The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[Jon Miller]

Do you guys enjoy arguing with Ben?

JM

[Ming]

So you feel 2 years is sufficient? I don't.

So you feel doing nothing... which is what the Church did in many cases is better than 2 years.
Do you feel doing nothing is sufficent?

On average the sexual offenders will receive 2 years. In many cases they will go on probation, especially if they are a teacher without a prior sexual offense. We've seen teachers go free without serving time at all.

PROVE that in MANY cases they will go on probation. I'll bet we have seen more priest go free.

Not really. He can serve with children if anyone along the chain is lax in doing a background check. Has, and will continue to happen.

Well... at least it was because somebody was lax... unlike simply covering it up and ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

If 'keeping it in the family' means that the priest is confined within the diocese and isn't permitted to have any contact with minors for the duration of his service to the church, then yes, I believe it's an acceptable punishment.

So simply denying somebody access and hiding the fact is acceptable punishment to you, but two years hard time and permanitely being labeled as a sex offender isn't. Even when many of the priests received no punishment at all and were allowed to start again right away...

The biggest problem with the abuse scandal has been abusive bishops who have protected the abusive priests.

Yep... an institution that cares more about it's priests than it's flock.

Only if they choose to leave the clergy.

Again... why not both. Being a member of the clergy does NOT PUT YOU ABOVE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

No, it means that when subjected to proper discipline, that they are less likely to reoffend then those who have been imprisoned.

Too bad that the church didn't apply proper discipline to most of the offenders.

Why would they incur criminal and civil liability? It's not the jurisdiction of the state to dictate to the ecclesial courts. Again, all of the priests have voluntarily agreed in this case to accept ecclesiastical discipline.

Please state your legal proof of this. Where does it say that the ecclesial courts has jurisdiction here in the US when it comes to rape or abusing children. They are subject to the laws of this land. There is no diplomatic immunity or religious immunity. The church may think they are above the laws of the land, but they aren't.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Do you guys enjoy arguing with Ben?

JM

I am sure they do, and let's face it, it is the most interesting stuff happening on this board nowadays

[MrFun]

Do you guys enjoy arguing with Ben?

JM

Ever since Ming and Rah have ceased being moderators, they tried to find ways to fill up their extra spare time.

[Ming]

I was arguing against Ben's stupidity and bigotry long before I stopped being an admin

[MrFun]

I was arguing against Ben's stupidity and bigotry long before I stopped being an admin

oh

[Ben Kenobi]

I agree. It should be life. In a STATE PRISON.

Yes, but the courts don't do this. This is why they are useless in this discussion.

Not in the case of actual rape, at least not that I'm aware. You can't seriously tell me that you don't think a Catholic priest, convicted of CHILD RAPE, would not get prison time. That's ****ing ridiculous.

I would bet that more haven't gotten prison time, over those who have.

Sure, as it has also happened within the RCC. Additionally, any convicted sex offender who is caught failing to register, or in any other way violating the conditions of their release, is going straight back to prison regardless of the laxness of any background checks.

And how often is this actually enforced? I don't see it. I've seen the authorities up here lose track entirely of convicted sex offenders.

The Church is NOT a law unto itself. The Catholic Church doesn't get to tell the government "Don't worry guys, we've got this."

Sure they do. Priests aren't unionised, etc. There are exceptions that abound through all sorts of laws wrt to the Catholic church. The reasoning behind them is that the Catholic church is grandfathered. They've been along longer than the law has been in force, and longer than the body issuing the laws.

That is illegal, unfair, and unjust. Crime is crime, and the only entity legally capable of punishing crime is whatever level of government which holds jurisdiction over the matter.

And you call yourself a libertarian? The law isn't the creation of the state. The law is the Law. The state has an obligation to enforce the law. That's it. If they fail to do this, or if they corrupt the law for their own purposes, then they cease to represent the people.

This is mind boggling, Ben. You've really done it this time. You are really trying to argue that it is OK for rapists not to be prosecuting, as long as the Church "handles matters". What the ****?

Yes, I am because the ecclesial punishment is harsher than the laws on the books.

Nope, sorry, try again. If a rape victim can prove that the Catholic Church covered up the rape - regardless of "Church discipline", which is NOT legally recognized punishment - then that victim can hold the RCC civilly liable, and the government can prosecute anyone involved criminally.

Actually, the state has bent their own laws regarding the statute of limitations in order to prosecute many of these cases. I'm not very impressed by that. Do you think the state should be able to prosecute crimes that occurred 30-40 years ago?

Because the Church IS NOT ALLOWED TO PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON! What the ****, Ben? It's wrongful imprisonment and kidnapping because the Church doesn't have the right to so much as DETAIN someone.

They have the right to detain their own priests, to reassign them to wherever they want them to go. The priest has the right to quit and leave, which puts him under secular jurisdiction.

You can disagree that this is how it should be, but you can't disagree that THIS IS HOW IT IS!

That's because it is not how it is. I'm sorry. The church can assign priests, they determine where the priest is to live, they determine the hours that the priest works, etc. All kinds of things that would be illegal if they were subject to labour laws. The church can detain a priest and try a priest in Rome.

So now, prison isn't even proper discipline for child rapists? Apparently, excommunication isn't proper, either.

It's ineffective. Sexual offenders imprisoned for 2 years are more likely to reoffend than those who are reassigned, and confined from contact from minors. So if your real concern is to tackle the problem, and not simply bash the church, you need to let the church do it's job.

It's really very simple. Ecclesiastical courts have NO LEGAL STANDING.

They do, in fact have legal standing.

If a priest submits to an ecclesiastical court, then changes his mind in a month, the Church has no legal authority to compel him to continue to accept punishment.

That's true. He can change his mind, the Church will release him from his obligations, and then take him into the cops so that he can be arrested.

Said priest can file a lawsuit and/or press criminal charges.

Against what? That he was lawfully released upon request?

Furthermore, while Ecclesiastical courts can certainly pass whatever judgments they want outside of whatever the state does

No, they don't. It's either or. They will not charge a priest who has agreed to be released from the priesthood.

I can convene the kangaroo court of David Floyd, and so long as everyone abides by my decisions and agrees to them, then I'm largely fine (except that I'm really not, and neither is the RCC because there are limits to what you can "agree" to subject yourself to voluntarily).

Question. Do you believe that ordination is valid? That the church can in fact force a priest to move?

The main point, though, is that regardless of whatever your silly church court does, the government still has a responsibility and an obligation to criminally prosecute a rapist.

Not if the Church has agreed to try the rapist and to take responsibility for him. If he reoffends, great. Kick him out.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you feel doing nothing... which is what the Church did in many cases is better than 2 years.
Do you feel doing nothing is sufficent?

Obviously not, because I already laid it out the steps I felt should be taken if in fact the abuse has been proven.

PROVE that in MANY cases they will go on probation. I'll bet we have seen more priest go free.

Ok. Hot lady teacher comes onto a teenage boy. 50/50 she'll go on probation. If it's a guy, he'll never be able to work again in his life.

Well... at least it was because somebody was lax... unlike simply covering it up and ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

Which is why the combination of sex offending bishop and priest is a bad deal, as it was with Bishop Weakland. Which is why he's no longer a bishop anymore.

So simply denying somebody access and hiding the fact is acceptable punishment to you, but two years hard time and permanitely being labeled as a sex offender isn't. Even when many of the priests received no punishment at all and were allowed to start again right away...

Where did I say that the conviction would be hidden from his former parish? I said nothing of the sort.

Again... why not both. Being a member of the clergy does NOT PUT YOU ABOVE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Because the law of the land is insufficient punishment.

Too bad that the church didn't apply proper discipline to most of the offenders.

It's only newsworhy when a man bites a dog, not the other way around. Do you think the media actually cares when the church gets it right?

Please state your legal proof of this. Where does it say that the ecclesial courts has jurisdiction here in the US when it comes to rape or abusing children.

They have to have a visa to come and work in the US. Visa gets rescinded, they go back to Rome.

They are subject to the laws of this land. There is no diplomatic immunity or religious immunity. The church may think they are above the laws of the land, but they aren't.

The state only has the authority to try their own citizens.

[Ming]

Obviously not, because I already laid it out the steps I felt should be taken if in fact the abuse has been proven.

Gee... I feel that courts should throw them in jail for 10 times the amount of years, but the state won't do that. While the steps you lay out may seem "OK" to you, the problem is, the church doesn't do that in most cases. Unlike the state, they cover it up to protect the reputation of the church. How evil is that.

Ok. Hot lady teacher comes onto a teenage boy. 50/50 she'll go on probation. If it's a guy, he'll never be able to work again in his life.

Making stuff up again I see... It's just like me saying, that 90% of the time, nothing happens to priests when they get caught. They just transfer him without telling people, and he molests again shortly there after... until he gets moved again.

Which is why the combination of sex offending bishop and priest is a bad deal, as it was with Bishop Weakland. Which is why he's no longer a bishop anymore.

You make it sound like the church has thrown out every bishop ever involved in such a case, or that it's only a few (I think you actually said it was only 5)... yet the problem is global and far more bishops and even higher ups have been involved. Using your logic, all I need to do is find a single offender that was put away for 50 years and claim the state provides suffienct punishment in my opinion.

Where did I say that the conviction would be hidden from his former parish? I said nothing of the sort.

But that's what the church did you moron... you keep claiming that you approve of how the church punishes them, and part of that is moving them to new places and not telling either parish, the old or the new.

Because the law of the land is insufficient punishment.

And neither is what the church did, because in many cases, there was no punishment at all.

It's only newsworhy when a man bites a dog, not the other way around. Do you think the media actually cares when the church gets it right?

A man rarely bits a dog... that is not the case with priests molesting children and the church covering it up. It was the standard practice.

They have to have a visa to come and work in the US. Visa gets rescinded, they go back to Rome.

Are your really trying to say that the majority of priests in this country aren't US citizens... and that they all have visas and work permits???????? Gee, all the priests I know say they are US citizens because they were born here and their parents were citizens.

The state only has the authority to try their own citizens.

So if a russian in this country kills or rapes somebody, the state has no authority over them?
BS!

Yes, diplomats have immunity (as long as their government doesn't rescind it as it sometimes does in certain cases) but religious orders do not have such immunity and are subject to the laws of this land.
Even if they aren't from this country. If a visiting priest rapes somebody, he is subject to the LAW.

You have this fantasy that priests are above the law of the land because the RCC has been around so long. So in your opinion, can priests rape and murder people and not be held accountable by the laws of the state? Because if that's your opinion, you are a total idiot, because the RCC hasn't been "grandfathered" to be above the laws of this land simply because they have been around longer than the US. Many religions could claim they have been around longer than the US, and they aren't above the law either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee... I feel that courts should throw them in jail for 10 times the amount of years, but the state won't do that.

Which is the reason I don't think they should be turned over to the state.

While the steps you lay out may seem "OK" to you, the problem is, the church doesn't do that in most cases. Unlike the state, they cover it up to protect the reputation of the church. How evil is that.

In most cases they do. That's my argument here. You are looking at the few cases that actually accrue media attention. Again, they don't care when the Church gets it right. It would be like them reporting, "dog bites man". Booooring.

Making stuff up again I see

So you are saying that pretty female teachers don't get treated differently than male teachers?

... It's just like me saying, that 90% of the time, nothing happens to priests when they get caught. They just transfer him without telling people, and he molests again shortly there after... until he gets moved again.

More like 90 percent of the time they are properly disciplined, and we don't hear about it because it's not newsworthy.

You make it sound like the church has thrown out every bishop ever involved in such a case, or that it's only a few (I think you actually said it was only 5)

I would be surprised if the bishop count was more than 5. Weakland, Mahoney, Dupre are three that come to mind. All Americans.

... yet the problem is global and far more bishops and even higher ups have been involved. Using your logic, all I need to do is find a single offender that was put away for 50 years and claim the state provides suffienct punishment in my opinion.

True, if you can find a bishop arrested for 50 years, good luck with that.

But that's what the church did you moron... you keep claiming that you approve of how the church punishes them, and part of that is moving them to new places and not telling either parish, the old or the new.

I don't want them close to the victims. The former parish should be told when the accusations have been proven, but he shouldn't ever serve there again. The new parish should be told as well.

And neither is what the church did, because in many cases, there was no punishment at all.

Only when it involved one of Mahoney, Weakland or Dupre. Everywhere else they were properly disciplined.

A man rarely bits a dog... that is not the case with priests molesting children and the church covering it up. It was the standard practice.

No, no it wasn't. You have evidence that it was 'standard'?

Are your really trying to say that the majority of priests in this country aren't US citizens... and that they all have visas and work permits???????? Gee, all the priests I know say they are US citizens because they were born here and their parents were citizens.

Up in my parish the majority of priests are not Canadian citizens. In the US overall, about 20 percent are not American citizens. All I am saying is that the state can only try those who are citizens of their country.

So if a russian in this country kills or rapes somebody, the state has no authority over them?
BS!

The Russian would be deported.

Yes, diplomats have immunity (as long as their government doesn't rescind it as it sometimes does in certain cases) but religious orders do not have such immunity and are subject to the laws of this land.
Even if they aren't from this country. If a visiting priest rapes somebody, he is subject to the LAW.

And he would likewise be deported and tried in Rome.

You have this fantasy that priests are above the law of the land because the RCC has been around so long. So in your opinion, can priests rape and murder people and not be held accountable by the laws of the state?

I am saying that the Church was here before the state. What happened when the US was still a colony of Britain? Was the continental congress around to make laws? Or did the church make and enforce the law?

At least where I am, the Church is the oldest thing around. In the US, this is the same, especially for the former spanish colonies. The Church is not above the law, because she has always enforced the law, even when the state has ignored or broken the law. The authority of the Church supercedes the state, because the state came second.

Because if that's your opinion, you are a total idiot, because the RCC hasn't been "grandfathered" to be above the laws of this land simply because they have been around longer than the US. Many religions could claim they have been around longer than the US, and they aren't above the law either.

Many religions? Only a few in America have been around that long.

The COE can't claim this, because she is the state, where the head of the state is the same as the head of the church. So state and church are one arm.

[Ming]

Which is the reason I don't think they should be turned over to the state.

And this whole GLOBAL SCANDAL is that the CHURCH didn't handle it right. Even they admit they screwed up now that they can't hide it anymore. Every day it seems like a scandal in yet another country comes up. This isn't an isolated case or two as you keep trying to suggest.

In most cases they do. That's my argument here. You are looking at the few cases that actually accrue media attention. Again, they don't care when the Church gets it right. It would be like them reporting, "dog bites man". Booooring.

PROVE IT. The whole point is that the Church covered it up. They don't make anything public. How the hell does anybody know if what happened in most cases. It is apparent from the number of cases that they screwed up on a globlal basis that this not some small matter. It would seem they did it wrong more times than they did it right.

So you are saying that pretty female teachers don't get treated differently than male teachers?

No... I'm saying you just keep making up percentages. Many female teachers have been arrested. Your claim that 50 percent get probation is based on nothing buy you pulling numbers out of your ass.

More like 90 percent of the time they are properly disciplined, and we don't hear about it because it's not newsworthy.

PROVE IT. If 90 percent of the time they are properly discipilined, than there is a ton more child molesting going on by RCC priests than even we ever knew about... because the number of cases where they didn't properly discipline is growing every day, country by country.

I would be surprised if the bishop count was more than 5. Weakland, Mahoney, Dupre are three that come to mind. All Americans.

Oh gee... you would be surprised... There are reported abuses across the globe, but only 5 bishops were involved, and nobody higher up knew... you are a total moron.

I don't want them close to the victims. The former parish should be told when the accusations have been proven, but he shouldn't ever serve there again. The new parish should be told as well.

Then you can't approve of what the RCC did... because they NEVER told anybody. The new and old parish were never told. That's the whole point. THE RCC COVERED IT UP TO PROTECT THEIR OWN ASSES.

Only when it involved one of Mahoney, Weakland or Dupre. Everywhere else they were properly disciplined.

PROVE IT.

No, no it wasn't. You have evidence that it was 'standard'?

You have no evidence it wasn't... The FACTS say that the church has been covering this up around the world.

Up in my parish the majority of priests are not Canadian citizens. In the US overall, about 20 percent are not American citizens. All I am saying is that the state can only try those who are citizens of their country.

Again, are you really saying the state has no authority over people that commit crimes on their land.
Are you really saying that in your legal opinion, people who are not citizens can commit crimes and the worst that can happen to them is they will be deported. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING!

And he would likewise be deported and tried in Rome.

Like most things, you just keep making stuff up, while ignoring facts.

I am saying that the Church was here before the state. What happened when the US was still a colony of Britain? Was the continental congress around to make laws? Or did the church make and enforce the law?

And this has what to do with this discussion?

At least where I am, the Church is the oldest thing around. In the US, this is the same, especially for the former spanish colonies. The Church is not above the law, because she has always enforced the law, even when the state has ignored or broken the law. The authority of the Church supercedes the state, because the state came second.

Only in your fantasy land... The days of the Pope and RCC having any real impact on most nations is long past. The US, or Canada for that matter, do NOT ANSWER TO ROME. And there is no legal standing in any of the crap you are saying.

Many religions? Only a few in America have been around that long.

Yeah... like all the major ones. The RCC is just one of many religions... nothing really special about it. Using your logic, the Jews should be able to dictate to the christians, since they were around long before the RCC.

Just because they've been around awhle, and used to enjoy great influence in the past, it doesn't mean anything now. And that's one of the biggest problems of the Church, they still think they can do what they want, even if it means hiding the fact that it's priests were raping children. But that should come as no suprise considering in it's long history (which you are so proud of), the Church has practiced many evils.