It appears to me that you’re assuming that if a person with an affirmative duty to do no harm (assuming that the priest falls in this category in Illinois) is barred from asserting consent as a defense or mitigation of damages. I’m not an expert in Illinois law, but I’m not aware of a statute that prevents the priest or the Church from bringing up consent.
The other problem we seem to be having is the way we’re using “consent”. As a legal issue, minors of a certain age can not consent so any adult would be guilty or liable for having sex with a person under that age. But even if a person is not legally of the age of consent, the factual consent can enter into a jury’s decision about how much to award in damages.
The fact is that tort law tries to put a price on wrongs. Forcibly raping a person is considered by most to be more wrong than consensual sex with a minor. So the awards will generally be less for statutory rape than for forcible rape. A person will still be liable for the statutory rape, it’s just that the damages won’t be as much.
But we aren’t discussing a suit a gainst a priest, we’re discussing a suit against his superiors. Don’t you agree that “I had no idea this was going on” sounds more believable is the victim was a willing participant?
Scylla
Your “entire faith” is not coming under fire. Unless the entirety of your faith conists of Cardinal Law and his ilk. I would hope that there is more to the Catholic faith than covering up sexual abuse.
If that is the only avenue, yes. If the perpetrator repeatedly rebuffs nonlegal remedies, what else is there to do?
you know, you’ve skirted around that several times now.
let me make it perfectly clear.
statutory rape is still rape. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.
Some jurisdictions will have slightly less penalties if the parties are close (like w/in less than 4 years) in age, but that wouldn’t be in this case.
Most jurisdictions (all the ones I’m aware of) increase the penalties if the adult involved is in a position of trust, listed before, as is true in this case.
To infer, imply, nudge along the concept that a 15 year old w/an adult in a position of trust can give some level of consent, and therefore, it’s ‘not quite rape’ in some nefarious degree - I find it offensive.
The age difference and position of trust (mostly the latter) overrides any potential mitigation of the consent issue.
FOr instance - in the State of MI, a prison guard cannot legally have sex w/a prisoner. NO level of ‘consent’ is available to that person because of the relationship
Psychiatrists, as well, generally (IIRC) can loose their liscense for having relations with patients. yes, even w/consent.
Teachers (even at universities) often are in the same boat.
Consent in this case is not available. It cannot be given. therefore it cannot be used as mitigation (criminally) and will certainly backfire substantially if attempted in a civil court.
Maybe that’s the difference between us. IANAC, but I’ve got a long and deep respect for the Catholic Church. I was reading Thomas Merton thirty years ago, ferchrissakes. I’ve had no shortage of close friends who are Roman Catholics.
But no matter how much I respect the Church, this matter is still an abomination. And by ‘this matter’, I’m talking about the Church’s long-term response to priestly molestations, without which there would probably have been a lot fewer of them.
Yeah, to me it read like Nixon’s speech of April 30, 1973 - the one where he sadly granted Haldeman and Ehrlichman’s resignations, calling them “two of the finest public servants” he’d had the pleasure to know, while giving John Dean the and-good-riddance heave-ho. But I’ve already spoken to that one in an earlier thread.
I was actually thinking that this ritual apology/abasement could be done privately, rather than out in the open with the TV cameras running. But it should be done. It would demonstrate that the Church is taking seriously the hurt it has done to its flock, rather than circling the wagons around the clergy. It would remind the clergy that the shepherds exist to serve the flock, not to be princelings over it.
You’re right: a fifteen-minute private ritual apology is equivalent to an agonizing death.
So the jury award would hinge on what’s known, or not, beyond the courtroom? That makes no sense at all.
I repeat: no ‘outing’ of victims. Period.
And the negligence countercharge is blaming-the-victim of the highest order. The Church has spent centuries telling its flock to trust the guys with robes; now if the flock believed 'em, it’s their bad?
Betrayals on top of betrayals.
No.
If I tell a friend, “you shouldn’t tell your dad to go fuck himself,” that doesn’t mean I’m against the First Amendment.
And if I tell the RCC it shouldn’t avail itself of a particular legal tactic, that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to the process of the law.
You’re right: unless I advocate that everyone avail themselves of every possible right at every waking moment, I’ve clearly advocated that someone is not entitled to one of those rights. It follows, like March follows May. :rolleyes:
You’re right again: it would violate ‘the system’ if a client actually told his lawyer what to do. What could I have been thinking?
Well, at least we got that straight. I was pretty sure I’d implied that the ‘penitent’ felt he was on the right track, intended to keep pursuing that direction, and was running it by J.C. to get his rubber-stamp. IOW, not penitent at all.
I’m sure the Pope would describe it differently. But was it inaccurate?
Go for it.
‘A few men’? The Pope, two or three of the 12(?) American Cardinals, who knows how many bishops and archbishops, and how many priests - but enough priests to molest hundreds of kids, apparently, and enough superiors to cover it all up.
And from what I’ve read, this problem is far from being primarily an American problem, no matter how the Holy See may wish to spin it.
If something like this had happened in the Episcopal Church at those times when I’ve been an Episcopalian, or in the ELCA when I’ve been Lutheran, I’d be equally outraged, and I’d be feeling betrayed, too.
You can play circle-the-wagons if you want to, but I feel the way I feel precisely because the Catholic Church is part of my Christian world, even if I’m not a Catholic. You think the Church, as God sees it, is neatly compartmentalized into denominations? We’re all in this together. And because we’re all in this together, some of the pain over this is mine.
Make no mistake: how the Catholic Church comports itself in the world is important to all Christians. It can’t just pull up the bridges; it’s got responsibilities that go beyond itself. It’s important to all of us who serve the Lord that the RCC be a force for good in the world.
And in order for it to do so, it needs to get this one a damned sight more right than it has so far. I don’t want the RCC to fall on its face - I want to see it redeem itself. But I’m wondering if it’s got a clue that anyone besides the individual priests has actually done anything wrong here.
Heh. At least one poster in this thread has already called the actions of the church “unredeemable” (not sure why he gets to decide redemption issues though… ), and that all Catholics of conscience need to jump ship.
I suspect Scylla meant “faith” in the descriptive community sense of a denomination, rather than a personal faith.
I don’t even care what Cal Thomas said…and didn’t read the link, but
was a cheap shot. Unless you wish to apply the same standards to past post of yours where you have agreed with a commentator, editorialist or politician. (That they tell you what to think).
I believe that a confessor to a priest has the authority to assign penance, and withhold absolution until that penance is completed. It is the abuse of a child while standing the place of God that we are discussing in the way of sins, here. I don’t think a dozen laps around the beads is a reasonable penance.
The Pope knew that this was a problem, and he was busy excommunicating priests for performing marriages for gay couples. He felt that homosexual acts justified this harshest of penalties. Why is it not obvious to every priests confessor that appropriate penance for the sin of pederasty must include a voluntary monastic isolation for the remainder of the priests life. That isn’t even a punishment. An unconfessed priest is not allowed to say mass, or give communion. If the confessor allows the priest to do so, he is sanctifying the giving of false sacraments, which the Pope has said justifies excommunication.
The legal issues of protecting the wealth of the Catholic Church(which is greater than that of most nations) is not supposed to be as important to the Church itself, by its own doctrines as the sanctity of the clergy. Not the appearance of sanctity, but true sanctity, able to stand before God Himself.
The pragmatic facts of lawyer tactics are these: If the best lawyers do the best job they can do, the Pope and the Catholic Church can enjoy the same level of public respect and trust as is currently enjoyed by O. J. Simpson. They will, no doubt save just buckets of money, too, even after their legal fees. Won’t the Lord be proud?
Please find where I said or implied statutory rape is not rape. All I’ve ever said is that society considers forcible rape to be worse than statutory rape. Again, please find where I’ve said or implied that statutory rape is not rape.
They increase criminal penalties. Please find where Illinois mandates enhanced monetary damages against adults in a position of trust.
Well then go get offended at somebody who implied that it’s “not quite rape”. I’ve pointed out that juries, and legislatures, view forcible rape as worse than statutory rape. If you didn’t understand that, then please re-read. If, on the other hand, you’re trying to take a cheap shot and imply that I don’t care about rape, then you ought to be ashamed.
You know why? Because there is a statute that specifically forbids that as a criminal defense. Could you please show me the Illinois statute that bars a priest or church from raising the issue of consent in a civil lawsuit?
This series of statements is contradictory. If it’s not available in a civil action then how can it backfire? If you’re saying that it’s a bad idea to use in a civil suit, I’d agree in certain circumstances. If you’re saying it’s unavailable because it’s not a defense in a criminal case then you’re wrong.
Let me just add before I’m off for the night that it may well turn out that the attorney in Illinois is being a supreme prick. He might be harassing a guy who was 7 years old and didn’t even know what sex is until some lecherous piece of shit molested him. It could be that there is case law in Illinois saying that consent can not be raised in a civil case involving sex with a minor.
But we currently know this about the case: (1) it’s in Illinois, and (2) the lawyer for the Church asked if the plaintiff enjoyed what he alleges (I’m assuming in a deposition, but the article doesn’t even mention that.) Given that paucity of information, I’m holding off on the outrage for the time being. If facts later come to light showing that this question was as unseemly as some assume, then I’ll be just as pissed off. But I’ll wait for facts not conjecture. I’ll wait until somebody cites me the relevant statute or case law from Illinois about these matters. I don’t care if a prison guard can’t fuck an inmate in Michigan. You might want to draw some sort of tortured analogy from it, but I’m not buying.
I’m waiting for facts, which have been very scarce in this thread.
The law can say whatever the fuck it wants, that has no effect on the morality of the question. Just because the lawyer may have been within his legal rights (I don’t think anyone has implied he wasn’t), doesn’t make the questioning morally right.
The logic there, I think, is if the priest rapes someone, or has sex with someone under 16, he’s committing a grevious sin against his vows and also against the other person, which deserves punishment.
However, if he violates the seal of the confessional, not only is he sinning against the person whose confidence he betrayed, it’s also a sin against G-d, because, in the confessional, the priest is G-d’s authorized representative, doing something miraculous.
FIrst off, the pertinant criminal statute for the state of Illinois here
and
A priest can be considered both a position of trust and authority.
and now on to:
** I said “skirted” deliberately because you didn’t state that statutory rape wasn’t rape, but you did say for example
One’s more wrong, therefore the other is less wrong. Like I said, skirting. And went on to use other terms like ‘imply, infer’ etc. And I consider this statement to do just that. Especially when there’s a position of trust involved, as the Illinois state statute provides, it’s considered more heinous. So, as I’ve been saying all along any attempt at demonstrating ‘consent’ as a mitigating factor is cancelled out by the exacerbating factor of “position of trust”.
as soon as you show me how/where/when does any state ‘mandate’ monetary damages in any civil suit, I’ll research the relevant Illinois factor. I always thought it was the juries involved.
and they all universally view rape of a child by some one in a position of trust to be more heinous than ‘consensual’ sex w/an underage person w/o the position of trust.
please see above and apply to yourself, thank you.
I have said, (repeatedly) that Consent is not available as a justification for a person in a position of trust to have sexual contact with a minor in a criminal setting. (note that the statute quoted didn’t say 'except when the minor wants/enjoys it).
AND:
I HAVE said it’s a bad idea to attempt to use it in this civil case, I’ve said it over and over again.
Will the court deny them the attempt to say ‘but little Johnny enjoyed it so?’ Probably not. However, a judge also would be required to ‘charge’ the jury as a matter of law, and the applicable law would be that a minor cannot consent to sexual contact. So, however you wish to interpret the statement “it’s not an available defense”, go for it. IN both cases, the judge would be required to inform the jury as to the pertinant law. And, the laws in the state of Illinois say that a minor cannot consent and that some one in a position of authority has specifically higher penalties for violating that trust.
I asked you before and ask again - given the specific pieces of data : Priest. Underaged minor. Sexual contact. Illinois (since you were so insisitent that my ‘generally speaking’ wasn’t sufficient) What on this earth might possibly be used as a mitigating factor where the issue of consent would then come to play? Hint - the statute itself doesn’t give any.
You’re either lying 'cause the truth would hurt your case OR you’re a idiot OR you have the reading comprehension problem that Scylla’s been talking about.
Are you saying that if you were FALSELY ACCUSED of child molestation (and it’s YOU, so you know the accuser is lying) you wouldn’t want your lawyer to use every legal tactic possible? You wouldn’t want him to try to expose the lying swine? You wouldn’t want rip your false-accuser a new asshole after he’s put you through hell?
Yes, he most certainly WOULD. Or at the very least be reprimanded sternly.
The seal of the confessional is binding. It doesn’t matter if you don’t say who did it, or even if you didn’t know WHO was confessing (in an anonymous situation).
What is said in the confessional stays in the confessional.
Right now, I’m feeling so sick. Maybe I should stop calling myself Catholic? How can I reconcile my beliefs in the religion when this is what it does?
I’m reading a book on Oscar Romero. I started sobbing, reading some of his words and essays left behind-they were that powerful.
Scylla, I don’t know if you’re Catholic-hell, I don’t know if you’re even Christian or whatever. But let me tell you-yes, this is a serious, SERIOUS misdeed.
I can only imagine that Sr. Frances Ramona (God Rest Her Soul!) is doing 360s in her grave.
