First, you don’t just hold trials willy-nilly.
I don’t get to arrest Brian Seiler because, umm, Seiler is a homonym for that creepy guy on Heroes.
You should be able to make an allegation of illegality before seriously discussing an arrest, much less making one.
How was Ratzinger obstructing justice? The priest in question had already been sentenced by civil authorities.
Child rape as we are calling it must be reported and acted upon immediately by certain types of people, religious people included. If he knew that sexual abuse was taking place and did not immediately report it to the police, that’s a crime in Europe as well as the US. Even if he did not personally abuse the boys, he still has a legal obligation to report it.
I thought we’d already gone over this in this thread but apparently not everyone got the memo.
Phil, throughout this thread there have been numerous references (linked and unlinked) to the fact that child rape does not just involve the actual raping but also the legal obligation to act upon the knowledge if you have it. I’m not going over that yet again because if you didn’t believe it the first time, you certainly aren’t going to believe it from me.
It could be argued that he had a duty of care to prevent the rape of children by priests working as part of his organisation. Since his go-slow on the defrocking of priests may have lead to the situation where they had an opportunity to rape children who they would not otherwise have had a chance to rape, he might be considered to have breached that duty of care. IANAL, but that might be where I’d start.
Lorini - The knowledge that the priest in question had raped someone was widespread. The civil authorities had already responded.
Are you suggesting that Ratzinger’s failure to laicize the priest in question as fast as you might have liked (and indeed, as might have been wise), was the legal or moral equivalent of child rape?
I didn’t see it mentioned:
But the legal challenge is fantastic, because if the Pope cancels his visit, it can only be viewed as a tacit admission of guilt.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, forget your fancy god words, when you know someone has raped a child and have a confession from him, you call the cops. You don’t just lactate him or whatever mackeral-snapping funwords seem appropriate, you see that he’s put in jail. I couldn’t give a shit about stupid fruitbat church punishments.
And the Catholic Church as moral authority? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Name one novel moral stand the Church has ever taken. One. How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the basic socialism and family constructs built into the Jeebus stories didn’t exist beforehand? FFS, there’s an excellent argument that the historical Jesus got most of his rap by encountering Buddhists.
Plus let’s all remember that lovely period when the Church was finally completely in control of the Western World, a.k.a. the Dark Ages.
H.
If by “driving the getaway car” you mean “ensuring the bank robber does not get caught by moving him away from the bank”, then yes.
So you prefer false analogies to actually engaging the facts? Gotcha.
This. If the Pope had acted like the leader of any other organization in the world and let everyone in it know this kind of bullshit wouldn’t be tolerated, the crisis would be over and the Church’s good name would be restored. But this institutionalized cover up mandated and endorsed at the highest level proves that the Church’s image is the most important thing to the Church at best, and at worst that child rape is considered an unofficial job perk. Further proof of the former is the outrageous denial of responsibility (Satan made us do it!) coupled with their balls to play the victim card (We are as persecuted as the Jews!)
Fuck the Church leadership, each and every one.
My religeon doesn’t recognize the pope.
And if he were the leader of any other cult, he’d end up like David Koresh.
Good thing, then, that this is just what happened in each and every case mentioned in this thread, right?
All the brouhaha is about the “defrocking” process (a misleading colloquialism), not the involvement of secular authorities.
If you move the goalposts any higher I think they’ll fall over.
He was aiding and abetting. He was covering up.
The point, which I think you know, is that at some point a person in a system becomes responsible for their actions within that system, no matter what the system tells you is their official policy at the time. Especially when their actions lead to their personal benefit in terms of money and power.
Your deference to authority in this case is also impressive, but it doesn’t absolve anyone of anything.
Are these the facts that involve a superior not handing a confessed child rapist over to the authorities for that whole “crime” thing?
I’ve defrocked a few nuns in my time, but the frocks went back on afterward.
Excuse me? You’re saying that the Catholic Church is currently under fire because they always turned over molester priests to the authorities the first time it was discovered?!
That’s some powerful stupid you have there.
H.
Quotes:
“Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who pleaded no contest to misdemeanors involving child molestation in 1978.”
"In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says "
The priest in question was already handled by the civil authorities, years earlier.
The Vatican on Monday made clear for the first time that bishops and other church officials should report clerical sex abuse to police if required by law.
You know, is it just me, or does this sound similar to someone saying “The only reason I don’t murder people is because it’s against the law”?
That’s quite the stance. I read it as “Don’t worry about it if it won’t get you in legal trouble. The kids will grow out of it.”