Roman Catholic Church lowers its standards

[kentonio]

What a surprise. The 'teacher' cares more about the church than he does about kids, and is just dying to point the blame at homosexuals rather than the church. What a ****.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are sure gullible if you think everyone that ever was involved has been removed.

Then by all means supply a list of names who have been proven to be involved in this that have not been removed.

[Ben Kenobi]

What a surprise. The 'teacher' cares more about the church than he does about kids, and is just dying to point the blame at homosexuals rather than the church. What a ****.

Are you disputing the fact that 80 percent of the sexual abuse was directed at boys?

[kentonio]

Thank you for not disputing the fact that you are a ****. This can now be considered undisputed fact.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you for not disputing the fact that you are a ****. This can now be considered undisputed fact.

I'm glad to see that we're seeing more folks come over to the actual truth here.

[rah]

Then by all means supply a list of names who have been proven to be involved in this that have not been removed.

Certainly hard to prove when the Church doesn't release the information. But if you truly believe they got everyone, then you're a bigger idiot then I thought. And considering how big of an idiot I think you've shown, that's saying something,

[Pax]

Legally, we are not required to release any information not covered by a warrant and probable cause. Again - the Church has legal protections too.
The Vatican, one, is not subject to 'local authorities'. For one the Vatican has sovereign immunity to prosecution. Having say, the City of Philadelphia file a suit against the Vatican is silly.
Now, the City of Philadelphia can, say, file a suit against the local diocese, and they can file for the release of information concerning the diocese and pertinent to the case.
This is basic, basic, disclosure rules, Pax. I'm sorry you don't like the criminal justice system, but it is there for a reason. Fishing expeditions are illegal.
You're going to have to provide evidence for your claims that the Catholic church is not collaborating with legal authorities in providing pertinent information to them.

I have already linked my evidence of Vatican cover up.
I never said the Vatican was subject to local authorities.
So we now know that the Vatican has no legal obligation to protect it's flock in foreign countries(i.e. outside of the Vatican) but I wonder does the Roman Catholic Church have any moral obligation to it's flock?
By the way, The Vaticans sovereignty was not challenged, nor was a fishing expedition suggested. The Vatican has investigators and they have information that they know local authorities could use to prosecute clergy. I simply stated that should as a matter of good will and concern for their members provide this information to local authorities.
Ben, you consistently answer questions that were not asked, answer questions with statements that do not pertain to the questions asked or simply don't answer the questions.
You also misquote people on a regular basis.
By the way everyone here knows that the Vatican does not have to give information. Of everything you said, that's the only thing that is undeniable but it's also the point of argument as to why they don't. It leads me to believe that the the Vatican is more Roman Empire than Christian Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

Certainly hard to prove when the Church doesn't release the information.

So you have no proof to verify your allegation. Also, given that all the examples that have been found are all 30 some years old, gives me reasonable certainty that these are not recent problems. Would you consider a corporation that engaged in similar activities 30 years ago relevant to their corporate history now?

But if you truly believe they got everyone, then you're a bigger idiot then I thought.

Claims requires proof, Rah. You believe that there's more out there who haven't been caught and that the Catholic church is concealing it. Prove it then.

Lacking proof this amounts merely to unsubstantiated allegations.

And considering how big of an idiot I think you've shown, that's saying something,

Idiot or not, your claim requires proof. If you're unable to supply any then that speaks volumes.

[Ming]

Still ignoring the fact that the church cares more for their image than their flock.
Real Christian of them. Jesus would not approve.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have already linked my evidence of Vatican cover up.

None of which is recent or subject to the statute of limitations anywhere. Legally - this could not be prosecuted in a court of law.

I never said the Vatican was subject to local authorities.

Then there's no requirement for the Vatican to release information to local authorities.

So we now know that the Vatican has no legal obligation to protect it's flock in foreign countries

As you yourself just admitted, local authorities have no standing to charge the Vatican with anything. Do I believe that the Catholic church has a moral obligation? Absolutely. Which is why the Catholic church is dismissing officials that are proven to be involved, not merely engaging in witch hunts.

By the way, The Vaticans sovereignty was not challenged

Then why are you attacking me for affirming this legal principle? I know laws are annoying things.

The Vatican has investigators

Then we should let them do their job.

that they know local authorities could use to prosecute clergy.

And? You've just admitted they have no legal right to this information?

I simply stated that should as a matter of good will and concern

You stated a legal opinion. Now that your legal opinion got smoked, you're claiming that there's a moral requirement. The Catholic church has no moral requirement other than to investigate and engage in proper church discipline.

By the way everyone here knows that the Vatican does not have to give information.

"Everyone knows", and apparently you weren't one of them.

Of everything you said, that's the only thing that is undeniable but it's also the point of argument as to why they don't. It leads me to believe that the the Vatican is more Roman Empire than Christian Church.

Again, you're merely proving this isn't about the kids. It's about attacking the Catholic church. Vatican officials have been effective at rooting this out. What about their job has made you suspect that they haven't been?

[Ben Kenobi]

Still ignoring the fact that the church cares more for their image than their flock.
Real Christian of them. Jesus would not approve.

Which explains why you are attacking the image of the Church. Were some bishops responsible for things 30 years ago? Yes. Could they legally be prosecuted for this in any civilized country? No. So tell me Ming, do you believe that the state should set aside laws in order to prosecute the Catholic church?

[Pax]

None of which is recent or subject to the statute of limitations anywhere. Legally - this could not be prosecuted in a court of law.
Then there's no requirement for the Vatican to release information to local authorities.
As you yourself just admitted, local authorities have no standing to charge the Vatican with anything. Do I believe that the Catholic church has a moral obligation? Absolutely. Which is why the Catholic church is dismissing officials that are proven to be involved, not merely engaging in witch hunts.
Then why are you attacking me for affirming this legal principle? I know laws are annoying things.
Then we should let them do their job.
And? You've just admitted they have no legal right to this information?
You stated a legal opinion. Now that your legal opinion got smoked, you're claiming that there's a moral requirement. The Catholic church has no moral requirement other than to investigate and engage in proper church discipline.
"Everyone knows", and apparently you weren't one of them.
Again, you're merely proving this isn't about the kids. It's about attacking the Catholic church. Vatican officials have been effective at rooting this out. What about their job has made you suspect that they haven't been?

I NEVER STATED THE VATICAN HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. I NEVER STATED THE VATICAN HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.

I NEVER STATED THE VATICAN HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.

I NEVER STATED THE VATICAN HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.

Anything you state in reference to refuting a claim I DID NOT MAKE is IRRELEVANT
Just so you know, I don't give a **** about the Vatican or the Catholic Church. I am Catholic neutral. This is about the fact an organization with supposed moral authority seems to hide behind legalities when it comes to protecting it's members. I call that morally corrupt.
As far as Vatican Investigators, they can do their job no one is stopping them. Still no reason not to share information.

[kentonio]

Which explains why you are attacking the image of the Church. Were some bishops responsible for things 30 years ago? Yes. Could they legally be prosecuted for this in any civilized country? No.

If they are resident in a country where they deliberately concealed evidence of a crime occuring, then yes they can be charged with various things including (in the UK) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Also unlike America we don't have a statute of limitations.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is about the fact an organization with supposed moral authority seems to hide behind legalities when it comes to protecting it's members

Then why are they dismissing priests and bishops when there's no legal way for them to be prosecuted?

[Ben Kenobi]

If they are resident in a country where they deliberately concealed evidence of a crime occuring, then yes they can be charged with various things including (in the UK) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Also unlike America we don't have a statute of limitations.

It wouldn't be the first time the UK has put Catholics up on the block.