The Catholic Church, showing Christlike compassion, plays hardball with its victims

The BBQ Pit
181

Scylla, for what it’s worth, I agree with everything you said about the church. It has done a great deal of good, and helped innumerable people. I think it is wrong to label the entire church as corrupt due to the actions of a relatively small number of people. And because some are eager to do so, it is natural to be defensive of one’s church, especially when you have personally seen how many people it has helped.

But I think the very worst thing that could happen would be if any of the victims were made to suffer further in the course of that defense. If you were molested by a priest you trusted, to live with the guilt and shame must be nearly unbearable. Your faith and connection with God is probably permanently damaged, by the very person charged with guiding you to Him. Then to come forward and publicly admit what happened, when you’ve kept it secret for most of your life has got to be unimaginably difficult. Treating these people with suspicion and contempt because they or their parents think they deserve some sort of compensation is unconscionable.

You seem very suspicious that so many accusations could come out at once, and assume that the only explanation is that most of the claims are fraudulent. I submit that once it came to light that many of the priests had previous accusations that were concealed, and as such many molestations could have been prevented, it changed people’s views of what happened to them.

Lastly, anyone who would make false claims to make a little money is reprehensible. Let the church lose some money to such sinners – it is a small price to pay, to keep the true victims from being hurt further.

I apologize for my personal remarks about you, Scylla. Your initial comments in this thread about the victims possibly just being greedy white trash infuriated me, and I was angry when I posted. Your last post makes your position more clear to me, and gave me a sense of how difficult this situation must be for you. I should have confined myself to discussing what I didn’t like about your comments, rather than how they made me feel about you.

182

Zoff - Please show me in the state statute that I cited where it says ‘unless there’s consent’. Baring that, perhaps you could cite the relevant law that claims that sexual contact with minors is bad ‘unless the minor consents’ for a civil action.

Sexual contact w/a minor is a criminal matter. Civil actions can result as well, but you apparently want us to believe that when the matter lands in civil court, the victim of the criminal action is somehow less protected than in criminal court. I believe you have that backwards.

It is possible to bring a civil action about a criminal case and the burden of proof (for the victim) is less than in the criminal case. In this case, we have a civil action being brought by the victim , and you seem to be saying that now, in this civil matter, they have to demonstrate more evidence than in a criminal matter. I assure you that you’re wrong.

In the criminal matter, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sex occurred at all, that the victim was a minor (and therefore incapable of giving consent), and that the perp was in a position of trust.

In the civil matter, they have to prove w/a preponderance of evidence the same stuff as above, but with less certainty.

As a matter of law, the minor cannot give consent. Jurors, of course, behind closed doors may in fact use irrelevant stuff in their deliberations - they may decide that 'cause the priest has red hair he must be guilty - but it’s impossible for us to know this. However, the judge is required to give the jurors the rules of law that are pertinant. Minors cannot legally give consent is the pertinant law. There’s nothing in the statutes that claim otherwise. You’re asking me to prove that something doesn’t exist by showing it. I can’t cite what isn’t there. the law also wouldn’t spell out that the hair color of the victim is irrelevant, and I’d also be unable to demonstrate to you that it’d be ‘moot’ and not be able to be considered as mitigation, but I’d bet you’d agree that’s true. Consent can only be a mitigation if it can be given.

As I pointed out, the judge will cite relevant law, which is, as I noted, what is the legal age for consent. Now, if you can come up with something somewhere that says that ‘consent’ applies to some one who can not legally consent, more power to you.

YOu keep saying ‘we don’t have all the facts’. why yes, you’re correct - we don’t know dates, times, penis length, positions and a whole host of other details.

What we do know is : 1. Victim was a minor. 2. Perp was a priest (which means also that they were at least 24 or so, probably quite a bit more, certainly well educated, can also assume that they weren’t developmentally disabled)

now, if 3. Sexual contact happened - I’m saying that anything else is irrelevant to a determination of guilt. other stuff may be relevant to damages (degree of remorse etc, level of damage sustained by the victim), but to argue consent is idiotic when legally and morally, the victim could not give it. I’ve seen actual court cases where the victim lied about their age, and gave consent. And the person was still found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. which, again, is a standard greater than what’s required in civil court.

I’ll let you have the last word on this - you’ve demanded cites, I’ve given them - you’re currently demanding that I prove something doesn’t exist in the law. That ain’t the way laws are written.

To sum up:

  1. Sexual contact between a minor and a priest is against the law and a ‘very bad thing’.

  2. Asking if the victim enjoyed it or consented to it admits that #1 happened, * and* is upsetting to the victim, offensive to other people (as in the jury who would be listening and awarding damages) and in the eyes of the law, since a minor cannot give consent wouldn’t change the substance of the crime.

  3. If you’re trying for damage control, admitting that the crime happened while simulatneously blaming the victim or saying that they really wanted it to happen is an incredibly idiotic tactic.

183

Oh jeez, not again:

Ok Giraffe I take back all of Grendel’s old stuff that I dumped on you, and I’ll give half to Apotheosis since he claims he’s entitled, and the other half to Gobear who uncharacteristically seems to be confusing opinions with facts. It’s true that he can believe what he likes and if that includes the moon being made out of blue cheese that’s fine with me.

184

You can’t take it all back! I went and cleared out room in the basement for it and everything!

[sub]This’ll teach me to open my big mouth…[/sub]

185

Ahem, I was telling off the Ryan, not you. Far from confusing opinons with facts, I’ve presented some facts about the RCC that have been ignored in this thread. My opinions come from these facts.

  1. The RCC is blaming the pedophilia crisis on gay priests, handily conflating child molestation with homosexuality.

  2. The RCC opposes birth control and women’s control of reproduction.

  3. The RCC has opposed AIDS education and condom distribution.

I was raised Catholic, and there is nothing anyone in this thread can teach me about the Church. I have a strong negative opinion of the Church, and I am entitled to it. You have your views; I have mine.

186

You owe the sig gods a sacrifice.

187

What assumptions have I made about the accusers? All I’ve ever argued is that there are possible factual scenarios in which asking certain questions which appear to be offensive and irrelevant could, in fact, be relevant. I’ve never once argued the scenario is more likely than any other scenario. Not once. I have also said that if further facts come along that show, for instance, that the attorney is asking this question of a person who was 7 at the time of the abuse, then it would be wrong. Please read what I actually wrote, not what you want to see so you can get mad.

wring, I’m going to take one more stab at it. Your argument is basically that consent is not available in a civil case because it’s not available in a criminal case. Since the standards of proof are lower in civil court, you reason, anything not available in criminal court for a defendant wouldn’t be available in civil court. That’s not illogical, but it’s wrong. Not only are the burdens of proof different in civil court, the type of evidence allowed is also different. So criminal prosecutions are not always analogous to civil suits in determining what is and is not permissible.

I don’t have the time or desire to thoroughly search Illinois case law but I do have a couple of cases that will illustrate my point. The classic case is Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. in which the NY Supreme Court held that a woman who was statutorily raped could not sue in civil court because she consented to the sex. The rationale was that public policy would not be served by allowing a person to benefit from activity the law sought to protect her from. More recently Barton has been cited South Carolina and Indiana. From Barnes v. Barnes, 603 N.E.2d 1337, 1342 (Ind. 1992):

This line of reasoning was adopted by the South Carolina Supreme Court in a case in which a school was sued (a school, of course, being in a position of authority) by a minor who was raped by an unsupervised developmentally disabled student. The school argued that she consented to the sex. The plaintiff argued that, since she couldn’t legally consent under South Carolina law, consent could not be considered. The Supreme Court held:

I think these cases clearly show that fallacy of the arguments that (1)if it’s prohibited in a criminal court it’s prohibited in a civil court, (2) since a minor can’t legally consent to sex in a criminal context a minor’s consent can never be admissible in any situation.

I think it is clear that consent might very well be a presentable issue at the damages stage of the trial, unless Illinois specifically prohibits it. I don’t know if they do, but all I’ve ever argued is that we should wait for the facts. Given that your argument of comparing criminal issues with civil trials has been rebutted, you’ll need to show me specific Illinois cases or statutes that specifically prohibit raising consent as a limitation to damages. If such authorities exist I will consider those in reaching an informed decision on whether or not the attorney’s question was appropriate.

As for whether or not it’s a stupid tactic, I will again withhold judgment until I have more information. The tactic has obviously been used before so it doesn’t appear to be an inherently stupid tactic. Depends on the specific facts of each case.

I assume this settles the issue.

188

Gobear:

Fair enough.

But enough is enough. I’ve already taken back the same insults twice. You’re gonna have to keep 'em, because I’m not doing it a third time. Nothing personal. Who knows, they might come in handy.

189

Thank you, you’re too kind. But I couldn’t possibly accept such a lavish gift. Here, you take them. I’m sure you will find a more worthy recipient than my insignificant self.

190

Zoff -you only provided one on line resource for me to check and I note:

A. You rejected my statements about what happened other states, so you respond w/statements about what happened in other states? May I assume that you appologize for the tone in your prior “who cares what happens in MI” statement?

more importantly
B. In the SC case (which you suggest more strongly supports your position because the defendant was the school, as in position of trust) the actual person committing the sexual conduct was not some one in a position of trust, but another student at the school, a peer, another minor. So the issue in that case bore on the schools responsability to provide a safe and secure envirnoment, rather than refrain from sexually assaulting the minor.

I don’t have access to case law on line at all. And since civil law procedures for the state of Illinois do not seem to be on line, neither of us would be able to prove the negative that you seek.

As for your continued statements about ‘reserving judgement if it’s a good tactic til all the facts are in’ - safe bet since even in adjudicated cases, it’s impossible to prove that ‘all the facts’ are in, especially ‘all the facts’ being made public. But, again - can you even begin to come up with a plausible scenario where a minor having sexual contact with a priest is at all mitigated by anything remotely considered consent?

Again, I buy a ‘consent’ potential when the two parties are of similar ages (even if at least one is still legally a minor), if the younger person lied about their age, that the lie was plausible (it’s not plausible that the average 6 year old person remotely looks of age of consent for example), that the older person had no other reason to believe the person was lieing (we can presume that the priest knew the minor was a minor, certainly that he’d have access to proof of age), and where the older person isn’t in a position of trust.

I cannot fathom any reason that would mitigate/justify/rationalize sexual contact between a minor and their priest.

191

What makes you think that I so expect? I said “I hope”, not “I expect”. It’s possible that you are aware of the good things that the RCC has done, but insist that there are no such things. And if so, then I can’t stop you. But I can still hope that that is not the case.

192

Nope. See, here’s the deal. All I have ever said is that we needed more information. You said we had enough information then proceeded to present “facts” which do not appear to even be accurate. The burden has been on you to prove that the consent couldn’t be argued in a civil case in Illinois. You have failed to carry that burden.

Since I only argued that we didn’t have enough information, I really don’t have to prove anything. I simply cited the case law from other states to show that your line of reasoning, which you claimed was the way courts do things, was not followed universally. So now, not only did you fail to produce any evidence to support your affirmative statements, you have been presented with proof that the logic you believed was a universal isn’t.

And the Illinois case might very well be a lawsuit against the Church for failing to provide a safe environment for kids. It might be very analogous. Is this guy suing the Church or the priest? Oh, that’s right, we don’t know. We don’t have the facts, do we?

Yes. A 16-year old decides she wants to fuck a priest and goes about doing so. Is that what happened here? Probably not, but that’s a plausible scenario. Of course, we don’t know what really happened because we don’t have the facts of the case.

I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you to prove a positive: namely, that Illinois does not allow presentation of consent as mitigation of damages. There’s either a law or case on it, or there isn’t. If there isn’t, then Illinois does not bar such an argument. The law allows that which it does not forbid. There is either a prohibition, or there isn’t. No need to prove a negative.

You’re still confusing the issues. Presentation of consent at the damages stage doesn’t require a plausible lie. If a person had sex with a person he knew to be underage, he can still present consent at the damages stage according to the case I cited. You are reading limitations into the case that aren’t there. Same goes for the position of trust. The cases cited don’t say that consent can’t be used by a person in a position of trust. You are adding that limitation by yourself.

I have no problem with this feeling. But it doesn’t mean mitigation can’t be presented in a court of law.

193

well, Zoff it appears that you’re wrong case from 1997 from the 7th Circuit of appeals, reversing a trial judge in Indiana (but the 7th Circuit covers Illinois, so their ruling would hold for that state as well.

THe situation is quite close to the situation of the priest/catholic Church, in that in this case, a mother is suing the school district because her minor child (13 in this case) had sexual contact with a school employee. The school employee was convicted in criminal court, this suit was in civil. IT is noteworthy to mention that the school employee was not a teacher, but merely a cafeteria worker, and 8 years older than the victim. In the priest case, the priest, highly educated, trained etc, (8 years post high school) is at least 26, the victim at most 15.

The trial judge did as you thought was ‘okey dokey’ and allowed testimony about ‘willingness’ into the trial. This was specifically reversed by the 7th Circuit. saying (pretty much what I suggested)

So, it would seem that we have case law before us that ‘consent’ is not a defense in a civil action WRT a minot having sexual contact with an adult who is in a position of trust.

I’ll send you a bill.
(there is no appropriate emoticon for this)

194

The article in reference from the OP clearly states that what the RCC is doing is very risky. Interrogating a child to the degree the attorneys in the trial did has about as much chance of angering the jury even more.

This has happened way to much to be a rare exeption. THe cover-up is so great, and has been going on for so long, and has been known by too many at the top. Maybe the molesting priests are the exception, but way too many in the clergy knew about it and did nothing. In many states, if one even suspects that a child has been abused, he is legally responsible to report it. The clergy know that it happened, and did nothing. Those who knew about it should be held criminally liable. Possibly civily liable as well. The clergy is guilty as hell. The clergy seems to think it is above the law. Some even have dual citizenships to that little campus in Rome that claims to be an independent country where they can claim diplomatic immunity. Where are the women? How many births occur there? This is no society. Maybe they should go there and hang out with the boys.

I too grew up Catholic, but that does not mean I will defend them. Actually, a church by its true definition is a body of worshippers just as much as the building that contains it. As such, the parishners should expect to be involved in its affairs. Most protestant denominations have a board of directors with real power. Catholic churches have them as well, but they have no power to hire or fire priests, or to oversee budgets. An arrogant league of secret fraternal orders the priests belong to consider themselves above this. This is why I want nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Not the theology. I don’t give a shit if purgatory exists or not. Or if deeds vs. groveling is the ticket to heavan. The clergy for too long has not answered to the Church.

195

I admire the effort, I really do. You’re finally trying to support your arguments. Unfortunately, you cited a case brought under Title IX, which is a federal statute. If the priest or the Church was being sued under Title IX (which they are not since Title IX is about sex discrimination in schools) then the case might be relevant. The appeals court ruled that the district court judge made a legal error in her jury instructions. Specifically, they said:

So, if the case in Illinois is a Title IX case involving sexual discrimination of elementary school children, then the attorney shouldn’t have asked.

Heck, the appeals court even spelled out the fact that the issue of “welcomeness” is specific to the particular cause of action:

So, a quick recap. Criminal law does not control civil actions. Federal court decisions about causes of actions brought under federal statutes do not control for state causes of action.

No. You cited a case that says “welcomeness” can not be argued in a Title IX case. That’s all it says. It does not extend where you want it to go.

I’ll ask once again. Please find me an Illinois statute or decision that says that consent can not be used to mitigate damages. Hell, wring, I’m not even saying it doesn’t exist. It could very well be out there. But until you find a relevant law or decision, all you have is your unsupported argument.

I’ll offset it against the malpractice judgment I’d get.

196

See, I knew you’d do this.

It’s spot on, you’ve provided nothing.

PUtz.
I know now not to bother w/cites in your case.

out of here.

197

By the way, I’m being completely honest when I say I will change my opinion of the question if the facts merit. I absolutely believe that the question could be inappropriate in certain circumstances. All I’m saying is that a lot of people jumped to conclusions about the question without having the facts. We’re missing almost every fact necessary for an intelligent decision:
[ol]
*We don’t know the plaintiff’s age at the time of the alleged molestation.
*We don’t know what cause of action is being asserted.
*We don’t know who is being sued (is it the priest, the Church, or both)
*We don’t know if it is in state or federal court (though I think it’s probably in state court.)
*We don’t know the relevant law on whether consent is a defense for the particular cause of action or in the particular court.
[/ol]
That’s a lot of missing information. If it turns out that the answer to (1) is 7 years old, I’ll be outraged. If it turns out that the answer to (5) is “no” then I’ll be outraged. But I’m not going to assume “7” and “no” then argue that we now have all the facts.

On preview

Ah, the face-saving exit. I enjoy these.

The cite is anything but spot on. I welcome you to discuss this with an attorney you know and trust. I welcome anybody reading this thread to discuss it with an attorney they know and trust.

I’m sorry, but a Title IX suit means nothing if the case is a common law battery case in Illinois. If you don’t understand that, it’s your problem. Again, please discuss it with an attorney you know.

Your cite is just another assumption piled upon all the others. You assume that a federal appeals court decision on a Title IX case will control in any other cases either federal or state (of course we don’t know whether the case is in federal or state court because we don’t have the facts.)

198

You misunderstand, yet again.

You ask for substantiation, I provide it. You claim that a different state’s Supreme Court ruling on a case with minor similarities would be more likely to be the ruling letter of law than a more recent, Circuit Court of the same jurisdiction where the similarities in the cases are much more alligned. I believe that you’re wrong.

I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt that you weren’t simply doing a ‘well, in this case the man spelled his name John, not Jon, so obviously it’s not similar’, when you rejected my statement that most jurisdictions (and by implication Illinois) would have statute law specifying that when there was a criminal sexual event concerning a minor and a person in a position of trust (I named parent, teacher, priest), that the penalties would be more severe. And you did the 'well, so that’s MI, the case is Illinois".

And you waffeled w/your posting of other cases in other jurisdicitions, claiming they substantiated your point.

You’re ‘more evidence’, more proof, case law being more relevant; can never be given, since there will never be two cases perfectly identical in the same jurisdiction and that seems to be all that you’d accept. And we certainly won’t be party to all the data from the trial.

hence, responding to such a person is a waste of my time. Congrats - you’re on a short list.

199

What we don’t know is the legal specifics. What we do know is enough to say that the church lawyers are morally repugnant little shits.
I may not be the sharpest thumbtack in this bulletin board, but I can figure out that asking an “alleged” victim if they enjoyed being molested is wrong. Zoff, you can continue to burie your head up your ass and talk about legality- everyone else is talking about moral responsibility. These are two different considerations, you may note. Take a guess which one the church is supposed to represent.

200

**

Really? Can you demonstrate by say, comparing the child abuse rates of priests against, say schoolteachers? The population in general?

**

Wow. Thanks for the specific information. That’s about as useful as a fart in a bathysphere. Can you qwuantify this, or are you just talking out your ass?

**

True. But the fact that you got this right is most likely pure accident. When one person knows about it and does nothing, I’d agree that’s too many.

**
You’re right! Let’s round up The Clergy and get rid of them. They’re not real Americans. And let’s get rid of those Jews too, and all those black boys and gays, and let’s take back this Country starting right here in Mississippi! Here’s you’re sheet, now help burn this cross!

What you just wrote disgusts me.

Wow! I really hit the mark with my last comment, didn’t I? I was worried that I was being a little over the top, but nope, You are a Klansmen, aren’t you?

I get more thoughtful and original shit out of my daughter’s diaper. Congratulations. You’re quite the bigot.

Thanks for proving a point.