Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

1…3334363839…48

Comments

  • #1052
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    All the straw men come out to play... tra la la la lala......
    This is not just about the confessional but about general with holding of information of serious crime. The issue is that if this law is passed The RCC think that their magic second hand psychic forgiveness box is immune to the law.
    philologos wrote: »
    Ghost Buster: How is that a strawman? It's very pertinent to the topic to ask how effective the law is going to be.
    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    The vast majority of confessions are anonymous.
    Is an anonymous confession reasonable information or not ?
    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.

    No one is saying that this law will be 100% effective 100% of the time and yet yourself and to a much greater degree Suzie seem to be constantly finding flaws and loop holes and then suggesting that this makes the law unworthy . Maybe only 1 in 100 reports will be of any use but if even 1% of abuses are prevented then in my opinion its worth while.


  • #1053
    ch750536
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    This law has nothing to do with the confessional. It's intended to lock up people who systematically and purposely cover up the abuse of kids.

    If this law were in place 30 years ago (with todays attitudes) then the cover up would either have not happened or we would have a few hundred priests in prison.

    The confessional, meh, don't care. Priests admitting to abuse and being assigned to a new school, lock both the abuser and anyone else present in the room away for a good buggering.


  • #1054
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Only child abuse ? What about Murder, Rape, terrorism etc. etc. etc. ?
    Should it not be the law to report these as well ?

    Are you trolling or straw maning or what.? This thread is about the Church and mainly about child abuse. Do we need to cover everything from murder to arson down to tax avoidance in order to satisfy your screwed up debating style?


  • #1055
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ghost Buster: Asking about how effective the law is is important. Trying to stifle the discussion on that is poor. I support clear and decisive action in respect to this, I'm just not so sure how effective this law is. That's a valid point.


  • #1056
    sierra117x
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭sierra117x


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    the confession is a major part of the catholic church. asking them to break the rules on its privacy is stupid if you ask me.
    there are man other areas where the catholic church should be doing better in relating to child abuse. looking to get the rules of confessions changed will create a huge different argument away from what can and should be done.


    so is doctor patient confidentiality but that can be broken in order to protect others and the person themselves from harm


  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Only child abuse ? What about Murder, Rape, terrorism etc. etc. etc. ?
    Should it not be the law to report these as well ?

    The thread is about about child abuse; therefore I limited my point to child abuse.

    However, child abuse is in a special category of crime, because the victim is uniquely vulnerable, and the abuser often in such a position of power. Therefore, the odds on it being reported are likely to be much slimmer than other forms of crime. In a rape, the victim is an adult, or at least relatively mature, and has the capacity to evaluate their position, and decide on making a complaint or not. In a murder, there is generally a body, and if not, the lack of a body instigates a missing persons investigation. So, in the vast majority of crimes, either the very act of the commission of a crime, brings attention to the offence, or the victim is in a position to decide on how best to proceed.

    This is obviously not the case with child abuse, where there may be no outward signs of indicative mental or physical trauma, where the victim is generally not mature enough to take such a decision independently, and where the victim is generally close to, and living in fear of, the perpetrator.
    philologos wrote: »
    Ghost Buster: Asking about how effective the law is is important. Trying to stifle the discussion on that is poor. I support clear and decisive action in respect to this, I'm just not so sure how effective this law is. That's a valid point.

    I'd like to ask whether yourself, Suzie Sue and the others going against the grain on this, are doing so objectively, or because it concerns the Catholic Church?


  • #1058
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Einhard wrote: »
    The thread is about about child abuse; therefore I limited my point to child abuse.

    No, this thread is about the claim the Catholic Church is above the law
    Einhard wrote: »
    I'd like to ask whether yourself, Suzie Sue and the others going against the grain on this, are doing so objectively, or because it concerns the Catholic Church?

    I want the law to be effective, and I want the state to arrest and gaol anyone guilty breaking it, they have the evidence in the reports, and I want them to act on it, rather than just politicians dishing out popular anti Catholic sound bites.

    Now, can we get back to the debate :

    Why should this law only apply to child abuse ?
    What about Murder, Rape, terrorism etc. etc. etc. ?
    Should it not be the law to report these as well ?


  • #1059
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Einhard wrote: »
    I'd like to ask whether yourself, Suzie Sue and the others going against the grain on this, are doing so objectively, or because it concerns the Catholic Church?

    I'm not a member of the RCC, so I'm looking at this of necessity as an outsider. If you took the time to read through my posts you'll have seen by now what my objection was and that I actually think the Government needs to start prosecuting abusers.


  • #1060
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    No, this thread is about the claim the Catholic Church is above the law



    I want the law to be effective, and I want the state to arrest and gaol anyone guilty breaking it, they have the evidence in the reports, and I want them to act on it, rather than just politicians dishing out popular anti Catholic sound bites.

    Now, can we get back to the debate :

    Why should this law only apply to child abuse ?
    What about Murder, Rape, terrorism etc. etc. etc. ?
    Should it not be the law to report these as well ?

    Firstly has anyone anywhere said that the reporting is to be limited to child abuse. If so can you link to it?
    Secondly report after report into clerical abuse has highlighted that those within the church were aware of abuse and of abusers and kept it quiet leading to more abuse. Even El Papa himself instructed that this be standard church practice. If the church had followed common decency rather than self preservation many children would have been kept safe from repeat abusers. Seeing as the church lacks common decency and has continued to act in this manner up to events detailed in the Cloyne report then obviously the reporting of crimes must be ensured in law.


  • #1061
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    How does the priest know their identity if the confession was anonymous ?

    I'll ask again. Of all of the abuses that the catholic church covered up to date, how many were confessions ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I'll ask again. Of all of the abuses that the catholic church covered up to date, how many were confessions ?

    And I'll answer again : "I have no idea"

    And I'll ask again : "What % were then ?"


  • #1063
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Firstly has anyone anywhere said that the reporting is to be limited to child abuse. If so can you link to it?

    So what offences is it limited to ?
    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Secondly report after report into clerical abuse has highlighted that those within the church were aware of abuse and of abusers and kept it quiet leading to more abuse.

    Can you show me where I dispute this ?
    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Even El Papa himself instructed that this be standard church practice.

    Can you show us proof of this ?
    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    If [CERTAIN PEOPLE IN] the church had followed common decency rather than self preservation many children would have been kept safe from repeat abusers. Seeing as [CERTAIN PEOPLE IN] the church lacks common decency and has continued to act in this manner up to events detailed in the Cloyne report then obviously the reporting of crimes must be ensured in law.

    If you wrote this, I could agree with you 100%
    There is 1.1 billion people in the Catholic Church
    A little bit of honesty goes a long way.


  • #1064
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    And I'll answer again : "I have no idea"

    And I'll ask again : "What % were then ?"

    You're the one suggesting that putting a law in place will be pointless because of the confessional, so it's up to you to prove your point by stating the facts.

    Mind you, as others have said, decent people would be of the view that if you can prevent one kid getting raped then you should act; unfortunately the pope isn't one of those decent people.

    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    A little bit of honesty goes a long way.

    Agree 100%. Just a pity that the heads of the catholic church weren't too keen on the same principle.


  • #1065
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You're the one suggesting that putting a law in place will be pointless because of the confessional, so it's up to you to prove your point by stating the facts.

    Can you point out where I've claimed this ?
    I am pointing out the facts, and asking questions about them.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    unfortunately the pope isn't one of those decent people.

    Proof please, i.e. not opinion, not hearsay, not allegation, not hysteria, not hyperbole.
    And as soon as there is PROOF , I will be the first one calling for his arrest and gaoling.
    No Pope is above the law, but under that same law everyone is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all dount in a court of law, that is justice.

    IF there is solid evidence then the International Criminal Court (ICC) should issue a warrant for his arrest immediately, as they have done so for Muammar Gaddafi
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Just a pity that the heads of the catholic church weren't too keen on the same principle.

    Which heads ?

    If we don't start weeding out the guilty from the innocent, this only serves to protect the guilty further.


  • #1066
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    So what offences is it limited to ?
    I dont know. Why does this matter?



    Can you show me where I dispute this ?
    You consistantly question the value a proposed law (not even drafted yet) enforcing mandatory reporting of knowledge of crime despite it being obvious that if this law were in place abuses may have been prevented or at least a system for holding those who sat on information responsible would now be in place



    Can you show us proof of this ?
    Yes. This is common knowledge so stop being obtuse. Google it FFS. What level of proof do you require? A declaration from the man himself?


    If you wrote this, I could agree with you 100%
    There is 1.1 billion people in the Catholic Church
    A little bit of honesty goes a long way.
    I have no idea what you are on about here . I dont think you are so stupid as to think that when i say "The Church" I mean the congregation. You know well i mean from those at the top.
    Stop dancing around every point of debate with hyberbole and bullsh1t


  • #1067
    Tehachapi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭Tehachapi


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    There is 1.1 billion people in the Catholic Church

    I know it's OT but I think that figure is bs. I went through the whole forced baptism, forced communion, forced confirmation etc, as a child without having been psychologically developed enough to form my own opinions on subjects like physics, biology, philosophy, etc to realise what they were teaching me was a load of nonsense.

    The reason they want to force that nonsense down childrens throats so much is they know if they started teaching the same content to adults, the majority of us would laugh it off as nonsense, and the catholic population would diminish significantly.

    I am strongly atheist for a number of years now, but I'm sure on some list somewhere I am counted as catholic.


  • #1068
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Tehachapi wrote: »
    I know it's OT

    Your right there, so unless you have better figures and a source . . . .


  • #1069
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    You mean other than the letter from The vatican ordering cover up?:confused:
    dvpower wrote: »
    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

    Yawn. heres some posts from a while back addressed to catholic apologists who dont watch the news.
    Is this enough?


  • #1070
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    I have no idea what you are on about here . I dont think you are so stupid as to think that when i say "The Church" I mean the congregation. You know well i mean from those at the top.
    Stop dancing around every point of debate with hyberbole and bullsh1t

    Post the sources/proof for your claims


  • #1071
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Your right there, so unless you have better figures and a source . . . .

    BY your same argument Charlie Haughy could have argued that as he was taoiseach during the time of his misdeeds and thus head of an irish population of some 4 million he did no wrong ... or some such... TBH I have no idea what your point is:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Post the sources/proof for your claims

    Just did. Buy a news paper.....
    Obviously i am wrong in thinking that the average intelligent and remotely interested irish citizen has at least a little bit of knowledge concerning what has taken place here in relation to The RCC and abuses.
    So tiresome.....or is it trollsome.....


  • #1073
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,142 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Your right there, so unless you have better figures and a source . . . .

    it's hard to be impressed with a group claiming over a billion members when most of their members didn't choose to join.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1074
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Can you point out where I've claimed this ?
    I am pointing out the facts, and asking questions about them.

    All of your posts have been about the confessional.
    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Proof please, i.e. not opinion, not hearsay, not allegation, not hysteria, not hyperbole.
    And as soon as there is PROOF , I will be the first one calling for his arrest and gaoling.
    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

    Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Which heads ?

    See above.

    Seriously, if you are going to argue a point, fill yourself in on the facts first.


  • #1075
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Yawn. heres some posts from a while back addressed to catholic apologists who dont watch the news.
    Is this enough?

    Can you point out where the letter says do not report abuse to the police ?


  • #1076
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Can you point out where the letter says do not report abuse to the police ?

    Ah I see that you have been banned from Atheism and Agnosticism for trolling, insulting and generally childish debate such as what you are doing here. And red carded in Christianity.
    How long until the "LOLs" and "Silly" debate style arrives here?
    I'm not gonna feed the Catholic Apologist Troll
    :rolleyes:
    Begone annoying one...


  • #1077
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,142 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Can you point out where the letter says do not report abuse to the police ?

    It helps if you read what people post.
    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.

    That to me says they held they view they could withhold evidence from the public/police for up to 10 years after a victim turned 18, which means that it could be suppressing evidence for a minimum of 10 years.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1078
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Can you point out where the letter says do not report abuse to the police ?

    It's pretty clear.
    It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

    'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes.

    Judges and legal representatives are usually, well, legal people operating to the STATE laws as to what's legal.


  • #1079
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Can you point out where the letter says do not report abuse to the police ?

    And just in case you've REALLY missed what one of the co-authors' opinion on the matter was :
    The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

    'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.


  • #1080
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    It's pretty clear.

    Judges and legal representatives are usually, well, legal people operating to the STATE laws as to what's legal.

    That’s to deal with them under Canon law, which is a totally separate process. You might be declared innocent under state law, but still be sanctioned and excommunicated under canon law, and that process has to continue, regardless of what state law fails to see worth perusing.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

    In his own opinion, not Ratzinger's. So if Bertone is guilty, why has he not been arrested ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    No, this thread is about the claim the Catholic Church is above the law

    Yes, and the overarching context is child abuse.


    I want the law to be effective, and I want the state to arrest and gaol anyone guilty breaking it, they have the evidence in the reports, and I want them to act on it, rather than just politicians dishing out popular anti Catholic sound bites.

    I'm not sure it's anti-Catholic to state that nobody is above the law. Indeed, to state otherwise, is to suggest that priests be a privileged caste, whose status allows them to pick and chose which laws apply to them.
    Now, can we get back to the debate :

    Why should this law only apply to child abuse ?
    What about Murder, Rape, terrorism etc. etc. etc. ?
    Should it not be the law to report these as well ?

    Seriously, Suzy, it gets a bit tiresome when somebody consistently makes demands, and then entirely ignores the responses. If you're not interested in a response, and desire only for obfuscation, then don't ask questions of people. It's a waste of their time. I already answered your queries, in direct response to them from an earlier post:
    However, child abuse is in a special category of crime, because the victim is uniquely vulnerable, and the abuser often in such a position of power. Therefore, the odds on it being reported are likely to be much slimmer than other forms of crime. In a rape, the victim is an adult, or at least relatively mature, and has the capacity to evaluate their position, and decide on making a complaint or not. In a murder, there is generally a body, and if not, the lack of a body instigates a missing persons investigation. So, in the vast majority of crimes, either the very act of the commission of a crime, brings attention to the offence, or the victim is in a position to decide on how best to proceed.

    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not a member of the RCC, so I'm looking at this of necessity as an outsider. If you took the time to read through my posts you'll have seen by now what my objection was and that I actually think the Government needs to start prosecuting abusers.

    Apologies if it came across as if I was implying a partisan interest, but I was interested in whether your general religious advocacy on these boards was informing your position on this issue. I accept that it's not, but it's a valid inquiry, especially as some of the other posters taking issue with this, are doing so from a particular standpoint.


Advertisement