’s PROUDLY hierarchical, something it teaches kids in school.
Many threads on the SDMB have talked about how when a person’s long-held belief is challenged, they will double down on it even in the face of absolutely rock solid evidence they’re wrong, and will rationalize, slice things up, jump through any number of hoops to avoid admitting the truth. The Oatmeal of all places has a great comic about this phenomenon.
This is not by any stretch limited to the RCC; look at the absolutely sickening worship for Joe Paterno that continues at Penn State. In the case of the RCC, the deification and worship Joe Paterno was the subject of is played out in a bazillion parishes and dioceses. I am sure we could find, with Googling, any number of child rape scandals involving other denominations of churches and we’d see similar reactions from the laity, the difference being that no other church is as big and as well organized as the RCC, and so as capable of hiding and moving the perpetrators from place to place. Disgracefully, the state has far too often helped them.
For a lifetime Catholic to admit that the church they’ve been a part of all their life is run by what amounts to a child sex cult is a hell of a change in one’s central beliefs.
Oh, absolutely. One rationalization is the Jesuitical (literally) one that distinguishes between the *historic *Church, the earthly organization run by all the defective humans who have done all those nasty things over the centuries, and the *true *Church that is the heir to Jesus himself. There are numerous other approaches.
But there are many, many people who *have *bailed out of it, for this and other reasons outside the scope of this thread. There are many churches with just a handful of the elderly in the pews, many more that have been closed when they all died off, and much property that has had to be sold off to pay judgments against the dioceses. It would be going too far to say they’ve learned some Christian humility, but they have every chance now. Meanwhile, if you still like all that ceremony and pomp and awe and religious teaching, but without the misogyny and pretended celibacy, without a Pope pretending to be infallible, without financial corruption, and without institutionalized child rape, the Episcopalians are right across the street.
I’d like to take a crack at this, if no-one objects.
2014, in a thread about Felon Disenfranchisement. Among other arguments against it (and very few I could see in favour) was the practice of striking felons off the voter rolls tended to catch perfectly innocent citizens with similar names. Bricker’s response to this generally was what-about-isms, i.e. what about innocent people who get convicted of crimes - does objecting to felon disenfranchisement on this basis mean one wants to do away with the criminal justice system altogether?
I’m sure Bricker can present any number of precise reasons why the situations are different, but I feel confident in interpreting his opinion as (in the case of the franchise, at least), there is no practical difference between a presumption of guilt and a presumption of innocence - if a citizen is struck from the voter rolls because the government presumes guilt (and based on nothing more than the citizen’s name being similar to a known felon’s name), the onus is on the individual to demonstrate innocence (and to the satisfaction of an election official, I presume, not even a judge or jury), if he want to exercise his right to vote.
It’s of no specific relevance to the Pell case, just an observation that Bricker’s views and definitions of “the presumption of innocence” may be flexible at times. By the standards Bricker offered in that thread, Pell should be be forced to demonstrate that he is innocent. If he cannot or will not, feel free to strip away his rights.
As PastTense posted, Cardinal George Pell is now facing a trial for allegations of actual sexual abuse, not just covering up abuses by others. At least he is now in Australia.
The voter qualification issue doesn’t involve someone being accused of a crime. It involves someone being asked to respond to an inquiry, and striking their registration if they fail to respond – this is not a criminal sanction.
I don’t think there’s a presumption of innocence in lots of different circumstances – but I do when the discussion involves criminal process. And that’s what I said, and that’s what you quoted me saying.
Unfortunately, Bernard Law escaped earthly justice, with no little help from his organization. One can only speculate what he’s facing in an afterlife.
Despite a total media blackout here in Australia, it seems that Cardinal Pell is well and truly back in the news. Pell convicted on child abuse charges.
No idea. It’s really bloody stupid. Our media outlets are fuming that it can’t be reported and I expect this ban (and future ones) will be strenuously challenged in the courts in the near future.
Really, it took 10 seconds of googling to find the story on international pages. Do TPTB think we are that stupid?
There was a total gag imposed on the entire court proceedings, apparently at the behest of the prosecution. The court acquiesced and that gag extends now to the conviction.
Some reasoning: courts often ban reporting of crimes where juveniles are victims in order to protect their identities.
Another could be an irrational hope that suppressing this verdict will somehow ensure Pell gets a ‘fair’ trial for another case that is pending.
Funny though, it is being reported this morning that Pell has been expelled from the Pope’s inner circle, along with another cardinal who has been accused of sexual crimes. Doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to put two and two together.
Belated response, I admit, but I spoke carefully, too. I don’t want to hijack this rather meaty topic to make it about you, but I think your meaningless hairsplits are obvious enough.
The gag order is because there are more charges still to be tried, and they want not to prejudice those juries with the knowledge of this guilty verdict.
It’s not going to work, but that’s what they’re trying to do
In this day and age with the world literally a few keystrokes away, it’s bloody ridiculous. What the hell were ‘they’ thinking?
Mind you, something is up, because the news was first announced on thedailybeast and now the page has been cornfielded. Will be interesting to see what happens from hereon in.
Cardinal George Pell, the third-highest ranking member of the Vatican and the top Catholic official ever to go to trial over the church’s sex abuse scandal, was found guilty Tuesday in Australia of charges of sexually abusing two choir boys in the late 1990s, the Daily Beast reports.
Good fucking riddance. About time this child abuser got what’s coming to him.
At this point I feel obligated to link Tim Minchin’s glorious song, “Come Home (Cardinal Pell)”. Relevant lyrics:
And years later, when survivors
Despite their shame and their fear
Stood up to tell their stories
You spent year after year
Working hard to protect the church’s assets
I mean, with all due respect, dude
I think you’re scum!
And I reckon you should…
[Chorus 2]
Come home, Cardinal Pell
(Cardinal Pell)
I know you’re not feeling well
Perhaps you just need some sun
It’s lovely here, you should
Come home, you pompous buffoon
(Pompous buffoon)
And I suggest do it soon
I hear the tolling of the bell
And it has a Pellian knell
[…]
Oh, Cardinal Pell
My lawyer just rang me to tell
Me this song could get me
In legal trouble
Oh well, Cardinal Pell
If you don’t feel compelled
To come home by a sense
Of moral duty
Perhaps you will come home and fricking sue me
You would think this would be heavily covered in in Australian news media, but: A top cardinal’s sex-abuse conviction is huge news in Australia. But the media can’t report it there.
