Homosexuality/ Cardinal Ratzinger

[Pure]

Nature being what it is--'red of tooth and claw' as the saying goes--I wonder why there isn't celebration of deflecting or defeating the 'natural' course of things.

Nature with its hurricanes and volcanoes exterminates life for miles. Asteriods have hit the earth with deadly effect, as in Siberia. Diseases like the Black Plague kill a majority of persons afflicted, down to the tiniest babes and/or their mothers.

For reproduction, nature 'cruelly' (so to say) adopts a course of extreme wastage, with the 'neonates' and 'young' of some animals facing 90% or 99% death rate.
In ages past, for humans one of five (or less) newborn would not make it, and juveniles died of pneumonia and appendicitis.

In one sense, the deeper 'laws of nature' are never broken: heavy solid objects do not fly upwards on their own. There are some areas in which you can't 'thumb your nose' at mother Nature, though humans have designed many-ton hollowed hunks of steel that fly upward on their own, till 'Nature' asserts itself, the jet runs out of fuel, and falls.

Sexual arousals, ejaculations etc. *deflected from their natural course* are wondrous to behold. There are exceptions, of course, like the Bonobos, but generally it's only the humans who transmute and transform sex from its procreative purpose. Most mammalian females are monumentally uninterested in sex, except for a few weeks per year. That low level of activity being the 'normal' course of nature.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

L_C we forget that separation of church and state is a relatively new idea, and also not prevelant everywere. Also, just because we believe in it and value it in America is no reason why they should in Rome. [ 's advocate- for the church no less! ]

You know, I think you're defending the wrong side, there. In Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, in any developed Catholic country in Europe, the separation of Church and State is much clearer than in the US. There is a much higher percentage of religious persons, but with a very well defined image and respect of what goes on within their public sphere and what goes on within their private sphere. Religion is very much a private affair.

I believe that a great part of the American public opinion problem with the Catholic Church and the way paedophilia scandals are dealt with (in the newspapers instead of in the criminal courts where they belong) have a lot to do with your own internal problems and fears. Deep down, you know that the separation of Church and State in the US is a sham, so you're naturally suspicious of the Church.

In Europe, despite the people being deeply (but private- and discretely) religious, there is no doubt that the State is complete- and absolutely secular.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You know, I think you're defending the wrong side, there. In Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, in any developed Catholic country in Europe, the separation of Church and State is much clearer than in the US. There is a much higher percentage of religious persons, but with a very well defined image and respect of what goes on within their public sphere and what goes on within their private sphere. Religion is very much a private affair.

I believe that a great part of the American public opinion problem with the Catholic Church and the way paedophilia scandals are dealt with (in the newspapers instead of in the criminal courts where they belong) have a lot to do with your own internal problems and fears. Deep down, you know that the separation of Church and State in the US is a sham, so you're naturally suspicious of the Church.

In Europe, despite the people being deeply (but private- and discretely) religious, there is no doubt that the State is complete- and absolutely secular.

I think you miss the point on the Pedophilia scandal Lauren. It IS a secular matter, but church leaders here in the US, hushed it up, covered it up, and perhaps most egrigiously, didn't report it to anyone, neither the state AG or the child welfare departments or any other secular authority.

We expect people to report serious crimes. When it isn't done, the person who didn't report it can be indicted as an accessory, after the fact, to the crime.

In my opinion, every one of the sorry MF's who knew of this and just shuttled the predators around and hid it should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives, not presiding over one of the church's four most important basillicas.

There is great suspicion of the church here, but in the wake of such behavior, I think it's entierly warranted and has little to do with my perception of separation of church and state. It has a lot more to do with the knowledge that the RCC believes it is above the law and can act however it damn well pleases when it suits them. Fuck the victims, fuck the law and fuck the potential victims we are subjecting to further danger, just don't give us any bad press.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think you miss the point on the Pedophilia scandal Lauren.

Colly, I understand all you said, I really do, and I agree that you should be angry at the Church. But you should be much more angry at the criminal courts who failed to do a thing about it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I understand all you said, I really do, and I agree that you should be angry at the Church. But you should be much more angry at the criminal courts who failed to do a thing about it.

The criminal courts were not informed. That's the rub. If the church had reported the abuse to the proper authorities and nothing had been done, I would be up in arms against the state agencies involved.

But they weren't informed, and they weren't given the option to screw up. They were presented silence from those who knew what was going on. That silence is damning.

The failure of the courts, is just as apalling, but whatever their failngs, they didn't condone child abuse. The church did.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The criminal courts were not informed. That's the rub. If the church had reported the abuse to the proper authorities and nothing had been done, I would be up in arms against the state agencies involved.

But they weren't informed, and they weren't given the option to screw up. They were presented silence from those who knew what was going on. That silence is damning.

The failure of the courts, is just as apalling, but whatever their failngs, they didn't condone child abuse. The church did.

Actually, at no point did the Church condone child abuse. Their actions bring up issues of privacy and whether or not they were correct in their method of punishment... but that's in no way the same thing as "condoning child abuse".

 

[rgraham666]

Lauren, the courts and police are restricted from being too active. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

They can only act when there are very strong indicators of a crime being committed. And the Church here worked very hard to avoid suspicion.

Shrug. Human behaviour, especially in this day and age puts ethical action fairly low on the totem pole. For people with power, it's always more important to be right than good.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Lauren said,

What I don't get, Lauren, why--against what you say, above--celibacy is not considered (by the RCC)--'against the order of nature.'

Your position above is closer to the Jewish position re celibacy; it's distrusted and frowned upon. And the scandals discussed here and elsewhere suggest that, while it may be possible for some, it --at best--is not really conducive to the psychological health, for many. (Can't thumb yer nose at Mother Nature!)

Don't think it's my view, but IMHO, the RCC believes it is impossible for a man (priest) to devote his entire love and being to Christ if he has taken on a second sacramement to a wife.

Also, nuns are supposed to be the 'brides of Christ'.

If you are the servant of God, you can't be rooting around in the procreation thing that the rest of us are supposed to be doing.

Isn't that the same problem with homosexuality and lesbianism? If the RCC cannot accept condoms because this makes heterosexual sex a pleasurable activity and not procreation, it cannot condone gay sex, which as Lauren says, is by definition only 'pleasurable'.

Don't shoot me down, please, but marriage was not a religious innovation but a feudal and 'capitalist' creation to tie families and dynasties together and preserve the supremacy of man and preserve family fortunes. A legal contrivance to overcome the 'laws of nature'. Tell me how Genesis is not a homily on how incest is ruined if you allow an outsider to spoil things?

Please, I want a discussion, not a row.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Don't think it's my view, but IMHO, the RCC believes it is impossible for a man (priest) to devote his entire love and being to Christ if he has taken on a second sacramement to a wife.

Also, nuns are supposed to be the 'brides of Christ'.

If you are the servant of God, you can't be rooting around in the procreation thing that the rest of us are supposed to be doing.

Isn't that the same problem with homosexuality and lesbianism? If the RCC cannot accept condoms because this makes heterosexual sex a pleasurable activity and not procreation, it cannot condone gay sex, which as Lauren says, is by definition only 'pleasurable'.

Don't shoot me down, please, but marriage was not a religious innovation but a feudal and 'capitalist' creation to tie families and dynasties together and preserve the supremacy of man and preserve family fortunes. A legal contrivance to overcome the 'laws of nature'. Tell me how Genesis is not a homily on how incest is ruined if you allow an outsider to spoil things?

Please, I want a discussion, not a row.

Elfin, I posted this on the other thread:

The idea that the RCC condemns sex without procreative purpose is very debatable. Pope John Paul II's position was that sex should be a total mutual bodily self-giving, the most supreme form of communion between two people that can exist. His position on birth control was based on that assumption. He defended that on one hand, birth control would take away from that "total mutual self-giving". On the other hand, and this was the big clincher for him, the use of birth control methods contributed, in his mind, to the fostering of a society that cheapened sex and reduced it to entertainment.

That was John Paul II's long-held position - not the Church's official stance, since he never chose to speak ex-cathedra on that subject. Of course that it was within a marriage - defined as between a man and a woman - but not necessarily procreative.

I see this as a slow but steady advancement of the ideas of the highest hierarchies of the church - a cautious advancement, yes - but one that will inexorably lead to a better, more tolerant one.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Elfin, I posted this on the other thread:

The idea that the RCC condemns sex without procreative purpose is very debatable. Pope John Paul II's position was that sex should be a total mutual bodily self-giving, the most supreme form of communion between two people that can exist. His position on birth control was based on that assumption. He defended that on one hand, birth control would take away from that "total mutual self-giving". On the other hand, and this was the big clincher for him, the use of birth control methods contributed, in his mind, to the fostering of a society that cheapened sex and reduced it to entertainment.

That was John Paul II's long-held position - not the Church's official stance, since he never chose to speak ex-cathedra on that subject. Of course that it was within a marriage - defined as between a man and a woman - but not necessarily procreative.

I see this as a slow but steady advancement of the ideas of the highest hierarchies of the church - a cautious advancement, yes - but one that will inexorably lead to a better, more tolerant one.

I'm with you but I think you ignore some inconsistencies.

Condoms bad but rhythm method acceptable. So sex can sometimes be timed to avoid procreation?

If that is the case then all gay liaisons are acceptable because we always work in the 'safe' period.

Without wanting to get into the heat of the pedophilia thing. Can I just enquire why, if homosexuality is so unredeemable, a priest who has sex with a boy, of whatever age, is fit to remain in the church?

 

[amicus]

S&P...it was the all male training of the Spartans to which you were referring, I think, where young boys were used by the mentors. And I think there is a very good chance that this behavior was picked up and passed on in the Priesthood.

Joe Wordsworth...you might consider a 'sin of omission' concerning your last comment...

amicus...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I'm with you but I think you ignore some inconsistencies.

Condoms bad but rhythm method acceptable. So sex can sometimes be timed to avoid procreation?

If that is the case then all gay liaisons are acceptable because we always work in the 'safe' period.

Without wanting to get into the heat of the pedophilia thing. Can I just enquire why, if homosexuality is so unredeemable, a priest who has sex with a boy, of whatever age, is fit to remain in the church?

I don't see any real inconsistency there. Nowadays, as is demonstrated by the first post of this thread, the position of the Church on homosexuality isn't based on the procreation argument, but on a vaguely assumed perversion of the natural order, an assumption that gets thinner and thinner as time goes by - and that's another reason why I said that the ideas of the highest hierarchies of the church are slowly but inexorably changing and becoming more tolerant.

As for your other question, there are no (or very few) unredeemable offenses. The RCC is, in its ideals, inclusive and forgiving - everyone is fit to remain in the Church.

John Paul II forgave Ali Agca, the Turk assassin that shot him twice in 1981.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Actually, at no point did the Church condone child abuse. Their actions bring up issues of privacy and whether or not they were correct in their method of punishment... but that's in no way the same thing as "condoning child abuse".

Oh really? Lets try a little objective observation here and see if your assertion stands up or mine does.

The Bishop of the Diocese of Boston (arch diocese?) is informed he has a pedophilic priest.

Does he:

1. Report this CRIME to the police? No.
2. Defrock the priest, separating the church from his henious acts? No.
3. Transfer the sorry son of a bitch to smewhere where the nearest kid is a three day journey by donkey? No.


4. Shield him from prosecution from his crime? Yes.
5. Move him to a new parrish, where no one has any reason to suspect him, thus making it easier for him to victimize more children? Yes.
6. Cover up the crime, so that the authorities don't have any suspicion that would allow them to launch an investigation? Yes.
7. Do this more than once, for more than one predator? Yes.

When the coverup is exposed and the scandal becomes apparent does the RCC immediatly admit fault and try to make amends? No.

Do they wait until severe economic pressure is brought to bear before they half assed apologize and try to clean up their act. Why, yes, yes, that's it.

And finally, the Bishop in charge of covering this stuff up. Is he defrocked? is he censured in any way? of course not.

He is rewarded with the position of head of one of the four most important basilicas in the RCC.

Now, short of a fucking papal bull announcing that we love sexual predators, just what would it take for your august opinion to be they do condone it?

For me, they not only condoned it, they aided and abetted the perpatrators and used their considerable power & influence to shiled them from the consequences of such henious action, while routinely moving them to fertile hunting grounds.

 

[Pure]

Good points, Colly, esp. against a group who preach absolutism and reject lesser evil approaches.

In this instance, publicizing or prosecuting was thought to damage the Church, the implement and instantiation of Christ. So does securing a sentence X of priest Y, for some kid really outweigh that? IOW, there was a clear weighing involved, the same as some police forces use in covering police misconduct. The reputation of the force is more important than the momentary exposure of some deed of a 'bad apple.'

As to your manner of argument, I think it can be applied as well to the question, Does the RCC wish for the population of various countries to grow, unchecked, except by "Nature" (famine plague and war). I think the answer is 'yes', and it flows from actions taken to prevent all known forms of birth control.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The Bishop of the Diocese of Boston (arch diocese?) is informed he has a pedophilic priest.

Does he:

1. Report this CRIME to the police? No.

So, there's a question of "rightness" concerning their desire to handle things privately--in this respect they aren't different from any number of other institutions and doesn't conclude they "condone child abuse".

2. Defrock the priest, separating the church from his henious acts? No.

As the Priest was part of the Church, seperating the Priest from the Church conceptually represents, in some ways, a denial of both responsibility and authority. The Church's position was that their clergy are their responsibility--now, whether this means that their desire for privacy or whether they punished effectively was sufficient or not... that's hardly "conding child abuse".

3. Transfer the sorry son of a bitch to smewhere where the nearest kid is a three day journey by donkey? No.

That would be solving the symptom but not the problem. It was their desire to solve the problem--but whether the whole counselling/relocation options/etc. method that the Church uses and has used was an effective punishment is still not "Condoning child abuse".

4. Shield him from prosecution from his crime? Yes.

Legal prosecution, yes. Prosecution within the Chuch, no. However, that's a question, again, of whether the Church had a right to such privacy and whether their method of punishment was adequate. But, that's still not "the church condones child abuse".

5. Move him to a new parrish, where no one has any reason to suspect him, thus making it easier for him to victimize more children? Yes.

They didn't move him to make his victimizing children easier, they moved him as a result of an effort to correct behavior and attach a new environment away from the problem. While this isn't the perfect way to solve everything (though a very popular way of solving everything from addictions, in general, to certain detrimental behaviors), it makes it a question of whether the privacy about the matter was a good idea, and whether the punishment was just. However, you'll find that none of that means "the church condones child abuse".

6. Cover up the crime, so that the authorities don't have any suspicion that would allow them to launch an investigation? Yes.

You're making an assumption there about the REASON they kept things private. Just as well a reason, and one voiced by the Church itself, is that it felt that exposing certain things to the press and the public would only worsen a situation that they felt they could resolve. Now, that brings to bear things like "is that a private kindness we can afford to grant organizations" and "ought we not allow criminal punishments by the law for all crime-acts?" But, no, that's not "condoning child abuse".

7. Do this more than once, for more than one predator? Yes.

If it is the case that the Church believes that its method is best for protecting both children and priests and the Church, itself--then it may be that it would of course do it more than once. But... see, that's still not "the church condones child abuse".

When the coverup is exposed and the scandal becomes apparent does the RCC immediatly admit fault and try to make amends? No.

When the Church came to learn about it, actually quite a stir went up and a lot of officials in the Church scrambled to place blame and make amends. Regardless, given that some Church officials didn't immediately admit fault or "make amends"--which I'm not sure what we mean by that... they did quite a few things to correct the problem... still, that's not "condoning child abuse".

Do they wait until severe economic pressure is brought to bear before they half assed apologize and try to clean up their act. Why, yes, yes, that's it.

You're assuming that's why they waited--I'm afraid that isn't well evidenced and is just sort of an assumption on their motivations. As the Church had programs within it for things like what happened, prior to it coming out recently, I'm inclined to say that "clean up their act" isn't really a great way to put it as they were already doing it. Now, that begs the question "was their way of keeping things clean the right way"... but that's not "the church condones child abuse"

And finally, the Bishop in charge of covering this stuff up. Is he defrocked? is he censured in any way? of course not.

It wasn't a matter of cover up. It was a matter of privacy. You can question whether their ideas of privacy are good ones or not, but that's not "the church condones child abuse", either.

He is rewarded with the position of head of one of the four most important basilicas in the RCC.

Again, it's a question of privacy--you may disagree that they have a right to it and I won't say whether they do or don't. But that's not "the church condones child abuse".

Now, short of a fucking papal bull announcing that we love sexual predators, just what would it take for your august opinion to be they do condone it?

If you're going to make a blanket statement about what the Church does or does not condone, you'll have to appeal to something very much like "The Pope said, ex cathedra" or the like. I wouldn't say my opinion is "august"--I'm not even really sure what that means--but my opinion is that the Church does not "condone child abuse", by virtue of everything the church has ever done to stem the tide of cruelty in the world, preach peace, weigh in about the state of children and our responsibilities to take care of each other (those are quite well documented, and not just as "utterances", but in so many practices I can't begin to name them all).

You were the one that stated "the church condones child abuse". Which... isn't conclusive, nor evidentiary. Were it the case that the Church condoned child abuse, I think we'd see a lot less humanitarian values and political concern/charity for the welfare of children in the world coming out of the Roman Catholic Church. For how is it that one condones the abuse of children while working to prevent the abuse of children?

For me, they not only condoned it, they aided and abetted the perpatrators and used their considerable power & influence to shiled them from the consequences of such henious action, while routinely moving them to fertile hunting grounds.

For you, then, I guess that's fine. However what is fine, for you, isn't necessarily true and making statements like "the church condones child abuse" are more propoganda and spicey prose than actual fact. It may even be the case, taking into account everything, that some in the Church advocate protecting their clergy as much as possible from criminal prosecution... but that's still a far, far cry from the Church condoning child abuse.

Oh really? Lets try a little objective observation here and see if your assertion stands up or mine does.

Objectively speaking--which means you'd have to cut all of your assumptions concerning motive (which is unknown at best) and all prejorative language beyond the literal facts (which would mean you can't use terms like "thus he was able to victimize more people", as that flouts a maxim of direct propositional language)--your statement "the church condones chld abuse" is at best an unknown. It is possible that the Church condones child abuse, however that isn't part of its codes, ethics, dogma, Biblical foundation, etc., etc., etc. and is based on a purely subjective take on a set of events.

Now, that doesn't mean that your take isn't factual or relavent, just that it presumes more than can be "objectively spoken". In that case, your assertion does not stand up.

That's just logic. If you want to talk "opinion", then that's something else entirely.

 

[mismused]

I think you miss the point on the Pedophilia scandal Lauren. It IS a secular matter, but church leaders here in the US, hushed it up, covered it up, and perhaps most egrigiously, didn't report it to anyone, neither the state AG or the child welfare departments or any other secular authority.

We expect people to report serious crimes. When it isn't done, the person who didn't report it can be indicted as an accessory, after the fact, to the crime.

In my opinion, every one of the sorry MF's who knew of this and just shuttled the predators around and hid it should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives, not presiding over one of the church's four most important basillicas.

There is great suspicion of the church here, but in the wake of such behavior, I think it's entierly warranted and has little to do with my perception of separation of church and state. It has a lot more to do with the knowledge that the RCC believes it is above the law and can act however it damn well pleases when it suits them. Fuck the victims, fuck the law and fuck the potential victims we are subjecting to further danger, just don't give us any bad press.

====================================================

Huzzzahhh!! Hooray for Collie, my heroine! Love ya, sweetie.

I'm sure if I'd said that they'd be all over me in a flash, but coming from you, well, everyone knows you see things as they are, period.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

mismused X dozens and forever.

 

[mismused]

The criminal courts were not informed. That's the rub. If the church had reported the abuse to the proper authorities and nothing had been done, I would be up in arms against the state agencies involved.

But they weren't informed, and they weren't given the option to screw up. They were presented silence from those who knew what was going on. That silence is damning.

The failure of the courts, is just as apalling, but whatever their failngs, they didn't condone child abuse. The church did.

=========================================================

Colly strikes again. Superwoman for truth, justice, and the real Lit way. Right to the point, no pussy footing around, and right on.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So, there's a question of "rightness" concerning their desire to handle things privately--in this respect they aren't different from any number of other institutions and doesn't conclude they "condone child abuse".



As the Priest was part of the Church, seperating the Priest from the Church conceptually represents, in some ways, a denial of both responsibility and authority. The Church's position was that their clergy are their responsibility--now, whether this means that their desire for privacy or whether they punished effectively was sufficient or not... that's hardly "conding child abuse".



That would be solving the symptom but not the problem. It was their desire to solve the problem--but whether the whole counselling/relocation options/etc. method that the Church uses and has used was an effective punishment is still not "Condoning child abuse".



Legal prosecution, yes. Prosecution within the Chuch, no. However, that's a question, again, of whether the Church had a right to such privacy and whether their method of punishment was adequate. But, that's still not "the church condones child abuse".



They didn't move him to make his victimizing children easier, they moved him as a result of an effort to correct behavior and attach a new environment away from the problem. While this isn't the perfect way to solve everything (though a very popular way of solving everything from addictions, in general, to certain detrimental behaviors), it makes it a question of whether the privacy about the matter was a good idea, and whether the punishment was just. However, you'll find that none of that means "the church condones child abuse".



You're making an assumption there about the REASON they kept things private. Just as well a reason, and one voiced by the Church itself, is that it felt that exposing certain things to the press and the public would only worsen a situation that they felt they could resolve. Now, that brings to bear things like "is that a private kindness we can afford to grant organizations" and "ought we not allow criminal punishments by the law for all crime-acts?" But, no, that's not "condoning child abuse".



If it is the case that the Church believes that its method is best for protecting both children and priests and the Church, itself--then it may be that it would of course do it more than once. But... see, that's still not "the church condones child abuse".



When the Church came to learn about it, actually quite a stir went up and a lot of officials in the Church scrambled to place blame and make amends. Regardless, given that some Church officials didn't immediately admit fault or "make amends"--which I'm not sure what we mean by that... they did quite a few things to correct the problem... still, that's not "condoning child abuse".



You're assuming that's why they waited--I'm afraid that isn't well evidenced and is just sort of an assumption on their motivations. As the Church had programs within it for things like what happened, prior to it coming out recently, I'm inclined to say that "clean up their act" isn't really a great way to put it as they were already doing it. Now, that begs the question "was their way of keeping things clean the right way"... but that's not "the church condones child abuse"



It wasn't a matter of cover up. It was a matter of privacy. You can question whether their ideas of privacy are good ones or not, but that's not "the church condones child abuse", either.



Again, it's a question of privacy--you may disagree that they have a right to it and I won't say whether they do or don't. But that's not "the church condones child abuse".



If you're going to make a blanket statement about what the Church does or does not condone, you'll have to appeal to something very much like "The Pope said, ex cathedra" or the like. I wouldn't say my opinion is "august"--I'm not even really sure what that means--but my opinion is that the Church does not "condone child abuse", by virtue of everything the church has ever done to stem the tide of cruelty in the world, preach peace, weigh in about the state of children and our responsibilities to take care of each other (those are quite well documented, and not just as "utterances", but in so many practices I can't begin to name them all).

You were the one that stated "the church condones child abuse". Which... isn't conclusive, nor evidentiary. Were it the case that the Church condoned child abuse, I think we'd see a lot less humanitarian values and political concern/charity for the welfare of children in the world coming out of the Roman Catholic Church. For how is it that one condones the abuse of children while working to prevent the abuse of children?



For you, then, I guess that's fine. However what is fine, for you, isn't necessarily true and making statements like "the church condones child abuse" are more propoganda and spicey prose than actual fact. It may even be the case, taking into account everything, that some in the Church advocate protecting their clergy as much as possible from criminal prosecution... but that's still a far, far cry from the Church condoning child abuse.



Objectively speaking--which means you'd have to cut all of your assumptions concerning motive (which is unknown at best) and all prejorative language beyond the literal facts (which would mean you can't use terms like "thus he was able to victimize more people", as that flouts a maxim of direct propositional language)--your statement "the church condones chld abuse" is at best an unknown. It is possible that the Church condones child abuse, however that isn't part of its codes, ethics, dogma, Biblical foundation, etc., etc., etc. and is based on a purely subjective take on a set of events.

Now, that doesn't mean that your take isn't factual or relavent, just that it presumes more than can be "objectively spoken". In that case, your assertion does not stand up.

That's just logic. If you want to talk "opinion", then that's something else entirely.

You are some piece of work.

You don't handle CRIMINAL ACTIONS on your own. Ecclesiastical courts trying the clergy is long in the past. There is no assumption of right and wrong here, there is just plain old fucking wrong. If you know a crime is comited and you cover it up, that's aiding and abetting. It makes you an acessory after the fact. At the very least it's obstruction of justice.

Working on the idea that actions speak louder than words, what action did the RCC take that leads you to believe they didn't condone it? Because I see none. Objectively, there should be some measurble, quantifiable, reaction that at least implies some level of condemnation. I see not only no action of condemnation, I see support for it, shielding of accused criminals, and helping them find new victims.

So lets cut to the chase, beacuse I don't care to waste words on you, Mr. everything's possible boy. What action was taken that would lead a rational, impartial observer to believe the RCC did not condone the actions of its priests?

 

[mismused]

You are some piece of work.

You don't handle CRIMINAL ACTIONS on your own. Ecclesiastical courts trying the clergy is long in the past. There is no assumption of right and wrong here, there is just plain old fucking wrong. If you know a crime is comited and you cover it up, that's aiding and abetting. It makes you an acessory after the fact. At the very least it's obstruction of justice.

Working on the idea that actions speak louder than words, what action did the RCC take that leads you to believe they didn't condone it? Because I see none. Objectively, there should be some measurble, quantifiable, reaction that at least implies some level of condemnation. I see not only no action of condemnation, I see support for it, shielding of accused criminals, and helping them find new victims.

So lets cut to the chase, beacuse I don't care to waste words on you, Mr. everything's possible boy. What action was taken that would lead a rational, impartial observer to believe the RCC did not condone the actions of its priests?

================================================

Again, no words minced, and right to the point.

Colly for president! That's no bull, lady, you're the stuff.

 

[rgraham666]

Joe's going to grow up to be a very successful technocrat someday.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You are some piece of work.

You don't handle CRIMINAL ACTIONS on your own. Ecclesiastical courts trying the clergy is long in the past. There is no assumption of right and wrong here, there is just plain old fucking wrong. If you know a crime is comited and you cover it up, that's aiding and abetting. It makes you an acessory after the fact. At the very least it's obstruction of justice.

People handle criminal actions on their own all the time, and the law allows for just such a thing to happen. You say that the ecclesiastical courts are long in the past, however to say there there exists absolutely no program or policy for the treatment, therapy, and absolution of priests that commit sinful acts is just... well, ignorance.

You can assert that you've got reservations or problems with the manner in which they seek to resolve the moral problem before them (as Catholicism sees sexual offences as moral failures, and takes the position that if offenders repent, they should be forgiven and provided counseling). But that their method of preventing future abuse is imperfect, or even weak, doesn't constitute "condoning child abuse" any more than my father throwing away my cigarettes and telling me to never smoke meant that he condoned my smoking just because it didn't work.

Working on the idea that actions speak louder than words, what action did the RCC take that leads you to believe they didn't condone it? Because I see none. Objectively, there should be some measurble, quantifiable, reaction that at least implies some level of condemnation. I see not only no action of condemnation, I see support for it, shielding of accused criminals, and helping them find new victims.

That'll be our first problem. I won't be working from the idea that actions speak louder than words, I havel ittle use for the founding of argumental absolutes on cliche's. It may be the case that some actions speaks louder than some words, however it may be the case that some words speak louder than some actions. If you would like to assume that actions speak louder than words (at the get go), that's fine... but it's hardly proof and shouldn't be treated as anything but a premise of poetic language with a possibility of accuracy in some situations.

You say you see no acts of condemnation and only shieling and helping them commit crimes. Honestlly, I can say that several Bishops and Church leaders and officials have come out to say that this is a condemnable thing and the stated reasons for moving those offending priests were not "helping them find new victims". That would be another assumptive premise of motive that is just... well, not evidentiary, at best, and a lie at worst.

So lets cut to the chase, beacuse I don't care to waste words on you, Mr. everything's possible boy.

I didn't care to waste words with you from the beginning. You made an assertion that is not objectively evidentiary, I provided a purely rational alternative to the assumed absolute. It's pretty much the same opposition that would have occured had you said "the church condones STD's and AIDS". Their actions may be interpreted in such a way (with a liberal amount of assuming what everyone's motives are, beyond the strictly factual record of events) as to come to that poor conclusion... however, saying "no, The Church has a stance on certain policies that you feel are ill-equipped to handle the problem... but that's far from condoning disease" is neither a crime, nor a sin, and it's most certainly a more objective stance at the least.

What action was taken that would lead a rational, impartial observer to believe the RCC did not condone the actions of its priests?

I haven't been talking about the Church condoning the actions of its priests. I've been talking about whether the church "condones child abuse". They are different issues, though share some properties.

O.k., a reason that an objective observer to the affair might conclude that the church doesn't condone child abuse? Their insistance of both therapy and the confession of the sin are both examples of reasons why an impartial person could say they did not condone the act. First, therapy wouldn't be needed, were it not considered a disorder--if its a disorder, and one they're seeking to correct, then its not an acceptable thing (softly); confession of the sin reinforces the idea that it is a wrong thing and one that the spirit needs to be cleansed of.

Now, you can raise problems with those methods being effective; but you'll notive my point hasn't changed one bit... its a question of whether the punishment was appropriate or effective or just; not a question of whether the church condones the abuse of children.

 

[Pure]

The Colly and Joe W exchange:

Note on the Colly and Joe W exchange

Joe W: You say you see no acts of condemnation and only shieling and helping them commit crimes. Honestlly, I can say that several Bishops and Church leaders and officials have come out to say that this is a condemnable thing and the stated reasons for moving those offending priests were not "helping them find new victims".

Colly: What action was taken that would lead a rational, impartial observer to believe the RCC did not condone the actions of its priests?

Joe: I haven't been talking about the Church condoning the actions of its priests. I've been talking about whether the church "condones child abuse". They are different issues, though share some properties.

O.k., a reason that an objective observer to the affair might conclude that the church doesn't condone child abuse? Their insistance of both therapy and the confession of the sin are both examples of reasons why an impartial person could say they did not condone the act.

Actually, at no point did the Church condone child abuse. Their actions bring up issues of privacy and whether or not they were correct in their method of punishment... but that's in no way the same thing as "condoning child abuse".

-----
Colly, I think you've made a pretty good argument from actions, to a reasonably imputed objective and intent.

You do note that friend Joe Wordwidth is never one to bring much in the way of fact to an argument. The gist is generally "It's possible you are wrong"-- and on his side "it's possible that I'm right." Doing that, 'proving those points'-- which almost always are true, as a matter of course-- is, in his mind, equivalent to winning or prevailing in argument.

First point:the stated reasons for moving those offending priests were not "helping them find new victims".

Joe wishes to deal in statements and official announcements; nothing less than 'we condone the priests' abuses' is going to count. Oddly one doesn't see such statements.

We know that a) a priest offends, and complaints are made; b) he is perhaps talked to, but transferred elsewhere *without* informing them of issues, c) elsewhere he is to be in a similar position with kids.

It there is not exactly specific intent, there is a legal, near-equivalent-- 'criminal negligence', i.e., callous indifference to what may and indeed will likely occur. There is a criminally culpable state of mind. A bit like leaving a door open of the chicken house, nearby to the open door on the cat's living area, knowing that the cat had previously entered the pen and killed chickens.

Thiis is one of the most common RCC patterns; minor discussion, sometimes informal chastisement and continued moving of the person to situations where he may re-offend without taking precautions-- e.g. getting an undertaking NOT to work with children, and notifying the authorities in the new area as to the risks.
This was done in other churches and school boards, also.

As a piece of evidence of the RCC not condoning abuse by priests, Joe mentions 'insistence on therapy' without mentioning any specific cases. Taking the Geoghan case in Boston, there were multiple offenses at several sites before therapy was insisted on.

There are also indications from the therapists that the reports on the patient-priests were vetted; the emphasis was on a positive report that would be a basis for getting the priest back into his normal role.

Even were we to assume the therapy was insisted on, with good intent, offences re-occured. At that point a reasonable conclusion might be that there is no effective treatment, and a reasonable precaution would be to suspend the priest's activities where they might lead to further offences. This was not done.

In all of the offences little attention was paid to supporting the victions, aside from a few secret pay outs.

To sum it up, the presumed welfare of the church institution was furthered; there were frequent attempt to shield the priest, and occasional attempts to help him; and there was continuing callous indifference to the welfare of the victims.

I believe a timeline of the Geoghan case was posted; it would back up the facts stated above.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Note on the Colly and Joe W exchange

Joe W: You say you see no acts of condemnation and only shieling and helping them commit crimes. Honestlly, I can say that several Bishops and Church leaders and officials have come out to say that this is a condemnable thing and the stated reasons for moving those offending priests were not "helping them find new victims".

Colly: What action was taken that would lead a rational, impartial observer to believe the RCC did not condone the actions of its priests?

Joe: I haven't been talking about the Church condoning the actions of its priests. I've been talking about whether the church "condones child abuse". They are different issues, though share some properties.

O.k., a reason that an objective observer to the affair might conclude that the church doesn't condone child abuse? Their insistance of both therapy and the confession of the sin are both examples of reasons why an impartial person could say they did not condone the act.

Actually, at no point did the Church condone child abuse. Their actions bring up issues of privacy and whether or not they were correct in their method of punishment... but that's in no way the same thing as "condoning child abuse".

-----
Colly, I think you've made a pretty good argument from actions, to a reasonably imputed objective and intent.

You do note that friend Joe Wordwidth is never one to bring much in the way of fact to an argument. The gist is generally "It's possible you are wrong"-- and on his side "it's possible that I'm right." Doing that, 'proving those points'-- which almost always are true, as a matter of course-- is, in his mind, equivalent to winning or prevailing in argument.

First point:the stated reasons for moving those offending priests were not "helping them find new victims".

Joe wishes to deal in statements and official announcements; nothing less than 'we condone the priests' abuses' is going to count. Oddly one doesn't see such statements.

We know that a) a priest offends, and complaints are made; b) he is perhaps talked to, but transferred elsewhere *without* informing them of issues, c) elsewhere he is to be in a similar position with kids.

It there is not exactly specific intent, there is a legal, near-equivalent-- 'criminal negligence', i.e., callous indifference to what may and indeed will likely occur. There is a criminally culpable state of mind. A bit like leaving a door open of the chicken house, nearby to the open door on the cat's living area, knowing that the cat had previously entered the pen and killed chickens.

Thiis is one of the most common RCC patterns; minor discussion, sometimes informal chastisement and continued moving of the person to situations where he may re-offend without taking precautions-- e.g. getting an undertaking NOT to work with children, and notifying the authorities in the new area as to the risks.
This was done in other churches and school boards, also.

As a piece of evidence of the RCC not condoning abuse by priests, Joe mentions 'insistence on therapy' without mentioning any specific cases. Taking the Geoghan case in Boston, there were multiple offenses at several sites before therapy was insisted on.

There are also indications from the therapists that the reports on the patient-priests were vetted; the emphasis was on a positive report that would be a basis for getting the priest back into his normal role.

Even were we to assume the therapy was insisted on, with good intent, offences re-occured. At that point a reasonable conclusion might be that there is no effective treatment, and a reasonable precaution would be to suspend the priest's activities where they might lead to further offences. This was not done.

In all of the offences little attention was paid to supporting the victions, aside from a few secret pay outs.

To sum it up, the presumed welfare of the church institution was furthered; there were frequent attempt to shield the priest, and occasional attempts to help him; and there was continuing callous indifference to the welfare of the victims.

I believe a timeline of the Geoghan case was posted; it would back up the facts stated above.

Thanks j,

I'm well versed in Joe's game. He wishes to make inflamatory statements or statements in direct conflict with someone, then turn the debate into a long rambling philosophical/theoretical treastise on the possible meanings of the word is, in the third sentence 12th paragraph of page 3 and how the meaning you infer is not neccessarily the maning that was implied. I.E. He is playing childish games with serious subjects.

That's why I demand he provide examples and refuse to be drawn into his crap. In general I ignore him, but I do reply when he quotes me.

He has shown he has no respect for me, my opinions or my intellect and I return his disdain in spades.

 

[Pure]

Here are two articles of the dozens on the Geoghan case which back up the bishops inaction, choice of cronies as therapiests, manipulation of 'therapists' reports', coupled with 'best wishes' re-assignments.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/012402_letters.htm

Letters exhibit gentle approach toward priest

By Sacha Pfeiffer, Boston Globe Staff, 1/24/2002

They are patient and reassuring in tone, always forgiving, often loving. Their salutations are familiar, even chummy, sometimes addressed to Father John or simply Jack. Not one mentions the scores of victims or their families. Three decades of previously secret correspondence between defrocked priest John J. Geoghan and the two cardinals he served - Humberto S. Medeiros and Bernard F. Law - make clear that Geoghan was treated with unfailing delicacy by his superiors, whose letters portray him as dogged by unpleasant circumstances beyond his control.

So kindly and solicitous were Law's letters that when Geoghan twice asked Law to appoint him pastor of St. Julia Parish in Weston -- the same parish where he had previously been forced to go on sick leave after new molestation complaints surfaced -- Law twice told Geoghan he would consider the request and forward his name to personnel officials. "I feel that I am qualified," Geoghan wrote in a letter dated June 29, 1990, seven months after returning from a treatment center for sexually abusive priests. "I know the people, the parish, and its problems. I am confident that I can build a vibrant Faith community."

Even when one of Law's subordinates notified Geoghan that he had not been selected to be pastor in Weston, he encouraged Geoghan to pursue other parish positions.

"It is important that you not interpret this appointment by the Cardinal in any negative way with reference to yourself," the Rev. Kevin J. Deeley, associate director of the Clergy Personnel Office, wrote to Geoghan in May 1992, at a time when Geoghan had allegedly fondled or raped more than 100 children in a half-dozen Greater Boston parishes.

Added Deeley: "Please feel free to write or call expressing interest in any other parish for which you feel an interest in the future."

Court documents made public this week also reveal that many of the letters notifying Geoghan that he was being transferred from one parish to another -- reassignments prompted by new abuse allegations -- are nearly identical copies, containing the same boiler plate language used in earlier letters.

"I am confident that you will render fine priestly service to the People of God in St. Andrew parish," Medeiros wrote on May 30, 1974, in a letter notifying Geoghan that he was being removed from St. Paul Parish in Hingham, where he had allegedly abused at least three victims, and being reassigned to St. Andrew Parish in Forest Hills.

Seven years later, on Feb. 13, 1981, Medeiros sent a nearly verbatim letter informing Geoghan that he was being reassigned to a parish in Dorchester after a yearlong sick leave. "I am confident that you will render fine priestly service to the People of God in St. Brendan parish," Medeiros wrote.

And three years after that, during his first year as archbishop of Boston, Law had this to say in an Oct. 31, 1984, letter assigning Geoghan to Weston: "I am confident that you will render fine priestly service to the People of God in St. Julia parish."

Geoghan's replies were equally gracious.

In one hand-written letter to Medeiros, addressed "Your Eminence" and dated Nov. 2, 1980, Geoghan reported: "I have been receiving excellent care on direction from two wonderful Catholic physicians, Dr. John Brennan and Dr. Robert Mullins. They assure me that within a relatively short time I shall be able to return for fruitful years of priestly ministry. I am eager to return and I thank God for his many blessings."

The Spotlight Team reported last week that Brennan was charged in a civil lawsuit with sexually molesting one of his patients, who received $100,000 to settle the suit, and that Mullins is a general practitioner with no experience in psychiatry or psychology.

Letters to Geoghan from Law, who has publicly acknowledged that he moved Geoghan to Weston despite being aware of his history of abuse, are no less solicitous.

"It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts with a renewed zeal and enthusiasm," Law wrote on Nov. 13, 1989, after reassigning Geoghan to St. Julia Parish. "With my warmest personal regards and my blessing upon you and all whom you serve so well, I remain sincerely yours in Christ."

Five days later, Geoghan replied: "Your Eminence, I wish to thank you for the warmth of your letter and your kindness in re assigning me to Saint Julia Parish, Weston. . . . It is good to be back and I received an enthusiastic welcome from many parishioners. . . . I will always be grateful to you."

Even in his Dec. 30, 1994, letter placing Geoghan on administrative leave after new allegations surfaced, Law included these gentle words: "I realize this is a difficult time for you and for those close to you. If I can be of help to you in some way please contact me. Be assured you are remembered in my prayers."

It was only after the Rev. Brian M. Flatley, an archdiocesan official responsible for handling clergy sexual-abuse complaints, described Geoghan as a "real danger" and urged Law in a June 4, 1996, memo to be "firm" with the priest, that the tenor of Law's correspondence changed.

The day after receiving Flatley's memo, Law warned Geoghan in a letter that if he did not seek treatment, "it will be necessary for me to invoke canonical penalties."

But Law still included a fond signoff, writing: "These are difficult matters, John. You are in my thoughts and prayers."

This story ran on page A21 of the Boston Globe on 1/24/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

======
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/012402_memos.htm
Memos offer split view of priest

Medical records contrast on risk

By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 1/24/2002 *Related stories


t's as if there were two John Geoghans: One, an emotionally stable priest victimized by "a rather unfortunate traumatic experience," yet fully capable of fulfilling his priestly duties. The other, a dangerous child molester with an "impulsive nature" whose continued presence among parishioners would yield "an explosion." These contrasting portraits of Geoghan emerge from medical rec ords that were filed with 84 civil lawsuits against the former priest and top officials in the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, including Cardinal Bernard F. Law.

The records include positive written medical evaluations and friendly notes from Geoghan's superiors, as well as contrasting evidence of dire warnings about Geoghan and his sexual compulsion about children. For instance, in a hand-written memo to himself, Bishop Robert J. Banks, then the administrator of the archdiocese, wrote: "You better clip his wings before there is an explosion. . . . You can't afford to have him in a parish." The comments were written under the heading "Dr. Brennan," apparently alluding to Dr. John H. Brennan, a psychiatrist who had treated Geoghan for a decade. The comments appear to be notes taken during a conversation between Banks and the doctor in April 1989, shortly before Geoghan was removed from his assignment at St. Julia Parish in Weston.

But the only corresponding written evaluation from Brennan was made 18 months later, in December 1990, after Banks and Law had permitted Geoghan to return to St. Julia Parish. "I have known Father Geoghan since February 1980," Brennan wrote. "There is no psychiatric contraindication to Fr. Geoghan's pastoral work at this time." In sworn testimony in a deposition taken last year, Brennan said he remembered a 1989 telephone call in which he warned an unnamed church official that Geoghan was a pedophile and should not be allowed to work with children. But he said he could not recall ever putting that warning in writing.

The church's aversion to negative written evaluations of Geoghan -- and its preference for positive written assessments to coincide with new assignments -- is underscored by a series of letters between Banks and officials at the Institue of Living, a Hartford, Conn., facility that treated Geoghan for pedophilia in 1989.

In a three-page evaluation written in November of that year, Drs. Robert F. Swords and Vincent J. Stephens said that psychological testing of Geoghan "showed an immature and impulsive nature" and an individual who "could be a high risk-taker." Their diagnosis was "atypical pedophilia, in remission" and "mixed personality disorder with obsessive-compulsive, histrionic, and narcissistic features."

But Banks wrote back that he was "disappointed and disturbed by the report," and complained that he had been "assured that it would be all right to reassign Father Geoghan to pastoral ministry and that he would not present a risk for the parishioners whom he would serve." Indeed, Banks noted that by this time he had already permitted Geoghan to return to St. Julia Parish and had asked for an additional letter that "would express the assurance I was given orally about Father Geoghan's reassignment." Two weeks later, Swords complied with the request. "We judge Father Geoghan to be clinically quite safe to resume his pastoral ministry after observation, evaluation, and treatment here for three months," Swords wrote. "The probability that he would sexually act out again is quite low."

In a follow-up letter in December 1990, Swords again wrote to Banks, saying that Geoghan was "fit for pastoral work in general including children," with the proviso that he be monitored by the archdiocese and Brennan. Brennan -- who was working at a Catholic institution, St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Brighton, when he began treating Geoghan, said in his deposition that he had no expertise in handling cases of pedophilia and could recall treating no other patient for the illness.

The pattern of allegations of sexual abuse by Geoghan, followed by positive written medical evaluations and cheerful notes by Geoghan's superiors, stretches back through the 1980s. In an October 1984 letter to a church official, Dr. Robert W. Mullins described Geoghan as "a longtime friend and patient" who had been removed from his parish due to "a rather unfortunate traumatic experience."

Mullins also recommended that Geoghan be allowed to return to "full pastoral activities without any need for specific restriction." A fellow Catholic and West Roxbury neighbor, Mullins was writing to the Rev. Thomas F. Oates, then clergy personnal director for the archdiocese, after Geoghan had been removed from an assignment at St. Brendan Parish in Dorchester because of new allegations of child sexual abuse.

But church officials either did not know or did not care that Mullins was a family doctor with no expertise in treating pedophilia, in counseling, or in psychology. In a cheerful November 1984 reply, Oates thanked Mullins for his "kind assistance" in treating Geoghan and hinted about his new assignment to St. Julia Parish. "You are perhaps already aware that he will soon be enjoying formal assignment once again in the Archdiocese," Oates wrote. Earlier, in 1981, after Geoghan had been accused of sexually molesting seven Jamaica Plain boys and had been removed from St. Andrew Parish, the tone of Geoghan's doctors and superiors was much the same.

Brennan, writing to Bishop Thomas V. Daily, said that he had met with Geoghan and that "it was mutually agreed that he was now able to resume his priestly duties." In his reply, Daily said, "Thank you so much for this recommendation, and I shall certainly make a note to His Eminence, the Cardinal, and look forward to the assignment of Father Geoghan very soon."

Within weeks, Geoghan was sent to St. Brendan Parish in Dorchester, where he found himself happy in his work. "Thank God for modern medicine and good doctors," Geoghan wrote in a February 1981 letter to the Rev. Gilbert S. Phinn, then the clergy personnel director. But by the end of 1984 Geoghan was in trouble again. After more allegations that he had sexually abused minors, Law removed him from the parish, listing his status as "in between assignment."

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 1/24/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Condone: To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

Not that I relly think I need to, but this is the definition of condone at dictionary.com. The word was chosen by me, to convey exactly this definition. My assertion was that the RCC condoned child abuse.

I see no instance of censure of the priests involved. I see no evidence of protest, quite the opposite in fact.

So Joe, exactly how is my statement illogical or not objective? Can you provide an example of censure? Can you provide an example of protest? If not, then kindly STFU.