|
Post by michaelw on Nov 15, 2017 3:39:27 GMT -5
This struck me after Rob's comment about CNN withholding the names of alleged abusers in Congress. How about withholding names for a quarter century? www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/nyregion/brooklyn-diocese-priests-sexual-abuse.html?_r=0This is pretty f'n outrageous, though sadly not surprising. And note that two of the priests whose names were finally released had been out of the priesthood for longer than Mr. Lara had been: 37 years in the case of William Finger and 29 years for Romano Ferraro, both mentioned briefly in the NYT piece. Would it be too crude to make a "better late than never" comment?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Nov 15, 2017 5:04:52 GMT -5
Why is it that the Catholic Church is never prosecuted for child rapists? I don’t understand that. Any other organization would’ve been under federal investigation years ago for lesser offenses.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 15, 2017 10:09:22 GMT -5
For me, the fundamental problem with the Catholic Church is that its leadership is and has been more concerned with protecting the Church as an institution than adhering to actual doctrine and protecting the faithful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 10:26:47 GMT -5
Why is it that the Catholic Church is never prosecuted for child rapists? I don’t understand that. Any other organization would’ve been under federal investigation years ago for lesser offenses. Unfortunately, many victims wait many years to come forward, long after the statute of limitations has run out.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 15, 2017 13:05:05 GMT -5
Why is it that the Catholic Church is never prosecuted for child rapists? I don’t understand that. Any other organization would’ve been under federal investigation years ago for lesser offenses. To prosecute the Church, you'd have to show that they knew of the abuse, and didn't make any effort to stop. So if little johny says they were abused by Father Fussy, and the church has enough evidence to convince a reasonable person, but they transfer the priest to a different parish and settle, and he abuses little johny # 2, then you'd have a case, I'd think. Which in truth is what happened many many times. But I'd think it would be hard to prove in a criminal case. Easier in civil.
Having said that...
For me, the fundamental problem with the Catholic Church is that its leadership is and has been more concerned with protecting the Church as an institution than adhering to actual doctrine and protecting the faithful. Yes. And this isn't unique to the church either, but it was especially problematic in the Catholic Church. I was an alter boy and I know I served mass with, did many other church functions with a pair of priests that were implicated. Gave me nightmares for many years. This scandal was one of the big things that caused me to give the finger to my own church. Other things as well that have me in disagreement.
I was raised Catholic, but over the last 20 years came to decide I don't consider myself a Catholic. I might have said I was a Catholic that disagreed with my church on Same Sex Marriage, but I can't say that anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Nov 15, 2017 18:18:45 GMT -5
Why is it that the Catholic Church is never prosecuted for child rapists? I don’t understand that. Any other organization would’ve been under federal investigation years ago for lesser offenses. To prosecute the Church, you'd have to show that they knew of the abuse, and didn't make any effort to stop. So if little johny says they were abused by Father Fussy, and the church has enough evidence to convince a reasonable person, but they transfer the priest to a different parish and settle, and he abuses little johny # 2, then you'd have a case, I'd think. Which in truth is what happened many many times. But I'd think it would be hard to prove in a criminal case. Easier in civil.
Is there some statutory or case law that states that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not a legal expert and you're making a factual claim about the law, and I think that needs to be supported by some evidence/citations to statutory or case law. You're not a lawyer, so I can't just take your word for it. You might be correct, I just want to see some citations/evidence to convince me. If you owned a business, and several managers at your business locations raped employees, and your response was to demote and/or transfer those managers to other locations, and several years later it not only came out in the news that you'd done this, but you admitted to several specific instances of it, your ass would be in jail. You would likely be guilty of collusion, at best, and facilitating / aiding and abetting sexual assault at worst. I can't imagine a DA would not seek charges for such despicable behavior. Specific dioceses - if not the Vatican itself - have been complicit in these crimes. They knew about them in many cases, and that is demonstrably true. These sexual assaults are criminal matters (because they are literally crimes) and the Church has actively worked to cover them up. Finding out that a priest has committed child rape and then transferring that priest (or defrocking them) rather than reporting that crime to the police is unconscionable and would be considered prosecutable, criminal conduct for most any other person or entity. But, for some reason, the Catholic Church gets a special pass? That's bullshit. If this kind of shit happened at a mosque, all hell would break loose.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 19:03:08 GMT -5
But, for some reason, the Catholic Church gets a special pass? That's bullshit. Exactly. And here's what's happened with the Australian Catholic Church, which I just posted in another thread (bolding added): <clipped> Interesting that you mention the Catholic Church - here’s an article from earlier this year that rolls out some horrific findings about the Catholic Church in Australia. It’s a very short read, and the figures are truly appalling. Any other organisation with these figures would be shut down yesterday, and Federal police would be carting them off to prison.www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38877158Now then. I am not a Catholic, but I am a Christian - though disenchanted with the organisations, not the faith. While it’s not my intention to bash any church, I think any worthy organisation (or individual) must face its shortcomings, sins, and crimes squarely and fearlessly. And the history here is, well, horrifying. From the article (which contains a couple of extraordinarily heinous examples): Forty percent in that order. Over sixty years. There's a table in the article with the percentages by order. I acknowledge that these numbers are the accused, not the convicted. Also keeping in mind the stories of suppression. Also that this is the percentage of people accused - it does not indicate how many accusations were leveled at any single person: could be one, or it could be dozens. Those are the AVERAGE ages. So half were older - and half were younger. Younger than 10.5, or 11.5. (ETA: I misspoke. That would be true of the MEDIAN of the ages - only true for the MEAN if the ages are symmetrically distributed, which I would not assume is true. But let’s move on.) And thirty-three years was the AVERAGE time to report. A move to a new parish, where nobody knew them, and nobody was warned. Quite the deterrent. Imagine that - your own mother not believing you and shaming you for mentioning it. Repeat - Pell is now Pope Francis' top financial adviser. Pell himself is now facing charges of historical sexual abuse - up to fifty witnesses have been called to his committal hearing - to determine whether he'll have to stand trial. Not isolated events - sixty years' worth, across the country. Not just some priest - seven percent, one out of every fourteen, including Pope Francis' senior adviser. That's not just substandard, or rotten, behaviour. It is outright evil.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 15, 2017 21:11:58 GMT -5
Not isolated events - sixty years' worth, across the country. Not just some priest - seven percent, one out of every fourteen, including Pope Francis' senior adviser. That's not just substandard, or rotten, behaviour. It is outright evil. What do Catholics in Australia say about this? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 21:44:00 GMT -5
I haven’t been game to broach the subject with any of them that I know.
There’s a Commission for Healing or something.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 15, 2017 21:44:01 GMT -5
To prosecute the Church, you'd have to show that they knew of the abuse, and didn't make any effort to stop. So if little johny says they were abused by Father Fussy, and the church has enough evidence to convince a reasonable person, but they transfer the priest to a different parish and settle, and he abuses little johny # 2, then you'd have a case, I'd think. Which in truth is what happened many many times. But I'd think it would be hard to prove in a criminal case. Easier in civil.
Is there some statutory or case law that states that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not a legal expert and you're making a factual claim about the law, and I think that needs to be supported by some evidence/citations to statutory or case law. You're not a lawyer, so I can't just take your word for it. You might be correct, I just want to see some citations/evidence to convince me. If you owned a business, and several managers at your business locations raped employees, and your response was to demote and/or transfer those managers to other locations, and several years later it not only came out in the news that you'd done this, but you admitted to several specific instances of it, your ass would be in jail. You would likely be guilty of collusion, at best, and facilitating / aiding and abetting sexual assault at worst. I can't imagine a DA would not seek charges for such despicable behavior. Specific dioceses - if not the Vatican itself - have been complicit in these crimes. They knew about them in many cases, and that is demonstrably true. These sexual assaults are criminal matters (because they are literally crimes) and the Church has actively worked to cover them up. Finding out that a priest has committed child rape and then transferring that priest (or defrocking them) rather than reporting that crime to the police is unconscionable and would be considered prosecutable, criminal conduct for most any other person or entity. But, for some reason, the Catholic Church gets a special pass? That's bullshit. If this kind of shit happened at a mosque, all hell would break loose. It's a lay opinion to be sure. If I own a business and you accuse one of my employees of rape, but you don't go to the police you come to me,, the most I can do is fire him. If you sue, and I settle to remove the employee so that you, a frequent customer won't see him as you shot (Why you would go back is beyond me, but go with it as it's the only way to make the analogy work) and I pay you X amount, I'm not legally admitting fault. In fact, the settlement would probably include language that specifically makes it clear it's not an admission of guilt. It's easier to settle than to withstand the lawsuit. Therefore, I don't 'know' that my employee is guilty. Of course, if I transfer you and the same allegation happens again. Repeat and rinse, you have a better case. You're also correct in terms of the specific dioceses, verses the Vatican. Which plays into it. If a priest is transferred from one dioceses to another, the new dioceses may not 'know' about the allegation at the previous one. And you often have plausible deniability for the Vatican. I would think for criminal charges, you must prove they knew the charges were true. Keep in mind, the church has deep pockets and therefor will be a target. None of this should read as a defense of the church. Legally knowing, in a provable sense, and us... knowing they knew and two different things. Last I heard, the church adopted a new policy of investigating and if they found it credible, contacting the authorities. That is, IMHO, wholly unacceptable. The church should not be in charge of deciding if such a charge is credible or not. If the accusation is made, call the freaking cops. I do believe there are a lot of good men and women in the church, as I worked with several for a long time. But I don't believe in the Church anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 22:57:15 GMT -5
If, as an employer, you ignore the accusation and choose to continue putting that employee in a position of trust over vulnerable young people when you have reason to know he might abuse that trust by molesting them, I don't see why the employer couldn't be liable for it. You're not not only covering up a potential crime, but assisting future ones. As I said, I suspect the main issue blocking many suits is the statute of limitations. www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/extending-statute-limitations
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 23:07:41 GMT -5
Keep in mind, the church has deep pockets and therefor will be a target. What does this mean: that there's an inverse relationship between an accuser's likely credibility and the wealth of the accused? (I really hope not) Or that they'll be better resource and more likely to defend vigorously (or settle)?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 7:55:28 GMT -5
Well, I don't know what Vince intended, but I think both things--or all three things, actually--are true, more or else. 1) Entities like the Church that have massive resources are a target in a litigious society/world. A class action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for putting too much ice in their iced drinks, for Pete's sake. No one is doing that with Murray's Coffee Shop down the street. Doesn't mean an accuser should lose credibility, to be sure, but there are people willing to play the victim and lie for a payday. Always have been. 2) More resources can mean a more vigorous defense. 3) But it can also mean a greater likelihood of settling. Depends on the moment, I think. The Catholic Church, for instance, used it's resources to quash accusations, to fight them off in many cases, for decades. But when the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, it was willing to use those same resources to settle, to make problems go away. The same dichotomy is apparent with Weinstein.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 12:23:12 GMT -5
1) Entities like the Church that have massive resources are a target in a litigious society/world. A class action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for putting too much ice in their iced drinks, for Pete's sake. No one is doing that with Murray's Coffee Shop down the street. Doesn't mean an accuser should lose credibility, to be sure, but there are people willing to play the victim and lie for a payday. Always have been. Of course that article references the fucking McDonald's coffee lawsuit; the idea that that was a "ridiculous" lawsuit and an example of litigiousness and greedy people going after deep pockets has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 12:25:27 GMT -5
Keep in mind, the church has deep pockets and therefor will be a target. What does this mean: that there's an inverse relationship between an accuser's likely credibility and the wealth of the accused? (I really hope not) Or that they'll be better resource and more likely to defend vigorously (or settle)? Well, I don't know what Vince intended, but I think both things--or all three things, actually--are true, more or else. 1) Entities like the Church that have massive resources are a target in a litigious society/world. A class action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for putting too much ice in their iced drinks, for Pete's sake. No one is doing that with Murray's Coffee Shop down the street. Doesn't mean an accuser should lose credibility, to be sure, but there are people willing to play the victim and lie for a payday. Always have been. 2) More resources can mean a more vigorous defense. 3) But it can also mean a greater likelihood of settling. Depends on the moment, I think. The Catholic Church, for instance, used it's resources to quash accusations, to fight them off in many cases, for decades. But when the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, it was willing to use those same resources to settle, to make problems go away. The same dichotomy is apparent with Weinstein. This. An inverse relationship? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
There are unscrupulous people out there. So if someone comes into the church and says get out your check book because Father Fussy did this when I was 12? I'd wonder. The Church has no credibility here. Do I think that's where these allegations came from? No. Do I think it's possible that when the scandal exploded, some people decided to sue? Sure.
|
|