You got it backwards, Achey-Breaky. You don’t look for evidence to exonerate yourself, because a negative can’t be proved.
The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation.
You really are a simpleton, aren’t you?
Scylla in a child molestation case, the question “did you enjoy it” (referring to the sexual activity) is not part of the criminal charge. In child molestation, the child could testify that it was their idea, that they loved it, craved more, and it would still be a crime.
So, typically when the witness is still a child, the question doesn’t come up, since it’d be admitting the crime, and asking would be considered heinous by the jury.
however, in these cases, the victim is now an adult and so the question would be used as a way for the victim to be attacked, even tho’ it’d be admitting the crime occured.
It’s a lawyer tactit and a reprehensible one. One should make every attempt to rigorously defend one’s clients, but (essentiallly) admitting the criminal act happened in order to demean the victim seems to me to be a poor choice.
I mean, let’s look at your remarkable ability to ignore substantive arguments and summon indignance as a shield for your ignorance:
You completely ignored the question as to why a kid was abandoned overnight and the Church was forced to put him up, and then you beg repeatedly for an instance of where a particular comment might be appropriate. I give you one and you ignore it.
You completely ignore the fact that these are civil not criminal cases in which money is being asked for, and punishing the culprits is not being pursued.
You’re upset that “victims” are being harassed, yet you are stupefyingly blind to the flip side which is when greed motivates evil people to heap false accusations upon innocent parties.
Both things happen. Our legal system attmempts to cope with it. It’s flaws are not the RCCs fault. They are compelled to work within our system, ya marroon.
Wring:
I just gave circumstances in which I feel it would be appropriate. Would you still feel the same way in that instance?
are you talking about where a kid is forced on the church? so what?
If you and an adult woman had sexual contact and she later made a charge of rape, to ask the question ‘did you enjoy the experience’ might be able to show that at some point she desired/agreed to the contact (might).
however.
A child is not legally allowed to consent to sexual contact. If an adult has sexual contact w/that child, they are totally responsible for it. Asking if the child enjoyed it is irrelevant.
I don’t see how the circumstances of the child being with the priest has anything to do with illegal sexual contact.
Now, if the contact did not occur, I’d expect that the laywer would focus their attention on asking questions attempting to show inconsistencies in the stories, or why did they remain quiet so long etc. Not by asking a question that essentially admits that the crime occured. (and, parenthetically is bound to outrage observers).
Yes, I agree that some of these people may be making stuff up. I’ve been wondering about the legality of prosecution in the first place, since I thought that sexual assault charges had something like a 7 year window of opportunity (how in the world would anyone begin to prove where they were on a particular date 12 years ago, let alone what they were or weren’t doing?)
but asking ‘did you enjoy it’ seems to be a very bad tactic from any perspective. (unless they’re trying to rattle the victim knowing they were victimized - see I think if the person was lying in the first place it’d be no problem to sit on the stand and say in the properly outraged voice, ‘of course not, I was a child at the time…’, but if the event did occur and the person was highly conflicted about their feelings in the matter, since this had been a person they’d trusted and admired, yea, it’s likely to me that they’d cry, get upset etc.)
Someone has anger issues.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Scylla on this one. The article does a wonderful job of throw out one-liners without giving any sort of context for the case. Certainly, “did you enjoy it?” could have been a horrible insult designed to scare a poor molested child into dropping a suit to avoid further anguish. It also could be, as Scylla pointed out, trying to make the difference between “this priest raped me” and “I fell in love with this priest when I was 16, and now I can sue the Church for money”.
No one here is trying to deny that molestation occured, that abuse of power occured, that the higher-ups covered the mess up and aided and abetted molestors.
But that doesn’t mean that every time someone says, “A Catholic priest molested me!” that they’re automatically telling the truth. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Not to mention that false accusations have happened before - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020508/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse_memories_2
I don’t know what context the comment about enjoying it was presented; however I don’t think we can assume that every case is using this question, that the judge didn’t tell the lawyer asking it to back off, or that there wasn’t in fact some kind of context in which the lawyer was arguing it, such as the example Scylla gave. I’m no fan of the Catholic Church by any means, but we can’t simply deny them the right to defend themselves the same as anyone else in this country. I think their history of covering up for priests who have molested children is appalling, but by no means should every accusation be accepted automatically as truth as a result of this.
If I was Pope, I would want parents to feel confident that they could send their children to overnight visits with church officials. I would be especially careful in choosing those officials if I began hearing of cases of sexual abuse over forty years, in multiple regions of my global church enterprise. I would be heartsick to finally learn that my Church of God Inc. was more interested in the protection of our fiscal assets than in healing the breach of faith that has happened between the Bride of Christ, and the Children of God.
My objections are not legal.
The church has, or ought to have responsibilities far beyond those of a Corporation, or even an individual. The Catholic Church exists because a vast congregation has surrendered to them the authority of Peter, the Disciple. The loss of money is not supposed to be as important as the loss of a single soul.
I don’t know the real facts in any of these particular cases, although the admission already made in others causes me to have grave doubts about the hierarchical commitment to protection of innocence. I cannot say that I don’t have any evidence of what to expect from lawyers arguing torts in court. The Pope has shit up to his knees already, and the lawyers are not going to stop him from sinking faster.
When you sin, you are supposed to go to those against whom you have sinned, and ask forgiveness. In this case, that should be every bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and the Pope. Better that a Pope should loose his purse, even the whole world, than that he should loose his immortal soul.
Tris
Scylla, old friend. Why do you assume that she abandoned the boy? Perhaps this individual offered to help out a stressed and overworked and haggered mother as a ploy to molest(the molest part is not in question. he was convicted). That he used his position in the Church to lull her into a false sense of security? Can you imagine a scenario where something along those lines occured? Maybe she had to go out of town? A job interview or family emergency?
I’m not saying that’s what happened. Just that it’s possible.
I certainly have ‘anger issues’ with this.
This is not about a capitalist business avoiding false legal claims.
The Catholic Church has nothing to do with making a profit, and everything to do with saving immortal souls, living up to Christ’s example and being an organisation you can rely on for moral advice and support.
You say above ‘No one here is trying to deny that molestation occured, that abuse of power occured, that the higher-ups covered the mess up and aided and abetted molestors.’
Jesus said ‘Suffer little children to come unto me.’
Bit of a contrast there? :rolleyes:
As Wring has pointed out, it doesn’t matter whether a victim seduced a priest. It’s still child abuse.
In my opinion, it’s also immoral to question alleged victims in this way when
a) there is a massive series of admitted cases
b) you’re a church claiming moral authority over worshippers world-wide.
I’m a teacher.
I have a personal moral code that means I not only educate your children, but I also look out for them, setting a good example and totally resist any immoral desires. I behave correctly simply because I set myself high standards.
How would you feel if your school system systematically abused children, transferred teachers to avoid them being caught and then finally instructed lawyers to go after your children (who claimed they had been abused).
That’s bad enough.
Now read Triskadecamus’ superb post on the Church’s moral obligations.
And this is the Church of God?
The loss of money is not the loss of income to shareholders…or a golden parachute to a CEO. For the most part, loss of money means loss of service to the folks that the church serves. That includes all of the folks helped by Catholic Social Services, those helped by service to the poor in the states and abroad…and of course service to the parishioners.
I’m of a split mind on the Post article. I do have a bad taste in my mouth (no pun intended) in reading statements like “Did you enjoy it”. I also recognize, like John Corrado and Scylla…that we’re getting the juicy soundbites, out of context, from various trials that support the premise of a hardball church. This is a rough draft of the history of this tragedy…the rough draft may be missing key ingredients.
I’m also of a split mind on the “tactical” approach to dealing with the genuine hurt this scandal has created. I’m very uncomfortable seeing people like Cardinal Bernard Law taking court lessons from Kenneth Lay and Ronald Reagan in the “I can’t remember seeing that letter” department. Putting this kind of face on the church is very bad in the PR department (witness this thread). This is a situation where the strategy needed to weed out the frauds (and you know there will be some, witness what happened to Bernadin a few years back) might run contrary to the face of compassion that the church wants to communicate from the pulpit.
Great! And when they exist in a world that doesn’t need money, they won’t need to worry about money, either.
Oops! Wait, that world doesn’t exist, yet, so the Church can’t afford to hand out $20,000 to everyone who decides they wish to claim they were abused, regardless of whether they were or not.
Absolutely, and those who molested, and those who aided and abetted, should go to jail for long sentences.
But only after it is proven that they molested, or that they aided and abetted.
Unless you, as an Englishman, are willing to go to jail because you’re a soccer hoolgian. Because there are Englishmen who are soccer hooligans, and some Englishmen think it’s “all fun and games”, and therefore people shouldn’t take offense at soccer hooliganism, and you’re an Englishman, therefore you’re a soccer hooligan.
Do you see how that’s ‘guilt by association’? Do you understand that simply because some allegations of molestation by Church officials are true, that doesn’t mean that every allegation of molestation by Church officials is true?
So the Church isn’t allowed to defend itself? It should just pay $20,000 (or more, depending on limits in other states) to everyone who wishes to claim that they were abused? 'Cause if that’s the case, I can assure you that I was abused. As was every single member of my family. And all of our pets. And my car. All over my car.
Miserable.
How would you feel if you were a teacher at that school and were accused of abuse (either because the situation was misinterpreted, or because someone thought they could make a fast buck off of your school)?
How would you feel if everyone around you assumed you were guilty because so many other teachers were guilty?
How would you feel if, when you attempted to defend yourself, people reacted with shock and horror that you would dare defend yourself rather than roll over and admit that the charges were true?
How would you feel if you were told that defending yourself was, frankly, immoral?
Nope. It’s the Church of people trying their best to worship God. Unfortunately, people are falliable.
glee:
I recall that many schoolteachers have been accused of molestation as well.
I guess if you were to be accused it would be morally reprehensible for you question the integrity of the person making the accusation, wouldn’t it?
Shall we just send you to jail and have the school district write a check?
Finally, the RCC is just another legal entity as far as the Government is concerned, and as far as our legal system is concerned.
Just because you call yourself the representative of God doesn’t accord you any special privileges, or any special responsibilities.
The Government and laws are blind to such claims. Wisely so in my opinion. It’s called SOCAS and it’s one of our countries guiding principles.
I think molesting priests should be pursued and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I think the RCC should be held responsible for its culpability and coverups in such circumstances where they committed them.
What I don’t think is that we get to have a witch hunt, and I don’t think we throw out the rule of law.
I think an accusation needs to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt before a person’s character and integrity is destroyed. I think it needs to be proven in each and every case.
I think that if it goes to court 99 times, and each time it is proven that the priest commited an act of molestation and the church covered it up, I think that when the 100th priest shows up and is accused you have to start from scratch and prove that it happened again.
There is a presumption of innocence.
I think that someone who makes a false accusation in an attempt to cash in on the misfortune of others needs to be dealt with in the harshest possible manner, especially if he sullies the reputation of an innocent man.
I think we need to use all means at our legal disposal to determine which cases are real, and which are fraudulent, and what the degree of responsibility the parties involved bear so that fitting recompense can be made.
I think that doing so is ultimately in the best interest of the Victims, the priests, the RCC, and the public at large.
again, yes, false accusations occur.
Possabilities:
A. Person is lying
B. Person is telling the truth.
Note, that in both cases, the concept “did the child ‘enjoy’ the molestation” is not relevant. A child cannot consent, their level of ‘enjoyment’ of the event is not relevant. If they enjoyed it, it was still a crime. If they didn’t it still was a crime. If they neither enjoyed nor hated it, it’s still a crime.
Given that, why would the attorney ask ‘did you enjoy it’, unless it’s designed to get the witness to break down and drop the charges. Some one who is lying about this in the first place would be unlikely to do a Perry Mason “you’re right, I’m lying” just 'cause some one asked if they liked it.
Wring:
While it’s not relevant to either A or B, it may be relevant to determining which is actually the case.
It may also be relevant determining the degree of culpability.
A 16 year old boy who falls in love with a priest and consummates that affair means the Priest is guilty of a crime. If the RCC has no knowledge of the event or reason to suspect that the priest was capable of such a thing, how is the RCC responsible for this? Why should they write out a check?
A priest who forcibly rapes a prepubescent boy, and uses threats to keep is silence is also guilty of a crime. If the Priest’s superiors find out, and cover it up, and reassign the priest, and put him in circumstances where it can happen again, than I think the crime is a lot worse and the responsibility, punishment and fiscal renumeration necessary is much higher.
So, for the third or the fourth time, depending on the context, the question may be a valid one.
Son of a bitch.
I cannot believe this thread.
First, yeah, the Roman Catholic Church is an earthly institution composed of fallible people (at least all but the Pope or the bishops collectively assembled in General Council, and them only when they specifically speak ex cathedra, according to themselves, and all of them according to virtually all non-Catholics).
And yes, there have been clear-cut cases of priests molesting children and admitting it. And yes, there are always mercenary people who will do anything to get a fast buck. And there are always people who are prepared to “spin” anything.
The Catholic Church has a moral obligation, under its own rules of conduct, to take action to prevent further cases of molestation, to cleanse itself of the cover-up mentality that I think seems evident in its recent actions.
It certainly has the legal right to defend itself against lawsuits, a few of which are no doubt from those aforementioned mercenary people, and many of which no doubt are from people with legitimate cases of molestation.
To defend itself appropriately does not require the sort of attacking the veracity or morality of those making the accusations suggested in the OP. This is particularly true from an institution which professes itself to be the site of the fullness of Christ’s grace. It has a moral obligation, under its own appropriate code of behavior, to dispense justice fairly and to submit to the laws of the land when they are not totally at odds with its own canon law – the U.S. law not fitting that latter exception. I believe wring’s point in the post just above clarifies the difference I see between what they might legally do as defendant in a lawsuit and what they must hold themselves morally obliged to do to maintain the stance they have taken of being Christ’s agent in the world.
IMHO, The Ryan’s post on page 1 was a model of evenhanded clarity compared to the stances some of you have taken.
And, of course, the red herring of whether priests are gay (in the sense the term is normally used in America, excluding cases of men with collars molesting boys) and whether a man with same-sex attraction can validly serve as a priest destroys what little credibility the American church’s official pronouncements to date have had.
Polycarp:
Yes. The Church does have a moral responsibility that it has imposed on itself.
However, when someone presents a legal suit against the Church asking for money, that is something that is occuring outside of that responsibility.
Scylla: my friend Triskadecamus has said much of what I would say, and far better (and more gently) than I would have.
But let me add a few things:
We Christians hold ourselves and our Church - in all its denominations - to God’s law, not man’s.
The laws of most nations, including the USA, don’t pretend to be legislating morality, but significant harm. You are indeed free under the laws to do much that is wrong. But just because we have the right to do something, doesn’t make it right.
We Christians, like everyone else, are sinners whose daily conduct has fallen short - way short - of the glory of God. But we acknowledge His standards of conduct, and acknowledge that we are to keep on trying to live as He would wish us, and to accept correction when offered.
We expect our institutional churches, of whatever denomination, to do their level best to act according to Christ’s precepts when they act institutionally.
(A good instance of this, btw, is in the aftermath of the Ponzi scheme known as the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy. Many of the institutions caught up in New Era, both as winners and losers, were evangelical Christian colleges and charities. Rather than going after one another in an adversarial proceeding, they were able to work out many issues peacably amongst themselves, rather than go the pit-bull route. So it can be done.)
Now, about these civil cases:
In some, there have been criminal convictions already. (The Hawaii case in the OP is an example.) Some are awaiting trial, or are only now being investigated by prosecutors. Others have had the statutes of limitations run out.
But in a case where a child has been molested, the overwhelming likelihood is that damage has been done. Should the plaintiffs not be recompensed for pain and suffering, or for the costs of years of therapy?
Then the question is, why is the RCC liable? The shuffling of molesting priests within the Church seems to have been an open secret within the institution; should the Church not be liable not only for the cases in which a priest molested again after being transferred, but also for having created a climate where priests who might molest youths were likely to realize that the Church, instead of punishing them and exposing them to civil punishment, would rather hide and shield them from the consequences of their actions?
And when we’re talking about the Church’s countercharges of negligence: in these cases, we can forget the “alleged”. In the Hawaii case, there was a guilty plea; anyway, a negligence countercharge doesn’t contest the molestation allegation but rather tries to pin the civil liability on another party - in this case the parents. (In the case of Gregory Ford, who was allegedly molested by Fr. Paul Shanley, the negligence was allegedly on Ford’s part. Ford was 6 years old at the time. :rolleyes:)
I’m not blaming the lawyers, and I don’t think anyone else is. It’s all about the Catholic Church’s choice of how to use its lawyers, and how that choice seems to have nothing to do with what Christ is about.
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.
If there are cases in which individual priests have managed to conceal molestations, or consensual affairs, or whatever, from the Church heirarchy significant lengths of time, it says a LOT about the structural deficiencies of the Catholic Church.
Wrong.
As a Christian, I am always obligated to act as Christ would want me to act. I may or may not succeed, but no provocation relieves me of that moral obligation.
The same is true of any institution that would call itself Christian.