As I understand it, his duties have been specifically chosen to prevent him having contact with children.
Nevertheless, this business of protecting accused abusers from civil prosecution has to stop. It does evil to the victims, to society, or to the church itself. I have written a letter to this effect, and expect to pursue the matter further within the church.
My pastor is of a similar mind, and, at the Easter services, expressed his profound sadness and shame for these abuses, and his support for eliminating this misplaced protection by the church.
The pope is directly, personally, involved in this. He's responsible for continuing the policy and he spent decades personally implementing it.
Do you actually think he gives a shit?
We're talking about a guy who is a member of the Hitler Youth, who headed the Department Of Ensuring Raped Children Get No Justice And Child Rapists Get To Rape More Children, and who *then* got made Pope.
Do you really think he believes it's even *possible* to get caught for one of his crimes?
Do you honestly think he's even remotely the worst Pope?
The entire organisation is rotten, to the core, and has been for at least the last 1000 years. No reform has ever taken, and all reform absolutely would require the investigation and then likely removal of all persons in all positions of authority anywhere in the organisation.
It's never going to happen. And in the mean time, people like you and your pastor will say happy words and view with alarm and *DO NOTHING*, while still paying for the Church.
Lovely argument, there. The absolute finest apologetics has to offer! Rhetorical excellence of a sort almost never seen outside a church building.
The policy of the church is, right up to this very minute, to deny, to hide, to deflect, and to blame the victims. They're still, right this very minute, working hard to make sure that their child rapists never, ever face justice.
And you pay them well to do it.
And you think saying "tut tut, that's horrible, you should stop that, here keep taking my money" makes anything different?
No longer putting him in charge of children is not the same, at all, as restricting his access to children or letting, say, the children, his neighbours, the parents, whomever, that he's been accused of doing this before *and* has fled the continent rather than even consider addressing the accusation while the Church covers for him and tries to destroy evidence and keep it quiet.
Destroy evidence? That would be a second baseless accusation, then. Nor have you actually said anything that supports your claim of "exposing." Failing to prevent isn't the same as aiding and abetting.
As for "fled" and "covers for him," well... It helps to read more than one source.
He was charged more than a year after returning to India.
when I can stop being angry, I start snickering at the fact that the Catholic Church, Holy Roman & Apostolic, has a worse track record for verified abuse of children than the "Big Two" Satanic organizations in the US.
Like C.H., you spew hateful vitriol towards anything religious, choosing to look only at what is wrong, and painting everything as being just as bad as that. There are more words there, but the rhetorical excellence is just as marvelous.
You may think that money and power are all there is to it, but it's not. As icedrake (and others in the past) have pointed out, facts that don't fit your jaundiced view of religion, and of the RC church in particular, get ignored. I doubt very much, though, that accusing me personally and directly of knowingly aiding and abetting child molestation, is going to strengthen and deepen our friendship.
You're Canadian; by your logic, you are every bit as complicit in every abuse our government and its agents perpetrate as I am in this. Not only that, but your argument is that the only way not to be complicit is to leave, or otherwise stop paying taxes. That's bullshit.
My leaving wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the church in general or to the child molesters in particular. My writing and speaking out, just might.
you spew hateful vitriol towards anything religious, choosing to look only at what is wrong, and painting everything as being just as bad as that.
If your church gets something right, I'll be sure to make a note of it.
I doubt very much, though, that accusing me personally and directly of knowingly aiding and abetting child molestation, is going to strengthen and deepen our friendship.
I never accused you of directly aiding and abetting the rape of children. I said you are a member of and support an organisation that directly aids and abets the rape of children - and this is a fact that you might not like, but the Church *does* do this, institutionally, and has been doing it for centuries, and is still doing it today.
You're not doing it yourself. You're simply supporting and now defending the people who *are* doing it. It's indirect, a second-degree kind of thing. If I thought you were personally involved in the coverrup, rather than just a loyal dues-paying member of the organisation performing the coverrup, things would be very different.
I genuinely believe that you are disgusted by this and want it to stop, and that you would prefer that everyone involved get the hell out of your church. In the mean time, though, your actions are in no way helping reality approach what you want to have happen.
You're Canadian; by your logic, you are every bit as complicit in every abuse our government and its agents perpetrate as I am in this. Not only that, but your argument is that the only way not to be complicit is to leave, or otherwise stop paying taxes.
It's a false comparison for two main reasons: First, the Canadian government does necessary, valuable, and useful things, that are *real*, in addition to the bad things it does.
Second, when evidence shows that the government is complicit in atrocities, the government is usually replaced. If the Prime Minister was a former Nazi who'd spent decades ensuring that child rapists never faced justice, and for whom ensuring child rapists continue to be free is a pressing and ongoing matter of policy? He'd resign, and if he didn't resign he and his entire party would get tossed out on their asses.
If the church showed any sign that it might even consider getting rid of the rapists, I might have a little more sympathy - but they're still protecting them, and they're still obstructing justice, and they're still letting the guy who headed the coverrup for decades run the entire show.
My leaving wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the church in general or to the child molesters in particular. My writing and speaking out, just might.
"My voting against a government that commits atrocities won't make a damned bit of difference. It's better to vote for them, make campaign donations, and write letters to my MP saying I'm a loyal supporter who still supports him despite his actions but would maybe like him to consider stopping. But my money and votes are guaranteed regardless of what he does, I'd just like him to stop."
One person doesn't matter to the church, you're right, but the fact that disgust should cause you to leave *is not limited to you*.
Your entire congregation should be walking out, en masse, because every last one of you is *currently* supporting the institution that's *currently* doing these things.
If all the Catholics who claim to be disgusted by the actions of the church *stopped supporting the church until the actions stopped*, that would make a real difference.
If your church gets something right, I'll be sure to make a note of it.
So for argument's sake, what exactly would qualify as "right"? Charity medical work? Feeding the hungry? Running old folks' homes in countries with no social safety net? Replacing the sacramental wine with Scotch?
Your entire congregation should be walking out, en masse, because every last one of you is *currently* supporting the institution that's *currently* doing these things.
I cannot agree with this. Once you've walked out, the conversation stops. There's a reason negotiations aren't the same as ultimatums -- and walking out is certainly the latter.
Let me use an example from my professional experience. I interview people for a living. One person I spoke to was a senior researcher at a Canadian ethical investment fund. Being Canadian and all, the fund has massive exposure to the mining sector. The problem is, one of Canada's major gold producers (well, headquartered in Canada -- it has operations the world over) has been implicated in human rights and environmental abuses. Also the world over.
The fund could have divested itself of any shares in the company. Instead, they filed a shareholders' resolution, telling the company to change its practices. The change wasn't instantaneous or perfect, but the thing is, there *was* change. Selling the $100M or so in stocks wouldn't have really made an impression on the company. Nor would have complaints from outside of the company's area of focus, as evidenced by the lack of change after years of complaints from NGOs and environmental groups.
You have to be on the inside to really effect a policy shift. You should be advising people to *join* the HRCC rather than leave it -- on the condition that they proceed to make their displeasure known once they've joined.
I just like pointing out that they're still doing it while claiming that "the truth you're telling about us is a bad as the lies *WE* told about the Jews!"
They said there wasn't an issue in Ireland. They claimed it was a limited problem for the US in 2002. They were single incidents in Germany...then France...now Mexico.
It makes a twisted sort of logic, when I think about it. They want to avoid further scandal, so they're going to keep covering things up so that they can claim that the situation is handled and hope people forget.
I think you're being too hard.... I wouldn't call you garbage.. I'd call you a reactionary who has a difficult time being a constructive part of the conversation because you're too quickly reduced to demagoguery when people make salient points that contradict your worldview. Plus you have a bit of a tendency towards strawman arguments and assumptions.
Saying 'Due process has not run it's course, so it's early to call him guilty or innocent', is not the same thing as 'Defending Child Rapists'.
I'll even go a step farther and say, given the legal systems requirement that everyone have an arbiter, even the people who will end up defending this person don't qualify as garbage.
I'll also note that accusations are not the same thing as proof of guilt. There have been a not small number of cases where people are accused of molesting children and in some cases easily railroaded because of the demonization that comes with them, and a later cool-headed look at the case shows that it completely falls apart.
So yes, I certainly say that the priests behavior is suspect and the church is ludicrous for shielding him. But suggesting those calling for a more neutral look until the case is arbitrated are defending child rapists? Is, in fact, garbage.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 07:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 08:16 pm (UTC)Nevertheless, this business of protecting accused abusers from civil prosecution has to stop. It does evil to the victims, to society, or to the church itself. I have written a letter to this effect, and expect to pursue the matter further within the church.
My pastor is of a similar mind, and, at the Easter services, expressed his profound sadness and shame for these abuses, and his support for eliminating this misplaced protection by the church.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:19 pm (UTC)Do you actually think he gives a shit?
We're talking about a guy who is a member of the Hitler Youth, who headed the Department Of Ensuring Raped Children Get No Justice And Child Rapists Get To Rape More Children, and who *then* got made Pope.
Do you really think he believes it's even *possible* to get caught for one of his crimes?
Do you honestly think he's even remotely the worst Pope?
The entire organisation is rotten, to the core, and has been for at least the last 1000 years. No reform has ever taken, and all reform absolutely would require the investigation and then likely removal of all persons in all positions of authority anywhere in the organisation.
It's never going to happen. And in the mean time, people like you and your pastor will say happy words and view with alarm and *DO NOTHING*, while still paying for the Church.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:29 pm (UTC)The policy of the church is, right up to this very minute, to deny, to hide, to deflect, and to blame the victims. They're still, right this very minute, working hard to make sure that their child rapists never, ever face justice.
And you pay them well to do it.
And you think saying "tut tut, that's horrible, you should stop that, here keep taking my money" makes anything different?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 10:08 pm (UTC)As for "fled" and "covers for him," well... It helps to read more than one source.
He was charged more than a year after returning to India.
As for covering for him, an attorney of the Holy See "said the Vatican had recommended Jeyapaul be defrocked, because it believed the charges were serious enough, but that his local bishop in India refused."
You could do worse than finding an alternative to Yahoo! news for your church scandal updates.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 10:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 04:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 08:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 11:52 am (UTC)You may think that money and power are all there is to it, but it's not. As
You're Canadian; by your logic, you are every bit as complicit in every abuse our government and its agents perpetrate as I am in this. Not only that, but your argument is that the only way not to be complicit is to leave, or otherwise stop paying taxes. That's bullshit.
My leaving wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the church in general or to the child molesters in particular. My writing and speaking out, just might.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 02:15 pm (UTC)If your church gets something right, I'll be sure to make a note of it.
I doubt very much, though, that accusing me personally and directly of knowingly aiding and abetting child molestation, is going to strengthen and deepen our friendship.
I never accused you of directly aiding and abetting the rape of children. I said you are a member of and support an organisation that directly aids and abets the rape of children - and this is a fact that you might not like, but the Church *does* do this, institutionally, and has been doing it for centuries, and is still doing it today.
You're not doing it yourself. You're simply supporting and now defending the people who *are* doing it. It's indirect, a second-degree kind of thing. If I thought you were personally involved in the coverrup, rather than just a loyal dues-paying member of the organisation performing the coverrup, things would be very different.
I genuinely believe that you are disgusted by this and want it to stop, and that you would prefer that everyone involved get the hell out of your church. In the mean time, though, your actions are in no way helping reality approach what you want to have happen.
You're Canadian; by your logic, you are every bit as complicit in every abuse our government and its agents perpetrate as I am in this. Not only that, but your argument is that the only way not to be complicit is to leave, or otherwise stop paying taxes.
It's a false comparison for two main reasons:
First, the Canadian government does necessary, valuable, and useful things, that are *real*, in addition to the bad things it does.
Second, when evidence shows that the government is complicit in atrocities, the government is usually replaced. If the Prime Minister was a former Nazi who'd spent decades ensuring that child rapists never faced justice, and for whom ensuring child rapists continue to be free is a pressing and ongoing matter of policy? He'd resign, and if he didn't resign he and his entire party would get tossed out on their asses.
If the church showed any sign that it might even consider getting rid of the rapists, I might have a little more sympathy - but they're still protecting them, and they're still obstructing justice, and they're still letting the guy who headed the coverrup for decades run the entire show.
My leaving wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the church in general or to the child molesters in particular. My writing and speaking out, just might.
"My voting against a government that commits atrocities won't make a damned bit of difference. It's better to vote for them, make campaign donations, and write letters to my MP saying I'm a loyal supporter who still supports him despite his actions but would maybe like him to consider stopping. But my money and votes are guaranteed regardless of what he does, I'd just like him to stop."
One person doesn't matter to the church, you're right, but the fact that disgust should cause you to leave *is not limited to you*.
Your entire congregation should be walking out, en masse, because every last one of you is *currently* supporting the institution that's *currently* doing these things.
If all the Catholics who claim to be disgusted by the actions of the church *stopped supporting the church until the actions stopped*, that would make a real difference.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 02:23 pm (UTC)So for argument's sake, what exactly would qualify as "right"? Charity medical work? Feeding the hungry? Running old folks' homes in countries with no social safety net? Replacing the sacramental wine with Scotch?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 02:31 pm (UTC)I cannot agree with this. Once you've walked out, the conversation stops. There's a reason negotiations aren't the same as ultimatums -- and walking out is certainly the latter.
Let me use an example from my professional experience. I interview people for a living. One person I spoke to was a senior researcher at a Canadian ethical investment fund. Being Canadian and all, the fund has massive exposure to the mining sector. The problem is, one of Canada's major gold producers (well, headquartered in Canada -- it has operations the world over) has been implicated in human rights and environmental abuses. Also the world over.
The fund could have divested itself of any shares in the company. Instead, they filed a shareholders' resolution, telling the company to change its practices. The change wasn't instantaneous or perfect, but the thing is, there *was* change. Selling the $100M or so in stocks wouldn't have really made an impression on the company. Nor would have complaints from outside of the company's area of focus, as evidenced by the lack of change after years of complaints from NGOs and environmental groups.
You have to be on the inside to really effect a policy shift. You should be advising people to *join* the HRCC rather than leave it -- on the condition that they proceed to make their displeasure known once they've joined.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:12 pm (UTC)I just like pointing out that they're still doing it while claiming that "the truth you're telling about us is a bad as the lies *WE* told about the Jews!"
Just a reminder...
Date: 2010-04-05 10:24 pm (UTC)They claimed it was a limited problem for the US in 2002.
They were single incidents in Germany...then France...now Mexico.
These guys are shit heads.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 09:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 05:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-05 10:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 05:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 03:30 pm (UTC)But garbage? That would be harsh.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 06:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 07:44 pm (UTC)I'll even go a step farther and say, given the legal systems requirement that everyone have an arbiter, even the people who will end up defending this person don't qualify as garbage.
I'll also note that accusations are not the same thing as proof of guilt. There have been a not small number of cases where people are accused of molesting children and in some cases easily railroaded because of the demonization that comes with them, and a later cool-headed look at the case shows that it completely falls apart.
So yes, I certainly say that the priests behavior is suspect and the church is ludicrous for shielding him. But suggesting those calling for a more neutral look until the case is arbitrated are defending child rapists? Is, in fact, garbage.