United Nations bitch slaps Vatican in child abuse report

[mellenORL]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-n-report-vatican-policies-allowed-priests-rape-children-n22531

The United Nations heavily criticized the Vatican on Wednesday for what it said was a systematic adoption of policies allowing priests to rape and sexually abuse tens of thousands of children.

The devastating report published by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of a Child said the Vatican must "immediately remove" all known or suspected child abusers within the clergy.

It said the Holy See had "systematically placed preservation of the reputation of the church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims."

In response, the Vatican said in a statement published on its website that some points made in the report were an "attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching."

It will be interesting to see how Pope Francis spins this.

[ironbite]

Perhaps by releasing the archives and pedo priests over to the authorities?

[Art Vandelay]

It blows my mind that at they don't realise that trying to cover up all the kiddy fiddling is far more damaging to the church's reputation in the long run. Sure, a while back it was reasonable to think you could keep a lid on it at least until it becomes your successor's problem, but nowadays "priest" and "paedo" are practically synonamous hanks to the Catholic Church. Even the dumbest members of the upper brass of the church should surely realise that covering it up stopped being a viable plan a long time ago, even in the short term.

[Id82]

This pope has been pretty cool so far so maaaaaaaybe he'll put a stop to pedophile preists? Maybe?

[Ultimate Paragon]

It blows my mind that at they don't realise that trying to cover up all the kiddy fiddling is far more damaging to the church's reputation in the long run. Sure, a while back it was reasonable to think you could keep a lid on it at least until it becomes your successor's problem, but nowadays "priest" and "paedo" are practically synonamous hanks to the Catholic Church. Even the dumbest members of the upper brass of the church should surely realise that covering it up stopped being a viable plan a long time ago, even in the short term.

Plus, a while back, some were actually seriously defending pedophilia.  And not just NAMBLA members either.  Disturbing, isn't it?

[R. U. Sirius]

The only problem I have with this report is that they say to remove even SUSPECTED child abusers.

While I can support reassigning suspected abusers to positions that don't allow access to children while the investigation takes place (both within the Vatican and by the authorities), an accusation shouldn't be held as equivalent to a conviction.

[Witchyjoshy]

Perhaps by releasing the archives and pedo priests over to the authorities?

If he does that, I might consider him a somewhat good person rather than someone who talks a lot.

[Ghoti]

The only problem I have with this report is that they say to remove even SUSPECTED child abusers.

While I can support reassigning suspected abusers to positions that don't allow access to children while the investigation takes place (both within the Vatican and by the authorities), an accusation shouldn't be held as equivalent to a conviction.

We're talking about child molesters. "Better safe than sorry" is a massive understatement. Considering what all needs to happen before a pedophille is even suspected, I think the UN's order is both reasonable and long overdue.

[Sigmaleph]

The only problem I have with this report is that they say to remove even SUSPECTED child abusers.

While I can support reassigning suspected abusers to positions that don't allow access to children while the investigation takes place (both within the Vatican and by the authorities), an accusation shouldn't be held as equivalent to a conviction.

Depends on what is meant by "suspected". Is that "an accusation has been made" or "we have some evidence but not enough for a conviction"?

The former is always a dangerous policy. The latter is quite reasonable.

[R. U. Sirius]

The only problem I have with this report is that they say to remove even SUSPECTED child abusers.

While I can support reassigning suspected abusers to positions that don't allow access to children while the investigation takes place (both within the Vatican and by the authorities), an accusation shouldn't be held as equivalent to a conviction.

We're talking about child molesters. "Better safe than sorry" is a massive understatement. Considering what all needs to happen before a pedophille is even suspected, I think the UN's order is both reasonable and long overdue.

These days it is heresy to suggest some teenagers may sometimes exaggerate – but when it comes to accusations of sexual abuse or misconduct, teachers who are falsely accused have little hope of salvaging their careers.

The debate around child abuse and protection is so highly charged and vigorously policed, that anyone who deviates from the message can see their working life suffer.

http://theconversation.com/false-child-abuse-allegations-take-a-heavy-toll-on-teachers-22101

...
Four years ago, Balogh was convicted of interference with custody of children. That crime falls under the newest version of Megan's Law, and Balogh must register as a real sex offender.

“Seventeen years of probation for not doing anything but trying to help a little boy that was in diaper and just a pair of socks?" Balogh questioned the ramifications.
...

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/woman-megans-law-list-who-never-committed-sex-crim/nc8pk/

Neither of these relate directly to the Catholic Church's handling of their own abuse cases, but I disagree strongly that a person should lose their position based solely on an accusation. "Guilty until proven innocent" should never be our reaction to any accusation.

[kefkaownsall]

Maybe this is why Bennie resigned

[Askold]

The only problem I have with this report is that they say to remove even SUSPECTED child abusers.

While I can support reassigning suspected abusers to positions that don't allow access to children while the investigation takes place (both within the Vatican and by the authorities), an accusation shouldn't be held as equivalent to a conviction.

Depends on what is meant by "suspected". Is that "an accusation has been made" or "we have some evidence but not enough for a conviction"?

The former is always a dangerous policy. The latter is quite reasonable.

I'm no lawyer so I guess I'm just confused but, what is the line between "we got enough evidence to know he/she did it but can't get conviction" and "we have enough evidence for conviction?"

Because I would think that it is a very fine line.

[Ironchew]

The reason people take a "better safe than sorry" reaction regarding sex crimes such as rape, child molestation, and so forth is because they also don't want to go the opposite route of doubting everything the victim says and holding them to a standard much higher than that of victims of other kinds of crimes. It's easy to name a few extraordinary cases of people who turned out to be falsely accused (i.e., the Duke lacrosse case), but the data shows, sadly, that the majority of victims are not making false accusations.

EDIT: I'm not defending putting people on the sex registry for silly crap like the "custodial interference" case above, but rape has some qualifications that have to be taken into account when it comes to judging the validity of an accusation simply due to all the negative societal attitudes toward victims.

Waiting until there is evidence behind an accusation is not "blaming the victim" or "holding them to a [much higher] standard". It's the logical consequence of having an evidence-based approach to serious events and realizing the critical flaws in a he-said-she-said back and forth.

Totally destroying someone's life and reputation based on an accusation alone is equivalent to a witch hunt.

[Barbarella]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-n-report-vatican-policies-allowed-priests-rape-children-n22531

The United Nations heavily criticized the Vatican on Wednesday for what it said was a systematic adoption of policies allowing priests to rape and sexually abuse tens of thousands of children.

The devastating report published by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of a Child said the Vatican must "immediately remove" all known or suspected child abusers within the clergy.

It said the Holy See had "systematically placed preservation of the reputation of the church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims."

In response, the Vatican said in a statement published on its website that some points made in the report were an "attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching."

It will be interesting to see how Pope Francis spins this.

Interfere with Church Teaching? HOW THE HECK IS KIDDY-FIDDLIN' A TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?!

Vicarious Atonement, Transubutation, Purgatory, Seven Sacraments, Original Sin, Intercession via Mary & Saints, Angels, Liturgical Calender, The Holy Mass, etc. That's Catholic Doctrine. Molesting kids is not Catholic doctrine!

Are these guys seriously oblivious to what child-molesting IS and how serious it is? Child-rape?

WHAT IN THE NAME OF SAINT MICHAEL ON A POGO STICK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!!!

[dpareja]

Interfere with Church Teaching? HOW THE HECK IS KIDDY-FIDDLIN' A TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?!

It wasn't that bit to which the Church objected, it was the bit where the commission said the Church should ensure that Catholic schools teach proper sex ed complete with condoms and such.