[Morgoth]

So let me get this straight. People here are condemning Dawkins and ilk (ignoring the fact that Dawkins had very little to do with this) for trying to legally challenge the church for their massive cover up of wide spread instances of child rape.

ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING INSANE?

The Church has systematically covered up widespread rape of children! There's been no legal action against the church because of this as far as I know. When finally, someone -if only symbolically- actually take the steps necessary to make the Church defend itself in court and not just on television, all some people are capable of noticing is the political views of the plaintiffs? As if that has any relevance at all to the actual issue.

Who cares whether Dawkins and ilk would have done the same in regards to say the boy scouts? It's absolutely irrelevant what they hypothetically would've done in some other case. The important thing is what they're doing in this case and that no one else have done so before them.

Man, I expected better from most of you.

[masan's saddle]

I normally avoid religious threads like the plague as they are far too frustrating but I have been watching this thread for a while now and have found it fascinating. Watching Gem having a go at Morgoth for "semantics" and SM for "assuming", whilst simultaneously "assuming" the meaning behind Tiste's post and using first class wordsmithery to misinterpret other posts and the entire premise of the thread has been very entertaining.

Whilst I have no desire to fan any flames Gem, your constant unwillingness to accept the possibility that you might be slightly off target with your premise in this thread does you little credit and if anything is starting to resemble trolling.

On topic, I find the whole tawdry affair very unpleasant. I couldn't give a shit who you are, if you abuse children you should be tried and punished. If you are part of a cover up then in my book that makes you an accessory and liable to charges of collusion and perverting the course of justice. Who, why, how and where etc etc, this is done is irrelevant.The only important thing is that justice is served and that the victims are satisfied and if needs be, recompensed accordingly.

Anything else is, as they say, semantics

[MTS]

masan, on 13 April 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

On topic, I find the whole tawdry affair very unpleasant. I couldn't give a shit who you are, if you abuse children you should be tried and punished. If you are part of a cover up then in my book that makes you an accessory and liable to charges of collusion and perverting the course of justice. Who, why, how and where etc etc, this is done is irrelevant.The only important thing is that justice is served and that the victims are satisfied and if needs be, recompensed accordingly.

Anything else is, as they say, semantics

Exactly. So long as a worthwhile cause gets the support it needs, I am not too bothered by the motivation of the giver.

[Cougar]

Terez, on 13 April 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

Gothos, on 12 April 2010 - 12:46 PM, said:

Looks like Gem just went for the "Most Negrepped Post In The Boards" award. Winner?

I got about that many neg reps for my grammar nazi post in the home skool thread, but I got so many pos reps for it that I think it ended up coming in at -2.

Gem has 8 negs' for the above mentioned scorn magnet.

Terez's grammar lesson in the 'Home Skool' thread garnered 5 negs and 4 pos reps.

Not even close really. I'd love to know if any other post can beat -8, let alone net -8!

Now could you lot stop flaming each other or I'll have to do my Uncle Jo Stalin mod impression.

[caladanbrood]

 

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

The Church has systematically covered up widespread rape of children! There's been no legal action against the church because of this as far as I know. When finally, someone -if only symbolically- actually take the steps necessary to make the Church defend itself in court and not just on television, all some people are capable of noticing is the political views of the plaintiffs? As if that has any relevance at all to the actual issue.

The point being, why is this action being taken against the people doing the covering up, rather than the people doing the abusing. You would think that they ought to be held rather more accountable, wouldn't you? Seeing as they're the scum of the earth.

[Garak]

I agree with MS,

Quote

if you abuse children you should be tried and punished

no matter who are what you are. It should be that simple really, since I assume we all find child abuse abhorrent (that the right word?).

[MTS]

Cougar, on 13 April 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

Not even close really. I'd love to know if any other post can beat -8, let alone net -8!

'Hi, my name is Terry Goodkind, and I'm writing SE fan fiction. But with vampires. WHO SPARKLE.'

[MTS]

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

 

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

The Church has systematically covered up widespread rape of children! There's been no legal action against the church because of this as far as I know. When finally, someone -if only symbolically- actually take the steps necessary to make the Church defend itself in court and not just on television, all some people are capable of noticing is the political views of the plaintiffs? As if that has any relevance at all to the actual issue.

The point being, why is this action being taken against the people doing the covering up, rather than the people doing the abusing. You would think that they ought to be held rather more accountable, wouldn't you? Seeing as they're the scum of the earth.

Because it makes for more spectacle to try the Pope, sorry to say. What amazes me is that it isn't grounds for instant defrocking, since, you know, it's a felony and all, not to mention a sin.

[Cougar]

MTS, on 13 April 2010 - 06:06 PM, said:

Cougar, on 13 April 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

Not even close really. I'd love to know if any other post can beat -8, let alone net -8!

'Hi, my name is Terry Goodkind, and I'm writing SE fan fiction. But with vampires. WHO SPARKLE.'

A real post.

Quote

The point being, why is this action being taken against the people doing the covering up, rather than the people doing the abusing. You would think that they ought to be held rather more accountable, wouldn't you? Seeing as they're the scum of the earth.

I'd agree, but I think the reason in many cases is that they are dead. The ones who have been uncovered so far as I know, are being pursued in so far as is possible. The Irish and British governments have certainly been trying, but it's pretty damn tough after all this time.

I'd still love to know if they have a legitimate charge to bring against Joe Ratzinger (in legal terms).

[Slick Mongoose]

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

The point being, why is this action being taken against the people doing the covering up, rather than the people doing the abusing. You would think that they ought to be held rather more accountable, wouldn't you? Seeing as they're the scum of the earth.

Since when was it an either/or? The people doing the abusing should absolutely be arrested. But as nobody's arguing otherwise, there is no debate or fuss.

[Tapper]

The problem I think you are overlooking in your post there, Morgy, is: 'The Church' has nothing to do with this, or at the least, that is what they will maintain.

The people charged with specific tasks of management within the Roman Catholic Church are an entirely different matter, but at some point, you will only find people who will say: 'Ich habe es nicht gewusst.' and so, you end up convicting criminals, yes, but without changing anything within the organisation, which is where the root of the problem is.

Aside from the fact that there is going to be little or no way to pressure the higher echelons, who provide the cover ups, unless you get to dig real deep in the Church's archives - unfortunately, you'll never get there.
A Maltese ladyfriend of mine wanted to investigate the whole church/ child abuse angle for her thesis. She was told by her prof that it would be useless and like walking into a stone wall. It is like Vegas: what happens in the Vatican, stays in the Vatican. Or local parish, or whatever. I guess in a way the mentality of the generation currently wielding power within the church is that the cess pit is so big you do not want to lift the lid so they work actively to keep it closed until they're six feet under.

Then, there is the problem that the R-C Church is, at best, an employer of priests.
It can fire its people for misconduct, but a priest who can't keep his hands out of a choir boy's pants is no different from a school teacher or a fire man or a manager or whatever doing the same. You do not hold the entire organisation responsible, nor is the organisation responsible for the prosecution of the criminal. Nor does the organisation know, usually, of something being wrong. Now, they may get clues something is wrong when people work together daily, but remember, the church's "employees" do not generally work together on a day to day basis, so they can hide a lot. Nor, or so I can imagine, are supposed-to-be celibate priests very good at spotting the signs of an overly horny fellow priest with an unhealthy appetite for young children.

It shouldn't be so, but most molesters that make it to the news here, have been doing what they're doing for ages, and those are usually, I don't know, swimming teachers or something. Add the respect that is due to a clergyman, and many devout catholics will take his word over that of their child.
When was the last time there was a whole ruckus about catholic priests abusing children in, say, Latin America? Africa? Spain? Italy? I think that alone illustrates how much is hidden yet, and how little we can learn of it. How many politicians are going to be willing to harass the church officials and put their election into danger? Without charges and budget, there's going to be no investigations, no research, no convictions.

Finally, there's the famous little catch of confidiality and confession. I know this should not count, but I do think it somehow does within the R-C Church. After all, isn't the Faith about forgiveness for your sins? Doesn't the word of God override the word of the law? It may be so to those working for God.

So, prosecuting the Church or its figurehead is going to be detrimental, whether this is what Dawkins wants or supports or not. The Vatican will just become even more tight lipped and will do even less on prevention, internal investigation and co-operation with the proper authorities. Sure, you get the trial of the century, and its going to be good television, too, but you won't achieve a thing.

[Tapper]

MTS, on 13 April 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

 

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

The Church has systematically covered up widespread rape of children! There's been no legal action against the church because of this as far as I know. When finally, someone -if only symbolically- actually take the steps necessary to make the Church defend itself in court and not just on television, all some people are capable of noticing is the political views of the plaintiffs? As if that has any relevance at all to the actual issue.

The point being, why is this action being taken against the people doing the covering up, rather than the people doing the abusing. You would think that they ought to be held rather more accountable, wouldn't you? Seeing as they're the scum of the earth.

Because it makes for more spectacle to try the Pope, sorry to say. What amazes me is that it isn't grounds for instant defrocking, since, you know, it's a felony and all, not to mention a sin.

Jesus was very big on forgiving others their sins, or so I heard. Apparently, that also includes forgiving the molesting of children.

[Tapper]

Cougar, on 13 April 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

Now could you lot stop flaming each other or I'll have to do my Uncle Jo Stalin mod impression.

You mean asking how many divisions the Pope commands?

[Morgoth]

@Tapper - I think you're making the mistake of confusing holding the church responsible for the initial instances of child rape and accusing them of covering up said instances.

furthermore, the cover up certainly made it easier to continue doing that sort of thing so one could also perhaps build a case on the Church being accessory to the further instances of such conduct.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 06:30 PM, said:

@Tapper - I think you're making the mistake of confusing holding the church responsible for the initial instances of child rape and accusing them of covering up said instances.

furthermore, the cover up certainly made it easier to continue doing that sort of thing so one could also perhaps build a case on the Church being accessory to the further instances of such conduct.

No, I'm not (or rather, don't think I am ) - I'm just trying to say that you can never peg the Church itself as being guilty of both the rapes and the covering up. In all cases, it is going to be 'just' employees. Even if you can nail Ratzinger of being implicated as a molester or as actively covering up, you still get nowhere with the Church as a whole - even if there is reason to believe that covering up is a universal knee jerk reaction within the Church.

[Morgoth]

I don't know, if against all odds Ratzinger actually was convicted (in absentia I'd imagine) that would send a more powerful message to the church than anything else possibly could. The Guy could technically not travel within the EU anymore.

Now this would not change the church over night, but it would force them to make sure such cover ups do not happen in the future I think.


Additionally, I'm a sucker for the whole equality under law thing.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 13 April 2010 - 06:44 PM

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 06:44 PM, said:

I don't know, if against all odds Ratzinger actually was convicted (in absentia I'd imagine) that would send a more powerful message to the church than anything else possibly could. The Guy could technically not travel within the EU anymore.

Now this would not change the church over night, but it would force them to make sure such cover ups do not happen in the future I think.


Additionally, I'm a sucker for the whole equality under law thing.

According to wiki, the Vatican State is a recognized national territory under international law, while the Holy See isn't, although the Holy See acts on Vatican City's behalf. So, I guess they can always pull the diplomatic immunity stunt, and I guess the Pope then becomes a Dalai Lama of sorts. Or he sends out Cardinals or something.

[Morgoth]

The Vatican doesn't have its own airport though (as far as I know), he'd be pretty much locked into his little realm for the rest of his life, which at least is something.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 07:02 PM, said:

The Vatican doesn't have its own airport though (as far as I know), he'd be pretty much locked into his little realm for the rest of his life, which at least is something.

Well, he was partly elected pope for being frail and old and likely to die within a year or six or so, so I guess the setback on the Church as a whole would be bearable and temporary until the skeleton in the closet of the man after him walks out.

[masan's saddle]

Interesting terminology Tap, saying priests are, for want of a better word, employees implies that they should be bound by the relevant legislation. In the UK for example this would necessitate them undertaking a CRB check......, that would be interesting.