New rules for Catholic church and sexual abuse
-
Oakman wrote:
Why single them out?
I abhor organized religion. The Catholic church is still one of the most powerful institutions of organized religion. Their views and practices regarding sexual abuse over the centuries, really hasn't changed much at all. If it wasn't for the fact that so much publicity has been brought against the church in the last 15-20 years about this issue then I honestly think they would not have changed much about how they deal with these matters. I am very well aware of the fact that many members here are Catholics and that they most likely would rather me not post about such subjects/issues regarding their faith.
----------------------------- Just along for the ride. -----------------------------
Slacker007 wrote:
I abhor organized religion.
Can't say I'm in love with it myself. As a man-made institution just about any religion attempts to use the concept of a god to enforce a behavioral code and - as you (sort of) point out - often the powers-that-be within the church consider themselves to be exempt from the standards of behavior they promulgate. Of course, substitute "of a nation" for "of a god" and we could be talking about the U.S. Congress, the British Parliament or (with other substitutions) any other organization (including everything from the Survivors Network to the United Nations) that has found a way of pressing an emotional hot button instead of appealing to rationality. The trick, I believe, is to recognize than any organization created by man will begin to react out of the self-interest of its leaders, rather than living up to its purported goals very shortly after coming into being - no matter how lofty those goals are. Singling out one organization and saying that it is the epitome of evil is, I think, responding emotionally rather than rationally. On the other hand, my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it, n'est-ce-pas?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
I abhor organized religion.
Can't say I'm in love with it myself. As a man-made institution just about any religion attempts to use the concept of a god to enforce a behavioral code and - as you (sort of) point out - often the powers-that-be within the church consider themselves to be exempt from the standards of behavior they promulgate. Of course, substitute "of a nation" for "of a god" and we could be talking about the U.S. Congress, the British Parliament or (with other substitutions) any other organization (including everything from the Survivors Network to the United Nations) that has found a way of pressing an emotional hot button instead of appealing to rationality. The trick, I believe, is to recognize than any organization created by man will begin to react out of the self-interest of its leaders, rather than living up to its purported goals very shortly after coming into being - no matter how lofty those goals are. Singling out one organization and saying that it is the epitome of evil is, I think, responding emotionally rather than rationally. On the other hand, my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it, n'est-ce-pas?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
I believe, is to recognize than any organization created by man will begin to react out of the self-interest of its leaders, rather than living up to its purported goals very shortly after coming into being
Exactly. :thumbsup:
----------------------------- Just along for the ride. -----------------------------
-
I don't like the direction I'm taking here, so I'm going to avoid talking to you ever again.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm going to avoid talking to you ever again.
Believe it when I see it. ;) People have a habit of pulling emotions out of you from time to time. We all face it and deal with it. Just let it roll off your back and try to not take it personally.
----------------------------- Just along for the ride. -----------------------------
-
Trollslayer wrote:
F*** that! They come under local law!
Yes, they do, and the article never said otherwise. Church/Canon law is the body of regulations that the Clergy must adhere to. The local legal status of canon law differs from country to country, for the most part it has no status other than a regulatory function of a professional body. Within the Vatican City canon law is the law, IIRC. The Church of England's canon law has some legal status (the Catholic Canon has none) with respect to Church issues: Discipline of the Clergy, changing the fabric of churches, etc. You can still see the difference in marriages within England: for an Anglican marriage, the banns being read are sufficient, other religions (and civil marriages) must post a "Notifications of Marriage" at their registry office(s). As a final point, in the UK the covering up of paedophile priests was/is illegal under civil law. The main point of conflict here is the "Seal of the Confessional" canon law dictates that this is absolute, but it has no legal standing under UK civil law (not even for Anglicans - who do have the "seal") for this matter. The US is different as I undertsand it, where the seal of the confessional is legal under the freedom of religion laws (statutes?). [Edit] Though I agree with the general position that they should be treated like every other sex offended. If anything, priestly abuse is worse given the levels of trust given to them, similar (or worse, given the moral stance a priest takes!) than cases involving teachers.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
As a final point, in the UK the covering up of paedophile priests was/is illegal under civil law.
You got my 5, but I am wondering if you mean "civil" law which afaik deals with contracts and such, or "criminal" law. (I realize you were contrasting it with cannon law, in either case.)
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
As a final point, in the UK the covering up of paedophile priests was/is illegal under civil law.
You got my 5, but I am wondering if you mean "civil" law which afaik deals with contracts and such, or "criminal" law. (I realize you were contrasting it with cannon law, in either case.)
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
You got my 5, but I am wondering if you mean "civil" law which afaik deals with contracts and such, or "criminal" law
Yes, I used the wrong term to contrast.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
The Bishop's Conference said that the American Catholic Church considers child pornography to be a form of child abuse and against church law. It said that abusing the mentally disabled of any age was the equivalent of child abuse. Almost ten years ago it repudiated the idea of concealing child abuse by priests in order to protect the reputation of the church and ordered that priests accused of having abused children be turned over to the cops. The revisions mean that any priest found with child pornography or who abuses retardates will also be turned over. There is certainly nothing in the revisions or the original charter that indicates that the Church claims special status for its priests, or intends to cover up their predation. CNN found one guy - who makes his living by attacking the Church - who says that the Church isn't doing what it said it was doing. It is possible that this guy is telling the truth. I have no idea, but I saw nothing in the brief article by CNN, or a couple of longer ones that I searched out, that suggested there are facts backing his accusations. Am I missing something? Although there's no doubt that there are pedophile priests, there are also statistics that show that there are pedophile rabbis, ministers, and imams. Pedophile teachers abound and, until recently, were often covered for by the school system in much the same way as the Catholic Church covered for its own - but ALL of these are a drop in the bucket. Most children who are abused are abused by their fathers, stepfathers, uncles, or elder brothers, and their crimes are covered up completely and thoroughly. It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today, and the great majority of those who are Catholic were abused by a family member. For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Catholic and while I did have sex with a priest, she was Episcopal and we were both in our 40's. ;)
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
CNN found one guy - who makes his living by attacking the Church - who says that the Church isn't doing what it said it was doing. It is possible that this guy is telling the truth. I have no idea, but I saw nothing in the brief article by CNN, or a couple of longer ones that I searched out, that suggested there are facts backing his accusations.
Am I missing something?Not sure what you are questioning there. If the church is in fact doing what they said they are doing then why are they now creating new guidelines to address it?
Oakman wrote:
Although there's no doubt that there are pedophile priests, there are also statistics that show that there are pedophile rabbis, ministers, and imams. Pedophile teachers abound and, until recently, were often covered for by the school system in much the same way as the Catholic Church covered for its own - but ALL of these are a drop in the bucket. Most children who are abused are abused by their fathers, stepfathers, uncles, or elder brothers, and their crimes are covered up completely and thoroughly. It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today, and the great majority of those who are Catholic were abused by a family member.
Not sure what your point is with this statement. When those who you mentioned make a press release stating that they have created new guidelines specifically to reduce the problem then at that time it might be relevant to address those other groups.
-
Oakman wrote:
CNN found one guy - who makes his living by attacking the Church - who says that the Church isn't doing what it said it was doing. It is possible that this guy is telling the truth. I have no idea, but I saw nothing in the brief article by CNN, or a couple of longer ones that I searched out, that suggested there are facts backing his accusations.
Am I missing something?Not sure what you are questioning there. If the church is in fact doing what they said they are doing then why are they now creating new guidelines to address it?
Oakman wrote:
Although there's no doubt that there are pedophile priests, there are also statistics that show that there are pedophile rabbis, ministers, and imams. Pedophile teachers abound and, until recently, were often covered for by the school system in much the same way as the Catholic Church covered for its own - but ALL of these are a drop in the bucket. Most children who are abused are abused by their fathers, stepfathers, uncles, or elder brothers, and their crimes are covered up completely and thoroughly. It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today, and the great majority of those who are Catholic were abused by a family member.
Not sure what your point is with this statement. When those who you mentioned make a press release stating that they have created new guidelines specifically to reduce the problem then at that time it might be relevant to address those other groups.
jschell wrote:
Not sure what you are questioning there. If the church is in fact doing what they said they are doing then why are they now creating new guidelines to address it?
So when I said, "The revisions mean that any priest found with child pornography or who abuses retardates will also be turned over." which part of it confused you?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
The Bishop's Conference said that the American Catholic Church considers child pornography to be a form of child abuse and against church law. It said that abusing the mentally disabled of any age was the equivalent of child abuse. Almost ten years ago it repudiated the idea of concealing child abuse by priests in order to protect the reputation of the church and ordered that priests accused of having abused children be turned over to the cops. The revisions mean that any priest found with child pornography or who abuses retardates will also be turned over. There is certainly nothing in the revisions or the original charter that indicates that the Church claims special status for its priests, or intends to cover up their predation. CNN found one guy - who makes his living by attacking the Church - who says that the Church isn't doing what it said it was doing. It is possible that this guy is telling the truth. I have no idea, but I saw nothing in the brief article by CNN, or a couple of longer ones that I searched out, that suggested there are facts backing his accusations. Am I missing something? Although there's no doubt that there are pedophile priests, there are also statistics that show that there are pedophile rabbis, ministers, and imams. Pedophile teachers abound and, until recently, were often covered for by the school system in much the same way as the Catholic Church covered for its own - but ALL of these are a drop in the bucket. Most children who are abused are abused by their fathers, stepfathers, uncles, or elder brothers, and their crimes are covered up completely and thoroughly. It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today, and the great majority of those who are Catholic were abused by a family member. For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Catholic and while I did have sex with a priest, she was Episcopal and we were both in our 40's. ;)
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Maybe you can answer a nagging question then; is the missionary position the same for all religions? :)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
-
Maybe you can answer a nagging question then; is the missionary position the same for all religions? :)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
So that's keeping you up at night worrying about it, is it? :laugh:
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
So that's keeping you up at night worrying about it, is it? :laugh:
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Merely intellectual curiosity? :)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
-
When he stops being a sanctimonious douchebag, I'll stop talking to him.
-
Maybe you can answer a nagging question then; is the missionary position the same for all religions? :)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
Well you got me thinking so I thought I'd goggle it, that was hours ago, what a fascinating subject that is.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Well you got me thinking so I thought I'd goggle it, that was hours ago, what a fascinating subject that is.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Well you got me thinking so I thought I'd goggle it, that was hours ago, what a fascinating subject that is.
So many of us have so much intellectual curiosity.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
When he stops being a sanctimonious douchebag, I'll stop talking to him.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
When he stops being a sanctimonious douchebag, I'll stop talking to him.
So while he stays a sanctimonious shower bag you will talk to him? :)
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
-
Maybe you can answer a nagging question then; is the missionary position the same for all religions? :)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
Mike Hankey wrote:
is the missionary position the same for all religions?
Yes. However, which religion enjoys it more?
----------------------------- Just along for the ride. -----------------------------
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
it always seems to make its way back to the top ten list.
Bizarre that: I put it down to mass-ignorance: do you know there are people that actually believe that the bible is a true account of historical events? Imagine that. That's like believing that Harry Potter is real and a danger to your kids. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
do you know there are people that actually believe that the bible is a true account of historical events? Imagine that. That's like believing that Harry Potter is real and a danger to your kids.
They're the same people. And I so wish that was a joke. Harry Potter was banned from some school libraries distressingly close to me because they were essentially "Manuals on doing magic, which is prohibited by the bible." It actually makes their views of the bible make more sense: they are obviously incapable of spotting fiction.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
digital man wrote:
do you know there are people that actually believe that the bible is a true account of historical events? Imagine that. That's like believing that Harry Potter is real and a danger to your kids.
They're the same people. And I so wish that was a joke. Harry Potter was banned from some school libraries distressingly close to me because they were essentially "Manuals on doing magic, which is prohibited by the bible." It actually makes their views of the bible make more sense: they are obviously incapable of spotting fiction.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
David Kentley wrote:
Harry Potter was banned from some school libraries distressingly close to me because they were essentially "Manuals on doing magic, which is prohibited by the bible."
The Bible nowhere forbids reading material with occult elements in it. As there are witches, soothsayers, and possessed prophetesses in the Bible, it would be more than odd if Holy Writ spoke against itself. If anything, the New Testament slams those who charge the righteous with sorcery (see Matt. 12:24-28; Mark 9:38-40) The Bible does warn about using invocational magic, or sorcery - the kind of magic that has to do with praying to demons a la Dr. Faustus, as opposed to incantational magic which basically means learning the secret words and songs that are supposed to be reflections of the original creation. ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.") However, you are not wrong, I was contracting for awhile for a software company that provided management software for megachurches. Many of them were all a-twitter over Harry Potter and there were church discussion groups announced on the bulletin boards for the purpose of "combating" J.K. Rowling's books.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
jschell wrote:
Not sure what you are questioning there. If the church is in fact doing what they said they are doing then why are they now creating new guidelines to address it?
So when I said, "The revisions mean that any priest found with child pornography or who abuses retardates will also be turned over." which part of it confused you?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
So when I said, "The revisions mean that any priest found with child pornography or who abuses retardates will also be turned over." which part of it confused you?
I do not find that statement confusing. I didn't even quote that. So no idea what you are focusing on that. Was that statement the only relevant one when you said "Am I missing something?" Was that statement relevant to your paraphrasing of the critic in the article and as such also relevant to when you said "Am I missing something?"
