The “diocese” doesn’t know anything. The diocese is a geographical/administrative district. the existence of which helps church heirarchy keep track of Catholics. If you mean the bishop or archbishop knows but does nothing, then perhaps individual bishops or archbishops are condoning the actions, but I don’t think that’s the case. I’ve never heard any person in a position of authority in the Roman Catholic Church say, “Yes, I think this is a good idea.”
The biggest problem with doing ANYTHING about this is that first you have to PROVE that it actually happened, and with all the obstruction going on, that’s going to be well-nigh impossible, except for outrageously flagrant cases.
I do not know that anyone spoke the words “this is a good idea,” but Cardinal law has admitted that he moved Fr. Geoghan numerous times after he had been recognized as a pederast. In fact, one of the charges against him arose among his own priests who constantly found themselves receiving Fr. Geoghan as an associate without being told that he had a history of pedophilia. Cardinal Law had to have known those situations. Other bishops have been accused of (and, occasionally admitted to) doing the same sort of thing.
The claim that it was policy or that it was universal practice is incorrect/false, (at least when applied indiscriminately to all 270+ U.S. diocese). The claim that it happened on far too many occasions is absolutely true.
Sure. My comments were aimed at people who though the First Amendment (presumably the “religion” clause more than the “free association” clause) would have any relevance whatsoever.
I believe that had Law and Cardinal Mahoney the Bishop of Los Angeles, among others, been executives in any non-religious organization they would long ago have been in trouble for failing to report a felony.
That doesn’t mean I agree that the Catholic Church could be outlawed. That’s an entirely different matter.
That is quite possibly true. OTOH, I saw a statement from either the Boston DA or the Massachusetts AG that seemed to indicate they wanted Law’s head and nothing ever came of it. Given that the laity of the Boston archdiocese were demanding Law’s resignation (with a strong component of “prosecute him”), I can’t think what sort of political barrier there might have been to prosecute and suspect that the laws were simply not written (at that time) in such a way as to provide a prosecutor with a case.
I would like to ask the OP: Everyone indeed acknowledges that some officials of the Church did not deal with these incidents in a way that minimized the danger to children. I would like to know which organization or segment of soceity *in the timeframe you are discussing * DID deal with child molestors in a way which you approve of and you think the Church should have / should now emulate.
In short, we already know what you wanted the Church to do; I want to know if there was anyone else dealing with the problem in a way you approve back then.
Hey, didn’t you used to be a liberal? Yet you think the funds and the buildings belong to the government? What about the innocent people who worship there? What if its administrators are like most Catholic administrators – innocent?
I know this is going to seem really radical, but why not just prosecute the ones who appear to be guilty and those who conspired to hide their crimes?
Inded, but it is the individual bishop or priest, not the whole RCC.
To hide the crime is wrong and the guilty should be prosecuted,but the whole church shouldn’t be outlawed.
There are families in which a child molester is not prosecuted because they do not want to embarass other members, should we then outlaw the families?
They should be reported but in many cases they are not.
I think the RCC’s stand on sexuality is wrong and perhaps that is one of the causes for the crimes commited. Perhaps if they took a more sane course there would be less sexual predators who use and abuse children.
First, if the Catholic Church was declared a criminal organization or an agent of an enemy power, it’s assets would belong to the government. That’s pretty much standard. Second, the innocent people would be out of luck, just as they would be out of luck if they were unknowingly benefiting from any other criminal organization that got taken down. Third, I doubt that “most” Catholic administrators are innocent.
No doubt that would be more practical ( and politically possible ) than the sledgehammer approach of declaring the whole church a criminal organization, but I was responding to a claim that it was impossible to outlaw the Cathoilc Church without brainwashing millions of people.
No, it’s not a yes or no question, since you appear to have missed to point. The point is that as morally bad as it is to rob someone at gunpoint, I consider it even worse to work for the tobacco company. And since I was speaking about the morality of it, the legality is irrelevant.
How is it that people fail to grasp the most fundamental elements of logic? The entire tobacco industry is geared to producing a noxious substance. The entire Catholic Church is not geared to producing pedophiles. If understanding this causes you that much trouble, I suggest a few years’ worth of Sesame Street’s ‘one of these things is not like the other’ might enlighten you to the concept.
Where does this logic stop? Tobacco products are a consumer product which have a particularly noteworthy and significant chance to lead (more or less directly) to lung cancer which can often lead to death (as well as other cancers.)
How many millions have died horribly because of alcohol? Excessive drinking of alcohol can lead to death from a variety of means, it is indicated strongly in a wide range of medical issues. Furthermore due to the strong intoxicating effects of consuming large amounts of alcohol, it often leads to unpredictable, violent, or disastrous behavior by people which also lead to deaths.
Does anyone who works for an alcohol company by association become evil? What about someone who just works for the company that produces aluminum which is used to make the cans?
Or what about people who work for the agricultural firm that produces the hops (or sugar cane, or et cetera.)?
What about people who make foods which are, by almost universal consensus of virtually no nutritionally value and are “unhealthy?” Obesity, high cholesterol, and many other medical complications that come about because of those two conditions are directly linked to poor diet. Two hundred years ago it was much harder to obtain most of the really unhealthy foods we have today, the rise of tons of major producers of relatively unhealthy foods can be directly linked to rising problems related to obesity, heart disease, and etc., where is the line drawn? Is it just the people who work at companies like Little Debbie? What about people responsible for making flour which is later used to make an unhealthy dessert? Are they as immoral/evil as people who work in the field of growing tobacco?
No it isn’t celibacy but the whole attitude about sex. The church seems to want to put a couple or a single person in a position to know as little about the biology of sex in a box. Some use children because they feel they can control them. The rhythm method is the most un-natural form of birth control there is,yet the only one the church accepts. There seems to be( in My opinion )that a couple is suppose to have a happy marriage but if they express themselves sexually with out the possibility of pregnancy it is a sin and have a lot of children they cannot afford, do not have the patience,to care for each child…
To me it is a greater wrong to have children you cannot afford financially,emotionally or be able to be with them; responsible parenting should be the first requirement;if the children were taught about their own sexuality and taught the responsibility that their sexual nature requires they would be able to know if a priest or other person attempted to molest them they could protect themselves and report it at an earlier age. sadly there are men who molest their own children or siblings.