Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Ming]

Fair enough. I have no problem with the court system doing its job, but I don't think the priest should be subject to incarceration, unless he himself chooses to undertake it.

So now criminals have the right to determine whether they should be incarcerated or not. Do you realize what you are saying...

The church as a whole has been quite cooperative. Individual cardinals especially in the USCCB, no. But these folks are on the way out.

They've been so coorperative that a large number of the accused priests died before the authorities could determine guilt or not... that's real cooperative.

It's a fundamental principle, accused must be innocent before proven guilty. Asking me to 'prove innocence', means you lose.

Yet another strawman argument. You are making wild claims that the Church did something, and I'm saying prove it.

You have to prove that the coverup existed Ming. Who, what, where, when, why and how.

Yep... thousands of dead priests that never had a day in court... no coverup here.

You don't think being a pariah for 30 years isn't harsher punishment?

No... I don't. Especially since they didn't tell the members that there was a child molesterer amoung them. I'm sure members of their new church looked up to them as any other priest, considering they don't any better. I think some time in jail is the least of the punishment those evil priests should have gotten. You obviously don't have any children and aren't a parent. What about the victims... they get a life time memory... isn't that even harsher punishment than the criminal.

[Asher]

And DD immediately understood what I meant and posted the actual source.

Here's a clue. If you can find the citation, you can post the citation. It ain't hard. If DD can do it so can you.

Meanwhile DD and I are exchanging links and digging into this issue.

You're not digging into the issue. You first tried to avoid the issue by dismissing the source outright. Then when a Christian "ally" posted a link anyone just slightly smarter than you could click from the Wikipedia article, you just thanked him and ignored the source. Why wouldn't you? It contradicts you.

Asher, is it fun living on a planet where you are always right?

I wouldn't know, I've never experienced anything else.

[Elok]

You are going straight to hell with your behaviour, surely you see that? Even your fellow Christians here will surely tell you this.

I'm otherwise going to stay out of this farcical argument (does anyone think BK's opinion will budge an inch?), but my church considers it sinful to say any one person *will* go to Hell. It's presumptuous to judge in God's place. If He says that even Hitler was more good than bad, well, His sight is keener than ours, He can see anyone right down to the innermost heart.

And just keeping it in perspective, even the most flagrantly dishonest debating tactics on an internet forum don't constitute "evil" to me. That's more along the lines of "childish."

[Asher]

I'm otherwise going to stay out of this farcical argument (does anyone think BK's opinion will budge an inch?), but my church considers it sinful to say any one person *will* go to Hell. It's presumptuous to judge in God's place. If He says that even Hitler was more good than bad, well, His sight is keener than ours, He can see anyone right down to the innermost heart.

I'm already going to Hell, I've got nothing to lose.

****in' right. Full speed ahead...

And just keeping it in perspective, even the most flagrantly dishonest debating tactics on an internet forum don't constitute "evil" to me. That's more along the lines of "childish."

It's not just his "debate" tactics that are evil. It's his soul that is evil.

[Ben Kenobi]

you just thanked him and ignored the source. Why wouldn't you? It contradicts you.

Yes, because Asher is God almighty. He knows all and sees all.

[Asher]

Yes, because Asher is God almighty. He knows all and sees all.

Not all. I just see right through you.

[Ben Kenobi]

So now criminals have the right to determine whether they should be incarcerated or not. Do you realize what you are saying...

I'm saying that the Church owns their ass. This is not the case for most folks.

They've been so coorperative that a large number of the accused priests died before the authorities could determine guilt or not... that's real cooperative.

They? Meaning the folks I'm thinking of or the Church as a whole? Those are some awfully broad strokes.

Yet another strawman argument. You are making wild claims that the Church did something, and I'm saying prove it.

No, you are making the wild claims that the Church conspired. Hence my 'weekly world news' comment.

Yep... thousands of dead priests that never had a day in court... no coverup here.

So, lets say you die and I post here that you molested children, that's automatically true? Interesting logic. Rather convenient that I bring it up after you can't argue otherwise, no?

No... I don't. Especially since they didn't tell the members that there was a child molesterer amoung them.

Who are you referring to? The other priests or the congregation? You seem to keep forgetting that they aren't to have any contact with the congregation. I think it's pretty obvious to the other priests what's going on here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not all. I just see right through you.

Hey Clark Kent, you might want to kick the ol' x-ray vision up a notch.

[Asher]

Is my insight creeping you out?

[Ben Kenobi]

Is that what they are calling it these days?

[Ming]

I'm saying that the Church owns their ass. This is not the case for most folks.

So, are you saying the employers own the asses of their employees? Because frankly, being a priest is no different than any other job. They are US citizens just like I am. As far as oaths, doctors and lawyers make oaths to. Just because they become priests doesn't change anything in the US. I can swear loyality to any concept or person, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a US citizen, subject to US Laws.

They? Meaning the folks I'm thinking of or the Church as a whole? Those are some awfully broad strokes.

If the shoe fits... this was a an institutional issue... we aren't talking a priest or two... we are talking about many... with the senders and receivers of the bad priests involved.

No, you are making the wild claims that the Church conspired. Hence my 'weekly world news' comment.

But they did... they covered it up. They did not bring it to the attention of the authorities. That's a fact.

So, lets say you die and I post here that you molested children, that's automatically true? Interesting logic. Rather convenient that I bring it up after you can't argue otherwise, no?

But the charges were brought up by the victims before they were dead. It was the Church that didn't bring it to the attention of the authorities at the time. Rather convenient, don't you think.

Who are you referring to? The other priests or the congregation? You seem to keep forgetting that they aren't to have any contact with the congregation. I think it's pretty obvious to the other priests what's going on here.

I'm sure they didn't tell the congregation, or why bother moving them in the first place. As far as them being limited to no contact with the congregation, you have no proof of that. You are assuming that in every case that it happened that way. I call BS.

I find it sad that you think that child molesterers need to be protected from the law of the land. The priests are US citizens (not counting any visiting priests that might have had the urge as well) and are subject to US laws on US soil. Priests are NOT above the law.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, are you saying the employers own the asses of their employees? Because frankly, being a priest is no different than any other job.

No, not really. Priests are 'on the job' 24-7. They don't get days off, they don't get holiday time. If you leave you can't come back, and you've got a job for life.

They are US citizens just like I am. As far as oaths, doctors and lawyers make oaths to. Just because they become priests doesn't change anything in the US. I can swear loyality to any concept or person, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a US citizen, subject to US Laws.

Are doctors barred from getting married? Wouldn't that be against their constitutional rights if they were truly subject to US Laws?

If the shoe fits... this was a an institutional issue... we aren't talking a priest or two... we are talking about many... with the senders and receivers of the bad priests involved.

Then why attack everyone? Why not just attack the priests who are responsible and some of the bishops? It's not an institutional issue, it's more akin to one rotton apple spoiling the whole batch.

But they did... they covered it up. They did not bring it to the attention of the authorities. That's a fact.

The only one who's said this is Chris Hitchens. He's been contradicted by some of the other statements from the people who's jobs are to oversee these priests. WRT to the German case, the fellow admitted that he had slipped up and that he was responsible for his lack of oversight. That doesn't strike me as a desire to conceal. I believe he's genuinely upset that he missed one.

But the charges were brought up by the victims before they were dead.

Umm, no. The charges were brought up after. We're talking 30 years ming. 30 years is a long time.

I'm sure they didn't tell the congregation, or why bother moving them in the first place. As far as them being limited to no contact with the congregation, you have no proof of that. You are assuming that in every case that it happened that way. I call BS.

True, some did and some did reoffend. But I'd argue that these were the small minority of cases, and that most of the cases the system did work, to keep these priests isolated.

I find it sad that you think that child molesterers need to be protected from the law of the land.

I think priests in general need to be protected because of the historical precedents. Perhaps if the state would stop frothing at the mouth things could work out differently. Sadly history shows that if the state is given control over the Church that bad things happen to the priests who happen to stick to Church doctrine.

Frankly, if the state wanted me to trust them, they'd be executing all child molestors. However, they don't do that so I really don't see the purpose of turning them over to the state only to have them out and free 3 years later.

[Ming]

No, not really. Priests are 'on the job' 24-7. They don't get days off, they don't get holiday time. If you leave you can't come back, and you've got a job for life.

Gee... I've had jobs where I've been on called 24/7... big deal. And I remember one year, I had to turn back 24 vacation days at the end of the year... big deal. And I've left a few jobs that I couldn't go back to... big deal. And what about lawyers and doctors... they have a job for life... no big deal.

Being a priest is a job. You can call it a commitment or whatever, but I'm sure doctors think the same.

Are doctors barred from getting married?

Neither are priests... they can get married. They won't be priests after that, but nothing is stopping them from getting married except their own vow, which they can break. There is no legal standing behind that vow, it's just a promise and nothing else.

Wouldn't that be against their constitutional rights if they were truly subject to US Laws?

As stated above... but in addition, it is their constitutional right not to get married if they don't want to.
They are TRULY SUBJECT to US laws. Are you trying to say that Priests are not US Citizens?

Then why attack everyone? Why not just attack the priests who are responsible and some of the bishops? It's not an institutional issue, it's more akin to one rotton apple spoiling the whole batch.

If it was "ONE" bad apple, it wouldn't be an issue. If the church had turned them over to the authorities, it wouldn't be an issue. But face it... it's a GLOBAL issue for the Church, and that's a fact.

The only one who's said this is Chris Hitchens. He's been contradicted by some of the other statements from the people who's jobs are to oversee these priests. WRT to the German case, the fellow admitted that he had slipped up and that he was responsible for his lack of oversight. That doesn't strike me as a desire to conceal. I believe he's genuinely upset that he missed one.

Yeah... you believe... no more than an opinion. And gee, people who were supposed to be overseeing these priests disagree with Hitchens, what a surprise. You dismiss everything he says out of hand. And frankly, you dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your view of things. On one hand, a source is good if it agrees with you, but the same source is bad if it disagrees with you.

Umm, no. The charges were brought up after. We're talking 30 years ming. 30 years is a long time.

It sure is... 30 years... it just shows how long the RCC has thought they could get away with it.

True, some did and some did reoffend. But I'd argue that these were the small minority of cases, and that most of the cases the system did work, to keep these priests isolated.

Yep... some did reoffend... and who's fault is that?
Maybe if they had a real trial, there wouldn't have been another victim.
I think the victims are what are important here... and the fact that the Church sent these priests on their way so they could add more victims to their list is just pure evil. I can understand that a percentage of the population is just pure pond scum. And that they are priests, doctors, teachers, or any type of proffession. What I have a serious problem with is that the RCC allowed it continue. How many additional victims were there because of the RCC's actions.

I think priests in general need to be protected because of the historical precedents.

Yeah... child molesterers need to be protected because of historical precedents... get real.

Perhaps if the state would stop frothing at the mouth things could work out differently.

Perhaps if priests could keep their dicks in their pant things could work out differently

Sadly history shows that if the state is given control over the Church that bad things happen to the priests who happen to stick to Church doctrine.

Since when is raping children Church doctirne... These people are criminals, and deserve to be prosecuted if guilty.

Frankly, if the state wanted me to trust them, they'd be executing all child molestors. However, they don't do that so I really don't see the purpose of turning them over to the state only to have them out and free 3 years later.

Yeah... would prefer that they get a slap on the wrist and sent to another Parish where they can continue doing what they want to do.

And you keep trotting out the 3 year crap... do you have proof that that is the average time spent in Jail. The treatment of child molesterers in jail by the general prison population is not good. And you do know what happens to them when they get out don't you. They have to register their location on a sex offenders list... a list that ANYBODY can access... I can tell you where every past convicted sex offender lives in my town. That's a worse deal than the priests... the members weren't told of there past, they weren't on a list for everybody to see...

Those convicted in the court system have a far worse deal then the little wrist slapping the RCC gave it's priests. Gee, moved to a new location, almost like the witness protection program... and maybe they would get a chance to do it again. Real tough.

[Asher]

Leave it to Ben to defend child molestation.

[MrFun]

You just want me to remove the current lines in my sig that let every newbie to this site know just how ****ed up you are.

Feel free to put me back in your sig line - I think all straight people on this site should have a fair warning.