Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

My point: has this degraded into semantics

Ecofarm, I realise this must seem so to those who aren't Christian, but it's an important part of Catholicism.

[rah]

So a priest is no longer a priest if he stands on a street corner and says I am no longer a priest. But the pope does not have the power to make him not a priest. Pretty wimpy pope.

[rah]

Doesn't being excommunicated undo a baptism?

[Ming]

It's why they defied the laws in the Soviet Union and held masses, and were executed by the state.

Gee... let's see, a government saying they can't practice their faith... and they still do. I can go along with that. I can see why the church would make the decision to break that law and even die for it.

Gee.. let's see, our priests are raping little children, let's cover it up and move them somewhere else where they can continue do so. I can't see WHY the church would make the decision to break the law in this case... except to only COVER THEIR ASSES.

Either way, the church is subject to local law and local penalities... And raping little children is not one that falls anywhere near being their "mission"... but you might think so considering how they acted as an institution toward the problem. And again, they only changed their ways when called on it...

[Nikolai]

Really, Ben. I'd like to reply to your post, but it wouldn't do any good. You....I don't know what to say.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't being excommunicated undo a baptism?

No. If you repent you are restored to your old status.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee.. let's see, our priests are raping little children, let's cover it up and move them somewhere else where they can continue do so.

They are relocated to get them away from the diocese, not to have them start up again.

I can't see WHY the church would make the decision to break the law in this case... except to only COVER THEIR ASSES.

Where did they break the law? Yes the priest broke the law, but where did the church break the law in disciplining the priest.

Either way, the church is subject to local law and local penalities... And raping little children is not one that falls anywhere near being their "mission"... but you might think so considering how they acted as an institution toward the problem. And again, they only changed their ways when called on it...

How did they act? They've universally condemned the actions of those convicted and proven to have commited sexual assault.

[Ming]

Old status, new status... it sounds like the sacraments are a revolving door.

Just like marriage and annulments... Amazing about how those annulments can change that "old status"...
The church was selling annulments for years. A real sacrament there. I remember when my wife needed to get an annulment to get married in my catholic church. We were told how it would be a long and expensive progress, taking maybe a year or more. But we were getting married in just a few months. It was simply amazing how after a large donation, the church came to a decision that her first VERY LEGAL IN THE US MARRIAGE wasn't really a marriage in the first place, and that she had just been living in sin... so we got married in a catholic church. So when you say things like...

I realise this must seem so to those who aren't Christian, but it's an important part of Catholicism.

I just have to laugh. While I'm no longer a practicing catholic, I was brought up a catholic, spent many years in catholic schools, was an alter boy (It was a good thing I had a twin brother, making it harder for the priests to get me alone, because who knows) and I have a minor in religious studies. So don't give me it's an important part of Catholicism crap... The church has always had a flexible attitude... whatever was good for them but not necessarily good for their victims/members.

[Boris Godunov]

Stop right there. If only 300 have been convicted, that is a conviction rate of only 8 percent of the accusations. That's a terrible ratio. How many other crimes have a conviction rate of 8 percent.

I simply estimated 50 percent to err on the side of caution, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Given the actual statistics, I'm fully willing to drop my arbitrary assessment.

Oh bull****. Most were let go because the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.

Oh how so wrong can you be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Of the 4,392 priests against whom the accusations were deemed to be credible, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.

So 3,300 out of 4,392 weren't pursued because they had died, exactly as I said. That's 75% of those deemed with substantial allegations (by the church, it must be noted) who escaped investigation because they were already dead.

Police were contacted regarding 1,021 of the remaining 1092 priests. 384 of these priests were prosecuted, resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences.

So out of 1,021 priests actually investigated by police, 252 convictions. That would be 25%, not 8%. (Since rape is notoriously difficult to prove, especially years after the fact, of those not convicted, I'm willing to bet a considerable number were guilty, but there just wasn't the evidence to convict. But I'll ignore that point now).

The U.S. conviction rate for rape allegations made to police is 13%. If you assumed that the dead priests would have been convicted in the same ratio as those tried, then you get a total of 812 convictions for those. Plus the 252 actual convictions, would be 1064 convictions out of 4392 "substantiated" claims, which is again 25% (compared to the 13% U.S. national rape conviction figure). Even if you take it based on the 7700 alleged assaults (which would be a dubious comparison, since the rape statistic is based on accusations made to the police, and here the church only sent up the 1021 to the police), that's a 14% conviction rate, slightly better than the national average.

He wasn't reassigned in order to cover up the incident, but to get him out of the parish.

Irrelevant. Were accusations made as to his behavior that his superiors thought were substantial? Yes. Did they refer it over the the authorities for investigation/prosecution? No. Cover up.

Of that 4 percent, less than a tenth are convicted. Less than a tenth of those ever see incarceration. That's an incarceration percentage of around 0.04 percent, which amounts to around a priest a year. The norm is for the Church to impose discipline.

I already dispensed with your bogus statistics above (the actual incarceration rate is 10% of those investigated), but again this is irrelevant to the point. The simple fact is that priests are subject to local law and can be incarcerated for their crimes. There is no legal mechanism by which priests are immune from prosecution or incarceration--none. If the church decides to harbor these criminals and obstruct justice, then it needs to be held to legal account as well.

Actually, the Church has and will continue to assert that they will ignore laws contrary to their primary mission.

Then they should first and foremost lose their tax exempt status if they have such in any country where they obstruct justice, and then those Church officials who engaged in the obstruction should be prosecuted as well. Just like any other organization.

[Ming]

They are relocated to get them away from the diocese, not to have them start up again.

And why not turned over to the authorities to see if they are guilty? And as far as starting up again, do you think they warn the members of the new diocese that they are sending them their child rapists?

Where did they break the law? Yes the priest broke the law, but where did the church break the law in disciplining the priest.

They are covering up a crime, and in some cases threatening the victims to stay quiet.

How did they act? They've universally condemned the actions of those convicted and proven to have commited sexual assault.

How did they act? They didn't seem to care about proven or not... they just covered it up instead of turning them over to the authorities to determine guilt. They didn't give the authorities the opportunity to prove if they were guilty or not... they just sent them somewhere else to continue their attacks on more children.

[Ben Kenobi]

So 3,300 out of 4,392 weren't pursued because they had died, exactly as I said. That's 75% of those deemed with substantial allegations (by the church, it must be noted) who escaped investigation because they were already dead.

And were these allegations ever proven to be true? No. I can slander dead people all I want, that doesn't make the allegation anymore true.

So out of 1,021 priests actually investigated by police, 252 convictions. That would be 25%, not 8%.

So 1/4 of all those accused were actually considered worthy of investigation? That's not a very good ratio.

(Since rape is notoriously difficult to prove, especially years after the fact, of those not convicted, I'm willing to bet a considerable number were guilty, but there just wasn't the evidence to convict. But I'll ignore that point now).

And how do you know this? Again, we cannot conduct witchhunts by assuming people to be guilty before they are proven innocent. We must assume that the priests are innocent unless they are proven to be guilty.

The U.S. conviction rate for rape allegations made to police is 13%.

So, priests are more likely to be falsely accused. Good to know.

If you assumed that the dead priests would have been convicted in the same ratio as those tried, then you get a total of 812 convictions for those.

A dubious assumption. The longer the length of time between the allegation and the event, the less likelihood that it actually occurred.

Irrelevant. Were accusations made as to his behavior that his superiors thought were substantial? Yes. Did they refer it over the the authorities for investigation/prosecution? No. Cover up.

Did they punish the priest? Yes. Did they remove him from his position? Yes they did. How is it a cover up? Wouldnt' a cover up have simply kept him doing the exact same thing as before rather than disciplining him?

I already dispensed with your bogus statistics above (the actual incarceration rate is 10% of those investigated),

No, incarceration is 10 percent of convictions, not investigations.

The simple fact is that priests are subject to local law and can be incarcerated for their crimes.

Yet, in the vast majority of the cases, the Church disciplines the priests.

There is no legal mechanism by which priests are immune from prosecution or incarceration--none. If the church decides to harbor these criminals and obstruct justice, then it needs to be held to legal account as well.

Again, the Church is not subsidiary to the law. This is exactly what happened in communist countries where they would enter the Church and arrest the priest. I see exactly the same desire here. I would agree with you if the Church were actively condoning the activity, but they have not and do not do so.

Then they should first and foremost lose their tax exempt status if they have such in any country where they obstruct justice, and then those Church officials who engaged in the obstruction should be prosecuted as well. Just like any other organization.

Haven't we gone down this gambit before? The Church does enormous amounts of good. It's a good thing the papers don't report it or we might actually start to understand what their true mission is.

You know it's funny, not one of the posters here has been able to communicate precisely what the mission of the Catholic church is. Why don't you folks know this?

[Ben Kenobi]

And why not turned over to the authorities to see if they are guilty?

Who are the appropriate authorities? This is just your standard conflict between the Church and the state.

And as far as starting up again, do you think they warn the members of the new diocese that they are sending them their child rapists?

Yes. I would be very surprised if the new diocese were not 100 percent aware of the situation. If and only if it can be decisively shown that the old diocese concealed the record of the priest being transferred, can you assert that there was a cover up.

They are covering up a crime, and in some cases threatening the victims to stay quiet.

What evidence besides that of Christopher Hitchens, who is not a reliable source, is there for intimidation of the victims?

How did they act? They didn't seem to care about proven or not..

Yet, it's been proven that they've stripped away the positions of those who have been proven to be child molestors. Obviously they care a great deal.

. they just covered it up instead of turning them over to the authorities to determine guilt.

Again, who are the appropriate authorities in this case? I don't believe it was covered up at all, simply dealt by the Church.

They didn't give the authorities the opportunity to prove if they were guilty or not... they just sent them somewhere else to continue their attacks on more children.

Quite false. Look at the lists of the investigations. It seems clear to me that the Catholic church has complied and cooperated with the investigations.

[Ming]

Did they punish the priest? Yes. Did they remove him from his position? Yes they did. How is it a cover up? Wouldnt' a cover up have simply kept him doing the exact same thing as before rather than disciplining him?

And exactly how did they punish the priests? Did they go to prison? Did they get 20 lashes?

And when you say removed him from his position, you aren't saying that they removed them from the office of being a priest, all they did was move them somewhere else. And not tell anybody that they had a potential child abuser amoung them.

A cover up is when you don't tell the authorities... and that's exactly what they did. They didn't turn the priests over to the authorities, or alert them of the alligations. And it's possible they even went further in some cases by threatening the victims to stay quiet. It was indeed a cover up... and if they didn't thinks so, why are they falling all over themselves now to apologize about it?

And you know it's funny... you clearly stated that the church doesn't have to follow local laws... false.
You clearly state that there was no cover up... yet the church is apologizing for doing just that... so false again.

And all you want to talk about is the mission of RCC, while ignoring how they have failed that mission in this case... protecting their own asses instead of those whom they are supposed to be protecting.
If you think that their actions over the years in this case follows the "mission", you are even a bigger moron than you appear.

[Ming]

Who are the appropriate authorities? This is just your standard conflict between the Church and the state.

Uhhhh... local laws were broken, so the STATE is the appropriate authority. If the priest violated specific laws of the Church that is religious in nature, sure, the Church has the right... but we are talking about child abuse here. We are talking felony charges here.

Yes. I would be very surprised if the new diocese were not 100 percent aware of the situation. If and only if it can be decisively shown that the old diocese concealed the record of the priest being transferred, can you assert that there was a cover up.

But I'll bet you it was close to 100% that the members of the new diocese weren't told that somebody else's child molesterer was being sent to them. And again, no notification was sent to the authorities.
The Church does NOT HAVE AUTHORITY over a US citizen being molested.

What evidence besides that of Christopher Hitchens, who is not a reliable source, is there for intimidation of the victims?

What evidence that it didn't happen... and your response is typical... not a reliable source in your opinion... Well, you don't consider anything that doesn't agree with your rose colored views to be a reliable source.

Yet, it's been proven that they've stripped away the positions of those who have been proven to be child molestors. Obviously they care a great deal.

Yeah... great, for the ones that were actually brought to court and proven guilty, they finally respond like they should have FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. But, the fact that they didn't bring the majority of the allegations to the authorities in the first place so that guilt could be proven or not shows how little they really cared. All they cared about was protecting the Church's reputation. If they had really cared, all the alligations would have been turned over immediately.

Again, who are the appropriate authorities in this case? I don't believe it was covered up at all, simply dealt by the Church.

How stupid are you... it's obvious to everybody but you who the appropriate authorities are. And they covered it up, plain and simple. It's a fact. Deal with it.

Quite false. Look at the lists of the investigations. It seems clear to me that the Catholic church has complied and cooperated with the investigations.

Sure... now that they were called on it. But it seems clear to everybody else how the Church didn't cooperate at all... and never reported the information or told the victims to go to the authorities.
The fact that many of the cases are really old show just how much the Church did cover up, and how non cooperative they really were.

[Ben Kenobi]

And exactly how did they punish the priests? Did they go to prison? Did they get 20 lashes?

This is a good question. They start by stripping away most of the privileges associated with the position. What discipline beyond this I do not know, and I suspect it would be targetted at the individual rather than one size fits all.

And when you say removed him from his position, you aren't saying that they removed them from the office of being a priest, all they did was move them somewhere else. And not tell anybody that they had a potential child abuser amoung them.

False. They would inform the other parish and they would assign him to duties where he would never have contact with children again.

And you know it's funny... you clearly stated that the church doesn't have to follow local laws... false.
You clearly state that there was no cover up... yet the church is apologizing for doing just that... so false again.

They don't. There are many cases where there are conflicts between the state and the Church, and the Church chooses to ignore those laws.

And all you want to talk about is the mission of RCC, while ignoring how they have failed that mission in this case.

I want to talk about the mission of the RCC, because it appears that none of the geniuses here can tell me. They know exactly what happens in this so-called coverup but they can't tell me basic facts about the Catholic church.

That's a hit on reliability. How can you be so sure that there was in fact a coverup, when you don't understand how the church works?