Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Penn · 15-07-2011 03:45PM

Deedo wrote: »

Guys, the key question for me is this: Why don't all those good and decent priests out there stand up for what they believe is right and openly challenge the hierarchy about the appalling way they are handling this whole sad and sorry episode. Why are they blindly standing by? The Church (in its widest sense) is being destroyed by the current strategy of hiding behind the Vatican - they should demand change from within - they are only the ones can actually change the current direction. It's a real "Martin Luther" moment for the Church as far as I am concerned.

And any Priest who doesn't must be one of the bad ones. It's a crazy idea.... but it just might work...

dvpower · 15-07-2011 03:47PM

philologos wrote: »

So you want a series of people who didn't perpetrate any abuse to be arrested and a series of people who did commit abusers to get off scot-free?

Has someone hacked into your account?

15-07-2011 03:48PM

philologos wrote: »

They know that someone has confessed to them about child abuse, but they don't know who the person was.

Then it's no different to a plumber receiving an anonymous phone call and someone telling him that they were going to abuse a child

philologos wrote: »

Like the other poster you are fobbing off the question. How can you prove that someone knew something?

Seriously? Maybe someone overheard something. Maybe the confessor revealed it. Maybe the CIA happened to be testing out a spy dish.

philologos wrote: »

Again, fobbing off the point without any form of engagement.

You're right. Here's why: I don't trust the church to magically start doing the right thing, so instead I think it should be against the law to do the wrong thing, so at least we can punish them for it

philologos wrote: »

If they forgot, how could you prove that they knew? That's the problem and you're still not addressing it.

What's your point? That it could be difficult to prove some of the cases? If a murder happens, then a long time passes, and then a case is brought, it's going to be difficult to obtain a conviction. Should we repeal the laws against murder?

Min wrote: »

But again no reports says the secrecy of confession was a problem area.

Good thing the state isn't looking to specifically target confession with these laws so.

philologos · 15-07-2011 03:50PM

Knasher wrote: »

It would be a best effort thing. If the best they can give is a rough description of the rapist then that's enough.

Again, nobody is going to go to confession if they think that the priest is going to turn them over to the Gardaí.

Knasher wrote: »

Same standard as applied to the rest of us, proving beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to show that the priest had knowledge then he won't be punished for withholding it.

What is evidence to show that someone knew something? I don't think you're appreciating how difficult that is to prove. People may claim that someone knows something, but ultimately that is a claim they can't verify as knowledge pertains to the subject.

Knasher wrote: »

I doubt their ability to convince somebody to turn themselves in.

There's going to be no possible ability where it could happen if this law were brought in.

Knasher wrote: »

Would the law be applied retroactively?

Knowledge is in the present. If you know something about 10 years ago in the present, that is still knowledge in the present. Or indeed if it is claimed that you know it.

Knasher wrote: »

We would still need a law which didn't exempt confessionals from being inadmissible in court. (Which I'm presuming they are now)

They aren't exempted at present. At present it is simply the case that if you know about a crime having taken place it is not a crime not to report that.

Edit: Needless to say I think people are getting me wrong, I welcome action by the State. I just think that other action would be considerably more fruitful.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 03:51PM

philologos wrote: »

So you want a series of people who didn't perpetrate any abuse to be arrested and a series of people who did commit abusers to get off scot-free?

I didn't say that at all, I explicitly said that people who turn a blind eye to a child being abused should be prosecuted. I made no mention of abusers.

The logical conclusion is to bring the abusers to court and force those who have information to be there to give testimony.

We should force them to testify, we should also prosecute them for allowing the crime to continue. Many countries already have similar laws.

philologos · 15-07-2011 03:54PM

Seachmall wrote: »

We should force them to testify, we should also prosecute them for allowing the crime to continue. Many countries already have similar laws.

Personally I think people should be accountable for their own crimes. I think confirming as to whether someone knew something in court is nigh-on-impossible even if well intentioned.

The obvious option isn't being taken. That is to prosecute all of these abusers there and then. Honestly I'd be considerably happier if that happened than if people who happened to know that it happened got arrested.

Latchy · 15-07-2011 03:55PM

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

my son is due in october and we have made the decision not to have him involved in the catholic cult at all. it annoyed a few members of our families but whenever they bring the subject of christening up i just quote the reports and the damage that evil cult did to peoples lives

Fair dues for sticking up for what you as an individual feels is right for your son .

Italia wrote: »

If you're Catholic, then you follow ALL the requirements. There isn't a middle way where you can cherry pick. It's an all or nothing.
You don't like confession (or other parts), fine. its your choice...but you also give up ALL the rest (whatever it may be - good or bad).

That's the problem , not that I needed to be reminded .You follow an organisation without question then it's no different to any other cult .Thankfully we do have choice

Magic Beans wrote: »

Show me Catholic who does that and I'll show you a liar.

Including the very people who work for the church ,the priests who are not classed as employees in the business sense of the word so that allows their employees ' Boss's ' , the Catholic Church to avoid responsibility for what they get up to .That's Catholic logic for ya .

dvpower wrote: »

But if you live in Ireland you can seemingly cherry pick which laws you will obey.

I think The Irony of that would be lost on them tbh .

Penn · 15-07-2011 03:56PM

philologos wrote: »

That is to prosecute all of these abusers there and then. Honestly I'd be considerably happier if that happened than if people who happened to know that it happened got arrested.

I'd rejoice if both groups were arrested.

philologos · 15-07-2011 03:58PM

dvpower wrote: »

Has someone hacked into your account?

No.

I think the RCC abuse is awful and that the State should hold the RCC to account in full. Just thinking about the proposal to prosecute 'knowers' seems absurd, unsensible, impractical and illogical to me.

We need to look at other jurisdictions and analyse what they have done about it and then formulate our own policy to deal with it.

15-07-2011 03:58PM

philologos wrote: »

The obvious option isn't being taken. That is to prosecute all of these abusers there and then. Honestly I'd be considerably happier if that happened than if people who happened to know that it happened got arrested.

What are you talking about? There already are laws against that. Do you have knowledge of abusers that aren't been prosecuted?

These laws are about making it an offence to not report child abuse. That doesn't negate the abuse itself

dvpower · 15-07-2011 04:00PM

philologos wrote: »

The obvious option isn't being taken. That is to prosecute all of these abusers there and then. Honestly I'd be considerably happier if that happened than if people who happened to know that it happened got arrested.

How can people be prosecuted if they aren't even reported?

1. Report the abuser
2. Prosecute the abuser.
is better than
1. Know about abuse but don't report it
2. Abuser continues to abuse
3. Abuser eventually is caught and prosecuted
4. Person who failed to report the abuse is prosecuted.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:00PM

philologos wrote: »

Personally I think people should be accountable for their own crimes.

So do I, I also think turning a blind eye to a child being raped should be a crime and that person should be held accountable for their actions (or lack of action as the case may be).

I think confirming as to whether someone knew something in court is nigh-on-impossible even if well intentioned.

Letters between conspirators is just one way we can prove the person knew, notes is another (in terms of therapists and the like).

The obvious option isn't being taken. That is to prosecute all of these abusers there and then. Honestly I'd be considerably happier if that happened than if people who happened to know that it happened got arrested.

This law is to make the obvious option more plausible (make the abusers known to the police and identify those who were aware of it who could then testify [these people being the ones who reported it]).

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:01PM

28064212: I'm talking about actually using those laws that we already have to do something. I haven't heard of any abuser being prosecuted as a result of this:

By 2010 a number of in-depth judicial reports had been published, but with relatively few prosecutions. The abuse was occasionally made known to staff at the Department of Education, the police and other government bodies, who have said that prosecuting clergy was extremely difficult given the "Catholic ethos" of the Irish Republic.

Why is that the case now and why are we even talking about prosecuting 'knowers' before we've brought the abusers to court?

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:03PM

dvpower: The people listed in those reports have names even if they are given pseudonyms.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:04PM

philologos wrote: »

Why is that the case now and why are we even talking about prosecuting 'knowers' before we've brought the abusers to court?

We can't prosecute the abusers so we shouldn't prosecute anybody?

We will not be prosecuting anyone who already committed these crimes, the law isn't retrospective. The point of it is to prevent such heinous crimes occurring again on such a scale and if they do we can prosecute those who were responsible for allowing them continue.

15-07-2011 04:04PM

philologos wrote: »

28064212: I'm talking about actually using those laws that we already have to do something. I haven't heard of any abuser being prosecuted as a result of this:

Why is that the case now and why are we even talking about prosecuting 'knowers' before we've brought the abusers to court?

Presumably because we don't know who the abusers are, or if we do, we can't get enough evidence to convict, or they're out of our reach. If there are abusers here who should be charged, then yes, obviously that would be great. But that's incredibly obvious. What more could we be doing on that front? Where are the problems with our current approach?

And that's a whole other thread

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:05PM

28064212: See what I said to dvpower.

Seachmall wrote: »

We can't prosecute the abusers so we shouldn't prosecute anybody?

We shouldn't prosecute people for something that it is nigh-on-impossible to prove such as knowledge at a certain date.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:07PM

philologos wrote: »

We shouldn't prosecute people for something that it is nigh-on-impossible to prove such as knowledge at a certain date.

But in cases where we can prove it (letters, diaries, etc.) we should move to prosecute. We can't always prove someone committed murder, doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute anyone who commits murder.

Ghost Buster · 15-07-2011 04:07PM

Min wrote: »

It was not in confession though where the problem lay.

There are plenty of good priests who can be trusted and the people are the church not the priests who are the adminstrators.
If one noticed all the abuse cases are in the past, with some people you would think nothing changed.

And what is this is the case. Are you suggesting that the State should only react if this becomes a problem.? Close the door once the horse has bolted?
You keep having a go at the State and now you dont want them to act preemptively......
Wow....

c_man · 15-07-2011 04:08PM

I really don't understand how anyone could remain a part of the Catholic Church after all of this.

Tbh I feel the same bewilderment seeing a committed follower of the church as I do with devoted FFers. Why?!

MagicSean · 15-07-2011 04:08PM

Barrington wrote: »

I'd rejoice if both groups were arrested.

So everyone who knows of abuse should be arrested? Or everyone who suspects? Or everyone who has proof? Where exactly do you draw the line? What if a group of young people are being abused? Should the ones that don't report it be charged? What if a person found out but their life was threatened? Should they be charged?

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:08PM

Seachmall wrote: »

But in cases where we can prove it (letters, diaries, etc.) we should move to prosecute. We can't always prove someone committed murder, doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute anyone who commits murder.

In the vast majority of cases you won't be able to prove knowledge. That's all I'm saying. I'm far more interested in convicting people for crimes they have actually committed rather than knowers of crimes personally.

Amhran Nua · 15-07-2011 04:10PM

philologos wrote: »

28064212: I'm talking about actually using those laws that we already have to do something. I haven't heard of any abuser being prosecuted as a result of this:

Why is that the case now and why are we even talking about prosecuting 'knowers' before we've brought the abusers to court?

Conspiracy to commit crime is already an offence in Ireland, as others have pointed out. You seem to be objecting to laws forcing people to report child molesters.

Why?

dvpower · 15-07-2011 04:10PM

philologos wrote: »

No.
I think the RCC abuse is awful and that the State should hold the RCC to account in full. Just thinking about the proposal to prosecute 'knowers' seems absurd, unsensible, impractical and illogical to me.

Its not prosecuting 'knowers'. It prosecuting people who know and don't act.

Do you have a problem with mandatory reporting in general or just for certain classes of people?

Ghost Buster · 15-07-2011 04:10PM

c_man wrote: »

I really don't understand how anyone could remain a part of the Catholic Church after all of this.

Tbh I feel the same bewilderment seeing a committed follower of the church as I do with devoted FFers. Why?!

Ah but thats the trick. get em young, pickle the brain and you have a self generating production line.:eek:

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:10PM

philologos wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases you won't be able to prove knowledge. That's all I'm saying. I'm far more interested in convicting people for crimes they have actually committed rather than knowers of crimes personally.

I think turning a blind eye to such a heinous crime (and thus allowing the crime to continue) should be a crime, clearly you don't.

I don't think we'll agree on the matter.

15-07-2011 04:10PM

philologos wrote: »

28064212: See what I said to dvpower.

Are you saying the state has knowledge of abusers, but isn't going after them? Are you saying... honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. What should the state be doing differently?

philologos wrote: »

We shouldn't prosecute people for something that it is nigh-on-impossible to prove such as knowledge at a certain date.

There are lots of laws that are built and cases that are prosecuted on precisely that basis

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:18PM

28064212 wrote: »

Are you saying the state has knowledge of abusers, but isn't going after them? Are you saying... honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. What should the state be doing differently?

Of course the State has knowledge. As I said to drkpower those pseudonyms have names.

28064212 wrote: »

There are lots of laws that are built and cases that are prosecuted on precisely that basis

Sorry, what's your point here?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Conspiracy to commit crime is already an offence in Ireland, as others have pointed out. You seem to be objecting to laws forcing people to report child molesters.

Why?

It's impractical. That's the only reason I have against it. I think better action can and should be taken.

15-07-2011 04:21PM

philologos wrote: »

Of course the State has knowledge. As I said to drkpower those pseudonyms have names.

Names that the State knows? And those names are within our jurisdiction and we have enough evidence to prosecute?

philologos wrote: »

Sorry, what's your point here?

You said: "...it is nigh-on-impossible to prove (...) knowledge at a certain date". That's just not true, and there are numerous laws and hundreds of cases which are prosecuted on that very basis

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:24PM

28064212 wrote: »

You said: "...it is nigh-on-impossible to prove (...) knowledge at a certain date". That's just not true, and there are numerous laws and hundreds of cases which are prosecuted on that very basis

You need to walk through some examples and we need to see the basis for their working. If one can show that it is possible to prove this then I'm open to considering it. Until then though I do feel it is totally impractical.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Comments