Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Italia · 15-07-2011 04:27PM

And this coming from an avowed supporter of the Crown?

Of course the Brits are saints aren't they?
Lets start...
- Cromwell - a murdering bastard who rampaged through Ireland (amongst other places) in the name of a 'Puritan' God
- Earl Herbert Kitchener - another murdering bastard who not happy with flattening Sudan, invented concentration camps (nope, it wasn't the Nazi's) because he wasn't winning the war against the Boer's and went on to kill almost 28000 women and children between 1900 and 1902 in South Africa
- Lord Lytton, who in 1876-1878, by denying the Deccan Indians surplus grain and wheat during a drought, was directly responsible for the death of between 12 and 29 MILLION people
- Bloody Sunday - Ever hear of that one?

Funny enough allof these issues have been swept under the rug and blatantly LIED about.

The British have enough blood on their plate to rival the Nazis.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course they will lie. They are experts at it. The pope is the best in the world at it. The pope has covered up child abuse and lied about it. Fuck the pope.

They had no problem helping Nazis escape after WW2. Never underestimate the power of Rome.

Pace2008 · 15-07-2011 04:30PM

Min wrote: »

In state care over the past 10 years over 200 children have died, the state then takes this moral high ground.

Is the state above the law, will the media hold the state to account?

The state is in no position to tell the church how a church sacrament is enacted, we hear people talking about separation of church and state then they want the state interfering in a sacrament that the state has no right to interfere with.

Does the state provide its citizens with a prescribed worldview, claim to be the one institution to truly represent on earth the creator of all existence, and indeed hold the key to the preservation of one's everlasting soul?

I don't follow any organisation that makes any claims like the Catholic Church, but if I did, by **** I'd hold them to a higher standard than any state bodies.

dvpower · 15-07-2011 04:31PM

Keith, tell the truth now. Did you kill 28000 women and children?:rolleyes:

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:31PM

Italia wrote: »

The British have enough blood on their plate to rival the Nazis.

And absolutely none of that is relevant to the discussion.

15-07-2011 04:35PM

philologos wrote: »

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.

Insider trading: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0033/print.html#sec108. Of particular relevance is Section 113

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:37PM

Philologos,

Take the example of Baby P., this law was used to prosecute

Domestic Violence Act 2004 wrote:

5 - The offence

(1)A person (“D”) is guilty of an offence if—

(a)a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) dies as a result of the unlawful act of a person who—

(i)was a member of the same household as V, and

(ii)had frequent contact with him,

(b)D was such a person at the time of that act,

(c)at that time there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of such a person, and

(d)either D was the person whose act caused V’s death or—

(i)D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (c),

(ii)D failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk, and

(iii)the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

The law is in place to prevent these things occurring, it may have failed in this case but it allowed for prosecutions.

Knasher · 15-07-2011 04:43PM

philologos wrote: »

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

I'm not going to loose any sleep over people who harm kids not being comfortable enough to reach out to the church for forgiveness. And if priests can't break their confessional vow to report this, then that is all we really are talking about.

philologos wrote: »

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.

I completely accept your point that on difficult it would be to prove. The point I was trying to make is that they should do their best to prove it, however the specifics on how they would go about this are beyond me, as is investigative procedure in most situations.

philologos wrote: »

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.

Yes but I'd imagine you wouldn't be able to prosecute somebody for something they were told about 10 years ago, only things that they were told about after the law came into affect, regardless of memory. Though of course, best practice would be to report it, even if they aren't legally compelled to do so.

philologos wrote: »

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.

Then I'm confused, if they don't have an exception in general then why would the be entitled to one as it pertains to this specific law.

Are you objecting to this law as is applies to every organisation or *just* to the church with regards to their confessional vow?

philologos wrote: »

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.

No confusion on my part. I welcome debate on the practicality of the law rather than just putting your faith blindly in an organisation and saying it shouldn't apply (which obviously isn't your view on the subject).

Knight who says Meh · 15-07-2011 04:46PM

Italia wrote: »

And this coming from an avowed supporter of the Crown?

Of course the Brits are saints aren't they?
Lets start...
- Cromwell - a murdering bastard who rampaged through Ireland (amongst other places) in the name of a 'Puritan' God
- Earl Herbert Kitchener - another murdering bastard who not happy with flattening Sudan, invented concentration camps (nope, it wasn't the Nazi's) because he wasn't winning the war against the Boer's and went on to kill almost 28000 women and children between 1900 and 1902 in South Africa
- Lord Lytton, who in 1876-1878, by denying the Deccan Indians surplus grain and wheat during a drought, was directly responsible for the death of between 12 and 29 MILLION people
- Bloody Sunday - Ever hear of that one?

Funny enough allof these issues have been swept under the rug and blatantly LIED about.

The British have enough blood on their plate to rival the Nazis.

One day The word "Tangent" will be explained in the dictionary by this post!!!!!!!!

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:47PM

Knasher: I'm a non-Catholic so I'm looking at this in terms of how pragmatic it is. I think we have higher priorities in respect to the situation right now.

Min · 15-07-2011 04:48PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

Does the state provide its citizens with a prescribed worldview, claim to be the one institution to truly represent on earth the creator of all existence, and indeed hold the key to the preservation of one's everlasting soul?

I don't follow any organisation that makes any claims like the Catholic Church, but if I did, by **** I'd hold them to a higher standard than any state bodies.

The Irish constitution starts with:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

So the state refers to a higher power. The most holy trinity and the divine Jesus Christ.

mcmoustache · 15-07-2011 04:49PM

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?!

I was going to mention that earlier but decided to keep my Fianna Fáil bashing separate from my Roman Catholic Church bashing.

The two types of follower are incredibly similar.

Both try to deflect attention by telling us that the state or Fine Gael are no better.

Both accuse their detractors of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Both try to dismiss their detractors as some kind of bandwagon-jumping mob.

Both display a kind of arrogance that comes from being on top for too long.

Both fail to see the institutional corruption and self-serving nature of their organisations - even when caught red handed.

Both are comprised largely of people who's parents supported the organisations.

Both organisations make Biggins angry and he's normally a very happy character.

Both were dealt a massive blow by the electorate in the last election due to people seeing through their bullshít......oh wait.....we can't boot the church out of office.

Amhran Nua · 15-07-2011 04:50PM

philologos wrote: »

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

So eh, what you're saying is that you do in fact object to laws forcing people to report child molesters.

Wow.

Knasher · 15-07-2011 04:51PM

philologos wrote: »

Knasher: I'm a non-Catholic so I'm looking at this in terms of how pragmatic it is. I think we have higher priorities in respect to the situation right now.

I know. You said you felt people were getting confused on your position and I just wanted to say that I respect your position and welcome the debate.

No confusion on my part. I welcome debate on the practicality of the law rather than just putting your faith blindly in an organisation and saying it shouldn't apply (which obviously isn't your view on the subject).

Sorry I meant I consider you in the former group and not the latter. But yes, in retrospect my phrasing was a little bit ham-fisted.

aidan24326 · 15-07-2011 04:51PM

Min wrote: »

Edward Greene a professor and HIV/AIDS expert from Harvard

Edward Green: What the Pope said was the distribution and marketing of condoms would not solve the problem of African Aids and that it might even exacerbate the problem. And I think it was that second comment that really set the critics off, really upset a lot of people. I can understand that, because I have worked in Aids prevention for a long time. In fact, I worked as a condom and contraceptive social marketer at the beginning of the pandemic--I was working in family planning. I am part of a group of researchers that have been looking for the behavioural antecedents to HIV prevalence decline in Africa. We now see HIV going down in about 8 or 9 countries in Africa and in every case we see a decrease in the proportion of men and women who report having more than one sex partner in the past year. So when the Pope said that the answer really lies in monogamy and martial faithfulness, that's exactly what we found empirically.

Condoms not bringing the level down, behavioural change brings the level down.

But that's just stating the completely bloody obvious. We didn't need a professor to tell us that. Sure if we all just stopped having sex altogether you'd eradicate STDs completely, bingo.

In a society where people can and will have multiple partners, where people will take risks, it's still prudent to promote the use of contraception, especially bearing in mind unwanted pregnancies aswell. It does no-one any favours to be having 6 kids when you can barely even feed yourself. In any case the pope is just trying to push catholic dogma not save lives.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 04:53PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So eh, what you're saying is that you do in fact object to laws forcing people to report child molesters.

Wow.

No, he's opposing what he believes to be laws that are unenforceable and thus taking time from other more pertinent issues (such as the conviction of the actual abusers).

Amhran Nua · 15-07-2011 04:54PM

Min wrote: »

So the state refers to a higher power. The most holy trinity and the divine Jesus Christ.

Good old Comely Maidens strikes again. I don't think anyone would genuinely argue that those sentiments represent the majority in Ireland today, so they won't survive a referendum, whenever it comes around. And it will.

philologos · 15-07-2011 04:54PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So eh, what you're saying is that you do in fact object to laws forcing people to report child molesters.

Wow.

I don't object to them per sé. I think they are unworkable. It has very little impact on my life personally if this law is passed. However, I think that ultimately this law won't be fruitful or useful in the current context.

What would be? A full blown criminal investigation into all of this with prosecutions like they did in the US.

mcmoustache · 15-07-2011 04:55PM

Min wrote: »

The Irish constitution starts with:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

The sooner we get rid of that nonsense, the better. It's only a matter of time really.

Min wrote: »

So the state refers to a higher power. The most holy trinity and the divine Jesus Christ.

Are you trying to imply that this is the reason that the state failed children? You might be on to something.

Min · 15-07-2011 04:57PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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....

The wow bit is how many reports are needed to show the confessional is not a problem, the secrecy of the confessional was not an issue in any of the reports.
Victims reported abuse to the church outside of confession, to the gardai outside of confession, confession did not stop anyone reporting.

The state is reacting to something that is not an issue and it will not prevent abuse as this was not a cause for continued abuse.

I still can't believe people think an abuser whoever he or she is will tell a priest in confession that they abuse underage people, we know these people for starters don't believe they are doing anything wrong.

smokingman · 15-07-2011 04:57PM

I'm beginning to think Min is a bishop - how else could you explain the attempts to distract, strawman and generally stand up for those who would rape children and those who cover up for them.

Children were ruined for the rest of their lives!, the RCC colluded to cover this up to save themselves with no thoughts to the victims. This law is something to try to prevent this...and Min is trying to worm out of this with nonsense, rubbish and unbelievable "blame someone else" tactics.

I'd say he sleeps well at night.

15-07-2011 04:59PM

Min wrote: »

Victims reported abuse to the church outside of confession

And that was not passed on to the authorities

That is what the laws are targeting, that is what will be an offence

Amhran Nua · 15-07-2011 04:59PM

philologos wrote: »

I think they are unworkable.

How so? As others have pointed out, if evidence arises that someone knew about child abuse and didn't report it, they certainly should face consequences for that - this indeed cuts to the heart of the clerical conspiracy to hide child abuse. Saying it is unworkable in a modern society is in no way supportable.

Min · 15-07-2011 05:00PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

The sooner we get rid of that nonsense, the better. It's only a matter of time really.

Are you trying to imply that this is the reason that the state failed children? You might be on to something.

No, I am showing Pace2008 that the state makes a reference to a higher power.

The Cloyne report did say the State's child protection policy was weaker than the Churches child protection policy.

dvpower · 15-07-2011 05:02PM

philologos wrote: »

I think they are unworkable.

What's unworkable - mandatory reporting in general or just its application to the confessional?

Min · 15-07-2011 05:03PM

28064212 wrote: »

And that was not passed on to the authorities

That is what the laws are targeting, that is what will be an offence

In some cases, not all. The report makes that clear that some of the behaviour was beyond explanation, other times the proper procedures were followed, in another case the victim wouldn't tell either the gardai or church who the person was.
It is not black and white as each case was different and handled differently.

Amhran Nua · 15-07-2011 05:06PM

Min wrote: »

The Cloyne report did say the State's child protection policy was weaker than the Churches child protection policy.

Does that include the part where the pope circulated a letter telling bishops to protect priests at the expense of the victims?

15-07-2011 05:06PM

Min wrote: »

In some cases, not all.

YES!!! And that is what is being made an offence. How are you not getting this?

Spread · 15-07-2011 05:08PM

The catholic church has claimed a lot of things in it's time. In a scale of ludicroussness virgin birth, transubstantiation, papal infallibility and miracles must take the biscuit body and blood of christ.

mcmoustache · 15-07-2011 05:15PM

Min wrote: »

No, I am showing Pace2008 that the state makes a reference to a higher power.

The Cloyne report did say the State's child protection policy was weaker than the Churches child protection policy.

You're right about that. The spotlight hasn't been shone on the state yet with regard to child protection and I'm sure we'll find some vile actions when it does but that's another debate. This discussion is about the church's claim that it's club rules should supersede state law.

For the record, I agree with Philologos that this will be unworkable. A priest isn't going to confess to a bishop if he knows that he will be compelled to inform the authorities. The only reason it happened before was because the priest knew that the bishop wouldn't and couldn't report him.

On the other hand, I don't see why a confession should have the same legal confidentiality protection as a conversation with defense lawyer, for example. The legal system wouldn't work without it but a confession to a priest is more like a club activity. It has nothing to do with the legal functioning of the state.

In conclusion, I think that this law isn't a bad idea but it's not going to help much. Still, it helps chip away at the privileged position of a corrupt organisation in this state and that can only be a good thing.

dvpower · 15-07-2011 05:16PM

Min wrote: »

The Cloyne report did say the State's child protection policy was weaker than the Churches child protection policy.

But that they didn't implement it - pretty useless I'm sure you'd agree.

Cloyne Report wrote:

It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while
ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document,
was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person
involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the
procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never
properly implemented.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Comments