RTF:
What we have are two different issues:
Issue number one is the Church’s failure to live up to its own moral imperative on this issue.
Issue number two is the Church’s legal responsibility for crimes it may have committed, covered up, or tacitly allowed.
When somebody sues the Church it is 2. that we are talking about.
On bizarro world good am bad.
You wanted a response to your example of the “did you enjoy it” question not being reprihensible; bullshit, is my response. Care to come up with an example where that question would actually help an innocent person, rather than one who is guilty of a different crime?
I never said the church have no right to defend themselves. The tactics they are using are morally reprihensible.
Scylla says:
So a mother who leaves her child with a priest is “unfit” without being given benifit of the doubt, anyone accusing a priest of molestation is a “white trash” “moneygrubbing theif” without benifit of the doubt, but god forbid I should find the church’s actions questionable.
I don’t understand why the Catholic Church needs to be so concerned with money. Jesus wasn’t.
OK, that’s probably a separate thread.
I didn’t say they shouldn’t defend themselves against the accusations. I do object to hardline questioning of alleged victims. Why is is necessary for a Christian Church to use such tactics?
I’m proud of my country. Note that its stated purpose is not the same as the Church’s. Nevertheless our police and courts prosecute this tiny minority of hooligans who disgrace England.
In particular, if a Government official was in charge of a Department that connived at a coverup, he would resign, even if not personally involved. Simple code of responsibility, and a meaningful gesture to the victims.
I watched the Heysel barbarism with some European football supporters. I apologised profusely. I did not say “Oh, you killed lots of people in the War” and I put the tactics of the Church’s lawyers in the same category.
I repeat - I didn’t say they couldn’t defend themselves - I question the way they’re doing it.
If I were a teacher in a school system with systematic abuse I would speak up. I wouldn’t dream of letting abuse go on for 40 years. Even if I had failed to notice it, I would resign out of shame.
Apparently the Catholic hierarchy has more regard for money than children.
On the one hand, Scylla is correct that the RCC is entitled to defend itself and that there is a presumption of innocence.
That, however, does not excuse the contemptible, disgusting, sleazy tactic of blaming the victims. Asking, “Did the priest molest this person x number of years ago?” is a reasonable tactic to get at the truth. Asking, “Did you enjoy it?” is filthy.
Children do not seduce priests. RCC clergy (up til now) were presumed to be persons of good moral character, and letting one’s son sleep over so he can be ready to serve at an early morning Mass should not be construed as an invitation to have the child raped.
Attacking the characters of the plaintiffs in such a vile fashion may be a way to win, but it is not a way to determine the truth or falsity of the accusation.
Furthermore, since the Church hierarchy has been proven guilty of protecting priest/molesters and enabling to attack children with impunity, the Church is and ought to be liable for damages in civil suits.
Moreover, as an aside, this final depth of callous inhumanity should persuade any decent Christian to abandon the RCC as an irredeemably corrupt institution.
Pld:
I dunno. Why would we assume that a priest who is willing to molest a child is going to make a good confession? I don’t think we can assume that the RCC knew one or didn’t know until we have specific evidence to persuade us.
RTF:
Well, let’s see. What would Jesus do if he were the defense attorney for the RCC in a child molestation case seeking financial renumeration?
He’d probably look into the person’s heart and see what really happened, and take his next actions from what he saw there. I
I don’t think they teach that at law school, though.
Ole JC didn’t suffer greedy fools and con-men who preyed upon others, though. I know that.
So, what would Jesus do if he only had the abilities and knowledge of a Defense attorney?
I would think that having accepted the case, he would do his damndest to discharge his responsibilites to the fullest of his abilities. That’s what I think JC would do.
I think if he had to ask some hard questions, he’d ask them. He was loving and compassionate, but he didn’t shy away from putting people on the spot when the situation called for it, and he didn’t step around an issue either.
So, in the proper circumstances, I could easily see Jesus asking such a tough and forthright question.
No Bubba-Ray, I don’t want anything from you. I was making an observation that you’d failed to actually address any of the issues raised in your ongoing attempt to play the indignant card.
Well let’s look at a capitalist business. Its reason for existence is to make a profit. It might be nice to have a moral dimension (but arms traders still sell to both sides in wars).
If a company fails to break even, it goes bankrupt. Nobody says “Oh, they were nice - let’s bail them out.”
My point about the Catholic Church is that morally bankrupt clergy are refusing to accept their moral responsibilities.
Gobear:
I happen to most likely agree with you. It probably was a poor question.
Not being familiar with the case other than from a soundbite though, I’ve decided to reserve judgement. That’s all.
Now you have got to be bullshitting us, Scylla. Jesus would harass accusors in order to get the church off?
A wise man once compared churches to whitewashed tombs, nice to look at but rotten on the inside. I think he would feel the same today.
So, should one pursue a legal remedy to a moral problem?
Scylla, you classist piece of shit, I have said from my first fucking post that the church has a right to a vigorous defence. Do you even have a clue how tacky the lawyer’s tactics are? Having seen your tactics here I would guess not.
So the church should take whatever legal means are necessary to defend themselves no matter how immoral they may be?
I’ll quote myself:
So the ‘WWJD’ question here applies to the client, not the lawyer. And that client is the RCC.
OK, the Catholic Church comes to Jesus and says, "Rabbi, I’m an organization dedicated to serving You. I’ve employed many known child molesters, and I’ve routinely covered up their misdeeds.
"When I couldn’t convince the victims and their parents to keep their mouths shut for my good, I paid them off as quietly as possible, requiring them to not divulge the details. I’ve told them that the priests are being treated, when the treatment has been ineffectual and minimal.
"Even now, I’m doing my best to conceal the extent of the priests’ misdeeds. I haven’t spoken a negative word about my subordinates who’ve participated in covering up these actions. I haven’t apologized to the victims or their families.
"Now, people are realizing that it wasn’t just a few wayward priests who were responsible, but that I encouraged those priests by providing an environment where they were safe to prey on children. And all these children and their parents are suing to hold me responsible.
"Many of them surely were abused. Others are surely trying to falsely claim abuse to cash in. So here’s what I’m doing: In some cases where I know that abuse indeed happened, I’m blaming the victims and their parents for allowing it to happen. In other cases where I don’t know if abuse happened or not, I’m deliberately outing the victims, and asking them if they enjoyed it. And in general, I’m having my lawyers be as nasty as possible to them until I’m sure they’re the real McCoy. And of course, I’m doing my best to hide documents from them that would enable many of them to prove that they’re the real McCoy.
“So, Rabbi, whaddaya think?”
I think he might say something like:
(Matthew 25:41-43.)
But maybe my understanding of the Gospel is a bit weak.
But he would do it himself, rather than delegate it to people in a profession that dedicates itself to winning regardless of the cost. For Jesus said:
Mark 8:36. To subject the innocent and guilty alike to such treatment would be an abomination in His eyes, even if the Church were as pure as snow.
But the Church isn’t clean - it’s committed decades’ worth of great corruption here. And now it’s subjecting those wronged by the Church, as well as some that are hoping for the free ride, to these tactics, in order to save a few bucks, after having been party to the molestations of hundreds of those little ones that Matthew 18:6, which Tris has cited, refers to:
At this point, the Church has a much higher obligation to do everything it can for those it’s victimized, having preyed on others, than to protect itself from those who might take advantage of that to prey on it in turn.
That isn’t to say that it should roll over and play dead, but it should certainly keep its legal pit bulls on a pretty short leash in cases where it’s less than certain that the Church is being wronged.
Grendel:
Listen trailerboy, You’re not funny. You’re not smart. You’re not incisive. Worst of all, you’re not interesting, and the armored in ignorance and indignance schtick is wearing thin.
Go cook a possum.
No. For the 82nd time. You don’t know for a fact whether the question was appropriate or not, because you don’t know the circumstances or the context within which it was asked.
Nor did I say what you wish to attribute as my stance.
I simply don’t think it is reasonable to expect a solution to a moral problem from a legal proceeding.
They are seperate.
Scylla, did you happen to take note of the word confess in the OP’s article? The case where you and the church are insisting the mother was unfit- the priest confessed.
I never claimed to be funny, smart or incisive. I could honestly give a shit what some anonymous coward on the internet thinks of me.
RTF:
Oh. I guess I must have misinterpreted the question. It turns out that it’s not WWJD, but actually what would Jesus say.
And, I’m quite sure you’ve gotten it wrong. While I don’t think your confession is an accurate one, let’s say it was made, as you state it, verbatim.
I don’t think Jesus would turn away a sincere penitent under any circumstances, regardless of the crime.
I’m surprised you’d suggest otherwise.
Nor do I. But if an organization exists for the primary purpose of furthering a moral or ethical framework, I don’t see how being the defendant in a lawsuit frees it, in that context, from the responsibility of acting consistently with that framework.
If your moral framework says, “I should be ruthless in my own defense,” then you should act on that moral code in court, as elsewhere. But I cannot find anything like that in the Gospels, and presumably there’s some connection between the Church’s mission and the Gospels.
**
Oh man. I don’t even fucking believe it. Of course I saw it, you ignoramus. That’s why when you asked me for an example of how such a question might be appropriate, I specifically crafted one that fit the context of what little facts were presented, i.e. a case where abuse actually occurs and the priest commits the crime, as in the article.
You need to stop huffing that lighter fluid, Jesco.
**
A wise choice.
You need to read that again. It actually says the opposite of what you want it to.
Looking at the situation the RCC now finds itself in, I was having a hard time imagining Jesus having arrived in that position in the first place. So I did the best I could.
If you question its accuracy, feel free to say where.
Nor do I. But I see exactly zero evidence that the Church is acting like a sincere penitent.
If you think otherwise, present your evidence.