Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
They've tried reporting the abuse to higher-ups in the Church, it's been ignored. What needs to happen is that the Church needs to make it very, very plain that not only can the laity report abuse to secular authorities, they should and must. (As should the Church itself.)

The Catholic Church can no longer be trusted to police itself.

I agree with that. I was referring to policy in the future when a noble person becomes Pope and adopts a zero tolerance policy.
92
They've tried reporting the abuse to higher-ups in the Church, it's been ignored. What needs to happen is that the Church needs to make it very, very plain that not only can the laity report abuse to secular authorities, they should and must. (As should the Church itself.)

The Catholic Church can no longer be trusted to police itself.
93
The doctrine taught to the laity enables abusive priests, because it makes the laity afraid to question them and their actions.

As for a "noble" Pope, no Pope would dare do that because it would expose the sheer moral depravity of the Church and bring the entire institution into irreparable disrepute. Nobody would trust that all the offenders had been purged.

There might be some people who want to stop the abuse by infiltrating the Church and becoming Pope. When a zero tolerance policy is adopted, the laity will know that they can report the actions of priests to higher ups in the church.
94
The doctrine taught to the laity enables abusive priests, because it makes the laity afraid to question them and their actions.

As for a "noble" Pope, no Pope would dare do that because it would expose the sheer moral depravity of the Church and bring the entire institution into irreparable disrepute. Nobody would trust that all the offenders had been purged.
95
It's a problem with the doctrine that's taught to the laity, and also a problem with internal Church doctrine that elevated protecting the Church itself above protecting the laity or the public at large.

I don’t see how the doctrine taught to laity itself is a part of the problem. It is a problem when the priests abuse their positions of power. What the Church needs is those above them to defrock them which hopefully will happen after a future noble person becomes Pope in the future and purges the pedophiles and those who cover for them.
96
It's a problem with the doctrine that's taught to the laity, and also a problem with internal Church doctrine that elevated protecting the Church itself above protecting the laity or the public at large.
97
Quote
This grand jury exists because Pennsylvania dioceses routinely hid reports of child sex crimes while the statutes of limitations for those crimes expired. We just do not understand why that should be allowed to happen. If child abusers knew they could never become immune for their crimes by outrunning the statute of limitations, maybe there would be less child abuse.

We know our statute of limitations has been extended recently, so that now abusers can potentially be prosecuted until the victim reaches age 50. And that's good. It just doesn't help a lot of the victims we saw. No piece of legislation can predict the point at which a victim of child sex abuse will find the strength to come forward. And no victim can know whether anyone will believe her, or how long she will have to wait for justice.

If that seems hard to understand, think about Julianne. She was taught without question that priests are superior to other adults, even superior to her own parents - because "they are God in the flesh." So when one of these flesh gods [OMITTED], who was she going to tell? Julianne was 14 when she was assaulted; now she's almost 70.

Or Joe from Scranton. At the time he couldn't find anyone who was willing to hear about the [OMITTED] priest who told him to take off his pants and get into bed. It took 55 years before he found us.

Or Bob, from Reading. He told us "there is not a day that goes by" that he doesn't think about what happened to him. He can't bear to be touched by a man, not even to shake hands, or to hug his own sons. He never reported it, because he thought "I was the only one." But if he could still put that priest on trial, even now, he would. "Somebody has to be accountable," he told us. "This has to stop." Bob is 83.

So yes, we say no statute of limitations at all. Not for this kind of crime. And it's not like we are asking for anything that unusual. It turns out that this is the rule in well over half the states across the country: no free pass for serious sexual violation of children, no matter how long it takes. That includes almost every state in our region, except us. If we lived in New Jersey, or Delaware, or New York or Maryland, we would today be issuing a presentment charging dozens of priests. But because we happen to live here instead, the number is two. Not something for Pennsylvania to be proud of.

(omissions and emphasis mine; pp. 310-311)

EDIT:

Quote
We wonder how [the Church and its insurance companies] decide how much is "too much." Maybe they should meet with Al, as we did. Al was abused in sixth grade by a priest who put him in a locked room, [OMITTED]. He managed to slip away and tried hiding under a desk, but the priest found him and told him he would go to hell if he ever told anyone. Afterward, Al flunked the sixth grade and had to repeat it. He began drinking, working up to as much as a bottle of whiskey a day. He started scratching his genitals so hard they would bleed. He thought he must be gay, which made him a mortal sinner. He tried joining the Navy, but was diagnosed with PTSD and eventually discharged. He tried to kill himself on multiple occasions, most recently by hanging himself with a coaxial cable. He was institutionalized in the locked ward of a psychiatric hospital. He wanted to keep going to church, but he would become nauseous and have to throw up when he entered the building.

Maybe, if he'd had money for good medical and psychological resources, Al's life wouldn't have been quite so hard after that priest knocked it off track. Maybe, if he could file a lawsuit now, he could make up for some of the pain and suffering. We wonder what people would think is "too much" money if it had been one of their kids. Al should get his two years back.

(omission and emphasis mine; pp. 312-313)

This is not doctrinal laxity. This is a problem with the doctrine itself.

How is it a problem with doctrine. The Priest who did that to Al was violating Catholic Doctrine that rape is a serious sin.
98
The Lounge / Re: The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread
« Last post by Art Vandelay on August 16, 2018, 01:21:22 pm »


99
Entertainment and Television / Re: The Queen of Soul
« Last post by Art Vandelay on August 16, 2018, 01:20:25 pm »
Aretha Franklin has passed today.  She is now literally, the Queen of Soul.

Ironbite-wonder what song she sang at the Pearly Gates.
Oh, good for her. I guess all that studying finally paid off.
100
Quote
This grand jury exists because Pennsylvania dioceses routinely hid reports of child sex crimes while the statutes of limitations for those crimes expired. We just do not understand why that should be allowed to happen. If child abusers knew they could never become immune for their crimes by outrunning the statute of limitations, maybe there would be less child abuse.

We know our statute of limitations has been extended recently, so that now abusers can potentially be prosecuted until the victim reaches age 50. And that's good. It just doesn't help a lot of the victims we saw. No piece of legislation can predict the point at which a victim of child sex abuse will find the strength to come forward. And no victim can know whether anyone will believe her, or how long she will have to wait for justice.

If that seems hard to understand, think about Julianne. She was taught without question that priests are superior to other adults, even superior to her own parents - because "they are God in the flesh." So when one of these flesh gods [OMITTED], who was she going to tell? Julianne was 14 when she was assaulted; now she's almost 70.

Or Joe from Scranton. At the time he couldn't find anyone who was willing to hear about the [OMITTED] priest who told him to take off his pants and get into bed. It took 55 years before he found us.

Or Bob, from Reading. He told us "there is not a day that goes by" that he doesn't think about what happened to him. He can't bear to be touched by a man, not even to shake hands, or to hug his own sons. He never reported it, because he thought "I was the only one." But if he could still put that priest on trial, even now, he would. "Somebody has to be accountable," he told us. "This has to stop." Bob is 83.

So yes, we say no statute of limitations at all. Not for this kind of crime. And it's not like we are asking for anything that unusual. It turns out that this is the rule in well over half the states across the country: no free pass for serious sexual violation of children, no matter how long it takes. That includes almost every state in our region, except us. If we lived in New Jersey, or Delaware, or New York or Maryland, we would today be issuing a presentment charging dozens of priests. But because we happen to live here instead, the number is two. Not something for Pennsylvania to be proud of.

(omissions and emphasis mine; pp. 310-311)

EDIT:

Quote
We wonder how [the Church and its insurance companies] decide how much is "too much." Maybe they should meet with Al, as we did. Al was abused in sixth grade by a priest who put him in a locked room, [OMITTED]. He managed to slip away and tried hiding under a desk, but the priest found him and told him he would go to hell if he ever told anyone. Afterward, Al flunked the sixth grade and had to repeat it. He began drinking, working up to as much as a bottle of whiskey a day. He started scratching his genitals so hard they would bleed. He thought he must be gay, which made him a mortal sinner. He tried joining the Navy, but was diagnosed with PTSD and eventually discharged. He tried to kill himself on multiple occasions, most recently by hanging himself with a coaxial cable. He was institutionalized in the locked ward of a psychiatric hospital. He wanted to keep going to church, but he would become nauseous and have to throw up when he entered the building.

Maybe, if he'd had money for good medical and psychological resources, Al's life wouldn't have been quite so hard after that priest knocked it off track. Maybe, if he could file a lawsuit now, he could make up for some of the pain and suffering. We wonder what people would think is "too much" money if it had been one of their kids. Al should get his two years back.

(omission and emphasis mine; pp. 312-313)

This is not doctrinal laxity. This is a problem with the doctrine itself.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]