Catholic Church and the culture of child abuse?

[Grifman]

I do take exception to the idea that Catholics preach some sort superiority over other Christian faiths. I've certainly never experienced that at church, but I suppose it's possible that there are some rogue churches out there saying those kinds of things.

I guess the pope has gone rogue then:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html" target="_blank

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 056515.ece" target="_blank

Seriously, that's one of the problems Protestants have with Catholicism - we're not seen as equals in any discussions. Now that makes sense from the Catholic POV since the pope is infallible but it doesn't do much for ecumenism.

I'm very, very disappointed to see the Pope make statements like that. Your assertion that you're "not seen as equals in any discussions" is just 100%, flat-out wrong, though.

I'm not talking about discussions with individual Catholics. I was talking about discussions between Protestant and Catholic leaders where the hierarchy has to toe Rome's line. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I see you as an equal. I can assure that every RC priest that I've ever heard discuss other Christian religions has never stated that Protestants were in any way less than equal. You've obviously pointed out where the Pope has said different, but that doesn't mean you're "not seen as equals in any discussions."

Again, I was thinking of the official position of the Catholic church in ecumenical discussions with Protestants, not individual Catholics. I also get into discussions sometimes with Catholic apologists and they take the same position as the Pope in our discussions.

At this point, you can either choose to recognize that there are a lot of Catholics out there who do treat you as an equal in your Christian faith, or you can assume that we're all in lock-step with the Pope's statements (by the way, not all Catholics buy into the infallibility thing, even if that position might be grounds for excommunication).

That's a very Protestant view. Perhaps you should come on over

One way is a lot more likely to lead to better relationships between Christian faiths.

Agreed.

I will point out that the Pope's statement is nothing new - it's been the official position of the Church ever since the Reformation, though back then I think worse things were thought of us Protestants (and vice versa to be honest ). My point though is that what you called a "rogue" position is actually the official position of the Catholic Church, and not just the rantings and ravings of a few radical conservatives.

[Grifman]

since the pope is infallible

Just so you are aware, the teaching of infallibility only applies certain things - not that the Pope can do no wrong.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp" target="_blank

and the more common site without the imprimatur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility" target="_blank

I'm aware, I was just speaking broadly without trying to get into all the qualifications.

[ImLawBoy]

My point though is that what you called a "rogue" position is actually the official position of the Catholic Church, and not just the rantings and ravings of a few radical conservatives.

Yeah, I'll fall back on my lack of being a scholar. I probably should have looked that up before I made the "rogue" comment. To me, though, it does show a bit of disconnect between the highest levels and regular church members.

[Zarathud]

The official position of the Catholic Church is a more hard-line with Pope Benedict who spent 25 years in the "Holy Office" defending the more narrow interpretations of Catholic teachings -- including his 2001 letter “Crimen Sollicitationis” which clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse.

Unfortunately, this Pope's views are generally hostile to the more liberal and generally dissent-tolerant Catholic Church in America (which ImLawBoy would be more familiar with in his experience). The Catholic Church is much less monolithic than it would seem.

[Holman]

The official position of the Catholic Church is a more hard-line with Pope Benedict who spent 25 years in the "Holy Office" defending the more narrow interpretations of Catholic teachings -- including his 2001 letter “Crimen Sollicitationis” which clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse.

I understand the richly independent cultural and spiritual history of the church--I spent many years studying sixteenth- and seventeenth-century religious writing in grad school--but I can't understand how any modern Pope or official can claim that the Catholic Church's "internal investigations" are confidential and that law enforcement may not pry into them. Is that what he is saying? Isn't that the textbook legal definition of conspiracy?

Just as John Paul II will go down in history as the "Human Rights Pope," it looks like Benedict XVI will be the "Sexual Abuse Pope."

[Matrix]

i will look at it from very simplified dating prospective. They cant marry and cant have sex, yet genetically we are inclined to have sex, it is not a a logical choice that you can stop wanting sex. You can fight it, but it would be very uphill battle.
Some priests dont make it up the hill, and maybe rationalize somehow that it is different then sex per say. If marriage was allowed, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is not a problem in many other religions.

Example is Chaina, where men outnumber women due to artificial birth "control" and preference of having a boy child. The homosexuality rate is abnormal, same with prisons when sex with women is not choice, substitute will do. There is also social triggers that we have built in genetically, wish prevents masturbation from being a full substitute to sex.

[GreenGoo]

Some priests dont make it up the hill, and maybe rationalize somehow that it is different then sex per say. If marriage was allowed, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is not a problem in many other religions.

Am I missing context? Are you saying that men denied sex will molest children?

I know that can't be what you're saying.

[silverjon]

Some priests dont make it up the hill, and maybe rationalize somehow that it is different then sex per say. If marriage was allowed, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is not a problem in many other religions.

Am I missing context? Are you saying that men denied sex will molest children?

I know that can't be what you're saying.

It is and it isn't. It's that men denied the usual sexual outlets will find a different outlet, whatever's most conveniently available. Men faced with a general shortage of women but without too many social restrictions may pursue other men consensually, as in China (though if nature is weighting the dice for biological homosexuality in response to environmental pressures, that's an additional factor). In lockup, consent is out the window.

I *think* (not having been to seminary) that the idea of priesthood is to channel all your energies into your relationship with capital-G-God, and facilitating your parish in their relationship with God. For some individuals, it breaks down, and the priest finds he is having urges he's not supposed to be having. Maybe he has a crisis of faith. Maybe he turns to drinking. Sometimes, it breaks down further, and that's when you get the abuse cases. Children are victimized not because they are children, but because they are available in a way that adult females are not.

I've made this point before, about not all cases (a probable minority, in fact) of child molestation being about pedophilia. Frequently, it's just opportunism. That's not to say it's less vile, just that you can't find a solution to a problem if you don't understand the cause of it.

[GreenGoo]

I'm going with a whole lotta bullshit on this one.

You're saying that normal, hetero males, forbidden from having sex with women, who voluntarily make this decision, with turn to sex with little boys because their vows prevent them from sex with women (and presumably don't prevent them from having sex with young boys)? This is what you're saying?

Is this common knowledge? Am I the last to find out about this? Because that sounds just about as insane as I could possibly imagine.

You're saying these guys would have normal, healthy relations with adult females if their vows didn't prevent that from happening? I don't buy that for even a moment.

But the solution is easy. Add to their vows that they are forbidden from having sex with little boys. That should end that practice immediately. Of course they'll become goat herders immediately, but society as a whole mostly laughs at animal fondlers, and hangs child fondlers.

I need some cites on this, because that is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

And prison rape is about power over the victim, just as all forms of rape (we'll leave date rape out of it for now) are about violence and power with sex being the instrument used to display it.

[GreenGoo]

Doing some quick reading, albeit the wiki, shows that the majority of sexual abuse cases the victims were post pubescent males, with a much, much smaller percentage being pre-pubescent. That's....interesting. It's almost as if they weren't pedophiles exactly, but simply homosexual, although the victims weren't fully grown, so whatever that means.

Huh. The term is Hebephilia, which is approximately 11-14 years of age.

Wiki claims that 78% of the victims fell between 11 and 17 years of age. Seems like my understanding of the situation was a misunderstanding. Media probably didn't help, but I certainly did nothing to educate myself on this either.

[silverjon]

You're saying that normal, hetero males, forbidden from having sex with women, who voluntarily make this decision, with turn to sex with little boys because their vows prevent them from sex with women (and presumably don't prevent them from having sex with young boys)? This is what you're saying?

No, I'm saying they're broken. Not normal and healthy in the slightest.

Also, yeah, the victims are usually altar boys (etc.) and as such aren't little-little kids.

[GreenGoo]

But aren't you suggesting that celibacy broke them? And if not, what is it that you are saying, because I guess I didn't understand it the first time around.

[GreenGoo]

Wiki takes specifically about causes here. It's the wiki, not a definitive source of information, so take what's there as you will.

It mostly just gives possible reasons, with little to no conclusions or "facts". Silverjon's celibacy induced molestation is right there beside others refuting the idea and in fact claiming that these cases don't particularly outnumber incidents in other religions or even in the "normal" community. Whether that's true or not I have no idea.

It does seem strange that the media would focus so intently on Catholic incidence, if other religions were undergoing the same issues.

[silverjon]

It's a lot of pressure. Celibacy figures into it, partially as suppression of natural sexual urges, but also because it entails a certain kind of social isolation, in spite of (or because of) all the contact with people involved in the job. Think of the emotional bond you have with your wife. A priest doesn't get that. He's supposed to bond with God, but it doesn't always work that way. I don't think it even matters if you believe in God or not, to see how some would find strength and others would weaken and crumble. That breakdown isn't always going to take the form of sexual acting-out, but when it does, who is a likely victim? Mrs. X, who is unlikely to be alone with Father M, and even if she is, will run screaming to her husband if M makes an untoward move... or young Billy, who can be singled out in the seemingly natural course of church youth activities, and may be confused but flattered by the attention. Point being, it's not necessary that the most likely victim is also the most attractive one, but rather that the attractiveness is predicated by the availability.

I read about some study once that indicated the emotional maturity of Catholic priests was on par with that of adolescent boys, but I've not had much luck turning it up again, and can't remember if the individuals surveyed were known abusers or drawn from a larger general pool (which would be even more messed up, if it somehow applied to all of them and not just the bad guys). Anyway, the gist of the article referencing this was that the priests are attracted to their victims because they actually do feel a kinship with them on that level. I don't know how much I can credit that, but it'd be interesting to read again.
(Looks like some reference to the same documents here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Doyle.htm" target="_blank ... source is a bit... biased)

Peripheral to the discussion, the idea that rape isn't about sexual gratification is... well, it's a powerful talking point, and a dangerous oversimplification, and for me to explain why I think it's been repeated so often would be another short essay. Rape can be a demonstration of power and control, or an opportunistic way to get your rocks off... or both. To be very blunt, if it wasn't about sex, it wouldn't take the form of sex. In some cases, it may be a calculated use of sex to traumatize a victim, because of the emotional weight we place on sexual contact, in addition to the physical injuries that can be inflicted. In some cases, the victim's fear and pain may give the rapist a thrill. Even the adrenaline rush from the risk of getting caught may figure into it. But again, sometimes it's sheer opportunism, just a way to take a desired thing by force when it's not otherwise forthcoming. And I really need to cut myself off here.

[Zarathud]

-but I can't understand how any modern Pope or official can claim that the Catholic Church's "internal investigations" are confidential and that law enforcement may not pry into them. Is that what he is saying? Isn't that the textbook legal definition of conspiracy?

The historical tradition includes internal governance in spiritual and enforcement matters (see ecclesiastical courts), as well as the primacy of confidentiality in confession. If a priest is willing to conceal the confessions of a murder, it really all that suprising that the confidentiality of confession was extended to sexual abuse? Even sexual abuse by other clergy?

I don't agree with the decision (particularly after the chronic failures to self-police have made transparency the only credible solution), but I understand the historical origins of the argument for non-disclosure. There were supposed to be credible action on behalf of the investigations, but I think the core problem lies in the chronic staffing situation that resulted when the world become more open to and understanding of sex while the Catholic Church insisted on celibacy and an insular approach to the priesthood that was originally begun for political rather than spiritual reasons (basically, consolidating religious power over church property while avoiding competition with secular authority over the rightful heirs).

[Unagi]

Some priests dont make it up the hill, and maybe rationalize somehow that it is different then sex per say. If marriage was allowed, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is not a problem in many other religions.

Am I missing context? Are you saying that men denied sex will molest children?

I know that can't be what you're saying.

There is also social triggers that we have built in genetically, wish prevents masturbation from being a full substitute to sex.

I think he's also saying that all married men will eventually molest children too.

[GreenGoo]

I think he's also saying that all married men will eventually molest children too.

Needless to say I'm scared shitless. I'm going to either have to lock myself up during full moons like a werewolf, or have my children shipped off to parts unknown for their protection.

At least this gives me more leverage with my wife. See? Something bad will happen and it will be YOUR fault.

[stessier]

Some priests dont make it up the hill, and maybe rationalize somehow that it is different then sex per say. If marriage was allowed, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is not a problem in many other religions.

Am I missing context? Are you saying that men denied sex will molest children?

I know that can't be what you're saying.

There is also social triggers that we have built in genetically, wish prevents masturbation from being a full substitute to sex.

I think he's also saying that all married men will eventually molest children too.

How can "social triggers" be "built in genetically"?

As for Unagi - Well played.

[helot2000]

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Oscar Wilde

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.

In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After three days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse. However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked.

...the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.

Each time I read another story like this, I'm left speechless and depressed. Instead of hiding the truth, its time for the church to shine a light into all the dark corners and turn out everyone who had a hand in covering up molestation.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world ... rss&src=ig" target="_blank

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.

[Mr. Fed]

Via Fark: "Surely the author of this article should have considered using a pseudonym."

[LawBeefaroni]

Via Fark: "Surely the author of this article should have considered using a pseudonym."

I would have assumed that was a pseudonym. Or hack. Wow.

[Jaddison]

felt no remorse? But he just wanted to live out the rest of his days in peace? This just makes me feel sick. No remorse but please just leave me alone.

Why a Catholic would remain loyal to those men is beyond me....if you think your only connection to God is through those men no matter what they do...my mind reels.

[Bruce]

Back in 1993, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls spoke out about the crisis in the US, he said: ''One would have to ask if the real culprit is not a society that is irresponsibly permissive, hyper-inflated with sexuality [and] capable of creating circumstances that induce even people who have received a solid moral formation to commit grave moral acts.''

The brazenness of the victim blaming here is astonishing given what has come to light since then. At least when corporates act like c**ts and then brass it out they aren't doing it while claiming to be the moral authority on everything.

[Holman]

Back in 1993, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls spoke out about the crisis in the US, he said: ''One would have to ask if the real culprit is not a society that is irresponsibly permissive, hyper-inflated with sexuality [and] capable of creating circumstances that induce even people who have received a solid moral formation to commit grave moral acts.''

So it's OK for the Church to sin because, hey, the world is a sinful place.

Morality just got a *lot* easier!

[Grifman]

I don't mean to offend any Catholics here but the problem as I see it is that the hierarchy is not accountable to the people in the pew. The Catholic hierarchy has been more interested in protecting itself than protecting the children of the parishioners. And the average church member has no way of holding them accountable other than to stop giving their money or leaving the church.

If a staff member at my church even came close to doing any of this, he/she would be out of a job immediately. And if the pastor didn't do anything about he'd be out of job too. But what's the average Catholic to do? There's no way they can punish the hierarchy. It's interesting that a US president can be impeached and removed but there's no way to remove a corrupt or immoral pope (not saying the current one is but we all know there have been plenty of them in the past). Something doesn't seem right with that.

[Mr. Fed]

Back in 1993, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls spoke out about the crisis in the US, he said: ''One would have to ask if the real culprit is not a society that is irresponsibly permissive, hyper-inflated with sexuality [and] capable of creating circumstances that induce even people who have received a solid moral formation to commit grave moral acts.''

The brazenness of the victim blaming here is astonishing given what has come to light since then. At least when corporates act like c**ts and then brass it out they aren't doing it while claiming to be the moral authority on everything.

Once again, The Onion got there first.

[Zarathud]

Historically, the Catholic Church has always had divisions over responsiveness to the community. It's important to remember that the Catholic Church as a nearly 2,000 year old institution only "recently" engaged in reforms to resolve these tensions with reform in Vatican II (1962). Two generations ago the Catholic mass was still said in Latin. Previously, only priests were allowed to participate in the liturgy. Now the Catholic community can directly participate in the liturgy in certain roles. These were huge changes for the time.

Still, the Catholic Church refused to accept the contemporary 60s view on marriage and sexual matters -- contraception, abortion, and women's role in the priesthood. Pope John Paul II's influence played a significant role in Humanae Vitae, but at least the encyclical included public discussion and dissent by the community of theologans rejecting the prohibition of birth control. On this issue alone, there is wide disagreement between many (but far from all) American Catholics and the Vatican.

Not suprisingly, the Vatican decided to draw the line over whether you can be a Catholic "in spirit and community" while openly disagreeing with its central hierachy. While American Catholics are generally more accepting of this theology (see Hans Kung), the current Pope was specifically selected for being a more hardline traditionalist willing to accept fewer believers (in my view, a most unfortunate development).

In the meantime, each parish finds its own path within a broad range under the authority of the regional Cardinal. We attend both an extremely liberal parish and more traditional one that serves the Latino community, which are entirely different communities and provide different services (and not just liturgical). Father Pfleger at St. Sabina in Southern Chicago serves its African-American community through incorporating gospel music & dance and significant social activism (especially on the issue of banning guns in Chicago). Father Pfleger's significant backing in his community even insulates him to some extent from the local Cardinal over the controversial issues he addresses.

Catholics vote with their feet at the parish level. Ultimately, the Pope must have the support of the parishes, the Cardinals and the Archcardinals to remain effective as a leader. However, the rest of the world is generally more conservative and supportive of the Pope's traditionalist view than American Catholics.

There's also significant institutional bias comes from the Catholic Church's history and tradition. From that perspective, Pope Benedict's frankly idiotic statements about persecution of the Catholic faith and defense of the "dignity" of the priesthood are minor offenses. Other Popes have done much worse.

Personally, I have faith that the reactionary traditionalist view will weaken over time. Maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually.

[Isgrimnur]

You know what will really endear the Church to people about the situation? Compare it to the historic persecution of the Jews.

A senior Vatican priest speaking at a Good Friday service compared the uproar over sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church — which have included reports about Pope Benedict XVI’s oversight role in two cases — to the persecution of the Jews, sharply raising the volume in the Vatican’s counterattack.
...
Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, who holds the office of preacher of the papal household, delivered his remarks in the traditional prayer service in St. Peter’s Basilica. Wearing the brown cassock of a Franciscan, Father Cantalamessa took note that Easter and Passover were falling during the same week this year, saying he was led to think of the Jews. “They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms,” he said.

Father Cantalamessa quoted from what he said was a letter from an unnamed Jewish friend. “I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful by the whole word,” he said the friend wrote. “The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi stressed that Father Cantalamessa’s sermon represented his own private thoughts and was not “an official statement” from the Vatican.

He said it was incorrect to interpret the remarks as comparing recent criticism of the Catholic Church to anti-Semitism, but should instead be read as a sign of “solidarity” by Father Cantalamessa’s Jewish friend.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11 ... index.html" target="_blank

A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says

The bishops indirectly admit that their parishes, schools, and charities are full of child abusers and they're going to protect child abusers from being punished?

[Malachite]

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The bishops indirectly admit that their parishes, schools, and charities are full of child abusers and they're going to protect child abusers from being punished?

Reading comprehension would be useful here.

Under current law, any current abuses can be sued over just fine. So no, they aren't suggesting that their parishes, schools, etc are full of abusers today. The issue is clearly the Church's financial responsibility for abuse that occurred over 30 years ago.

There are very valid reasons for statutes of limitations, involving availability of witnesses, the accuracy people's memories half a century later, etc. But I seriously doubt you posted this out of an interest in discussing the reasoning behind this bill, or the pros and cons of raising the statute of limitations for this particular category of crime, but not for other crimes.

[Isgrimnur]

New guidelines from The Vatican are out:

Priests accused of sex abuse should "always" be turned in to civil authorities, the Vatican said Monday in guidelines on handling paedophilia cases that were posted for the first time on its website.

"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," the guidelines state.

"In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming," the pope may issue a decree to remove him from the priesthood, they add.

"There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree," say the guidelines, drawn from the Church's canon law and a papal instruction signed in 2001 by then pope John Paul II.

The document, which the Vatican described as "an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists," also confirms that the pope can intervene directly to defrock the worst offenders.

It is posted in a new section on the Vatican website http://www.vatican.va entitled "Abuse of Minors, the Church's Response".

[godhugh]

It should be made clear that these aren't "new" guidelines. They've been the standard since 2001, when Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela was issued (a document written and advocated for by Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, actually). The new document on Vatican.va is a "Guide to Understanding" since documents issued by the Vatican are probably harder to read then most legal briefs.

[Isgrimnur]

It should be made clear that these aren't "new" guidelines. They've been the standard since 2001, when Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela was issued (a document written and advocated for by Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, actually). The new document on Vatican.va is a "Guide to Understanding" since documents issued by the Vatican are probably harder to read then most legal briefs.

I didn't quote the next section of the article for brevity.

The decree on "serious crimes" was drafted by the CDF when it was headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI.

The Vatican announced Friday that it would post the guidelines as a way of helping Roman Catholic authorities deal with predator priests. It said the guidelines, published in English only, were a summary of operational procedures that were set down in an internal CDF document in 2003.

[Victoria Raverna]

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The bishops indirectly admit that their parishes, schools, and charities are full of child abusers and they're going to protect child abusers from being punished?

Reading comprehension would be useful here.

Under current law, any current abuses can be sued over just fine. So no, they aren't suggesting that their parishes, schools, etc are full of abusers today. The issue is clearly the Church's financial responsibility for abuse that occurred over 30 years ago.

There are very valid reasons for statutes of limitations, involving availability of witnesses, the accuracy people's memories half a century later, etc. But I seriously doubt you posted this out of an interest in discussing the reasoning behind this bill, or the pros and cons of raising the statute of limitations for this particular category of crime, but not for other crimes.

So are they suggested that their parishes, schools, etc. were full of abusers 30 years ago?

[Malachite]

So are they suggested that their parishes, schools, etc. were full of abusers 30 years ago?

Hello, Rip van Raverna. While you've been asleep for the last, oh, couple decades, it's been determined that some number* of Catholic priests have done very, very bad things to children. It kinda made the news, once or twice or many times, and has resulted in some really, really big lawsuits, and many local diocese have had to pay lots and lots of money to many grownups who used to be kids that had bad things done to them.

Oh, and some really bad guys blew up the Twin Towers. And there may have been a bit of war in the Middle East. Although, I guess that's really not much of a change. Other than that, it's pretty much the same as when you apparently fell asleep, a few decades ago.

'*some number' being 'more than a couple', but less than 'chock full o' nuts'.

[tjg_marantz]

So are they suggested that their parishes, schools, etc. were full of abusers 30 years ago?

Hello, Rip van Raverna. While you've been asleep for the last, oh, couple decades, it's been determined that some number* of Catholic priests have done very, very bad things to children. It kinda made the news, once or twice or many times, and has resulted in some really, really big lawsuits, and many local diocese have had to pay lots and lots of money to many grownups who used to be kids that had bad things done to them.

Oh, and some really bad guys blew up the Twin Towers. And there may have been a bit of war in the Middle East. Although, I guess that's really not much of a change. Other than that, it's pretty much the same as when you apparently fell asleep, a few decades ago.

'*some number' being 'more than a couple', but less than 'chock full o' nuts'.

If you stop feeding it, it goes away.

[Malachite]

Spoilsport.

[Defiant]

When all else fails, blame homosexuality



Edit: To clarify, I don't know if celibacy is to blame, but covering it up and blaming a scapegoat certainly is.

[GreenGoo]

When all else fails, blame homosexuality



Edit: To clarify, I don't know if celibacy is to blame, but covering it up and blaming a scapegoat certainly is.

I knew it! Next thing you know Fireball will be trying to kiss babies on the campaign trail.