Scylla said:
When “an” instance turns into 80+ instances and his employer moves him to a different location rather than address the problem, then yes, it is responsible. And the 80+ number was just for one priest in Boston, who “the church” decided would be better of in California
For one, the right thing. Reporting these events to the authorities when they occur rather when they decide that it is bad PR.
If Disney moved an employee from Disneyland, to Disney World because he was accused multiple times for molesting children while performing his duties there would be folks calling for the CEO’s head.
There is no evidence that the church decided (back in the seventies, when these allegations began to surface in significant numbers) the protection of children from harm was an important element of the responsibility of the Catholic Church. At the same time, it began to make significant political effort to overturn abortion legalization. The Pope has had much to say on the issue of priests marrying gay people, but not a word about keeping priests from molesting children. Whether or not it is defensible from the point of view of the Corporate Rights of the Catholic Church to protect its financial assets is not going to change the opinions of faithful Christians who expected a somewhat different standard of conduct.
The Pope would be well served to reread Matthew 18:6
Tris
Surely you see some degree of difference between “defending oneself” and asking the victims if they enjoyed the experience.
To say nothing of the mother who is accused of negligence for leaving her child with the sacristan. What’s the implication there, that she should’ve known better?
Just because they have the legal right, that doesn’t mean they have the moral right.
We’ve created this system as the best way to achieve justice without assuming any altruistic motives on the part of any of the parties. When it’s time to select a new Pope, do the cardinals get together and say “Well, attack ads, morally questionable campaign contributions, and invasive reporting are all parts of normal elections, so there’s nothing wrong with doing that ourselves”? No, they have decided to choose new Popes discreetly and without public humiliation. Just because the justice system is the best that we could come up with, that shouldn’t mean that it’s the best the RCC can. To say that we should not expect any more from the RCC, supposedly the Body of Christ, than any random guy off the street is disheartening.
They shouldn’t roll over at every lawsuit, but their standard should be “Do we deserve to win this one?”, not “Can we win this one?”
Well, but how do you know that isn’t the standard they’re using? Right now, what we have is a bunch of accusations and lawsuits where the plantiffs are alleging things. That doesn’t mean that all the allegations are true, or that they can prove the allegations, or prove culpability by the Catholic Church as a whole, and the Catholic Church is going to, and should defend itself. If that means attacking the credibility of the plantiffs…thats how you win cases…you say, “Hey, the person bringing the charges is wrong, doesn’t know what he’s talking about, is lying, is confused” or whatever.
The Catholic Church, like all organized churches, is a business. Some of the services they provide are kind of unorthodox, but they still need to worry about assets, costs, and revenues. To expect them to say, “We’re not going to worry about these lawsuits, and we’re going to unconditionally accept guilt in every case” is unfair.
As I said earlier, in cases where the RCC knew or covered up, or simply moved a priest that is a different story.
I beleive I said that as the second sentence I posted in this thread. Wait, let me check
Yes I did.
Why then are Mojo and Triskademus arguing against a position I specifically didn’t take?
More importantly, are any of the cases in the OP ones in which foreknowledge or a cover-up by the RCC has been suggested or proven? Was a priest moved in any of those circumstances?
How can one take such a critical and vehement position based on cases and specifics of which you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever besides a single sentence or two in a newspaper article?
I suppose the part where the Church Lawyers introduce the idea that Mom leaving the kids with a Sacristan is negligence.
Suffer the little children to come unto Me.
Tris
Hey, the RCC used to KILL the opposing parties (kids, too).
Slapping victims around in legal proceedings is nothing…
And, IIRC, MA. has a law limiting awards in civil suits against “Charitable Entities” (You’re right, the RCC is so classified) to $20,000 per suit.
Would a Catholic please refresh my memory on the roles of God, Holy Spirit, and the Church?
Isn’t the Church the instrument by which God, through the Holy Spirit, runs the affairs of Man? Something like that?
Jonathan - I take it you, as a Jew, do NOT believe in Hell, right? 
That’s just a line from a newspaper story. An interpretation.
It sure as shit seems weird to me that a mom would just abandon there boy overnight without informing anybody that they were doing so. A church or a Sacristan is not set up for day-care or spontaneous overnight babysitting, and abandoning a child anywhere isn’t anything but negligence as far as I’m concerned.
Is the child a troubled child with a history of neglect by his mother?
Is there a possibility that nothing actually happened and we simply have wishful thinking or a story told by a very troubled child who is suffering from the neglect and abuse of an irresponsible mother?
I seem to remember something similar about nursery schools kids telling stories not too long ago.
Is it possible that there was a kind and unselfish and innocent priest who’s name is being sullied by some white trash looking to pass the buck on their own irresponsibility and cash in on a hot social issue with some facil well-timed lies?
Because when I read that story, I see three possibilities.
The difference is that I don’t automatically pick the possibility I prefer to believe, or think I can make blanket judgements based on 2 sentences in a newspaper story.
I don’t assume that because some terrible things have happened that the entire organization is a piece of shit, or that the Pope is involved in a child-abuse ring.
Jesus Christ, think for yourself, and don’t cast judgements based on circumstance that are by definition, untried as to their veracity.
You call them “white trash” on the basis of what evidence?
(maybe it is in Scripture, somewhere?)
I said “is it possible” not that they were white trash who were lying. Is poor reading comprehension the entire substance of your rebuttal to your prejudicial assumptions?
Rhetorical devices aside, do you know the ethnicity of the people you are “suggesting might be” lying?
Why “White Trash”
Maybe “Stupid Pollocks”
“Drunken Micks”?
“N*****s”?
We won’t go into offensive terms for Asians - we’d be here all night.
And, before you say “it doesn’t matter”, onw Q: If it doesn’t matter, why did you include it?
I said it because I was looking for an apt descriptor, and one can get away with “white trash” as a generic decprecatory term.
Amish and Jewish based deprecations were out as neither group has a high likelihood of becoming altar boys.
I didn’t say “stupid Pollacks” because that particulare misspelling didn’t come to mind.
I didn’t say “Drunken Micks” because that didn’t come to mind.
I didn’t say “Niggers” because that also did not occur to me.
In fact, I probably chose the term, because I live out in the country in PA, and it’s synonymous with “asshole” or “shithead” in my particular colloquial usage.
I can’t wait to see where you’re going with this fascinating attempt at misdirection, though I suspect it’s completely irrelevant to the substance of the discussion.
Why don’t you just jump right to your conclusion. You’ve certainly had the practice.
So, anyone who accuses the Church and/or its functionaries, deserves to be treated with hostility.
Same as any other legal proceeding, correct?
The RCC can not be held to any “higher standard” regardless of any Doctrine which holds it to be the exclusive agent of God.
Is that your point, Scylla?
(and, you get to use offensive terms for those who make such accusations, right?)
True; assuming one feels the inexplicable urge to pepper their conversations with irrelevant racial epithets, it is quite a trendy little item.
A’course not. Only white trash would use such crude terms.
Though arguably no moreso than your having used it in the first place.
Perhaps he didn’t want to give you even more to attack him about?
I wish I believed in hell whenever I see someone blaming the victim inn any case.
Asking if the victim enjoyed it is so fucking vile it makes me sick. There is no fucking excuse for that I don’t care who you are.
**
I see the reading comprehension issues continue.
**
I don’t see why not. Perhaps you can fill in the explanatory gap. Why should an accusation against the RCC be treated differently than that against any other legal entity?
Is there a special privilege you receive in accusing the RCC that doesn’t exist when you make accusations against other parties?
By what reckoning would you deny this party recourse in protecting it’s interests that any other group is guarranteed as a matter of law?
**
Maybe there is hope for your reading comprehension skills, after all. This is exactly the point.
Regardless of how the RCC presents itself, and how it’s adherents as well as outsiders perceive it, whether for good or ill, it is under American law a legal entity just like any other legal entity.
If it wrongs you, you can sue it. The flip side to that coin is that it like any other entity it is entitled to defend itself.
It works both ways. There is no “higher standard,” or exlusive deific agency, that absolves it from malfeasance.
The RCC is subject to law of the land, as are those who are accusing it.
It’s quite simple.
Ab-so-fucking-lutley, Goddamn constitutionally protected. I’m neither seeking recourse nor trying to prove my off-the-cuff suppositions in a court of law.
They are.
How do I know it is? I’m just saying what I think it should be. I never said what it is.
Within limits, and only if it honestly believes that it is innocent.
No more than every other group is a business.
As is presenting straw men.
The term you are looking for is “alleged victim.”
More accurately it is “alleged victim seeking monetary compensation in a civil case.”
I have no idea whether the allegations are true or not. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were. But, all we have is an accusation of guilt, not the fact. Without the fact of guilt there is no victim.
One can also be victimized by being wrongfully accused.
Why are these civil cases being pursued for monetary compensation?
Certainly, if me or mine was molested by a priest I wouldn’t be going after the Church’s purse strings, I’d be going after the priest’s balls.
Where are the criminal cases against the actual offenders?
There’s an autommatic assumption of guilt, and coverup here, and that assumption has almost complete and total ignorance of the actual circumstances as its only ally.
Everybody knows that priests are molesters and the RCC is an evil bureacracy interested in covering up the crimes of its members, so of course we know longer have to prove these things or have reasons to believe them.
We can just take them as given and assume they are always true.
The current media environment encourages this prejudice, so we’re free to get away with it.