Catholic Church claims it is above the law

crucamim · 18-07-2011 08:49PM

dvpower wrote: »

You don't even agree with the current child protection policies of the RCC?

I most certainly do not. And also with the policies of many other organisations.

The only child protection policy which would impress me would be a policy of executing anyone found guilty of molesting a child. If such a policy were implemented, vast police and social worker resources would not be consumed monitioring sex offenders. Only the State can lawfully execute people but the politicians, who are making most noise about child protection, were heavily involved in the removing of the death penalty. Hence their desire to indulge in the window dressing of child protection policies.

dvpower · 18-07-2011 09:00PM

crucamim wrote: »

I most certainly do not. And also with the policies of many other organisations.

The only child protection policy which would impress me would be a policy of executing anyone found guilty of molesting a child. If such a policy were implemented, vast police and social worker resources would not be consumed monitioring sex offenders. Only the State can lawfully execute people but the politicians, who are making most noise about child protection, were heavily involved in the removing of the death penalty. Hence their desire to indulge in the window dressing of child protection policies.

Should we also execute those involved in the cover up? It would be a real shame to see the pope die.

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 09:01PM

crucamim wrote: »

I most certainly do not. And also with the policies of many other organisations.

The only child protection policy which would impress me would be a policy of executing anyone found guilty of molesting a child. If such a policy were implemented, vast police and social worker resources would not be consumed monitioring sex offenders. Only the State can lawfully execute people but the politicians, who are making most noise about child protection, were heavily involved in the removing of the death penalty. Hence their desire to indulge in the window dressing of child protection policies.

As a former very devout catholic and alter boy Im 101% sure theres a commandment against that sort of thing.
Your posts are scary BTW.:eek:

crucamim · 18-07-2011 09:03PM

Opinicus wrote: »

By that definition most of the Bishops and Priests etc who covered up child abuse are anti-Catholic.

Agreed.

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 09:04PM

crucamim wrote: »

Agreed.

But you want them running schools at the same time as not wanting anti Catholics running schools??????????

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 09:07PM

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

Firstly can i ask if you know what a troll is?
Secondly you are dodging and side stepping because you are unable to give an answer and it really is quite pathetic.
Here are the facts.
There are few or no records of catholic children being victimised or bullied specifically because of their religion in this country to any degree. There is no organisation of atheists in this country with a hierarchy. There probably never will be as we dont go about seeking to have our hands held.

Yet you are flailing around making wild and stupid accusations of such bullying and organised discrimination.
On the other hand there is a documented history of catholic abuse of catholic and non catholic women and children and you seem to be totally in favour of this situation and want it to continue.

SO. WHATS THIS ABOUT THEN???
AND IM REALLY REALLY REALLY SORRY I CALLED YOU A TROLL

Crucamin:

Will you answer this. The poster has apologised twice. It would seem churlish not to accept.

crucamim · 18-07-2011 09:13PM

Tayla wrote: »

Oh come on i'm talking about me and all the other parents out there. Some paedophile could confess to molesting my child and then the priest wouldn't tell me that because of a confessional seal?

What would be wrong with the priest respecting confidential information?

As you have already admitted that:-

a) infringing on the right of Catholic to be Catholics is unlikely to be effective in protecting children,

and

b) you hate the Catholic Church,

I feel fustified in suspecting that your support for the law is primarily intended to give offense to Catholics. You are, therefore, guilty of aggression against Catholics.

crucamim · 18-07-2011 09:14PM

dvpower wrote: »

Should we also execute those involved in the cover up? It would be a real shame to see the pope die.

Can you prove that the Pope was involved in covering-up?

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 09:18PM

crucamim wrote: »

Can you prove that the Pope was involved in covering-up?

You mean other than the letter from The vatican ordering cover up?

dvpower · 18-07-2011 09:19PM

crucamim wrote: »

Can you prove that the Pope was involved in covering-up?

1. What level of proof do you require?
2. Do you contend that he had no part in the cover up?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 09:22PM

dvpower wrote: »

1. What level of proof do you require?
2. Do you contend that he had no part in the cover up?

Im pretty sure we can expect the usual oppressed rant about a biased media out to get the ickle RCC and manufacturing stories:(

dvpower · 18-07-2011 09:25PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Im pretty sure we can expect the usual oppressed rant about a biased media out to get the ickle RCC and manufacturing stories:(

I'm pretty sure we can expect a 'he hasn't been convicted, so he's not quilty'.
Maybe a bit of both - depending on what setting crucamim is on.

philologos · 18-07-2011 09:28PM

dvpower wrote: »

I'm pretty sure we can expect a 'he hasn't been convicted, so he's not quilty'.
Maybe a bit of both - depending on what setting crucamim is on.

You can't convict someone with diplomatic immunity even if one wanted to.

dvpower · 18-07-2011 09:32PM

philologos wrote: »

You can't convict someone with diplomatic immunity even if one wanted to.

crucamim will be very disappointed about that - he's hankering for an execution.

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 09:35PM

dvpower wrote: »

crucamim will be very disappointed about that - he's hankering for an execution.

In spite of this

Liam Byrne · 18-07-2011 09:36PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

"The Church was not immune to Nazis" - so what? Isn't the whole point of the church that it is supposed to model itself on Jesus Christ?

Funnily enough Min claimed exactly that earlier on but when the facts were put to them they quoted other people, not Jesus, and they haven't replied to my questions about Peter being married or about Jesus's actual opinion of people who harm kids.....

philologos · 18-07-2011 10:00PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

In spite of this

The Hebrew word is in the sense of murder, but I wouldn't let that hinder the discussion. I believe it is nonetheless a Christian principle to show mercy to others given that Christians believe that Christ showed mercy to us. The prison system should be about turning people around.

dvpower wrote:

crucamim will be very disappointed about that - he's hankering for an execution.

Indeed he will. Even if we wanted to it would have to happen outside the European Union due to the fact that all member states are bound to reject the death penalty as a method of punishing crime.

Ghost Buster · 18-07-2011 10:05PM

philologos wrote: »

The Hebrew word is in the sense of murder, but I wouldn't let that hinder the discussion. I believe it is nonetheless a Christian principle to show mercy to others given that Christians believe that Christ showed mercy to us. The prison system should be about turning people around.

Indeed he will. Even if we wanted to it would have to happen outside the European Union due to the fact that all member states are bound to reject the death penalty as a method of punishing crime.

But the RCC use "Kill" and they are the one true church;)

philologos · 18-07-2011 10:08PM

Your link is from the King James Bible which was set up by the Church of England post-Reformation, but the Hebrew word that was originally used hints more towards murder. Not that that's the most relevant really

Eve_Dublin · 18-07-2011 10:15PM

Look what Billy Connelly has to say...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZw4I5qSOkY

Latchy · 18-07-2011 10:34PM

Stephen Frys opinons on the Catholic Church are interesting to .

( may not be the complete youtube video on his views but they are on there and easy to find )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk

Dyr · 18-07-2011 11:17PM

Latchy wrote: »

Stephen Frys opinons on the Catholic Church are interesting to .

( may not be the complete youtube video on his views but they are on there and easy to find )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk

tbh most of that came across as just rhetorical flourishes, little susbtance. dunno if it was edited

smokingman · 19-07-2011 08:43AM

Bambi wrote: »

tbh most of that came across as just rhetorical flourishes, little susbtance. dunno if it was edited

It was - the whole debate is a very enjoyable watch.

Einhard · 19-07-2011 01:51PM

I think it's pretty simple really. Make it illegal not to report a crime, even in the confessional, and then lock up any priests who break this law. Given how the Church has long sanctified martyrs and held their grisly deaths up as examples, then individual priests should have no problems spending a few measly years in the relative comfort of an Irish prison. If they do recoil at the thought, then they need to quit their roles, and cease preaching about the trials and tribulations and purification through suffering of Christ and the martyrs.

philologos · 19-07-2011 01:52PM

Einhard: How are you going to prove knowledge in every case though?

Einhard · 19-07-2011 02:05PM

philologos wrote: »

Einhard: How are you going to prove knowledge in every case though?

It'd be difficult, but I still think the theory of the law should apply, and the usual standards of reasonable doubt too.

Saint Ruth · 19-07-2011 02:35PM

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's pretty simple really. Make it illegal not to report a crime, even in the confessional, and then lock up any priests who break this law.

So if you're mugged and you don't report it, you should go to jail?
Or if two cars have a bit of a tip, everyone will have to ring the guards?

Do you really want every citizen to have to report any illegal activity mentioned in any private conversation? If someone mentions they had some dope, you'll be legally obliged to report them?

Sounds like the USSR, with kids being told to report their parents and the like.

Saint Ruth · 19-07-2011 02:37PM

Einhard wrote: »

It'd be difficult, but I still think the theory of the law should apply, and the usual standards of reasonable doubt too.

Only 2 people will know what happened in the confession.
One might talk, the confesser. And is that person an upstanding member of the commmunity? No, that person is a pervert.
The other, the priest, will not.

No other evidence...Reasonable doubt??
I can't see any convictions.

Einhard · 19-07-2011 02:47PM

Saint Ruth wrote: »

So if you're mugged and you don't report it, you should go to jail?
Or if two cars have a bit of a tip, everyone will have to ring the guards?

Do you really want every citizen to have to report any illegal activity mentioned in any private conversation? If someone mentions they had some dope, you'll be legally obliged to report them?

Sounds like the USSR, with kids being told to report their parents and the like.

I think, given the nature of the tread, that it is pretty obvious what I'm talking about.

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Only 2 people will know what happened in the confession.
One might talk, the confesser. And is that person an upstanding member of the commmunity? No, that person is a pervert.
The other, the priest, will not.

No other evidence...Reasonable doubt??
I can't see any convictions.

Yes...and if it's one person's word against the others, and no other evidence is produced, then the standard of reasonable doubt won't be reached....

However, there's a chance that some other evidence might be produced, that the priest might admit to it etc, and therefore the law should be in place. Unless you think that acts of wrongdoing shouldn't be made illegal because of difficulties in prosecuting them?

dvpower · 19-07-2011 02:49PM

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Only 2 people will know what happened in the confession.
One might talk, the confesser. And is that person an upstanding member of the commmunity? No, that person is a pervert.
The other, the priest, will not.

No other evidence...Reasonable doubt??
I can't see any convictions.

If the confessor has already broken the seal, why the hell can't the priest talk?

Confessor: "Father, I confess I've raped a child"
Priest: "I won't ever say a word to anyone about this"
Confessor: "That's OK Father, I want to come clean. You can say what you want."
Priest: "No, never. I won't break the seal"
Confessor: "It's quite alright. I want you to disclose what I've told you."
Priest: "They can do what they want with me. I'd die before I repeat what you told me."
Confessor: "What an odd religion"

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Comments