NationStates Jolt Archive

Well ok, he didn't have the honesty to say so explicitly but that's what it boils down to.

It's the same old story. Priest molests children in his parish. Priest's boss finds out about the molestation. Rather than turning the priest over to the police so he can be prosecuted for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, the church hierarchy instead puts the priest into their own private, intra-church counseling while merely telling his parishioners that he is taking a leave of absence.

Upon completion of that counseling, they move the offending priest to another parish where the public has no idea that he has a history of molesting children and they once again put him in a position of authority over children. To no one's surprise, he molests more children. One of those children grows up and sues the diocese for negligence for their actions and the diocese goes to court and argues that the case should be dismissed because of the free exercise clause of the Constitution.

Read that again. It wasn't a joke. They actually argued that if the Court rules on the issue they will "will become unconstitutionally entangled in religious doctrine, practice, or church polity" and that it will require the Court to "regulate the manner in which a Catholic bishop selects, assigns, supervises, and disciplines priests and that such regulation violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The word 'chutzpah' comes to mind.

From here (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/molestation_covered_by_ministe.php)

You can find the official court ruling here (http://www.courts.state.ri.us/superior/pdf/03-1302-9-20-07.pdf).

The Hierarchy Defendants argue that by adjudicating the negligence claims, the Court will become unconstitutionally entangled in religious doctrine, practice, or church polity. Resolution of such claims will necessarily require the Court to regulate the manner in which a Catholic bishop selects, assigns, supervises, and disciplines priests and that such regulation violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island.

Perhaps this will silence the apologists who argue that the proportion of paedophile priests is lower than the proportion of paedophiles in the general population: the Catholic Church isn't being criticised for letting some paedophiles slip through their checks, they're being criticised for systematically protecting child molestors and facilitating their abuse of children. The Bishop should be sent down.

Meh. The Church has been telling rape victims that it's all their fault and they should shut up and clean house for their rapists for centuries.

At this point, I know very few good Catholics who pay the least attention to what the Catholic hierarchy says, because most good Catholics are decent human beings.

Most Catholics I know don't think it's okay to rape women and children. Most Catholics I know don't think you burn in Hell for protecting your loved ones from disease. Most Catholics don't think that child rapists should be allowed to go free with the blessings of the Church, while loving adult gay couples should be viewed as Hell-bound scum. And thus most Catholics just tune out the creepy old men in fancy hats who have appointed themselves Lord High Mucky-Mucks of the Church.

The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy, at this point, and I just can't stop laughing at them.

Meh. The Church has been telling rape victims that it's all their fault and they should shut up and clean house for their rapists for centuries.

At this point, I know very few good Catholics who pay the least attention to what the Catholic hierarchy says, because most good Catholics are decent human beings.

Most Catholics I know don't think it's okay to rape women and children. Most Catholics I know don't think you burn in Hell for protecting your loved ones from disease. Most Catholics don't think that child rapists should be allowed to go free with the blessings of the Church, while loving adult gay couples should be viewed as Hell-bound scum. And thus most Catholics just tune out the creepy old men in fancy hats who have appointed themselves Lord High Mucky-Mucks of the Church.

The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy, at this point, and I just can't stop laughing at them.

So... most good Catholics are Protestants?

So... most good Catholics are Protestants?
In my (admittedly limited) experience, it kind of works like this:

Most Catholics I know tend to regard the Catholic hierarchy as becoming less relevant the higher up you go. The Catholics I know have not simply chosen to attend any old Catholic church, but rather they have specifically chosen a particular church that has people of like sensibilities. US Catholic churches quite often drift from what the "official" statements of the Church actually dictate. Thus, American Catholics are much more ideological similar to their personal Catholic communities than they are with the folks in the Vatican.

There are plenty of ways that Catholicism differs from Protestant denominations. Strict belief in the divine inspiration of the Pope doesn't seem to be a Catholic requirement any more, because I know a bunch of very observant Catholics who feel that the bulk of the high-up leaders of the Church are well-meaning but totally out of touch.

Long story short:

You'd have to be a total asshole to agree with a lot of what the Catholic Church has been doing (helping rapists, facilitating rape and child abuse, contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS, continued misogyny, obsessive homophobia, etc).

Most Catholics aren't total assholes.

Hence, most Catholics don't agree with all of what their Church is up to.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, it kind of works like this:

Most Catholics I know tend to regard the Catholic hierarchy as becoming less relevant the higher up you go. The Catholics I know have not simply chosen to attend any old Catholic church, but rather they have specifically chosen a particular church that has people of like sensibilities. US Catholic churches quite often drift from what the "official" statements of the Church actually dictate. Thus, American Catholics are much more ideological similar to their personal Catholic communities than they are with the folks in the Vatican.

There are plenty of ways that Catholicism differs from Protestant denominations. Strict belief in the divine inspiration of the Pope doesn't seem to be a Catholic requirement any more, because I know a bunch of very observant Catholics who feel that the bulk of the high-up leaders of the Church are well-meaning but totally out of touch.

Long story short:

You'd have to be a total asshole to agree with a lot of what the Catholic Church has been doing (helping rapists, facilitating rape and child abuse, contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS, continued misogyny, obsessive homophobia, etc).

Most Catholics aren't total assholes.

Hence, most Catholics don't agree with all of what their Church is up to.

Unitarians, then? :p

Just seems like taking the "Catholic" out of "Catholocism" just leaves you with Ism, and nobody likes having Ism all over the place.

Might as well attach yourself to a different branch, or create a new one, I'd think.

Well, I heard a bishop say once on TV that it's okay to ask questions. Many Catholic traditions are traditions with a small "t" and therefore would change in time. The church, contrary to the picture in many people's minds, is dynamic. It changes, it is not fixed... hence the need to ask questions...

But as a Catholic, I think they're just too slow (or too careful, however you view it) to change...

Unitarians, then? :p

Just seems like taking the "Catholic" out of "Catholocism" just leaves you with Ism, and nobody likes having Ism all over the place.

Might as well attach yourself to a different branch, or create a new one, I'd think.
I must confess, I have repeatedly suggested to one of my Catholic buddies that he should just start calling himself Episcopalian and get on with his life.

Haha, it's as I've always said, one of my friends complains when i tell him catholicism is contradictory and therefore impossible to pin down. He says that it is in no way contradictory and should stay as one pure church, surely they should and would be better splitting into many smaller groups of actually like minded people. As well as making more sense of the religion it would mean not all catholics would be prejudiced against for the paedophiles.

Haha, it's as I've always said, one of my friends complains when i tell him catholicism is contradictory and therefore impossible to pin down. He says that it is in no way contradictory and should stay as one pure church, surely they should and would be better splitting into many smaller groups of actually like minded people. As well as making more sense of the religion it would mean not all catholics would be prejudiced against for the paedophiles.

But then that's not really Catholocism if you don't believe in the teachings of Cathol.

Isn't all that just Lutherenism, btw?

I remember seeing an article a few years ago on the ease of getting absolution for sins such as birth control and even abortion in Mexico. It seems the priests closest to the people have a little better idea on what people in the real world need. And the brains to realize that giving people a hard time about crap they're going to do anyway will just lead to more people leaving the church.

How can we be sure this is rape?

What if the children consented but you just scream rape really really loudly?


For such a sexualy liberal nation we sure won't let people makeup thier own damn minds about who people can and can't sleep with.


If children have no buisness having sex, then they have no buisness having sex with anyone. If it's wrong for a 13 year old to have sex with a 40 year old, then it's wrong to for a 13 year old to have sex with another 13 year old. Because they are incapable of understanding the full consequince of thier actions.


So either child sex is wrong or not. Which is it?

Don't singleout the desperate priests.:headbang::headbang::headbang:

I think that when Jesus comes back, a lot of catholic leaders are going to get smacked. :p

I remember seeing an article a few years ago on the ease of getting absolution for sins such as birth control and even abortion in Mexico. It seems the priests closest to the people have a little better idea on what people in the real world need. And the brains to realize that giving people a hard time about crap they're going to do anyway will just lead to more people leaving the church.

Right, so if it's all localized, how is it Catholocism other than the saint worship?

Meh. The Church has been telling rape victims that it's all their fault and they should shut up and clean house for their rapists for centuries.

At this point, I know very few good Catholics who pay the least attention to what the Catholic hierarchy says, because most good Catholics are decent human beings.

Most Catholics I know don't think it's okay to rape women and children. Most Catholics I know don't think you burn in Hell for protecting your loved ones from disease. Most Catholics don't think that child rapists should be allowed to go free with the blessings of the Church, while loving adult gay couples should be viewed as Hell-bound scum. And thus most Catholics just tune out the creepy old men in fancy hats who have appointed themselves Lord High Mucky-Mucks of the Church.

The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy, at this point, and I just can't stop laughing at them.

I agree with what you say about most catholics, but disagree with the bold, it is a little extreme.

Right, so if it's all localized, how is it Catholocism other than the saint worship?
You've got misconceptions on your head, my friend.

How can we be sure this is rape?

What if the children consented but you just scream rape really really loudly?


For such a sexualy liberal nation we sure won't let people makeup thier own damn minds about who people can and can't sleep with.


If children have no buisness having sex, then they have no buisness having sex with anyone. If it's wrong for a 13 year old to have sex with a 40 year old, then it's wrong to for a 13 year old to have sex with another 13 year old. Because they are incapable of understanding the full consequince of thier actions.


So either child sex is wrong or not. Which is it?

Don't singleout the desperate priests.

http://www.lerepairedesmotards.com/img/forum/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg

Right, so if it's all localized, how is it Catholocism other than the saint worship?
Well, to me all those saints are the same as having a bunch of minor gods under the big god. But what do I know? I'm an atheist and the weird little distinctions between different brands of Christianity usually make no sense to me.

But then that's not really Catholocism if you don't believe in the teachings of Cathol.

Isn't all that just Lutherenism, btw?

Was the "Cathol" comment supposed to be a joke?

And, no, there are a lot more differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism, of all things, than just following the decrees of the Pope and cardinals. For a really screamingly obvious example, there's the whole issue of the "faith alone" doctrine, with which any practicing Catholic would strongly disagree.

I agree with what you say about most catholics, but disagree with the bold, it is a little extreme.

Don't do that. Don't make me... fuck it, you asked for it.

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/use-updates/

Visit their USE giftshop, fucker. :P


Not angry at you, by the way, but you made me look at that site again, and it pisses me off to no end.


EDIT: And to clarify, yes, I acknowledge that they aren't specifically Catholics, but they're Christians. Just because their dogma is different doesn't really change the startling and glaring horror of their religious source, the bible.

You've got misconceptions on your head, my friend.

Liek wut

Well, to me all those saints are the same as having a bunch of minor gods under the big god. But what do I know? I'm an atheist and the weird little distinctions between different brands of Christianity usually make no sense to me.

Yeah, I get that way sometimes as well.

Was the "Cathol" comment supposed to be a joke?

And, no, there are a lot more differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism, of all things, than just following the decrees of the Pope and cardinals. For a really screamingly obvious example, there's the whole issue of the "faith alone" doctrine, with which any practicing Catholic would strongly disagree.

Eddie Izzard joke, actually.

And Catholocism is pretty much centered around the Catholic Church - surely once that large piece has been taken out, there's another faith system that more closely represents it than keeping the previous name.

If children have no buisness having sex, then they have no buisness having sex with anyone. If it's wrong for a 13 year old to have sex with a 40 year old, then it's wrong to for a 13 year old to have sex with another 13 year old. Because they are incapable of understanding the full consequince of thier actions.

Of course, there is the small detail of the priest being an authority figure and an adult. Someone the child is taught to obey, and someone who probably is quite good at manipulation.

How can we be sure this is rape?

What if the children consented but you just scream rape really really loudly?


For such a sexualy liberal nation we sure won't let people makeup thier own damn minds about who people can and can't sleep with.


If children have no buisness having sex, then they have no buisness having sex with anyone. If it's wrong for a 13 year old to have sex with a 40 year old, then it's wrong to for a 13 year old to have sex with another 13 year old. Because they are incapable of understanding the full consequince of thier actions.


So either child sex is wrong or not. Which is it?

Don't singleout the desperate priests.
While I'm sure that you are very, very proud of how edgy you are when you joke about rape, I should warn you that this is actually one of the oldest and most over-used schticks out there. It's not actually edgy in any way. In fact, joking about rape is right up there with black face as one of those old-fashioned forms of "humor" that weren't even really funny back when they were new.

I agree with what you say about most catholics, but disagree with the bold, it is a little extreme.
The Bible teaches that a rape victim should be married off to her rapist, and that a married woman is the domestic and sexual servant of her male owner. The Catholic Church continues to encourage and advance this notion pretty much whenever they can.

I know it's not considered polite to point out the nasty bits of the Bible, but they're still there, and there are plenty of jackasses who happen to also be Catholics who really like the idea of "you poke it, you own it."

I think that when Jesus comes back, a lot of catholic leaders are going to get smacked. :p

With a nice big trout, hoepfully. :)

Don't do that. Don't make me... fuck it, you asked for it.

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/use-updates/

Visit their USE giftshop, fucker. :P


Not angry at you, by the way, but you made me look at that site again, and it pisses me off to no end.


I hope your aware that this blog isnt real. Its a political spoof blog thats kind of an inside joke that alot of people like yourself and people who post comments think are real, but in fact the whole thing is subtle and not so subtle parody. Its sort of a supertroll blog designed to fish for wackos who agree with thier radical points in the comments section.

Well ok, he didn't have the honesty to say so explicitly but that's what it boils down to.



From here (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/molestation_covered_by_ministe.php)

You can find the official court ruling here (http://www.courts.state.ri.us/superior/pdf/03-1302-9-20-07.pdf).



Perhaps this will silence the apologists who argue that the proportion of paedophile priests is lower than the proportion of paedophiles in the general population: the Catholic Church isn't being criticised for letting some paedophiles slip through their checks, they're being criticised for systematically protecting child molestors and facilitating their abuse of children. The Bishop should be sent down.

i dont see that it has ANYTHING to do with theology, hierachy, the inner workings of the church but instead has EVERYTHING to do with bishops and other church officials aiding and abetting child abuse. as such everyone who hid these crimes, hid the perpetrators and moved them so that it would be easier for them to offend again needs to spend a good long time in prison.

the church does not have a legal right to overlook crimes by its officials, priests or members.

If a bishop hides a paedophile priest I think he should be sent to prison for not reporting him to the police. If the priest goes on to abuse more children the bishop should be prosecuted for being an accessory to the crimes and get nearly as long in prison as the priest. Covering up these crimes should never be tolerated. A Catholic priest or bishop should be seen as just another citizen accountable to the law rather than answerable only to the Vatican.

i dont see that it has ANYTHING to do with theology, hierachy, the inner workings of the church but instead has EVERYTHING to do with bishops and other church officials aiding and abetting child abuse. as such everyone who hid these crimes, hid the perpetrators and moved them so that it would be easier for them to offend again needs to spend a good long time in prison.

the church does not have a legal right to overlook crimes by its officials, priests or members.

QFT, thank you.

The Bible teaches that a rape victim should be married off to her rapist, and that a married woman is the domestic and sexual servant of her male owner.

First part - the Talmud explains that this is only in cases of Stockholm Syndrome - the woman falls in love with her rapist. More importantly, the rapist is stuck with her.

Second part - where does it say that? She is not required to be the domestic servant of her husband. As for sexual servant, you got it mixed up. HE is HER sexual servant - a man may not deny his wife sexual favors.

The Bible teaches that a rape victim should be married off to her rapist, and that a married woman is the domestic and sexual servant of her male owner. The Catholic Church continues to encourage and advance this notion pretty much whenever they can.

Bible verses please, and evidence of the Church's supposed encouragement.


There was mention of worshipping saints earlier in this topic and I believe that this link will sufficiently answer any questions concerning that, if it doesn't please let me know:
Saint Worship? Link (http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp)

Drakemonia: Haha, it's as I've always said, one of my friends complains when i tell him catholicism is contradictory and therefore impossible to pin down.

How exactly is Catholicism it contradictory? Any evidence that you have would be appreciated.

Bottle: Meh. The Church has been telling rape victims that it's all their fault and they should shut up and clean house for their rapists for centuries.

If you could provide evidence please.


Rabas

I hope your aware that this blog isnt real. Its a political spoof blog thats kind of an inside joke that alot of people like yourself and people who post comments think are real, but in fact the whole thing is subtle and not so subtle parody. Its sort of a supertroll blog designed to fish for wackos who agree with thier radical points in the comments section.

The reason it works, regardless, is because this is basically the belief of the Catholic church. You get raped, you can't abort, it's your baby, god has a plan for you.

Whether or not the site itself is a fake is irrelevant to the fact that people still believe and encourage such behavior, and they are NOT joking.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, it kind of works like this:

Most Catholics I know tend to regard the Catholic hierarchy as becoming less relevant the higher up you go. The Catholics I know have not simply chosen to attend any old Catholic church, but rather they have specifically chosen a particular church that has people of like sensibilities. US Catholic churches quite often drift from what the "official" statements of the Church actually dictate. Thus, American Catholics are much more ideological similar to their personal Catholic communities than they are with the folks in the Vatican.

There are plenty of ways that Catholicism differs from Protestant denominations. Strict belief in the divine inspiration of the Pope doesn't seem to be a Catholic requirement any more, because I know a bunch of very observant Catholics who feel that the bulk of the high-up leaders of the Church are well-meaning but totally out of touch.

Long story short:

You'd have to be a total asshole to agree with a lot of what the Catholic Church has been doing (helping rapists, facilitating rape and child abuse, contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS, continued misogyny, obsessive homophobia, etc).

Most Catholics aren't total assholes.

Hence, most Catholics don't agree with all of what their Church is up to.

Bloody hell - can we swap some of ours for yours?

Bloody hell - can we swap some of ours for yours?

Unfortunately, no. They've already targeted specific members of the community they're currently in, and will continue to annoy them until their mission has ended or they are deactivated.

There is no escape.

I hope your aware that this blog isnt real. Its a political spoof blog thats kind of an inside joke that alot of people like yourself and people who post comments think are real, but in fact the whole thing is subtle and not so subtle parody. Its sort of a supertroll blog designed to fish for wackos who agree with thier radical points in the comments section.

So it's like the Sony Defence Force blog? :)

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/171/shitti0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Shaddup. And get a decent-sized picture for that.

Right, so if it's all localized, how is it Catholocism other than the saint worship?

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2161/shitgx2.png (http://imageshack.us)

Well ok, he didn't have the honesty to say so explicitly but that's what it boils down to.



From here (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/molestation_covered_by_ministe.php)

You can find the official court ruling here (http://www.courts.state.ri.us/superior/pdf/03-1302-9-20-07.pdf).



Perhaps this will silence the apologists who argue that the proportion of paedophile priests is lower than the proportion of paedophiles in the general population: the Catholic Church isn't being criticised for letting some paedophiles slip through their checks, they're being criticised for systematically protecting child molestors and facilitating their abuse of children. The Bishop should be sent down.

American courts do not have the power or the authority to dictate to churches who they can have as priests. It would violate the seperation of church and state.
But if a church wanted to have a known child molestor as a priest, they should inform their parishioners and the community that way parents can make their own decisions if they want their children to attend that church.
Telling the truth will set you free.

Meh. The Church has been telling rape victims that it's all their fault and they should shut up and clean house for their rapists for centuries.

At this point, I know very few good Catholics who pay the least attention to what the Catholic hierarchy says, because most good Catholics are decent human beings.

Most Catholics I know don't think it's okay to rape women and children. Most Catholics I know don't think you burn in Hell for protecting your loved ones from disease. Most Catholics don't think that child rapists should be allowed to go free with the blessings of the Church, while loving adult gay couples should be viewed as Hell-bound scum. And thus most Catholics just tune out the creepy old men in fancy hats who have appointed themselves Lord High Mucky-Mucks of the Church.

The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy, at this point, and I just can't stop laughing at them.
Actually the majority of the world's catholics agree with the church. You are referring to American Catholics who never agree with the church.

American courts do not have the power or the authority to dictate to churches who they can have as priests. It would violate the seperation of church and state.
But if a church wanted to have a known child molestor as a priest, they should inform their parishioners and the community that way parents can make their own decisions if they want their children to attend that church.
Telling the truth will set you free.

the church can indeed put anyone they please into the priesthood and place that priest anywhere they please.

however the officials of the church do not have the option of ignoring crimes and moving priests to avoid prosecution. they are not above the law.

the church can indeed put anyone they please into the priesthood and place that priest anywhere they please.

however the officials of the church do not have the option of ignoring crimes and moving priests to avoid prosecution. they are not above the law.

The Priests are not moved to avoid prosecution. They are moved because the priest can no longer function efficiently in his former parish.
Suppose there is a problem between two people where you work. Usually their employer relocates one of them to another department.
That is how it is in these cases. The Priest is still a valuable employee of the church. But because of the problem either the accuser or the accused has to be relocated. Obviously it can't be the accuser. It would be too much of an inconvenience and they were not the ones who did the wrong. So it is the priest who has to relocate.
Public schools do this kind of thing all the time. So does the government.
Now if the guy keeps committing the same acts in every parish he's assigned to and the church just keeps relocating him, then you have a problem.
The original intent of relocations is to give him a chance to start over and apply the lessons learned. But if he can't learn his lesson, then the church should defrock him. But it is not for the public or the courts to dictate to the church that they defrock this person or that person. Society does not have that kind of authority over the church.
Also, relocation does not prevent authorities from prosecuting the priest. The reason they don't is because the authorities are too lazy to pursue it.

Snip.

You relocate a worker when that worker got into a heated argument with his co-worker, not when he raped his co-worker's child.

The Bible teaches that a rape victim should be married off to her rapist, and that a married woman is the domestic and sexual servant of her male owner. The Catholic Church continues to encourage and advance this notion pretty much whenever they can.

I know it's not considered polite to point out the nasty bits of the Bible, but they're still there, and there are plenty of jackasses who happen to also be Catholics who really like the idea of "you poke it, you own it."

actually the Bible teaches that the rapist be stoned to death.

i dont see that it has ANYTHING to do with theology, hierachy, the inner workings of the church but instead has EVERYTHING to do with bishops and other church officials aiding and abetting child abuse. as such everyone who hid these crimes, hid the perpetrators and moved them so that it would be easier for them to offend again needs to spend a good long time in prison.

the church does not have a legal right to overlook crimes by its officials, priests or members.

No. But it does have the right to try and rehabilitate them.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13081322']If a bishop hides a paedophile priest I think he should be sent to prison for not reporting him to the police. If the priest goes on to abuse more children the bishop should be prosecuted for being an accessory to the crimes and get nearly as long in prison as the priest. Covering up these crimes should never be tolerated. A Catholic priest or bishop should be seen as just another citizen accountable to the law rather than answerable only to the Vatican.

They are subject to the same secular laws as everyone else. But the priests are not being moved just avoid the law. They are being moved as part of their rehab.
The law can still go to the new parish and prosecute the priest while he is in rehab. There is no cover up.

actually the Bible teaches that the rapist be stoned to death.

That is only if the woman is betrothed. And if the rape took place within a city the woman should be stoned to death as well.
If however she was single, he must pay her daddy compensation and marry her.

The Priests are not moved to avoid prosecution. They are moved because the priest can no longer function efficiently in his former parish.
Suppose there is a problem between two people where you work. Usually their employer relocates one of them to another department.
That is how it is in these cases. The Priest is still a valuable employee of the church. But because of the problem either the accuser or the accused has to be relocated. Obviously it can't be the accuser. It would be too much of an inconvenience and they were not the ones who did the wrong. So it is the priest who has to relocate.
Public schools do this kind of thing all the time. So does the government.
Now if the guy keeps committing the same acts in every parish he's assigned to and the church just keeps relocating him, then you have a problem.
The original intent of relocations is to give him a chance to start over and apply the lessons learned. But if he can't learn his lesson, then the church should defrock him. But it is not for the public or the courts to dictate to the church that they defrock this person or that person. Society does not have that kind of authority over the church.
Also, relocation does not prevent authorities from prosecuting the priest. The reason they don't is because the authorities are too lazy to pursue it.

ITS A CRIME

if you find out your secretary is knocking over liquor stores in her spare time you dont transfer her, you turn her into the cops. if the vp of marketing is selling dope in the cafeteria you dont help him get a job in another town you have him arrested. if you dont, you are committing a crime yourself.

the church does not have the option of turning in an offender or treating him themselves. if a family comes to the bishop with a story of their son being molested he MUST inform the police. it is not legal to cover up a crime.

if after the priest is released from prison they want to keep him on, that is their business. hiding his crime is NOT.

You relocate a worker when that worker got into a heated argument with his co-worker, not when he raped his co-worker's child.

Bad comparison, considering a member of congregation is not a co-worker of a priest.
A church has the right to rehabilitate a priest who has fallen into sin. Part of that rehabilitation is relocation to another parish. It is also involves apologizing to the victim and making restitution.
The victim, in return, is expected to forgive the person who has thus harmed them. This is not just Catholic teaching, it is Christian teaching. It's based off the bible. Specifically Jesus said "Forgive those who have harmed you."

Now there are two people, in situations like these who should be excommunicated:
1. A preist who proves to be unrehabilitable. Who refuses to repent and change his ways.
2. An victim who refuses to forgive. And instead goes about seeking revenge and affords his to efforts to the destruction of the church.

Because they are both going against church teachings and Bible teachings. Neither of their lifestyles is compatible with the Christian way of life.

Jesus said that if a person wrongs another in the church and he refuses to repent, right his wrong, and change his ways he is to be cast out.
Like wise, he said that if a person refuses to forgive and goes on a crusade of vengeance just to hurt other people, he is to be cast out.
That's from the Bible, not from church doctrine.

Unfortunately, you can't forgive someone who does not want to be forgiven. But you can try to and that is what counts.

A church has the right to rehabilitate a priest who has fallen into sin. Part of that rehabilitation is relocation to another parish. It is also involves apologizing to the victim and making restitution.

After the law was involved and the legal system has enforced its punishment. State law overrules religious laws - at least in most western countries.

ITS A CRIME

if you find out your secretary is knocking over liquor stores in her spare time you dont transfer her, you turn her into the cops. if the vp of marketing is selling dope in the cafeteria you dont help him get a job in another town you have him arrested. if you dont, you are committing a crime yourself.

the church does not have the option of turning in an offender or treating him themselves. if a family comes to the bishop with a story of their son being molested he MUST inform the police. it is not legal to cover up a crime.

if after the priest is released from prison they want to keep him on, that is their business. hiding his crime is NOT.

Actually the company does have the option of rehabing the VP who is selling drugs. The courts even set precedent that they would rather that such problems be resolved privately before the law is resorted to. Otherwise you worsen the already bad problem of court over scheduling. There is no requirement that you have him arrested.
The right thing to do is help him change. To help him get rehabilitation.
You keep saying there is a cover up. But the fact is there is no cover up going on. The church is not trying to hide a crime.
If a judge sees that a person with a drug problem is trying to reform his life with help from his employer, the judge is not going to put that person in jail. Rather he's going to implement some orders to help that person get rehabilitated.
Just because the guy doesn't go to jail does not mean that either the church or the judge is covering up a crime.

Bad comparison, considering a member of congregation is not a co-worker of a priest.
A church has the right to rehabilitate a priest who has fallen into sin. Part of that rehabilitation is relocation to another parish. It is also involves apologizing to the victim and making restitution.
The victim, in return, is expected to forgive the person who has thus harmed them. This is not just Catholic teaching, it is Christian teaching. It's based off the bible. Specifically Jesus said "Forgive those who have harmed you."

Now there are two people, in situations like these who should be excommunicated:
1. A preist who proves to be unrehabilitable. Who refuses to repent and change his ways.
2. An victim who refuses to forgive. And instead goes about seeking revenge and affords his to efforts to the destruction of the church.

Because they are both going against church teachings and Bible teachings. Neither of their lifestyles is compatible with the Christian way of life.

Jesus said that if a person wrongs another in the church and he refuses to repent, right his wrong, and change his ways he is to be cast out.
Like wise, he said that if a person refuses to forgive and goes on a crusade of vengeance just to hurt other people, he is to be cast out.
That's from the Bible, not from church doctrine.

Unfortunately, you can't forgive someone who does not want to be forgiven. But you can try to and that is what counts.

the church is not outside the law.

repenting and going to confession might make you right with god but it doesnt make you right with the law. you must still answer to civil authorities.

After the law was involved and the legal system has enforced its punishment. State law overrules religious laws - at least in most western countries.

Actually before, during, and after. State law does not overrule religious law in all cases.
In most cases, the church starts rehabbing before the law is involved. It is only when the Priest keeps up the acts that the law gets involved.

Likewise, if an uncle has sex with his neice, the law does not always get involved. Only if he is repeatedly doing it and the neice complains about it to the police. Then and only then does the legal system get involved.

Actually the company does have the option of rehabing the VP who is selling drugs. The courts even set precedent that they would rather that such problems be resolved privately before the law is resorted to. Otherwise you worsen the already bad problem of court over scheduling. There is no requirement that you have him arrested.
The right thing to do is help him change. To help him get rehabilitation.
You keep saying there is a cover up. But the fact is there is no cover up going on. The church is not trying to hide a crime.
If a judge sees that a person with a drug problem is trying to reform his life with help from his employer, the judge is not going to put that person in jail. Rather he's going to implement some orders to help that person get rehabilitated.
Just because the guy doesn't go to jail does not mean that either the church or the judge is covering up a crime.

no they dont.

if they move him and he ends up selling dope to someone who overdoses and dies, the seller AND the manager who didnt turn him in are going to be facing some jail time.

covering up drug dealing and helping him continue his dealing by moving him away from those who would turn him in IS a crime.

Actually before, during, and after. State law does not overrule religious law in all cases.
In most cases, the church starts rehabbing before the law is involved. It is only when the Priest keeps up the acts that the law gets involved.

Likewise, if an uncle has sex with his neice, the law does not always get involved. Only if he is repeatedly doing it and the neice complains about it to the police. Then and only then does the legal system get involved.

You say that as if you approve...
I remind you, we are talking about children here. Not adults that have chosen to accept certain downsides of their religion.

the church is not outside the law.

repenting and going to confession might make you right with god but it doesnt make you right with the law. you must still answer to civil authorities.

umm....

Actually the church does have special previliges that you and I don't have. This is a result of the seperation of church and state.

The primary responsibility for cases of molestation lies between the perpetrator and the victim. It is only because those two can't resolve the problem between themselves that the law gets involved to abjudicate the dispute.

The law is also highly selective in who it goes after.
.

Who can honestly says (s)he is surprised by this? (of course the fact that we're used to this sort of things by religious people only makes matters worse)

Unitarians, then? :p

Just seems like taking the "Catholic" out of "Catholocism" just leaves you with Ism, and nobody likes having Ism all over the place.

Might as well attach yourself to a different branch, or create a new one, I'd think.

I don't know any other church than catholicism in my area (except maybe a few weird sect-like churches in town) and most (almost all) catholics are old, they go to church more out of habit and to meet some friends than out of actual belief.

no they dont.

if they move him and he ends up selling dope to someone who overdoses and dies, the seller AND the manager who didnt turn him in are going to be facing some jail time.

covering up drug dealing and helping him continue his dealing by moving him away from those who would turn him in IS a crime.

actually it isn't. As long he is rehabbing. But if he continues to sell, then the manager should probably turn him in. But you don't have to call the police on every person breaking the law. They have more important things to do.

You say that as if you approve...
I remind you, we are talking about children here. Not adults that have chosen to accept certain downsides of their religion.

Actually, in the Bible, children don't have special previleges over adults. They are subject to the same rules and the same responsibilities once they reach the age of 12. By that time, they are adults, according to the Bible.

There is nothing in the Bible or in church doctrine that prevents any person, who has been aggrieved from seeking redress.

"You say that as if you approve" of what?

I approve of what the Bible teaches. I approve of what the church teaches as well. That is true.

People don't give up their rights just because there are children around.

actually it isn't. As long he is rehabbing.

Lawquote please ? I at least assume this IS based on actual law and not on how you think it should be ?

Lawquote please ? I at least assume this IS based on actual law and not on how you think it should be ?

There is no law specifically stating so. It is based on actual practice by the legal system and law enforcement.

Some of you people are so stupid its not catholic to kids thats an entirely different thing, priests who molest, molest mostly because they can't have compainionship or their gay and they can't admit it. And its moronic to think of the church badly as homophobic when the majority of protestants are homophobic as well, speaking as a catholic i am not ashamed to be one and you can't blame the church for what same priests have been doing

and wow they blocked like half my words lol

Some of you people are so stupid its not catholic to kids thats an entirely different thing, priests who molest, molest mostly because they can't have compainionship or their gay and they can't admit it. And its moronic to think of the church badly as homophobic when the majority of protestants are homophobic as well, speaking as a catholic i am not ashamed to be one and you can't blame the church for what same priests have been doing

They're not. They're blaming the church for trying to cover up what the priests have been doing.

Some of you people are so stupid its not catholic to kids thats an entirely different thing, priests who molest, molest mostly because they can't have compainionship or their gay and they can't admit it. And its moronic to think of the church badly as homophobic when the majority of protestants are homophobic as well, speaking as a catholic i am not ashamed to be one and you can't blame the church for what same priests have been doing

Uh, that's a stupid argument. Protestants who are homophobic are dumb too.

actually it isn't. As long he is rehabbing. But if he continues to sell, then the manager should probably turn him in. But you don't have to call the police on every person breaking the law. They have more important things to do.

you seem to be confusing committing a crime with being caught for committing that crime.

even if you dont get caught, even if you get caught and arent prosecuted for political reasons, you are still committing a crime.

every time you overlook..... your brother selling dope at school and keeping his cache in your home, for example... you run the risk of him being caught and YOU being on the hook for "aiding and abetting" or "accessory before/after the fact" or whatever the crime is called.

seperation of church and state does not give any church a pass on obeying the law.

There is no law specifically stating so. It is based on actual practice by the legal system and law enforcement.

I fear that might be true.
However, is that a good thing ? Especially in these cases ?

Some of you people are so stupid its not catholic to kids thats an entirely different thing, priests who molest, molest mostly because they can't have compainionship or their gay and they can't admit it. And its moronic to think of the church badly as homophobic when the majority of protestants are homophobic as well, speaking as a catholic i am not ashamed to be one and you can't blame the church for what same priests have been doing

I agree with you. The church should allow priests to have girlfriends or get married. Then there wouldn't be all this molestation stuff that is actually mostly priests who are sexually frustrated because of church laws that ban sex.
And priests who molest boys are closet homosexuals.

They're not. They're blaming the church for trying to cover up what the priests have been doing.

There was never any cover up. It was that the non church people were trying to dictate to the church who they can ordain.

you seem to be confusing committing a crime with being caught for committing that crime.

even if you dont get caught, even if you get caught and arent prosecuted for political reasons, you are still committing a crime.

every time you overlook..... your brother selling dope at school and keeping his cache in your home, for example... you run the risk of him being caught and YOU being on the hook for "aiding and abetting" or "accessory before/after the fact" or whatever the crime is called.

seperation of church and state does not give any church a pass on obeying the law.

In some cases it does. For example you have to pay taxes whereas a church does not have to pay taxes. That is the law. And the church is above that law. So it doesn't have to pay taxes.

There was never any cover up. It was that the non church people were trying to dictate to the church who they can ordain.

The priest was discovered to have molested children, and rather than tell the police or the parishioners, he was given a stern talking to and sent to another parish. They knew about a crime and deliberately did not report it - that's a cover up.

I fear that might be true.
However, is that a good thing ? Especially in these cases ?

I would rather it be enforced equally and fairly. Unfortunately in real life that is not the case.

In molestation cases, priests and teachers are prosecuted. But illegals who molest or rape children are almost always let off the hook "because the law doesn't apply to them."

But because our legal system overstretched, it looks the other way on first time offenders. It's only when you are repeat offender that it uses the energy necessary to get involved.

If the Congress would stop shooting down Bush's judicial nominees we would have enough judges so that we didn't have criminals walking the streets.
But as it is, there is not enough resources to prosecute, let alone jail, everyone guilty of a crime.

That's because Congress does not want to hire any more judges.

In some cases it does. For example you have to pay taxes whereas a church does not have to pay taxes. That is the law. And the church is above that law. So it doesn't have to pay taxes.

No, *some* churches are exempt from the law, by law.

The priest was discovered to have molested children, and rather than tell the police or the parishioners, he was given a stern talking to and sent to another parish. They knew about a crime and deliberately did not report it - that's a cover up.

That's not usual. They would have required him to go through rehabilitation and try to make things right with his victim before moving him.
Whether they report it as a crime is really their perogative just as it is the victim's perogative.

The law says that if you punch a person you have a committed a crime. But if the person you punch does not complain about it, then the law also says that no crime has occured.

You have to press charges in order for there to have been a crime.

In some cases it does. For example you have to pay taxes whereas a church does not have to pay taxes. That is the law. And the church is above that law. So it doesn't have to pay taxes.

that IS the law, that churches dont pay tax.

and tax law isnt criminal law.

for example, a church that claims that drug use is part of its rituals has to make the case in court or they are violating US drug law. (some churches have been able to prove their case)

a church that has human sacrifice as part of its ritual will not be allowed to kill people for god

a church that believes in faith healing is not allowed to keep children away from doctors if their life is in danger.


the church is not exempt from criminal law or, as we have seen in the past decade or so, civil liabitily in these molestation cases.

No, *some* churches are exempt from the law, by law.

Actually, in the United States, all churches are exempt from paying taxes, by law.
The law only gets involved when a church decides to try and influence politics. Other than that, they have almost total free reign.

For example, you have to rent to people who black or who are gay. A church on the other hand, can ban both from their services on religious grounds. That is another exemption from the law, which churches have.

that IS the law, that churches dont pay tax.

and tax law isnt criminal law.

for example, a church that claims that drug use is part of its rituals has to make the case in court or they are violating US drug law. (some churches have been able to prove their case)

a church that has human sacrifice as part of its ritual will not be allowed to kill people for god

a church that believes in faith healing is not allowed to keep children away from doctors if their life is in danger.


the church is not exempt from criminal law or, as we have seen in the past decade or so, civil liabitily in these molestation cases.


Actually churches are allowed to keep children away from doctors if they believe in faith healing. They are not required to do so until the last minute.

[QUOTE=Ashmoria;13084862]that IS the law, that churches dont pay tax.

and tax law isnt criminal law.

for example, a church that claims that drug use is part of its rituals has to make the case in court or they are violating US drug law. (some churches have been able to prove their case)

QUOTE]


Like wise, a church that makes the case they are rehabbing a priest will often be let off by a judge. And the judge will not require jail time for a priest who actively seeking rehabilitation.

Whether they report it as a crime is really their perogative just as it is the victim's perogative.

NO! IT ISN'T!

ETHICALLY IT ISN'T LEGALLY IT ISN'T! IF YOU KNOW ABOUT A PEDOPHILE, YOU FUCKING REPORT IT! OR ELSE YOU'RE COVERING IT UP ETHICALLY, IF NOT LEGALLY!

That's not for the Church to decide! It's not a prerogative of the Church to give their priests some more children to rape! It FUCKING IS NOT!

Actually, in the United States, all churches are exempt from paying taxes, by law.

Not all. Otherwise noone would need to pay taxes, having a church of one.

NO! IT ISN'T!

ETHICALLY IT ISN'T LEGALLY IT ISN'T! IF YOU KNOW ABOUT A PEDOPHILE, YOU FUCKING REPORT IT! OR ELSE YOU'RE COVERING IT UP ETHICALLY, IF NOT LEGALLY!

That's not for the Church to decide! It's not a prerogative of the Church to give their priests some more children to rape! It FUCKING IS NOT!

What you think is ethical or not ethical can't always be enforced legally.

The church does have a perogative in these cases. When they ignore the fact that the priest is not responding to attempts at rehabilitation and continues to molest, and only when they ignore it, does the church lose this perogative.

How can we be sure this is rape?

What if the children consented but you just scream rape really really loudly?


For such a sexualy liberal nation we sure won't let people makeup thier own damn minds about who people can and can't sleep with.


If children have no buisness having sex, then they have no buisness having sex with anyone. If it's wrong for a 13 year old to have sex with a 40 year old, then it's wrong to for a 13 year old to have sex with another 13 year old. Because they are incapable of understanding the full consequince of thier actions.


So either child sex is wrong or not. Which is it?

Don't singleout the desperate priests.


Uh.... I believe the issue would be that a priest is an authority figure? That would be the difference between sex with a peer and sex with someone who is supposed to be guiding you in your life. People such as parents, teachers, police officers etc in a possition of power/authority/trust telling kids its all right to do things like this isn't right.

Not all. Otherwise noone would need to pay taxes, having a church of one.

In the US, there are no churches that pay income tax. Also, there are no churches, that I know of, that are required to pay property taxes.
Even when they sell things, like tapes during and after a service, they are not required to pay taxes on the sale of the tapes.

What you think is ethical or not ethical can't always be enforced legally.

So, what, you favor giving the paedos some more prey?

Uh.... I believe the issue would be that a priest is an authority figure? That would be the difference between sex with a peer and sex with someone who is supposed to be guiding you in your life. People such as parents, teachers, police officers etc in a possition of power/authority/trust telling kids its all right to do things like this isn't right.

The real issue here is that a child, people under 16, cannot give rational consent.

The issue of a teacher having sex with a student depends more on how old the student is. If the student is 18, it is perfectly legal. Though some people might think it immoral.

In the US, there are no churches that pay income tax.

As I said: try founding your own church tomorrow, with you as sole believer, and argue that you do not have to pay taxes. Won't work.

So, what, you favor giving the paedos some more prey?

No. I favor giving the Priest a second and a third chance to reform. Once they have completed rehad and have made right with their victim, I would put them back in the position of leadership over the congregation. Or move them to another congregation. Then again, I might just decide to keep him as priest while he is going through rehab. That would be the perogative of the church.
The legal authorities prosecuting him, would not have impact him carrying out his priestly duties unless he was convicted and sent to jail.


It's not for you to dictate who can and can't be a priest.

As I said: try founding your own church tomorrow, with you as sole believer, and argue that you do not have to pay taxes. Won't work.

eh... that's not a real church. Trying to found a church just to avoid taxes does not count as a valid church.

I hope your aware that this blog isnt real. Its a political spoof blog thats kind of an inside joke that alot of people like yourself and people who post comments think are real, but in fact the whole thing is subtle and not so subtle parody. Its sort of a supertroll blog designed to fish for wackos who agree with thier radical points in the comments section.

please don't tell me the merchandise is fake too. :(

As I said: try founding your own church tomorrow, with you as sole believer, and argue that you do not have to pay taxes. Won't work.

damn, there goes my plan. What are the criteria to avoid taxes because you're a church?

No. I favor giving the Priest a second and a third chance to reform. Once they have completed rehad and have made right with their victim, I would put them back in the position of leadership over the congregation. Or move them to another congregation. Then again, I might just decide to keep him as priest while he is going through rehab. That would be the perogative of the church.
The legal authorities prosecuting him, would not have impact him carrying out his priestly duties unless he was convicted and sent to jail.


It's not for you to dictate who can and can't be a priest.

how would they make it right?
and would you argue that an ordinary person would also be allowed to try to rehabilitate 3 times before you send him to jail?

No. I favor giving the Priest a second and a third chance to reform. Once they have completed rehad and have made right with their victim, I would put them back in the position of leadership over the congregation. Or move them to another congregation. Then again, I might just decide to keep him as priest while he is going through rehab. That would be the perogative of the church.
The legal authorities prosecuting him, would not have impact him carrying out his priestly duties unless he was convicted and sent to jail.


It's not for you to dictate who can and can't be a priest.

So if a priest sexually abused your daughter or son having done so before at a different parish, you would consider the best solution to be to send them to rehab and move them again?

please don't tell me the merchandise is fake too. :(



damn, there goes my plan. What are the criteria to avoid taxes because you're a church?



how would they make it right?
and would you argue that an ordinary person would also be allowed to try to rehabilitate 3 times before you send him to jail?

1. They would go to their victim and acknowledge what they did and apologize for it. Confession and apology is the first and most important step in rehabilitation. Just ask AA.

2. They would seek to compensate the victim for the wrong. The victim does not have to accept compensation, but the priest is required to attempt give compensation.

3. They would ask the victim to forgive them. Of course the victim does not have to forgive, but the priest still has to ask.

An ordinary person, in secular terms, does not even get a second chance. But priests are recognized by the law, as not being ordinary people.
The way a person is treated by the law depends on what their occupation and position in society is. If you are a priest or a cop or a legislator, the law gives a little bit more leeway than if you were just Joe Donahue of South Central New Orleans.

So if a priest sexually abused your daughter or son having done so before at a different parish, you would consider the best solution to be to send them to rehab and move them again?

Personally, I would rehab them again and keep them in the same location unless they requested a transfer.
At the same time, I would try to find out why the first attempt at rehabilitation failed. Was it because the priest didn't want to reform? If so, the church has methods of dealing with it, like excommunication.

So if a priest sexually abused your daughter or son having done so before at a different parish, you would consider the best solution to be to send them to rehab and move them again?

"No", he'll say, "with MY child it's different!"

Heh.

An ordinary person, in secular terms, does not even get a second chance. But priests are recognized by the law, as not being ordinary people.
The way a person is treated by the law depends on what their occupation and position in society is. If you are a priest or a cop or a legislator, the law gives a little bit more leeway than if you were just Joe Donahue of South Central New Orleans.

Please show me a source of law, legislative or case, which shows that priests are given special permission to be treated differently in the case of sexual abuse.

Personally, I would rehab them again and keep them in the same location unless they requested a transfer.
At the same time, I would try to find out why the first attempt at rehabilitation failed. Was it because the priest didn't want to reform? If so, the church has methods of dealing with it, like excommunication.

And you wouldn't feel that he deserved some form of formal punishment for the irrepairable damage he had done to your child, possibly effecting their mental health and ability to form normal social relationships for the rest of their life?

No. I favor giving the Priest a second and a third chance to reform. Once they have completed rehad and have made right with their victim, I would put them back in the position of leadership over the congregation. Or move them to another congregation. Then again, I might just decide to keep him as priest while he is going through rehab. That would be the perogative of the church.
The legal authorities prosecuting him, would not have impact him carrying out his priestly duties unless he was convicted and sent to jail.


It's not for you to dictate who can and can't be a priest.
When it's paedophiles we're talking about I think it's too dangerous to give them even a second chance. It should be immediate prison with a lifetime ban on working with or looking after children.

And you're right, civil authorities can't say who is allowed to be a priest. But the civil authorities have every right to say that they're not allowed to be around children.

An ordinary person, in secular terms, does not even get a second chance. But priests are recognized by the law, as not being ordinary people.
The way a person is treated by the law depends on what their occupation and position in society is. If you are a priest or a cop or a legislator, the law gives a little bit more leeway than if you were just Joe Donahue of South Central New Orleans.
Mitigating circumstances are always taken into accoubt, but I don't see a precedent in any modern, civilised country that puts priests above the law. If there is then it's wrong. They should be punished the same way as anybody else.

Personally, I would rehab them again and keep them in the same location unless they requested a transfer.
At the same time, I would try to find out why the first attempt at rehabilitation failed. Was it because the priest didn't want to reform? If so, the church has methods of dealing with it, like excommunication.
I doubt you'd really feel that way if you had a kid and they were abused. I know if someone I loved was abused like that the very least I'd want is for them to be jailed, though deep down I'd just want to kill them.

I will never understand you damn Americans...
You care so much about who children have sex with, when it's 90% of the time consentual..
Yet nearly all major political parties in the states wholly support abortions.
So killing a child's okay..
As long as you don't make love to them.. Lord knows we wouldn't want you to have any sortof intimate relationship with another person..

Haha?

Please show me a source of law, legislative or case, which shows that priests are given special permission to be treated differently in the case of sexual abuse.



And you wouldn't feel that he deserved some form of formal punishment for the irrepairable damage he had done to your child, possibly effecting their mental health and ability to form normal social relationships for the rest of their life?

It depends on what you mean by formal punishment. Being required to repent and acknowledge your sins ought to be punishment enough.
Let alone the secular investigation that happens alongside the church's own actions.
Everything you do affects people's mental health. Everything you do affects everyone elses ability form "normal" relationships.
I'm not saying that the legal authorities shouldn't do their job. I'm saying their job does not include telling the church who they can and can't ordain.
Also, there is no law that says a Priest has to tell the public anything, because it's really none of the public's business.

i'm getting sick of this hypocritical crap. everyone can say what ever they want about catholics, but if someone makes a comment about buddhist, lutherans, jews etc... it's a crisis. there are pedophiles and weirdo's in every religion, but for some reason people just ignore every other religion and target catholics. oh, btw, the catholic church is the largest charitable organization in the world.

Meh. The Church has been telling rape victims that it's all their fault and they should shut up and clean house for their rapists for centuries.

At this point, I know very few good Catholics who pay the least attention to what the Catholic hierarchy says, because most good Catholics are decent human beings.

Most Catholics I know don't think it's okay to rape women and children. Most Catholics I know don't think you burn in Hell for protecting your loved ones from disease. Most Catholics don't think that child rapists should be allowed to go free with the blessings of the Church, while loving adult gay couples should be viewed as Hell-bound scum. And thus most Catholics just tune out the creepy old men in fancy hats who have appointed themselves Lord High Mucky-Mucks of the Church.

The Catholic Church is its own worst enemy, at this point, and I just can't stop laughing at them.

I would laugh at them but we have not gotten up the guys in this country to sucker punch them

I propose any church clergy reguardless of when it happened fulfill the same sentence as if they had committed the rape itself if they knowingly facilitated or protected child molesters.

i'm getting sick of this hypocritical crap. everyone can say what ever they want about catholics, but if someone makes a comment about buddhist, lutherans, jews etc... it's a crisis. there are pedophiles and weirdo's in every religion, but for some reason people just ignore every other religion and target catholics. oh, btw, the catholic church is the largest charitable organization in the world.
They are also the single largest organization that protects molesters. People have every right to think badly of them ... they did wrong.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13085073']When it's paedophiles we're talking about I think it's too dangerous to give them even a second chance. It should be immediate prison with a lifetime ban on working with or looking after children.

And you're right, civil authorities can't say who is allowed to be a priest. But the civil authorities have every right to say that they're not allowed to be around children.

The civil authorities can say that someone can't be around children if they have good cause that future harm may happen.
However in the area of church/state seperation they have to be careful. If you don't want your child around a pedophile priest because you're paranoid, then don't send your child to church.
The state can't dictate what a church does. As long as there is no human sacrifice going on, the church has considerable liberties when it comes to who they allow on church property.
The main job of the church is to welcome everyone. That includes the worst of society. In the eyes of the church and in the eyes of God, you are no better than the pedophile you condemn.

When you two people. One is a pedophile and the other is a self righteous pedophile hater.
The pedophile, one day, realized what he was doing was wrong. So he set about to change his ways. When he prayed he asked for forgiveness. Then he asked his victim for forgiveness. And the victim forgave because he saw the sincerity of the pedophile. And the pedophile made restitution, as required by the Bible. And the judge (secular judge) saw this and instead putting him in jail, put him on probation and referred him to counseling.
And Samuel, a self righteous hater of pedophiles came along and saw all this. And his heart was filled with hatred. He was angry at the church because they kept the guy on as a priest so he cursed God and he cursed the church.
Then he was angry for the judge because he thought that all pedophiles should be thrown in jail forever. So he prayed for God to strike down the judge and he prayed for the pedophile to be lynched. Then he thanked God that he was way way better than the pedophile. And then he went out and went put together a lynch mob by playing on parent's fears. And the judge had to get a court order barring him from getting with in a number of feet of the guy.
Then Samuel held protests demanding the priest be defrocked. He even wrote his Congressman who wrote him back, "the government cannot tell the church what to do." And Samuel continued his crusade for the rest of his days.
And the day came, that both the Pedophile and Samuel had died and they happened to go before God throne of judgement at the same time.
And Samuel said, "Finally Justice. God will throw the scum into hell and I will get into heaven as a reward for my crusade."
And God says to the pedophile, "Well done my good and faithful servant" enter into the Kingdom and preside in the mansion I have built for you. For in your life, you have pleased me."
Samuel was shocked. "Wait wait God. You can't let him in. He's a child abuser you have to send him to hell."
And God picked up the book of life and looked by the pedophiles name and behold, there was no record of pedophilia or child abuse to be found.
And Samuel said "I know it is true, because I have made a righteous crusade against him and against people like him."
God says, "But its not in the book and the book is always right."
Despite Samuel's protest, the pedophile was escorted into heaven by the angels.
And then God turned to Samuel, and said to him, "As for you, you self rigteous servant of the devil, there's a pit in hell reserved for you. For no one who self righteous, fear mongering, hateful or vengeful can enter into my house. I am God and I do what I please."
And forthwith the most horrible demons came forth and dragged Samuel kicking and screaming out of the presence of God and into the fiery depths of hell.

They are also the single largest organization that protects molesters. People have every right to think badly of them ... they did wrong.

They believe in forgiveness and second chances. I take it that you don't?

They believe in forgiveness and second chances. I take it that you don't?

Normally yes but when qualified professionals think there is is reasonable that the person will not re-commit ... I doubt a priest or bishops ability to make that qualified decision about one of their own and when they do and more kids get hurt then they are abso fucking lutly responsible and a lot of them had made very very fucking bad decisions about how "rehabilitated" these individuals as an example.

The priest that molested me was given a "second chance" by the catholic church. He had molested kids in the 70's

By the 90's the church had deemed him safe enough to be put in charge of a church FUCKING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL for fuck sake.

Someone fucked up big time and maybe making those people pay and to know there is a personal penalty will make them come clean rather then hiding

Normally yes but when qualified professionals think there is is reasonable that the person will not re-commit ... I doubt a priest or bishops ability to make that qualified decision about one of their own and when they do and more kids get hurt then they are abso fucking lutly responsible and a lot of them had made very very fucking bad decisions about how "rehabilitated" these individuals as an example.

The priest that molested me was given a "second chance" by the catholic church. He had molested kids in the 70's

By the 90's the church had deemed him safe enough to be put in charge of a church FUCKING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL for fuck sake.

Someone fucked up big time and maybe making those people pay and to know there is a personal penalty will make them come clean rather then hiding

If a bishop can't make good decisions when to his underlings, he shouldn't be a bishop. The job of the bishop is to make sure things are running smoothly in his district. It is also his job to resolve conflicts.
But when a parishioner thinks a bishop made a bad judgement call, the parishionr can go to the next highest authority in the church. And you keep going until you get to the highest authority, the Pope. Only recently has the issue of serial pedophilia found an audience before the Pope and in case you didn't know, Pope Pius has taken a less than liberal position on the issue of pedophiles in the church. But he was only able to hear because one person, out of supposedly thousands, pursued the matter to his level.
The Pope has way more authority over the America's catholic churches than the legal system does. And there have been one or two priests who have been excommunicated.
One of the things he's done is order more rigorous reviews of everything happening in American churches since the problem is apparently an American one. Many in Rome have blamed the lax standards which American Catholics have.

By church I'm assuming you mean the church authorities in the immediate area of the church in question? I think if you had gone to Rome to appeal their decision you might have gotten a more positive response. You have to remember that American churches don't have the strictness of moral standards that Rome has.

1. They would go to their victim and acknowledge what they did and apologize for it. Confession and apology is the first and most important step in rehabilitation. Just ask AA.

2. They would seek to compensate the victim for the wrong. The victim does not have to accept compensation, but the priest is required to attempt give compensation.

3. They would ask the victim to forgive them. Of course the victim does not have to forgive, but the priest still has to ask.

An ordinary person, in secular terms, does not even get a second chance. But priests are recognized by the law, as not being ordinary people.
The way a person is treated by the law depends on what their occupation and position in society is. If you are a priest or a cop or a legislator, the law gives a little bit more leeway than if you were just Joe Donahue of South Central New Orleans.

The law applies to people who happen to be priests, too. To give priests exemption from laws would violate separation of church and state, by elevating them as a special nobility above the rest of society.

If a bishop can't make good decisions when to his underlings, he shouldn't be a bishop. The job of the bishop is to make sure things are running smoothly in his district. It is also his job to resolve conflicts.
But when a parishioner thinks a bishop made a bad judgement call, the parishionr can go to the next highest authority in the church. And you keep going until you get to the highest authority, the Pope. Only recently has the issue of serial pedophilia found an audience before the Pope and in case you didn't know, Pope Pius has taken a less than liberal position on the issue of pedophiles in the church. But he was only able to hear because one person, out of supposedly thousands, pursued the matter to his level.
The Pope has way more authority over the America's catholic churches than the legal system does. And there have been one or two priests who have been excommunicated.
One of the things he's done is order more rigorous reviews of everything happening in American churches since the problem is apparently an American one. Many in Rome have blamed the lax standards which American Catholics have.

By church I'm assuming you mean the church authorities in the immediate area of the church in question? I think if you had gone to Rome to appeal their decision you might have gotten a more positive response. You have to remember that American churches don't have the strictness of moral standards that Rome has.
1) Regardless of the ability of the bishop to make decisions we entrust the GOVERNMENT with the protections of its members not a religious organization pr part of an organization there by any organization standing in the way of that protection is in the wrong.

2) "Going to rome" to appeal assumes that a) a 4th grader has that ability and that b) his family has the money to pursue it to that level

those would both be bad assumptions ... either way if I would have known better at that age I would have went to the proper authorities ... the police.

The law applies to people who happen to be priests, too. To give priests exemption from laws would violate separation of church and state, by elevating them as a special nobility above the rest of society.

Yes. They are subject to the same laws to an extent. However, you can't bar people from attending church and you can't bar people from carrying out their priestly functions. Because if you do, that is also a violation of the seperation of church and state.

1) Regardless of the ability of the bishop to make decisions we entrust the GOVERNMENT with the protections of its members not a religious organization pr part of an organization there by any organization standing in the way of that protection is in the wrong.

2) "Going to rome" to appeal assumes that a) a 4th grader has that ability and that b) his family has the money to pursue it to that level

those would both be bad assumptions ... either way if I would have known better at that age I would have went to the proper authorities ... the police.That would have been proper too. However, even the police don't have the authority to block people from going to church and to block them from acting as priests.
The state's powers when it comes to issues involving the church is actually very much limited. And when the state does act, they are limited and they have to have absolute proof of the item they are acting for.

The argument that the police can stop a guy from being a priest just because he molested someone is as faulty as the one where the police raided a Congressman's money to seize evidence of a heinous crime. The Supreme Court threw it out and had him released because the search and seizure violated Congressional immunity. In the states, when you are the President or a member of the Congress, you have immunity from prosecution when you break the law. However that immunity ends as soon as you leave office. Most states have similar laws for local legislators. It also violated seperation of powers, much like barring people from a church or from the priestly vocation would violate the seperation of church and state.
That's why, when that one Congressmen molested those boys, law enforcement couldn't do anything until he was out of office, which was actually the next election because people don't exactly like peds.
But the point is that they had to wait until he was no longer in a government position.

Yes. They are subject to the same laws to an extent. However, you can't bar people from attending church and you can't bar people from carrying out their priestly functions. Because if you do, that is also a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Except when those functions are illegal in the laws of the land.

Yes. They are subject to the same laws to an extent. However, you can't bar people from attending church and you can't bar people from carrying out their priestly functions. Because if you do, that is also a violation of the seperation of church and state.

The harm of children has absolutely nothing to do with religion their priestly functions end with the harboring and helping of thoes that harm a countries constituents

Any religion that interferes with the state protecting its constituents is in of itself violating separation of church and state and more over is in the wrong.

That would have been proper too. However, even the police don't have the authority to block people from going to church and to block them from acting as priests.
The state's powers when it comes to issues involving the church is actually very much limited. And when the state does act, they are limited and they have to have absolute proof of the item they are acting for.

The argument that the police can stop a guy from being a priest just because he molested someone is as faulty as the one where the police raided a Congressman's money to seize evidence of a heinous crime. The Supreme Court threw it out and had him released because the search and seizure violated Congressional immunity. In the states, when you are the President or a member of the Congress, you have immunity from prosecution when you break the law. However that immunity ends as soon as you leave office. Most states have similar laws for local legislators. It also violated seperation of powers, much like barring people from a church or from the priestly vocation would violate the seperation of church and state.
That's why, when that one Congressmen molested those boys, law enforcement couldn't do anything until he was out of office, which was actually the next election because people don't exactly like peds.
But the point is that they had to wait until he was no longer in a government position.
I agree that they cant stop him from being a priest ... but unlike a congressmen they are not protected from jail time and should not be (in fact I do not think congressmen should either)

Except when those functions are illegal in the laws of the land.

I'm assuming you are refering to religions where the priest does human sacrifice kind of stuff? Then true.

But a Catholic priest doesn't do human sacrifice. A judge can't bar a Catholic priest from carrying his functions as a Catholic Priest. Though, he could probably restrict his personal life that he lives outside the church.

I'm assuming you are refering to religions where the priest does human sacrifice kind of stuff? Then true.

But a Catholic priest doesn't do human sacrifice. A judge can't bar a Catholic priest from carrying his functions as a Catholic Priest. Though, he could probably restrict his personal life that he lives outside the church.

No but if they are knowingly hiding crimes and criminals then yes they absolutely should be able to intervene and or put penalties for non compliance.

They may not be able to defrock the priest or those that hid them but they can and should be able to put him behind bars.

No but if they are knowingly hiding crimes and criminals then yes they absolutely should be able to intervene and or put penalties for non compliance.

They may not be able to defrock the priest or those that hid them but they can and should be able to put him behind bars.

If they are found guilty of such a crime, then they should be jailed.

However, moving the priest to another parish is not evidence of a plot to hide a crime. You have to do better than that.

And, once they are out of jail, or even while in jail, they are still priests. They are still able to go to church and still able to be priests. Even when there are children attending services. Notthing the state can do about that except, maybe bar children from going to church. But even that would violate the rights of the parents to decide if their children go to church and which church their children go to.

Becaues it's the church, the options available to the state are more restricted.

Snip.

You're saying this piece of... mind... with what evidence exactly?

Yes. They are subject to the same laws to an extent. However, you can't bar people from attending church and you can't bar people from carrying out their priestly functions. Because if you do, that is also a violation of the seperation of church and state.

You can bar people from being around children. You can bar people from doing jobs that keep them around children. You lose.

If they are found guilty of such a crime, then they should be jailed.

However, moving the priest to another parish is not evidence of a plot to hide a crime. You have to do better than that.

And, once they are out of jail, or even while in jail, they are still priests. They are still able to go to church and still able to be priests. Even when there are children attending services. Notthing the state can do about that except, maybe bar children from going to church. But even that would violate the rights of the parents to decide if their children go to church and which church their children go to.

Becaues it's the church, the options available to the state are more restricted.

No but pulling him out of his old parish ... moving him around for more then a decade then placing him in a parish in another state without informing the constituents whatsoever and then after re committal of child molesting they quietly pull him out of the parish citing "Stress" factors while hiding him in an abby until the news breaks

Any thinking other than the admittance that they were trying to hide the crime silly.

I'm assuming you are refering to religions where the priest does human sacrifice kind of stuff? Then true.

But a Catholic priest doesn't do human sacrifice. A judge can't bar a Catholic priest from carrying his functions as a Catholic Priest. Though, he could probably restrict his personal life that he lives outside the church.

A judge CAN prosecute a catholic bishop for aiding and abetting a felon, in this case a pedophile priest, by moving him to another parish.

Yes. They are subject to the same laws to an extent. However, you can't bar people from attending church and you can't bar people from carrying out their priestly functions. Because if you do, that is also a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Not if the church violates state laws though. Then it's the church transgressing on the state. In which case, throw the cretins in jail. Occupation should be no excuse for escaping the law.

You can bar people from being around children. You can bar people from doing jobs that keep them around children. You lose.

In the US the government cannot ban people from being priests regardless of what their crime was.

Not if the church violates state laws though. Then it's the church transgressing on the state. In which case, throw the cretins in jail. Occupation should be no excuse for escaping the law.

I don't think anyone is arguing about whether a person who breaks the law should be put in jail, if found guilty.
The argument is whether the state can bar a person from the vocation of being a priest or a bishop.

A judge CAN prosecute a catholic bishop for aiding and abetting a felon, in this case a pedophile priest, by moving him to another parish.

When the movement occurs it is usually before there has even been any involvement of law enforcement so the whole "aiding and abetting a felon" deal does not apply. The guy wasn't a felon when he was moved.
And simply moving a priest does not prove an attempt to hide a crime. Unless you have church records that show that the priest was specifically moved so as to prevent legal system from doing its job, you don't have a leg to stand on.

When the movement occurs it is usually before there has even been any involvement of law enforcement so the whole "aiding and abetting a felon" deal does not apply. The guy wasn't a felon when he was moved.

To explain what is wrong with this, we have morbo

http://www.maxconsole.net/content_img/mc_psp_morbo.jpg

ACCOMPLICE LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you morbo.

That would have been proper too. However, even the police don't have the authority to block people from going to church and to block them from acting as priests.
The state's powers when it comes to issues involving the church is actually very much limited. And when the state does act, they are limited and they have to have absolute proof of the item they are acting for.

The argument that the police can stop a guy from being a priest just because he molested someone is as faulty as the one where the police raided a Congressman's money to seize evidence of a heinous crime. The Supreme Court threw it out and had him released because the search and seizure violated Congressional immunity. In the states, when you are the President or a member of the Congress, you have immunity from prosecution when you break the law. However that immunity ends as soon as you leave office. Most states have similar laws for local legislators. It also violated seperation of powers, much like barring people from a church or from the priestly vocation would violate the seperation of church and state.
That's why, when that one Congressmen molested those boys, law enforcement couldn't do anything until he was out of office, which was actually the next election because people don't exactly like peds.
But the point is that they had to wait until he was no longer in a government position.

do you actually have any clue what you're talking about?

Neo - for your own peace of mind I'd leave this thread now - your head is about to explode, I can hear the vibrations from here :)

I don't think anyone is arguing about whether a person who breaks the law should be put in jail, if found guilty.
The argument is whether the state can bar a person from the vocation of being a priest or a bishop.

Convicted pedophiles are barred from taking up professions that put them in charge over small children. Priests and bishops should be treated no differently. Doing otherwise puts religion on a strata above that of the common law bound plebian.

When the movement occurs it is usually before there has even been any involvement of law enforcement so the whole "aiding and abetting a felon" deal does not apply. The guy wasn't a felon when he was moved.

Ahhh, so getaway drivers for bank robbers and murderers aren't accomplices because neither the robber nor murderer was charged with the crime at the time of said crime. Or how fathers/mothers/wives/husbands who hide the victims of their partners/progeny aren't accomplices and obstructing justice.

Oh wait, they are.

A Bishop who knowingly transfers a pedophile priest to another place while obscuring the fact that said priest is a pedophile is exactly the same thing.

Arguing otherwise means arguing for the religious class to be elevated above the law that all others must follow.

Pedophylia is a subjective crime.

If the "child" consented, who gives a crap?

If it bothers you so much, make it where they need parental consent, like minor's getting married.

It amazes me how you Americans don't think there's anything kids can't do when it comes to education. What with no child left behind test quota had made children need an IQ of atleast 100. (Which is ironic considering Bush'es is maybe 55 tops..)

Kids can program computers, but they can't makeup thier minds about sex?

If they're not ready for sex then why the hell do we have sex education?

What country are you from?

To explain what is wrong with this, we have morbo

http://www.maxconsole.net/content_img/mc_psp_morbo.jpg

ACCOMPLICE LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you morbo.

Ummm. I don't know what country you're in but in the USA, a person is not a felon until he is convicted. It does work that way in America.
Further, for his superiors to be "accomplices" they have to know that he deliberately broke the law and not a mere moral lapse. It does that work that way in America.

Convicted pedophiles are barred from taking up professions that put them in charge over small children. Priests and bishops should be treated no differently. Doing otherwise puts religion on a strata above that of the common law bound plebian.



Ahhh, so getaway drivers for bank robbers and murderers aren't accomplices because neither the robber nor murderer was charged with the crime at the time of said crime. Or how fathers/mothers/wives/husbands who hide the victims of their partners/progeny aren't accomplices and obstructing justice.

Oh wait, they are.

A Bishop who knowingly transfers a pedophile priest to another place while obscuring the fact that said priest is a pedophile is exactly the same thing.

Arguing otherwise means arguing for the religious class to be elevated above the law that all others must follow.

In the United States that is how it works. Otherwise you violate the seperation of church and state. You can't bar anyone from a religious occupation. Otherwise you get into violating their first amendment religious rights which do take precedence over someone else's fear of them being pedophiles.
The Religious in our country have always been given special accomodation because the Constitutional requirement of allowing everyone to be free to practice their religion requires it.
A judge cannot order you to stay away from church. He cannot bar you from being a priest.

Ummm. I don't know what country you're in but in the USA, a person is not a felon until he is convicted. It does work that way in America.
Further, for his superiors to be "accomplices" they have to know that he deliberately broke the law and not a mere moral lapse. It does that work that way in America.

Wrongo.

A person is a felon if he has committed a felony. A person is a CONVICT if he has been convicted.

Thank you Merriam Webster.

Pedophylia is a subjective crime.

If the "child" consented, who gives a crap?

If it bothers you so much, make it where they need parental consent, like minor's getting married.


It amazes me how you Americans don't think there's anything kids can't do when it comes to education. What with no child left behind test quota had made children need an IQ of atleast 100. (Which is ironic considering Bush'es is maybe 55 tops..)

Kids can program computers, but they can't makeup thier minds about sex?

If they're not ready for sex then why the hell do we have sex education?

In much of the USA, children are considered property of their parents.

Wrongo.

A person is a felon if he has committed a felony. A person is a CONVICT if he has been convicted.

Thank you Merriam Webster.

Your going into semantics. Practical application is that he's a felon when he's convicted. You thinking he's a felon or you thinking he's guilty, does not make him a felon.

do you actually have any clue what you're talking about?

The argument is this thread has been that the church is subservient to the state. I was showing that the church is not subservient and that the state is required to bend over backward to accomodate the church and to accomodate religious people.
At least in the US it has to. I don't know about other nations because I have never been outside the US.

Your going into semantics. Practical application is that he's a felon when he's convicted. You thinking he's a felon or you thinking he's guilty, does not make him a felon.

That's two strikes.

If you commit a murder, and murder in the region you commit this murder in is a felony, you are a felon. This is regardless of whether or not one can PROVE you committed the murder, and therefore convict you. Which is why someone who HAS been convicted of a crime is referred to as a "convicted felon."

That's two strikes.

If you commit a murder, and murder in the region you commit this murder in is a felony, you are a felon. This is regardless of whether or not one can PROVE you committed the murder, and therefore convict you. Which is why someone who HAS been convicted of a crime is referred to as a "convicted felon."

You do know that if the judge or the jury finds you not guilty that means you are not a felon. Right?

To put it in simple words for you to be able to understand. If a person committs a crime, they are a criminal. But if the judge or the jury says they are not guilty of the crime, then they are not a criminal. People's personal views do not have bearing on whether people are guilty or not.

In this regards, if a priest rapes a child he has committed a crime. But if a judge or a jury find that he did not rape the child, then he is not a pedophile.

Likewise, if a Bishop moves a priest soley for the purpose of protecting him from having to pay the dues of his crimes, the Bishop has become an accomplice. But to prove that, you have to have church records that prove it. Further, if the judge or the jury finds that the Bishop moved the Priest in the regular carrying out of his duties, say a reorganization of local parishes, then the Bishop is not an accomplice.

It all rests on the findings of the judge and of the jury. Both of which are of course appealable in the US.

Such that if a judge finds a priest guilty and the priest appeals the conviction, and a higher court over turns the ruling. Then the priest is neither a pedophile nor a felon.

You do know that if the judge or the jury finds you not guilty that means you are not a felon. Right?

That's three strikes, but the umps are being lenient.

Let me try an analogy. If ride a bicycle, this makes you a cyclist. It is a label set up to define an individual who performs a particular action. This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone SEES you bicycling, or whether or not anyone can prove that you ride a bicycle. You are still a cyclist.

Similarly, a felon is defined as one who commits a felony. This has no bearing on whether or not anyone SEES him commit the felony, nor on whether or not anyone can prove that you committed a felony. You are still a felon.

The argument is this thread has been that the church is subservient to the state. I was showing that the church is not subservient and that the state is required to bend over backward to accomodate the church and to accomodate religious people.
At least in the US it has to. I don't know about other nations because I have never been outside the US.

Actually to state isn't required to bend over backward to accommodate the church or religious people. As long as they make no law which abridges religious freedom they are fine. But if someone in the church violates a law then they are still subject to the courts. If a priest rapes a kid then he can still be charged with that crime. And if Bishops or other priests know the priest raped kids and moves them to conceal the fact then they are gonna be charged as accomplices and enjoy a nice stay in our lovely prison system.

Actually to state isn't required to bend over backward to accommodate the church or religious people. As long as they make no law which abridges religious freedom they are fine. But if someone in the church violates a law then they are still subject to the courts. If a priest rapes a kid then he can still be charged with that crime. And if Bishops or other priests know the priest raped kids and moves them to conceal the fact then they are gonna be charged as accomplices and enjoy a nice stay in our lovely prison system.

Actually the courts have ruled that the state is required to bend over backwards for religious people. The only time the state can intervene is if a serious breach of human rights occurs, such as human sacrifice, murder, rape, or pedophilia.
But even in those cases, they don't have the power to bar people from attending church just on the basis of their being women or children at that church. Nor can they bar felons or ex cons from being priests or bishops.
What they can do is put the people in prison and probation them on everything that is not church related.
The state's power pretty much stops at the Church door.
That is why all those illegals are able to use churches for sanctuary from deportation by ICE. Because the government cannot enter a church to arrest someone unless they've committed murder or paid someone to committ murder.
Look at, what was his name? That Mormon preacher who supported polygamy and had that 14 year old marry her cousin?
The police could not enter the church property to arrest him. They had to wait until he was off church property.
A church is like an embassy. If you go inside and ask for asylum and they grant it, local authorities have to negotiate with the church. Though, actual foriegn embassies are allowed to give asylum even to murderers and rapists.

The state's power pretty much stops at the Church door.
That is why all those illegals are able to use churches for sanctuary from deportation by ICE. Because the government cannot enter a church to arrest someone unless they've committed murder or paid someone to committ murder.

Priceless. Absolutly fucking priceless. There are still people out there that there is a constitutionally mandated sanctuary law?

You're just so cute!

Actually the courts have ruled that the state is required to bend over backwards for religious people. The only time the state can intervene is if a serious breach of human rights occurs, such as human sacrifice, murder, rape, or pedophilia.

Not making any law abridging the free expression of religion isn't bending over backwards for people its following the constitution. I'd think bending over backwards for them would be something like giving them an advantage or endorsing a religion not respecting the constitution.

Though I am interesting in the case in which the courts ruled this way. You wouldn't happen to know which case or cases give the opinion/opinions which state this.

But even in those cases, they don't have the power to bar people from attending church just on the basis of their being women or children at that church. Nor can they bar felons or ex cons from being priests or bishops.
What they can do is put the people in prison and probation them on everything that is not church related.

Once again this is simple law of the land as with the constitution. No one's disputed this and I'm sure as hell no one's advocated telling people they can't practice a religion if they are a felon or not.

The state's power pretty much stops at the Church door.
That is why all those illegals are able to use churches for sanctuary from deportation by ICE. Because the government cannot enter a church to arrest someone unless they've committed murder or paid someone to commit murder.

Once again pretty much covered under the first amendment unless of course said people commit a crime. Now I know that priests have been arrested over a variety of different reasons ranging from pedophilia to tax evasion and fraud. So clearly they are not immune from the law. Not sure if I've ever heard that the state can't arrest someone in a church unless its under those circumstances but quite frankly priests don't spent all their time in the chapel so they'll get what's coming to them eventually.


Look at, what was his name? That Mormon preacher who supported polygamy and had that 14 year old marry her cousin?
The police could not enter the church property to arrest him. They had to wait until he was off church property.

Actually I believe the reason they didn't do that was because of fear that another waco siege would occur.

The cops could have gone in but A church is like an embassy. If you go inside and ask for asylum and they grant it, local authorities have to negotiate with the church. Though, actual foriegn embassies are allowed to give asylum even to murderers and rapists.

A church is not above the law. While I have never heard that a cop can't go into a church to arrest someone(and I'm interested to see where this is codified in law) they can still be charged with crimes. While the state cannot do anything to restrict the practice of religion they can enforce violations of laws by church members and churches if they violated the law.

The overall point is if a priest rapes a kid then they should be charged with a crime not moved by the church to avoid public exposure of the priest. If they know the priest raped a kid and knowingly moved them to avoid him getting hit with criminal charges they are guilty of being an accomplice. Simple as that.

I don't think anyone is arguing about whether a person who breaks the law should be put in jail, if found guilty.
The argument is whether the state can bar a person from the vocation of being a priest or a bishop.

The state can ban a person from working with children, which would likely disqualify them from being a priest.

When the movement occurs it is usually before there has even been any involvement of law enforcement so the whole "aiding and abetting a felon" deal does not apply. The guy wasn't a felon when he was moved.

This is simply ridiculous: under your logic a getaway driver wouldn't be guilty of aiding and abetting because the robbers hadn't been charged yet.

EDIT: I should have read the thread, Non Aligned States has already made this point.

The argument is this thread has been that the church is subservient to the state. I was showing that the church is not subservient and that the state is required to bend over backward to accomodate the church and to accomodate religious people.
At least in the US it has to. I don't know about other nations because I have never been outside the US.

no thats what you are pretending the argument is.

the same way you are insisting that we are arguing that the goverment can decide who can and cannot be a priest and where they can work (outside of the obvious restrictions on convicted sex offenders).

that is no one's argument.

although it IS everyone's argument that the church is subject to the laws of the united states and of the states it operates in.

Well ok, he didn't have the honesty to say so explicitly but that's what it boils down to.



From here (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/molestation_covered_by_ministe.php)

You can find the official court ruling here (http://www.courts.state.ri.us/superior/pdf/03-1302-9-20-07.pdf).



Perhaps this will silence the apologists who argue that the proportion of paedophile priests is lower than the proportion of paedophiles in the general population: the Catholic Church isn't being criticised for letting some paedophiles slip through their checks, they're being criticised for systematically protecting child molestors and facilitating their abuse of children. The Bishop should be sent down.

When will these people go extinct?

The state can ban a person from working with children, which would likely disqualify them from being a priest.

Even then, he would not be disqualified from being a priest. He would still be able to preach while there are children attending the service, but he would not have direct personal contact with them. Or at least the church would not allow it.

Neither the state nor the legal system that represents the state can bar a person from the priesthood. It cannot bar priests from giving sermons in the presence of children.

Unlike China or Myanmar, neither the US federal government nor any of its 50 states have the power to bar people from the priesthood. It doesn't matter what the crime is.
The states power is limited to arresting the person once he has left church property, trying him, if found guilty putting him in jail or giving him the death penalty (depending on crime). But even in jail they have to bend over backwards to accomodate his religious beliefs.
Did you know that if a priest is sent to jail, the state has to allow him to hold church services? They also have to let him have visits from his parishioners. Because he is still a priest and because he is still the Priest of the parish until his superiors decide otherwise.

The states power is limited to arresting the person once he has left church property

wow. Honestly now, do you really truly believe that the government can't arrest someone in a church? Really? are you that ignorant?

wow. Honestly now, do you really truly believe that the government can't arrest someone in a church? Really? are you that ignorant?

What I love is how he's trying to make this an issue of church vs. state separation when no one has really argued about that. What they have argued against is the willful obstruction of justice done by churches that know a priest is a pedophile, has abused children while a priest, and then moved them in an attempt to cover it up.

What I love is how he's trying to make this an issue of church vs. state separation when no one has really argued about that. What they have argued against is the willful obstruction of justice done by churches that know a priest is a pedophile, has abused children while a priest, and then moved them in an attempt to cover it up.

and the mere fact that they're a church doesn't change that on bit. I find great amusement of people who argue that the law says something, and provides not a single citation to demonstrate it.

The state can ban a person from working with children, which would likely disqualify them from being a priest.

He can still be a priest. Only the church has the power to defrock him. But he might be barred from many priestly duties that would bring him into contact with children.

He can still be a priest. Only the church has the power to defrock him. But he might be barred from many priestly duties that would bring him into contact with children.

especially since most paedophile laws prevent convicts from going within certain proximity of a school and...well...many churches have sunday schools in them.

Even sex offenders have a constitutional right to attend church on Sundays. Even sex offenders have a right to be priests if a church ordains. Even priests who are sex offenders can preside over mass or hold services.
The only thing the state can do is block them from unsupervised direct contact with a child. But it is not even allowed to block him from ministering.
If there are children in the congregation he can still hold services. He can still preside over the mass.
A teacher on the other hand can be barred from teaching. He doesn't have the same constitutional rights that a priest has.

again you are pretending that someone has made the argument that the government can bar someone from being a priest.

no thats what you are pretending the argument is.

the same way you are insisting that we are arguing that the goverment can decide who can and cannot be a priest and where they can work (outside of the obvious restrictions on convicted sex offenders).

that is no one's argument.

although it IS everyone's argument that the church is subject to the laws of the united states and of the states it operates in.

Even sex offenders have a constitutional right to attend church on Sundays. Even sex offenders have a right to be priests if a church ordains. Even priests who are sex offenders can preside over mass or hold services.
The only thing the state can do is block them from unsupervised direct contact with a child. But it is not even allowed to block him from ministering.
If there are children in the congregation he can still hold services. He can still preside over the mass.
A teacher on the other hand can be barred from teaching. He doesn't have the same constitutional rights that a priest has.

Even sex offenders have a constitutional right to attend church on Sundays. Even sex offenders have a right to be priests if a church ordains. Even priests who are sex offenders can preside over mass or hold services.
The only thing the state can do is block them from unsupervised direct contact with a child. But it is not even allowed to block him from ministering.
If there are children in the congregation he can still hold services. He can still preside over the mass.
A teacher on the other hand can be barred from teaching. He doesn't have the same constitutional rights that a priest has.

Actually he does, its just that he's not a priest. Theoretically he could attempt to become one at the digression of the church but that's up to them.

You just don't get it USoA. Priests don't have some magic rights that we don't have because of their position. They play by the same rules we do and having laws that let a priest have more "rights" then others is essentially state endorsed religion and gasp against the constitution.

The argument here is that A. the priest should be charged with whatever a pedophile is charged with and B. that if a church transports a priest who they know raped kids to a different place to avoid prosecution then they should be charged with at the very least obstruction of justice if not as an accomplice to the crime. Stop with separation of church and state stuff because that is not the issue here.

Even sex offenders have a constitutional right to attend church on Sundays. Even sex offenders have a right to be priests if a church ordains. Even priests who are sex offenders can preside over mass or hold services.
The only thing the state can do is block them from unsupervised direct contact with a child. But it is not even allowed to block him from ministering.
If there are children in the congregation he can still hold services. He can still preside over the mass.
A teacher on the other hand can be barred from teaching. He doesn't have the same constitutional rights that a priest has.

That actually is entirely incorrect. It's not at all, in the slightest, true to say that a priests has "more constitutional rights" than a teacher. To say so demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand how our constitution works.

Secondly, a convicted paedophile can also be restricted from areas in which children congregate, such as schools. A paedophile can be kept a certain distance away from schools, which includes the sunday schools in the church.

especially since most paedophile laws prevent convicts from going within certain proximity of a school and...well...many churches have sunday schools in them.

Those have limited application when you are dealing with a person's religious freedom. Your right to restrict the movement of pedophiles does not override the pedophiles right to go to church or to serve as a priest at a church.

That actually is entirely incorrect. It's not at all, in the slightest, true to say that a priests has "more constitutional rights" than a teacher. To say so demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand how our constitution works.

Secondly, a convicted paedophile can also be restricted from areas in which children congregate, such as schools. A paedophile can be kept a certain distance away from schools, which includes the sunday schools in the church.

Actually you are wrong. He can't be barred from any of the church grounds because the law has no jurisdiction to do so. They have to go through the churches governing body to get permission.
Not only is it a violation of seperation of church and state, it is also sacrilige.
The state can keep him from public schools, not religious schools.

Actually you are wrong. He can't be barred from any of the church grounds because the law has no jurisdiction to do so. They have to go through the churches governing body to get permission.
Not only is it a violation of seperation of church and state, it is also sacrilige.
The state can keep him from public schools, not religious schools.While I certainly don't think you're a bad guy, insisting things are true that just ain't so will lead you to grief. And I'm so sorry I can't stick around to watch Neo tear you a new one. I'm in dire need of entertainment.

I'm willing to bet that in cases involving priests, the judges have recognized the church/state issue and have made exemptions in their orders, to allow the priests to carry out most of their normal functions.

Your willing to bet but have no proof...that's great just absolutely great. Seriously USoA no one is contesting the ability for people to practice their religion. The point of this thread is to criticize churches who willing move pedophile priests in order to cover up the fact. The logical thing from this is that A. the priests can be charged with a crime, and B. that the churches can be charged with a crime. The whole religion aspect does not give them a magical invisible force field from the law.

Crap- friggin' Jolt timewarp.

I'm willing to bet that in cases involving priests, the judges have recognized the church/state issue and have made exemptions in their orders, to allow the priests to carry out most of their normal functions.

Actually you are wrong. He can't be barred from any of the church grounds because the law has no jurisdiction to do so.

He's not "barred from church grounds" he is barred from coming within so many feet of a school. If it so happens he can't get into his church without coming into close proximity to the school in his church, well, that's just tough shit for him.

And if you're so sure I'm wrong, go ahead, prove it.

I'm willing to bet that in cases involving priests, the judges have recognized the church/state issue and have made exemptions in their orders, to allow the priests to carry out most of their normal functions.

then you should have absolutly no problem finding such cases. Go on, I'll be right here.

This is interesting:
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html

Out of 4,000 priests accused, only 800 have been found to have actually molested children.

Distribution of pedophiles in Wisconsin:


Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.

WOW. 11% sure makes up a big majority of Catholic Priests.

Meanwhile, I have a case for you:

Similarly, the Free Exercise Clause will not permit a person to rely on religious motivation as an excuse for disobeying generally applicable laws

Young v. Gelineau, 2007 R.I. Super. LEXIS 130

And it goes on to say:

In essence, a secular court will not exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction and must keep itself removed from the inner-workings of a religious organization. Id. Purely secular actions, particularly those involving third-parties outside the church, do not carry with them the perceived danger of excessively entangling a court in essentially religious controversies. Id. at 1237 (quoting Gen. Council on Fin. & Admin. of the United Methodist Church v. Superior Court, 439 U.S. 1355, 99 S. Ct. 35, 58 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1978)). The Morrison Court concluded that the pure secular nature of allegations of negligence arising out of allegations of sexual molestation of children render the Doctrine of Church Autonomy inapplicable. Morrison, 905 So. 2d at 1237.

This is interesting:
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html

Out of 4,000 priests accused, only 800 have been found to have actually molested children.

Distribution of pedophiles in Wisconsin:


Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.

WOW. 11% sure makes up a big majority of Catholic Priests.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with what has been said or asked of you. Congratulations on dodging the question. :rolleyes:

This is interesting:
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html

Out of 4,000 priests accused, only 800 have been found to have actually molested children.

Distribution of pedophiles in Wisconsin:


Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.

WOW. 11% sure makes up a big majority of Catholic Priests.

Here's a tiny problem though. 11% of the paedophiles in wisconsin are clergy. And sure, psychiatrists have about 3 times as many paedophiles in Wisconsin as there are paedophile priests.

OK then....how many clergy are there in wisconsin compared to phsychiatrists?

It's an entirely bullshit statistic without that information. I can say that 90% of the serial killers in the world are right handed, which demonstrates nothing because about 90% of the world is right handed.

It doesn't say 11% of the priests are paedophiles, it says 11% of the paedophiles known to be in the state were priests.

Out of 4,000 priests accused, only 800 have been found to have actually molested children.


On this point, frankly speaking, given that many of th allegations said the events happend YEARS ago, there was no witnesses or physical evidence....a 20% conviction rate is not really all that bad.

This is interesting too:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2003_01_06/2003_06_27_Fernandez_NoJobs.htm

The Supreme Court tossed several cases of priests accused of pedophilia.

"the 5-4 high court ruling means that at least four of San Francisco's most notorious pedophile priests -- including Monsignor Patrick O'Shea and the Rev. Austin Peter Keegan -- will probably be released from custody, and at least a dozen other accused Bay Area priests are now off the criminal hook.

Erin Gallagher, lead investigator on clergy sexual abuse for the San Francisco district attorney's office, spent much of Thursday notifying her roster of alleged victims that their cases would most likely be dismissed. "

"Other church leaders said the rights of the accused, as well as the victims,
must be protected."

""When it comes to serial abuses, we share the despair of victims," Healy said. "But where the evidence is nebulous, the decision may be viewed differently by some."

To attorneys for the accused, the case was about the constitutional rights of all criminal defendants, including priests."

"When you have a statute that expires and you allow the government to go back and re-institute that crime, that makes an oppressive and unjust government," Collins said.

Others noted that the church must care for victims and help problem priests so they wouldn't continue to abuse."

The Supreme Court had ruled that even in pedophile cases you can't apply a law retroactively to a time when it didn't exist.

That would let most priests accused of molestation off the hook unless they committed their crimes after the law went into effect.

But that wasn't what I was looking for, but it is related.

But that wasn't what I was looking for, but it is related.

No, no it isn't. This has to do with the "no ex-post facto law" clause in the constitution, not the free exercise clause. This case has absolutly nothing to do with the fact that they were priests. They could have been ice cream truck drivers and the results would have been the same.

Fail. Try again.

Meanwhile, I have a case for you:



Young v. Gelineau, 2007 R.I. Super. LEXIS 130

And it goes on to say:


It referred to persons who are outside the church, not people who are members of the church.

No, no it isn't. This has to do with the "no ex-post facto law" clause in the constitution, not the free exercise clause. This case has absolutly nothing to do with the fact that they were priests. They could have been ice cream truck drivers and the results would have been the same.

Fail. Try again.
It is relevant to the matter because a lot of people claim that ex post facto doesn't apply to pedophile cases, especially cases involving the church.

It referred to persons who are outside the church, not people who are members of the church.

as well as crimes unrelated to the purpose of the church.

Failed.

It is relevant to the matter because a lot of people claim that ex post facto doesn't apply to pedophile cases, especially cases involving the church.

And yet as I pointed out, the ex post facto clause has nothing to do with religious freedom. If a priest can't be charged by an ex post facto law, it's because it's an ex post facto law, which has nothing to do with whether he's a priest or not.

Nobody has been arguing ex post facto laws are legal. That's stupid. The constitution clearly states it is not. But that has exactly nothing to do with the free exercise clause.

You really don't have clue fucking 1 what you're talking about, do you? I mean, you're just waaay over your head at this point, aren't ya?

and oh looky, what have we here?

Matthews v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, 67 Pa. D. & C.4th 393

gee a lawsuit against a diocese. What could that possibly be about?

According to plaintiff's amended complaint, plaintiff was born in December 1977. On at least three occasions in 1989, he was sexually abused by Father Wellington, a priest assigned to the church which plaintiff and his family attended.

Plaintiff alleges that prior to the dates on which he was sexually abused, [*2] Diocesan officials knew or should have known that Father Wellington had sexually molested other children. However, Diocesan officials continued to permit Father Wellington to serve as a priest whose responsibilities would include having contact with children.

Plaintiff alleges that when stories became known nationally in 2002, he first learned that the Catholic Church, including the Pittsburgh Diocese, had a policy of shielding and protecting known pedophilic priests. Until this information was revealed, he would never have suspected that Diocesan officials would have permitted Father Wellington to continue to serve as a priest in plaintiff's church once these officials discovered that Father Wellington had a history of sexually molesting children.

This lawsuit does not raise any claims against the Diocese based on the doctrine of respondent superior. 1 Plaintiff's claims against the Diocese are based solely on allegations that, after it had notice of allegations and complaints concerning his molesting other children, it allowed Father Wellington to continue to serve as a priest of plaintiff's church where he would be expected, in this role, to have contact with minor parishioners.

What is this, a lawsuit against the church for allowing such a thing? I thought the government had no jurisdiction over this! after all, this has been the entire argument, whether the government has jurisdiction on church matters involving the continued employment of paedophile priests. After all, if the government doesn't have jurisdiction on that matter for first amendment grounds, it can't be allowed!

I bet the church raised that very argument! I wonder what happened!

They lost.

http://gnuband.org/tags/church/

The Pope himself said that church sex abuse is an internal matter and that churches need not notify law enforcement.

"In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of pedophilia is unfounded,” Bertone said.

"the complete 2001 letter of Ratzinger published in the Espresso article. The letter basically says that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where sexual abuse has been “perpetrated with a minor by a cleric.” It orders that “preliminary investigations” into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals (church tribunals, not state tribunals!) in which the “functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests.” “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,” Ratzinger’s letter concludes. "

Seems to me he's claiming territorial soverignty and if that is the case, The Vatican has a good case against the US if US law enforcement are arresting priests on church land.
The US would certainly be violating its international obligations and its treaties with the Vatican.

I suppose you think the Pope should be indicted for helping pedophile priests?

http://gnuband.org/tags/church/

The Pope himself said that church sex abuse is an internal matter and that churches need not notify law enforcement.

"In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of pedophilia is unfounded,” Bertone said.

"the complete 2001 letter of Ratzinger published in the Espresso article. The letter basically says that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where sexual abuse has been “perpetrated with a minor by a cleric.” It orders that “preliminary investigations” into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals (church tribunals, not state tribunals!) in which the “functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests.” “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,” Ratzinger’s letter concludes. "

Seems to me he's claiming territorial soverignty and if that is the case, The Vatican has a good case against the US if US law enforcement are arresting priests on church land.
The US would certainly be violating its international obligations and its treaties with the Vatican.

I suppose you think the Pope should be indicted for helping pedophile priests?

If he is hiding them from prosecution then yes he should be. Doesn't matter if your the Pope or some average joe on the streets the laws apply to both.

If he is hiding them from prosecution then yes he should be. Doesn't matter if your the Pope or some average joe on the streets the laws apply to both.

His only saving grace is jurisdictional issues and the fact that there is 0 likelihood of extradition.

http://gnuband.org/tags/church/

The Pope himself said that church sex abuse is an internal matter and that churches need not notify law enforcement.

"In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of pedophilia is unfounded,” Bertone said.

"the complete 2001 letter of Ratzinger published in the Espresso article. The letter basically says that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where sexual abuse has been “perpetrated with a minor by a cleric.” It orders that “preliminary investigations” into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals (church tribunals, not state tribunals!) in which the “functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests.” “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,” Ratzinger’s letter concludes. "

Seems to me he's claiming territorial soverignty and if that is the case, The Vatican has a good case against the US if US law enforcement are arresting priests on church land.
The US would certainly be violating its international obligations and its treaties with the Vatican.

I suppose you think the Pope should be indicted for helping pedophile priests?

The Pope's words mean NOTHING in law. He is a shriveled up old sod, and the churches are NOT in Vatican territory. Where the fuck did you get that crazy notion?

ummm. It looks like that ruling was overturned by a superior court.


http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/Opinions/A06041_05.pdf

They agreed with the diocese.
It also found there was no attempt at concealment.

The church was neither barrred from keeping them on as priests nor was it barred from promoting them.

If he is hiding them from prosecution then yes he should be. Doesn't matter if your the Pope or some average joe on the streets the laws apply to both.

Except that the secular laws of the US don't apply to him even when he is on US territory. So he can't be indicted. Just as no national leader can be indicted. That is law.
If the Pope told the churches to deal with a crime internally, and law enforcement violated church grounds and seized a priest, the Vatican can legally respond by having its people seize Americans who in the churches and hold them on trumped up charges. As a country, the Vatican can do that. That is why you can't arrest people on embassy grounds.
It is also why you can't arrest ambassadors or other representatives of a foreign state which the Vatican is.

Of course the church wouldn't necessarily respond by doing that, but all other countries would. Russia and China did it all the time.

The Pope's words mean NOTHING in law. He is a shriveled up old sod, and the churches are NOT in Vatican territory. Where the fuck did you get that crazy notion?

You are entertaining. But you do not post enough in this thread. Please post more.

ummm. It looks like that ruling was overturned by a superior court.


http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/Opinions/A06041_05.pdf

They agreed with the diocese.
It also found there was no attempt at concealment.

The church was neither barrred from keeping them on as priests nor was it barred from promoting them.

Wow you fail monumentally with this one.

The cases appealed in the one you just referenced do not deal with what was done in the case brought up by Neo. The case you brought up deals with a statute of limitations clause on discovery and some other things invovling concealment which have nothing to do with what Neo referenced. Neo referenced a case with a completely different issue at hand.

Seriously I wonder if you even read the case you quoted because if you did you wouldn't have even posted it.

Except that the secular laws of the US don't apply to him even when he is on US territory. So he can't be indicted. Just as no national leader can be indicted. That is law.
If the Pope told the churches to deal with a crime internally, and law enforcement violated church grounds and seized a priest, the Vatican can legally respond by having its people seize Americans who in the churches and hold them on trumped up charges. As a country, the Vatican can do that. That is why you can't arrest people on embassy grounds.
It is also why you can't arrest ambassadors or other representatives of a foreign state which the Vatican is.

Of course the church wouldn't necessarily respond by doing that, but all other countries would. Russia and China did it all the time.

1. While the pope could claim diplomatic immunity he can just as easily be expelled from the U.S. and told to stay out. Oh and laws do apply to government officials and what not in other countries its just that diplomatic immunity tends to deal with certain crimes not all. To say that the pope is immune from the U.S.' laws is just ridiculous.

2. And wow this is the first time I've ever heard someone try to suggest embassies(which I doubt that any catholic churches are considered embassies to the Vatican in the U.S.) try to hold people hostage in another person's country. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entertaining. But you do not post enough in this thread. Please post more.

You're trying to make us take seriously a claim that churches are like embassies and that priests should be allowed to rape as many boys as the Church deems necessary.

The only one making an entertainment of himself in this thread is you.

Screw The Church! Screw The State! You mess with my child or for that fact any child I am aware of and you will have to deal with me.

May I proudly rot in jail or in hell for protecting those who can not protect themselves.....

:upyours:

The Pope himself said

That's nice. I don't care. The pope is not an authority within US law. What he says has no legal value. What he says is not law.

What he says on the subject of US law irrelevant. Just because you have a big hat doesn't mean that stuff you say suddenly becomes true.

I suppose you think the Pope should be indicted for helping pedophile priests?

As a head of state? no. Were he not a head of state and subject to the jurisdiction of the united states? yes.

2. And wow this is the first time I've ever heard someone try to suggest embassies(which I doubt that any catholic churches are considered embassies to the Vatican in the U.S.) try to hold people hostage in another person's country. Absolutely brilliant.

They're not. To be an embassy it must an embassy staff. A church does not. None of the staff are classified as diplomats or have diplomatic passports. They are not embassies even in the slightest.

They're not. To be an embassy it must an embassy staff. A church does not. None of the staff are classified as diplomats or have diplomatic passports. They are not embassies even in the slightest.

Thought so. Well guess that shoots another one of USoA's arguments in the foot. I still can't stop chuckling over how he tried to play a courts ruling on a completely different case as having overturned the one you presented. Pure comedic gold.

I still can't stop chuckling over how he tried to play a courts ruling on a completely different case as having overturned the one you presented. Pure comedic gold.

Without being too arrogant I will say this much. If everyone had what it takes to be a lawyer, we wouldn't have law schools. Thats what law school is for, to keep out people who aren't capable of being lawyers.

Personally?

I'm just not gonna feed the troll.

And I never thought I'd say that...

In the United States that is how it works. Otherwise you violate the seperation of church and state. You can't bar anyone from a religious occupation.


You can't bar law abiding people from religious occupation. I won't argue that.

But you CAN bar criminals from ever taking up occupations again. By keeping them behind bars. Or maybe you'll be claiming that priests can gun down people by the busload next without worrying about going to jail hmm?


Otherwise you get into violating their first amendment religious rights which do take precedence over someone else's fear of them being pedophiles.
The Religious in our country have always been given special accomodation because the Constitutional requirement of allowing everyone to be free to practice their religion requires it.
A judge cannot order you to stay away from church. He cannot bar you from being a priest.

A judge can't bar a law abiding person from being a priest. But he can bar criminals from professions where they abused it and committed crimes with it.

A criminal is a criminal, it doesn't matter if he's a layman or preacher. They do the crime, they suffer the consequences. And if it doesn't matter of the damned Archbishop of America or whatever they call him aided and hid the crime. He would still be an accessory and just as guilty.

Freedom of religious practice doesn't mean immunity from the law.

Ohhhh, wait. I get it. You're a priest aren't you? And one with unhealthy, and illegal, interests in kids too.

A church is like an embassy. If you go inside and ask for asylum and they grant it, local authorities have to negotiate with the church. Though, actual foriegn embassies are allowed to give asylum even to murderers and rapists.

Blatantly false. Being in a church does not stop SWAT or local police from busting down the door and hauling your ass to jail.

http://gnuband.org/tags/church/

The Pope himself said that church sex abuse is an internal matter and that churches need not notify law enforcement.


Gee, so the Pope makes US law now? Not!

Maybe I should make an attempt at becoming the Pope hmm? I'll rule that idiots like you should be killed on sight and that it's a church matter. And then you'll cheerily offer yourself up for an immediate stabbing.

If you ask me pedophylia is no worse then prostitution. Perhaps a bit better. Because maybe they love eachother,


Find me a case that fills the bolded criteria. Abusive relationships are automatically disqualified. Don't come back until you can. If you can't, never make the argument again.

Religion scars children. A bit of bum bother could hardly make it worse.

In the interest of keeping this thread open, I've deleted three posts that were wandering off-topic. This post
. . . I can tell you that the thread you mentioned has been read by myself, and the topic of discussion is for the most part staying on the subject of the nature of the conduct of Catholic officials with regard to priests who've violated the law of the land.

If the thread drifts into being a discussion of pedophilia rather than Catholic Church policy, I'll certainly close it as soon as I notice.
in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13088060#post13088060) makes clear where the discussion should stay.

Also, relocation does not prevent authorities from prosecuting the priest. The reason they don't is because the authorities are too lazy to pursue it.

No, they simply do not report it to the authorities.

Also, you may not cooperate with a murderer or anyone else that has committed a felony with the intent of removing them from the state or sometimes even the address they were living in when they committed the crime. This is aiding and abedding, if not a form of conspiracy.

No. But it does have the right to try and rehabilitate them.

No, they don't. That's the state's job.

Actually before, during, and after. State law does not overrule religious law in all cases.
In most cases, the church starts rehabbing before the law is involved. It is only when the Priest keeps up the acts that the law gets involved.

Likewise, if an uncle has sex with his neice, the law does not always get involved. Only if he is repeatedly doing it and the neice complains about it to the police. Then and only then does the legal system get involved.

Okay, nevermind. USA's a terrible fundietroll, I won't get into this pointless game of ignorance.

again you are pretending that someone has made the argument that the government can bar someone from being a priest.

He can still be a priest. Only the church has the power to defrock him. But he might be barred from many priestly duties that would bring him into contact with children.

In the United States and all states and territories which are part of the United States, the judge cannot do anything that would limit a priest from carrying out any of his duties, and he cannot prevent people from practicing their religion whether that be in public or in private, unless it specifically involves human sacrifice or ritual rape.

The governments of the world's other countries have constitutions which make the church subject to the whims of their government. In many latin american countries, the judge and the legislature can dictate to the church what its policies will be and can dictate to a priest what he can preach.
On the other side, you have countries like Iran, where the Islamic version of the Church, runs everything and tells the state what to do.

In Europe, they interpret religious freedom differently than we do. In France a couple of years back, they were so afaid that religion was taking over the government that they banned muslims from doing things that were normal for their faith, like women voluntarily wearing veils. They're idea of religious freedom is actually interpreted as being freedom from having to see religion or freedom from religion.


But you have to understand the cultural reasons why they adopted those laws. The Europeans have their interpretation of religion the way they do because they have fought hundreds of years of religious wars.
In Latin America, the rich conspired with the upper ranks of the church to keep their people oppressed. In Latin America there was a lot of corruption in the church.

In the US we never had any of those experiences. There were no religious wars in America and America has never engaged in a war based on religion.
We've never had people oppressed by the church.
The US therefore, has a more liberal approach to religious freedom than the rest of the world.

Religious freedom in America means that:
1. You can pray anywhere you want to.
2. You can openly practice your religion anywhere in public or in private, as long as you're not killing people.
3. You can talk about your religion anywhere and anytime as long as it doesn't take away from you doing your job or interrupt the learning process in class.
4. The state can't tell the church what to do and it can't dictate who can be priests even if the priest has broken any laws. It can't even restrict which religious activities the priest partakes in.
5. The church can't make any attempts to influence state or federal elections. We interpret this part differently than in other parts of the world. The first amendment gives priests the right to preach about this candidate or that candidate, but they can't go out and actively campaign for a candidate nor can they campaign for any referendum issues. But they can speak in support of issues.
6. The federal court system has ruled, again the US, that the state must bend over backward to accomodate people's religious beliefs and their freedom to practice. Some state courts have ruled that even private employers have to accomodate people's religious views or they can be sued.

A person being a pedophile cannot, legally, have an effect on his freedom to carry out any of his priestly tasks.

Wow you fail monumentally with this one.

The cases appealed in the one you just referenced do not deal with what was done in the case brought up by Neo. The case you brought up deals with a statute of limitations clause on discovery and some other things invovling concealment which have nothing to do with what Neo referenced. Neo referenced a case with a completely different issue at hand.

Seriously I wonder if you even read the case you quoted because if you did you wouldn't have even posted it.



1. While the pope could claim diplomatic immunity he can just as easily be expelled from the U.S. and told to stay out. Oh and laws do apply to government officials and what not in other countries its just that diplomatic immunity tends to deal with certain crimes not all. To say that the pope is immune from the U.S.' laws is just ridiculous.

2. And wow this is the first time I've ever heard someone try to suggest embassies(which I doubt that any catholic churches are considered embassies to the Vatican in the U.S.) try to hold people hostage in another person's country. Absolutely brilliant.

1. In other countries it might be that but I would not be too sure about that.
In the US, the law specifically states that members of Congress, the Vice President, and the President cannot be arrested for any crimes they committ.
Senator Larry Craig, example, is suing the state for false arrest because they wrongfully arrested him.
The US Supreme Court ruled as recently as four months ago, that the police cannot search a Congressman's office without written consent from the Congressman. Yes they did have a warrant but the US Supreme Court ruled that lower court judges do not have the power to issue search warrants of congressional offices.
Also, in accordance with international laws and norms, the Pope is immune, as are all other national leaders visiting the US. The only thing the US can do is say the person is not welcome on US territory anymore but they are not going to do that without very very good reasons.
And a Pope allowing pedophiles to be priests and hold mass in the presence of children is just not important enough.

2. It's a matter of what is important to the government of the US. Depending on whose in the White House, the federal government would deem gaining the release of a couple hundred Americans to be more important that barring a priest from carrying out his duties near children. They could release the priest or they could allow hundreds of innocent Americans to languish in Vatican jails. That is how international politics works.
They've been doing it for centuries.

You're trying to make us take seriously a claim that churches are like embassies and that priests should be allowed to rape as many boys as the Church deems necessary.

The only one making an entertainment of himself in this thread is you.

lol.
No body in this thread is saying that priests should be allowed to rape as many boys as the church deems necessary. lol

You must be imagining things. lol

You can't bar law abiding people from religious occupation. I won't argue that.

But you CAN bar criminals from ever taking up occupations again. By keeping them behind bars. Or maybe you'll be claiming that priests can gun down people by the busload next without worrying about going to jail hmm?



A judge can't bar a law abiding person from being a priest. But he can bar criminals from professions where they abused it and committed crimes with it.

A criminal is a criminal, it doesn't matter if he's a layman or preacher. They do the crime, they suffer the consequences. And if it doesn't matter of the damned Archbishop of America or whatever they call him aided and hid the crime. He would still be an accessory and just as guilty.

Freedom of religious practice doesn't mean immunity from the law.

Ohhhh, wait. I get it. You're a priest aren't you? And one with unhealthy, and illegal, interests in kids too.

Because priesthood is a religious occupation a judge can't bar him from it. Well, he could try to, but it would not be enforceable.

Being a priest is not the same as being a teacher. One is religious in nature and protected by the first amendment while the other is secular and is not protected by the first amendment.

I am a priest but I prefer girls who are at least 5'5 and have big breasts. Unfortunately, church law does not allow me to do anything with them. I don't feel anything for kids, myself. I'm more into the mothers of the children. I think you call them milfs?????
There's something sexy about a woman who has kids. Women without kids are lame. I have sinful dreams about people's moms. You can call me a mommyphile. LOL

Blatantly false. Being in a church does not stop SWAT or local police from busting down the door and hauling your ass to jail.

Actually it does.

No, they simply do not report it to the authorities.

Also, you may not cooperate with a murderer or anyone else that has committed a felony with the intent of removing them from the state or sometimes even the address they were living in when they committed the crime. This is aiding and abedding, if not a form of conspiracy.



No, they don't. That's the state's job.

You are attributing to the state powers which it does not have.

Actually it does.

You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

No, it does not. A church does not allow any extra protection, police are not in any way prevented from entering a church and arresting someone therein than they are any private residence.

And if you think I'm wrong, prove it. Go ahead, find me a judge ruling that police can never enter a church without permission due to the US constitution. You saying "nuh uh" isn't proof. So if you're so sure you're right, prove it.

or shut the fuck up.

In fact, let's settle this right now. If you can find a case in which someone was arrested in a church without church authority's permission to enter, and the conviction was tossed due to the fact that the police could not legally enter the church, you win.

If I can find a case in which someone was arrested in a church without church authority's permission to enter, and the conviction was upheld, I win.

Hrm...lesse here:

The evidence adduced at trial on behalf of the State clearly established that the defendant entered the Assumption Ukrainian Catholic Church of Byzantine Rite, 2301 South 16th Street, Omaha, Nebraska, at approximately 5:20 a.m. on April 5, 1983. Michael and Stephanie Worobec testified that they live across the street from the church. They generally rise for work about 4 a.m. and leave for work about 5:15 a.m. On April 5, 1983, they were leaving their house when they saw a person in dark clothes "gesture" around the ground floor church window, open it, and climb into the church. The police were called and arrived within minutes. The first officer on the scene testified he was only two blocks away when notified of a possible break-in, and arrived at the church in 30 seconds.

After securing all possible exits the police entered the church, and the defendant was found slouched in a chair in the basement, which is used as a cafeteria. A sack was in defendant's possession containing a pair of pliers, a small knife, a candle, and some toy dishes. Nothing in the church was missing or disturbed except the window that had been broken for entry.

State v. Coburn, 218 Neb. 144, 146 (Neb. 1984)

Let's see. Someone with no connection to the church, who is not a church authority, and only witnessed the crime because he lives nearby, notifies the police, who then enter the church, without any mention of securing permission from church authorities.

Gee, look at that. You lose.