# The Catholic Church, showing Christlike compassion, plays hardball with its victims **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2002, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817 "2002-05-13T15:04:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/101 "2002-05-14T17:11:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Nor did I say what you wish to attribute as my stance. You didn’t say it, but I thought that it was a fair extension of what you did say- that the church’s moral stances on issues don’t need to mesh with their legal stances. Is this correct? ---
**Author:** ![grendel72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/91b2a8/32.png) [@grendel72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grendel72)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/102 "2002-05-14T17:13:22Z")
Read the article again dumb-ass, the case where the lawyers asked if the victim “enjoyed it” was a different case from the one where the priest confessed. The case where the parents are being charged with negligence, because there is obviously something wrong with anyone who would trust a priest around children, is the one mentioned in the article where the priest confessed. Dumb-ass. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/103 "2002-05-14T17:31:33Z")
Recommendation: 1. Go to a major antique dealer or auction. 2. Buy the Curia and most of the American bishops, and all the accused priests, a millstone each. 3. Hand them the Gospel According to Matthew. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/104 "2002-05-14T17:49:14Z")
Somewhere back there, I think **Scylla** asked this. So I answer. 1. It should remove _from their offices_ all cardinals, bishops, archbishops, and other superiors who knowingly moved molesting priests from one parish to another, and/or who did their best to keep news of the existence of molestations under wraps, and/or who fight even now to prevent those alleging abuse from obtaining the documents that show what the Church hierarchy knew, and when it knew it. It should ban them forever from the priesthood, and from any other positions of responsibility in the Church. 2. It should entirely open its records to police and prosecutors investigating allegations of abuse and cover-ups thereof. 3. As far as it can morally do so, it should open its records to counsel in civil suits alleging abuse and seeking recompense. 4. It should be clear about who has the responsibility to make decisions regarding settlements. (I’m talking about the business with [Cardinal Law and his board of laymen](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30079-2002May3.html) that supposedly overruled him on settling with 86 alleged victims of John Geoghan.) 5. It should have a church official, of no less than the rank of bishop, apologize in sackcloth and ashes to every ascertained victim of abuse that has been uncovered to date. (And to the parents as well, in instances where the victim is still a minor.) 6. It should search its own records to locate potential victims to apologize to. 7. It should refrain from ‘outing’ possible molestation victims. Period. 8. It should refrain from accusing victims and their families of negligence in allowing abuse to happen. Period. 9. In civil cases, the **only** reason the alleged victim’s character should enter into any legal questioning is to determine whether the alleged victim might have concocted a fiction. 10. All lawyerly questioning of alleged victims by defendant’s counsel should be in an even, respectful tone of voice, regardless of the nature of the question, with every effort made to avoid harassing the witness. This isn’t quite as succinct as **Polycarp** ’s list, but my friend is wiser than I, and better able to distill matters such as this to their essence. ---
**Author:** ![grendel72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/91b2a8/32.png) [@grendel72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grendel72)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/105 "2002-05-14T18:06:30Z")
Ok, I was out of line calling **Scylla** a dumb-ass. I guess I’ve just had my fill of childish name-calling, if it hadn’t been directed against the victims of child molestors first I don’t think I’d have gotten so pissed off. Dumb-ass isn’t the right word, anyway. He actually seems quite intelligent, so I guess this would fall under the “willful ignorance” umbrella. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/106 "2002-05-14T18:17:21Z")
I’ll probably regret getting involved in this thread, but I think **Scylla** has some valid points about reserving judgment. The biggest outrage seems to be about the lawyer asking the plaintiff whether he enjoyed the sex. But the article gives no context in which to figure out what is going on in that case. Some have said there is no legally valid reason for asking the question outside of intimidation, but that’s not really true. If the question was asked in the context of a criminal investigation, it would not be legally relevant to the issue of guilt since molestation and statutory rape are strict liability crimes – the victims intent or desire or consent are irrelevant. But this is a civil suit in which damages are to be awarded if the sexual contact is proven. In a civil context the question could be very relevant. For example, if a 21 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old, the 21 year old is guilty of statutory rape (assuming the age of consent is 16 or older) and the consent of the 15 year old doesn’t matter. If the 15 year old then sues civilly the consent is likely to weigh heavily in jury deliberations over damages. The 15 year old who consented is not going to get as much in damages as a 15 year old who was raped. Now, I don’t know the facts of the actual lawsuit in the Post story, but either does anybody else. If the plaintiff was 8 when molested, then the question is out of line. If the plaintiff was 15, then it might not be as awful as it’s being portrayed. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/107 "2002-05-14T18:20:49Z")
and I disagree w/your assesment. This isn’t a 21 year old and a 15 year old. This is a priest and underaged person in their church. that takes it out of the rhelm of even potentially being ‘consensual’ , even in a civil suit. I’m not saying that the ‘did ya enjoy yourself’ question never should be allowed- I’m saying that given the context of a priest and an underaged person, it shouldn’t be allowed, regardless of ‘consent’ and age (since they’d be, by definition here, under the age of consent). ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/108 "2002-05-14T18:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by wring_ > and I disagree w/your assesment. This isn’t a 21 year old and a 15 year old. This is a priest and underaged person in their church. Sure, the priest abused his position if he molested the plaintiff. My point is that we don’t know jack about this suit other than a question asked in a deposition. What if it was a 15 year old who consented to sex with a priest? It’s still wrong for the priest to have sex with an underage person, but I think a civil jury would agree with me that it’s not as bad as a priest raping a 7 year old. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that given the context of a priest and an underaged person, it shouldn’t be allowed, regardless of ‘consent’ and age Why should a priest be denied a legal defense? I’m not arguing that it makes what the priest did right. If the priest did it, then the plaintiff deserves a judgment. The issue is how large the judgment should be. I don’t think a 15 year old who had consensual sex should get as much as a 7 year old who was raped. The 15 year old should get _something_, but not as much as a rape victim. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/109 "2002-05-14T18:45:48Z")
The question of whether the alleged victim is immaterial. What difference does it make? If a priest committed a sexual act with a minor it is illegal, regardless of whether or not the child enjoyed the sensation. The question has no probitive value and can only have been asked to garner an emotional response. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/110 "2002-05-14T18:47:10Z")
Sorry, insert “enjoyed the act” after “alleged victim.” Since we’re being pedantic and all. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/111 "2002-05-14T18:47:14Z")
**Zoff** , I’d agree with you if the Church, like any sensible organization, had done everything it could to distance itself from employees who abused minors, and had gone out of its way to cooperate in their prosecution. But it hasn’t. As I see it, the Church has given up the moral right to save a few bucks by offensive lawyerly conduct. Simple questions such as, “did you consent to these acts?” had better suffice. (And I assume nothing prevents the age of the victim at the time of the incident(s) from being entered into the record, where the jury can consider it.) If they don’t, the Church has lost the moral ground to ask the witnesses how much they enjoyed the abuse, and it’ll just have to deal with higher settlements than it might get by a more aggressive legal approach. FWIW, I’m assuming, as **Scylla** was, that the Church is the target of the civil suits. I’ll concede that a different logic may apply in situations where the priest himself will pony up in the event of an adverse judgment. **Polycarp** : I think it would be an excellent form of protest if, every day, a millstone was deposited in Cardinal Law’s driveway at his estate, and in the doorway to his office at his cathedral. Maybe after awhile, he’d get the message. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/112 "2002-05-14T18:48:08Z")
I don’t care if it’s a 15 year old ‘consenting’. a. 15 year olds (in most jurisdictions) cannot legally consent b. the priest has an affirmative duty to not take advantage of his position. Given both are true, I still disagree. Mitigating circumstances are not defenses. a 15 year old ‘consenting’ might mitigate the circumstances had the other party not been an adult in a position of trust. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/113 "2002-05-14T19:05:33Z")
RTF: > [@](#): > > Nor do I. But I see exactly zero evidence that the Church is acting like a sincere penitent. That might have something to do with the fact that you are looking to the court system for your evidence. That might have something to do with the fact that among other things the RCC is an immense bureacracy, and change doesn’t happen as fast as Washington Post news blurbs make you think it should. That might have something to do with the fact that we are not in a reconciliation mode at the moment. We are in attack mode as far as the RCC is concerned. The RCC will do what every other entity in the world does when it is attacked from all sides. It will seek to protect itself and minimize the damage, be it PR, fiscal, whatever. It will strike out if it has the opportunity against its attackers. That might be because the media and people who do not like the Catholic Church are using this as an opportunity to cast hatred and hyperbole against it. As far as I’m concerned the Church has many good qualities, and works, and I think those far outweigh these incidents, and I’m not willing to sacrifice those good qualities and works over the flaws of its human members or those inherent in a bureacracy. I think it’s a fucking witch hunt right now, and I think your recommendations reflect that mentality. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/114 "2002-05-14T19:10:38Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by plnnr_ > If a priest committed a sexual act with a minor it is illegal, regardless of whether or not the child enjoyed the sensation. Nobody’s arguing it’s not illegal. But the question was asked in the context of a _civil_ lawsuit, not a criminal investigation. So the question could be probative of the amount of damages due. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RTFirefly_ > As I see it, the Church has given up the moral right to save a few bucks by offensive lawyerly conduct. I’m only speaking to the possible legal validity of the question. Obviously, you feel it’s an unseemly way for a church to act, but until I know more about the circumstances of the particular suit I’m going to withhold judgment. [QUOTE] _Originally posted by wring_ a. 15 year olds (in most jurisdictions) cannot legally consent [QUOTE] True. Nobody’s disputing this. > [@](#): > > b. the priest has an affirmative duty to not take advantage of his position. More specifically, adults have a duty not to molest people. I agree. > [@](#): > > Mitigating circumstances are not defenses. There are two issues a civil trial – liability and damages. The hypothetical 15 year old’s consent is not a defense against liability, but it is a factor in determining damages. You might not agree with a civil jury, but I’ll bet 9 times out of 10 they’ll award less to a consensual partner than to a victim of forcible rape. I am not arguing that a 15 year old’s consent eliminates an adult’s liability. I’m simply saying it is a valid factor to consider in awarding damages. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/115 "2002-05-14T19:12:24Z")
The “did you enjoy it?” remark seems to be the one causing the most outrage among posters here. Out of curiosity, I tried to find out more details about the Illinois case, where the lawyer (according to the Post article) asked the victim if “he enjoyed it”. Am I to understand that this is the case in Joliet referred to later in the piece? If so, I checked the Daily Southtown’s web site and couldn’t find the story mentioned in the Post piece. Anybody else have luck finding the original story about the Illinois case? ---
**Author:** ![JohnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/848f3c/32.png) [@JohnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnM)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/116 "2002-05-14T19:14:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > Given that the process for becoming a priest is a tad more complex than filling out a job application and getting an interview with the shift manager, and that priests are (IIRC) required to regularly partake of the sacrament of confession, I would have to question the degree to which it’s even possible for the RCC leadership to NOT know, at some level._\* I just want to clarify that whether or not any of the abusive priests ever made a good confession has nothing to do with whether the hierarchy knew anything about the problem. What is said in the confessional is privileged, to the point where a priest may not reveal _any_ information about what he heard even to save his own life. Violating the Seal of the Confessional carries with it an automatic sentence of excommunication. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/117 "2002-05-14T19:18:05Z")
Could you explain your reasoning on how the question of “Did you enjoy being molested?” has probitive value in determining damages in a civil case. “Did you enjoy it when the priest touched you?” (or however the question was phrased). “Yes, I enjoyed it.” or “No, I didn’t enjoy it.” What does either answer add to the issue? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/118 "2002-05-14T19:19:05Z")
Beagledave: I don’t think the actual circumstances or even facts are of much interest here. I don’t think I’ve ever seen people on this message board jump to such concrete conclusions on so little evidence since I’ve been here. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/119 "2002-05-14T19:28:18Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14301-2002May14.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14301-2002May14.html) And the tragedies compound themselves… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817/120 "2002-05-14T19:32:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*RTF: > [Your failure to see evidence of the Church’s penitence] might have something to do with the fact that you are looking to the court system for your evidence. I have also taken into account the statements coming from Rome in recent weeks. They are not the product of the court system. > [@](#): > > That might have something to do with the fact that among other things the RCC is an immense bureacracy, and change doesn’t happen as fast as Washington Post news blurbs make you think it should. Should I conversely assume that you get all your thoughts from [Cal Thomas](http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20020508-81903748.htm)? If not, then kindly cut the crap. > [@](#): > > That might have something to do with the fact that we are not in a reconciliation mode at the moment. We are in attack mode as far as the RCC is concerned. The RCC will do what every other entity in the world does when it is attacked from all sides. It will seek to protect itself and minimize the damage, be it PR, fiscal, whatever. It will strike out if it has the opportunity against its attackers. I read this as saying, “The Church isn’t being penitent right now, but it’s everyone else’s fault.” The second point is absurd, but I’ll leave it for now. I was only arguing the first point. > [@](#): > > That might be because the media and people who do not like the Catholic Church are using this as an opportunity to cast hatred and hyperbole against it. I’m sure there’s some of it around, but I’ve seen little of either. The facts already available are damning enough. > [@](#): > > As far as I’m concerned the Church has many good qualities, and works, and I think those far outweigh these incidents, and I’m not willing to sacrifice those good qualities and works over the flaws of its human members or those inherent in a bureacracy. The Church _does_ have good qualities, and does many good things. But if you don’t see how heavily this business weighs against the good, I can’t help you. Besides, the ‘bureaucracy’ is very much a top-down thing right now. The present Pontiff has gone to great lengths to ensure that his word is treated as all but _ex cathedra_. He can change things if he so chooses. > [@](#): > > I think it’s a fucking witch hunt right now, and I think your recommendations reflect that mentality. Which ones, and how? I’m tired of unsubstantiated cheap shots. Which of my recommendations are indicative of a witch-hunt mentality, and in what manner? You implied I said that Jesus would never turn away a sincere penitent. When challenged, you’ve failed to give evidence of the Church’s penitence, saying that it’s my fault for not seeing it. You claimed that my hypothetical conversation between the Church and Jesus misrepresented the facts, but you haven’t backed that up, either. And now this. **Scylla** , I like you and I respect you. But in this particular debate, it’s time for you to put up or shut up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-catholic-church-showing-christlike-compassion-plays-hardball-with-its-victims/108817.md?page=7)