Yeh, Scylla, it’s amazing how quickly some will jump to the conclusion that everyone accusing a priest of molestation is a moneygrubbing white trash theif. It’s equally amazing how quickly some will jump to the conclusion that since someone lives in a trailer thay must watch professional wrestling, drive a monster truck, and beat their common-law spouse.
Of course, I only see one poster jumping to conclusions like that; the majority seem to think that the accused are entitled to a defense, but that there are moral limits to what makes an acceptable defense.
Oops.
Many thanks in advance to the mod who knocks out the initial ****** in my previous post. And I’ll write “I will preview my posts” on the board 100 times.
And others seem to be saying that The Catholic Church, of all entities, should be, is expected to be, a little less interested in “winning” and a little more interested in determining ** the truth. ** These are two different things, and the tactics that are being used by RCC’s attorneys are the tactics for winning, not for getting at the truth.
The RCC should also be a little more interested, one would hope, in doing anything and everything they can to make up for the damage that has been done. That’s kinda the business they are supposed to be in, isn’t it? Reducing suffering, providing comfort, all that jazz?
As it happens, I think the RCC has a right try and avoid being victimized itself, but that should take a backseat to doing the right thing. After all, it’s not as though the church is innocent in this. We’ve known for years and years that the standard response to this kind of thing is to pay off the accusing family and move the priest somewhere else. With no regard for the safety of the children in the new location.
The church made their beds long ago, and now they are whining about having to lie down in them. Pardon me if I don’t cry about it when they lose some money to a few unscrupulous folk.
stoid
Scylla, in all respect, i think you are judging this by the wrong criteria.
As has been pointed out by other posters, the RCC isn’t like “every entity in the world”–it is supposed to be the representative of Christ on Earth. If the RCC Curia has sinned against its flock-and it has–the Curia must apologize, not go on snarling attack mode. If it can’t live up to Jesus’s example, the RCC ought to disband right now.
So the media invented the hundreds of molestation incidents that have been uncovered? Please.
A. The church has done nothing good that I can see–resisiting birth control for poor nations, supporting landowners against peasants in Latin America, turning its back on AIDS sufferers, and of course, aiding and abetting child molestation.
B. The Church’s lawyers are, presumably with the Church’s blessing, blaming the victims for their molestation. That’s just indefensible. It’s the same as blaming the victim in a rape case. “Your Honor, Little Timmy was just asking for it, the little tease. He knew what a sexually provocative 4th-grader he was. The way he let the priest put the Host in his mouth during Mass, the way he wore that slinky altarboy’s robe like it was painted on. He must have been the biggest slut in his elementary school.”
The RCC may have been the Bride of Christ once, but now she is nothing more than the Whore of Babylon.
JohnM: IANAC, so I’m curious: does this apply even when the priest speaks only to his superiors, and in the most general terms?
For instance, would a priest who said to his bishop in strictest confidence, “I’ve been hearing a disturbing number of murder confessions lately,” be booted out of the Church for that?
From a yes answer to that question, you can bring up questions of force (“So, he didn’t physically hurt you during that incident?”), and motivation, (“The next time my client allegedly asked you to have sexual relations with him, you agreed willingly, you weren’t frightened?”)…that sort of thing.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by plnnr
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.
[QUOTE]
Sure. The tort system of awarding monetary damages has two objectives. One is to compensate a person for the harm they suffered and the other is to discourage further tortious activity.
Let’s assume liability in our hypothetical case. All that is left to determine is the amount of damages to be awarded. The damages need to compensate the victim for the wrong and discourage tortious behavior by the defendant and society at large. So, compare two different hypothetical cases: Case 1 is a 15-year old who was forcibly raped. Case 2 is a 15-year old who engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with an adult.
Generally, the victim in Case 1 is going to have more severe emotional scars from being raped than would a 15 year old who willingly engaged in sexual intercourse. I’m not denying that the 15 year old who consented to sex might suffer some scars, but they’d generally be less than the rape victim’s. So in the compensation prong of the equation, consent is relevant to the money needed to make the victim whole again (or as “whole” as a monetary award can make somebody.)
For the second prong of deterrence, society generally regards forcible rape as more horrible than consensual sex with a 15 year old. Society doesn’t exactly encourage the second kind of tort, but it’s not considered as bad as the first. In such a case a jury might very well decide that a massive monetary award is not warranted for deterrence purposes. They might feel that, while sex with a 15 year old should be discouraged, the act is not as heinous as a rape and so relatively less money should be awarded.
It can’t live up to His example; none of us can. Nonetheless, it should be prepared to give it the old College (of Cardinals ;)) try.
I understand the difference between a civil and criminal action, Zoff. And, I agree that in some cases, the ‘consent’ of a slightly underaged victim might be considered as mitigation.
but not, repeat not for some one who had an affirmative duty to protect/not harm, some one in a position of trust. Such as (but not limited to) a parent, a teacher, a priest.
and I suspect that since criminal law follows that path (ie, for example in my state of MI, such a position of trust in the perp is a reason to heighten the potential penalties), and that these laws came about from dulely elected representatives, I believe that it is very likely that they do indeed represent the likely feelings of a civil jury as well.
From the Code of Canon Law
You might be right. All I’m saying is that the information could be probative and the Church has the right to present suche evidence. The jury is entitled to reject the attempt to mitigate damages if they so choose.
So, your suggesting a tactical rational for the question?
In that case, I suggest that any lawyer who attempted to portray an underaged person as the aggresson in this case would be at best guilty of a poor tactic, at worst, would up the ante. The question was offensive, and given the circumstances, not likely to garner sympathy for the priest. With that situation, the better plan is to attempt to show the priest’s remorse, attempts (if any) to cease the relationship, attempts (if any) to get help for himself and the victim. To continue to batter the victim is an exceedingly poor tactic, which I stated before.
RTF:
I think Cal Thomas has a substantial point, so I feel no need to cut any crap.
and I beginning to read you as a guy with a serious axe to grind against the RCC who’s using this as an opportunity to let fly.
Don’t want your help in this, but thanks for offering. I see the flaws of men and the mission and the purpose of the Church as different things.
I think there’s been an acknowledgement of grave failure and resolve to fix it from the pontiff. But, you read that speech differently.
This one:
You think creating a figure to symbolize the RCC offered up for public humiliation is an appropriate response?
Why don’t you just burn him at the stake?
Smells like a witch.
Both of these may be germaine to determining the extent of liability in civil cases. You believe the Church should deprive itself or be coerced into depriving itself of appropriate defense because of special circumstances. You want to see the process of laws circumvented.
Witches don’t have rights and aren’t entitled to defense like regular folk. Shit, that’s in Witch hunts 101.
I think that’s actually up to the judge to ensure proper lawerly conduct, and I think there are sufficient penalties extant when it doesn’t occur.
Trying to tie the hands of a defendant or his attorney’s when no such compunction is placed on the one making the accusations creates a lopsided proceeding with a presumtpion of guilt. That, by the way, was Joe McCarthy’s little personal specialty.
No. I never said the Church was behaving penitently. I was responding directly to your hypothetical, the context of which I believe was the Pope, or some Catholic functionary making a pretty frank and sweeping admission of past and ongoing malfeasance to Jesus Christ himself.
I assumed that when you wrote that piece you were trying to give a pretty sincere picture of what you thought the Church’s crimes were both past and present, and what you thought JC’s reaction would be.
In other words, I was responding to the text of your hypothetical speech to the savior, not to courtroom drama.
Well, I don’t think that it was an honest or realistic asessment of the situation, and that it was built up for rhetorical effect. I don’t think that’s an even-handed attempt at what the Pope would or should say if he were to ask JC what to do.
I can’t open two browsers at once from this machine, but I’ll be happy to go over it if you like. Let me know.
[quote]
Scylla, I like you and I respect you. But in this particular debate, it’s time for you to put up or shut up.
And I think it’s time for you to take a deep breathe and consider how you will feel when your entire faith comes under fire because of the misdeeds of a few men.
So if a priest sends an anonymous letter to his cardinal, stating that he’s a priest under the cardinal’s authority who has heard a priest’s repeated confessions of having sexual interactions with minors, naming no names, would that be direct or indirect?
Because if a priest merely risks being “punished according to the gravity of the offence,” I’d think it would be a no-brainer, to possibly protect a child. I presume “the gravity of the offence” would dictate the priest’s being awarded whatever the RCC has instead of medals, in such an instance.
And this would be justified if this scandal were confined to just a few men, This molestation scandal, however. appears to be widespread, affecting nearly every state in the union and a few foreign countries. The coverup, the moving of pedophile priests from diocese to diocese was sanctioned at the the highest levels of the church. The RCC, as an institution, is guilty of grave sins against children. Cardinal Law, especially, ought to make some act of atonement and contrition for his sin of shielding pedophiles from punishment and enabling to continue their careers of hurting children.
and I won’t even go into the Church’s attempt to throw the blame on gay priests, as if pedophilia and homosexuality were identical, which ignores the numbers of men who slaver for little girls. :mad:
The facts of a case dictate tactics. Given that we don’t know anything about the facts in this case I think it’s a bit premature to criticize tactics.
Presenting a consent argument against a plaintiff who was 7 at the time is a bad idea. Presenting a consent argument against a 15 year old who did, in fact, consent is not necessarily a bad idea.
Let’s wait until we know more about the case before deciding whether the question is appropriate. That’s all I’m saying.
I think I can see where you are coming from, now. I would like to appologise for saying this
I do not blame the church for the actions of the priests, I blame them for creating the atmosphere where they could flourish. The organization has problems, the religion (seperate from the organization) doesn’t.
While I don’t share your faith, I don’t intend to belittle it.
Zoff - we know that it’s a priest and the other person was a minor. that’s sufficient data to me, to call the tactic an exceedingly poor idea, since (sigh) the minor cannot legally consent, and the priest has an affirmative duty to do no harm.
I cannot fathom of anything, given those two pieces of data, that would change the situation enough to change my position.
Priest = adult, educated, trained person w/affirmative duty to do no harm, in a position of trust.
minor = some one incapable legally of giving consent.
any generally mitigating factors couldn’t help here (for example, if the perp was developmentally disabled, that might mitigate, but then they wouldn’t be a priest, the minor consenting might mitigate but not in the case of some one in a position of trust).
any other possabilities that you see that I’m not?
The children who’ve been abused have every right to legal process.
Innocent priests have a right to defend themselves, but should be very careful about instructing their lawyers.
When appalling misery has been caused over decades, yet covered up by members of an organisation whose sole purpose is moral (and which demands its members confess their sins), then it is a moral imperative not to cause unnecessary further distress.
The Church should recognise its moral responsibilities. Did you not appreciate my point about British Government Ministers taking responsibility for their subordinates behaviour and resigning, even though they were personally innocent?
Didn’t a US President have a sign on his desk saying ‘the buck stops here’?
The subject of money keeps being mentioned, but it’s not about money. It’s about a Christian Church acting in a Christian way.
Jesus wouldn’t behave like the current defence lawyers. He would call upon the guilty to confess and seek pardon. His thoughts would be with the victims, not the Church finances.
As gobear said:
“As has been pointed out by other posters, the RCC isn’t like “every entity in the world”–it is supposed to be the representative of Christ on Earth. If the RCC Curia has sinned against its flock-and it has–the Curia must apologize, not go on snarling attack mode. If it can’t live up to Jesus’s example, the RCC ought to disband right now.”
That would be indirect, and, under that circumstance, the cardinal would be obligated to destroy the letter.
I think you’re misunderstanding “the gravity of the offence” language. It doesn’t refer to the gravity of the sin confessed, but instead to the gravity of the priest’s violation of the seal of the confessional. It’s a principle of canon law that the confessor may not, under any circumstances, licitly reveal what he is told in the confessional, and information told in the confessional may never licitly be used against the penitant. The logic behind that is, a penitant who is afraid that he or she might suffer in some way due to the confession of a sin (whether through legal actions taken against him, or through the shame of his act becoming public knowledge), that penitant would be less likely to confess the sin.