Us Judge Asks Vatican To Serve Court Paper To Pope -Ap

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288183628' post='2182945']
Instead of being in solidarity with victims, we accuse them. This is phenomenal. If anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, it is those who are teh victims of child abuse, not the organization that housed the abusers.
[/quote]

we stand for the victims. we want to help them. we want to punish the priests who it if they are alive. we want to pray for them. we just don't want them to sue the vatican for money, since the vatican did not molest the children , a specific priest did.

again i ask, what does money do for someone abused? how does money make them psychologically better?

[MichaelFilo]

I never said they should not have a legal recourse or defense. I only said that calling victims of sexual abuse by priests should not be assumed to be money sucking individuals. They are people who want some form of justice for the unjustifiable. I think those priests should have the cases laid out and they should provide a defense. However, our legal system, as a rule, protects criminals more so than victims because we operate under the system of "Better to let a guilty man go free than an innocent man get jailed." Which isn't a bad system, but even the legal system will not provide some sort of closure. Besides, the Vatican has stated publicly that the secular legal authorities should get involved.

I am not against priests having a legal recourse, I am against the assumption that victims of priest molestation are money hungry individuals. No one wants to get violated, or even raped, by a priest, and they all deserve an opportunity under the law to seek justice. As Catholics we have a long and established tradition of siding with victims. Throwing stones at them, and being their accusers, is so far from our traditions I do not know how such a line of thinking slipped in. It is so out of line with how the bishops and Benedict are treating the issue tha tit boggles the mind.

havok: Compensation is the only means a person can be repaid for an act like this. There is no way to restore dignity, honor, or any higher value through the legal system. I don't know the vatican's role, but if they are complacent in dealing with their own members then maybe they had a role yet. I'd rather both sides get to make their arguments in front of a court.

Edited October 27, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288160070' post='2182928']
Most do... but not all, it depends on the circumstances of the crime, that's why we have courts. The thing is that if someone imagines their law as protecting criminals, it doesn't, it just demands the work be put into getting them legally.
[/quote]
Nope actually it doesn't. There are very set rules as to time for all crimes other than murder [ or crimes against humanity: genocide]. The only reason people can sue now is that some states have lifted the limitations so people can sue the church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288183628' post='2182945']
Instead of being in solidarity with victims, we accuse them. This is phenomenal. If anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, it is those who are teh victims of child abuse, not the organization that housed the abusers.
[/quote]
If a little kid or a teenager comes forward and says they were abused generally I believe them. When an adult comes forward 20 years later and claims abuse and demands money I am suspicious. What have they been doing for the last 20 years?

[MichaelFilo]

The nature of the act keeps you silent. Estimates for rape and sexual harassment always outstrip reports because the nature of the act keeps you silent. It instills shame and gives a person the false belief (or possibly true) that others will see the person as less human for it.

There are statutes of limitations. However, there is a strong debate on statutes for molestation and rape in the legal community because of the nature of the acts.

Edited October 27, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288202269' post='2183005']
The nature of the act keeps you silent. Estimates for rape and sexual harassment always outstrip reports because the nature of the act keeps you silent. It instills shame and gives a person the false belief (or possibly true) that others will see the person as less human for it.

There are statutes of limitations. However, there is a strong debate on statutes for molestation and rape in the legal community because of the nature of the acts.
[/quote]

Yes there are because the statutues rightly protect people from being accused of something decades later when there is no possibility of proof but a grave possibilty of damaging someones reputation for the rest of their life with no basis in fact.

[MichaelFilo]

I agree, they do protect the accused. Their intent, however, is to limit cases that will be impossible to prove because of time. However, that does not mean all such cases could have no proof which fall outside of the statutes.

[Winchester]

Screw the ability to prove anything.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288201512' post='2183001']Nope actually it doesn't. There are very set rules as to time for all crimes other than murder [ or crimes against humanity: genocide]. The only reason people can sue now is that some states have lifted the limitations so people can sue the church.[/quote]Okay, I will have a talk with my doctors of political science... Because clearly the Church is not an international organization, clearly these were no heinous nature to these crimes, and clearly there was nothing impeding the courts in the preservation of justice and peace...

Just so your aware, almost all western and free states require "[i]due process[/i]" and prohibit "[i]et post facto[/i]" laws. The manner States have "[i]lifted[/i]" the statue of limitations is by showing there is sufficient evidence to suspect that the statue of limitations does not apply, this is a matter of case law and a judicial act.

[Winchester]

Again with the doctors. Nobody gives a poo about your doctors.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288213738' post='2183052']Again with the doctors. Nobody gives a poo about your doctors.[/quote]Nobody gives a poo about factual education?

No wonder my discussions go so poorly here. Though, I'm not sure when I asked people to give a poo about them...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288219075' post='2183069']
Nobody gives a poo about factual education?

No wonder my discussions go so poorly here. Though, I'm not sure when I asked people to give a poo about them...
[/quote]
No. Nobody gives a poo about your doctors. No one is impressed, no one is going to surrender their own intellect in the face of a rag issued by a college. A doctorate is not required for "factual education," and if doctorates somehow assured "facts" were produced, all doctors in a particular field would agree. They don't.

Your discussions go poorly because you take things personally and fall back to talking about doctors.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288219495' post='2183071']No. Nobody gives a poo about your doctors. No one is impressed, no one is going to surrender their own intellect in the face of a rag issued by a college. A doctorate is not required for "factual education," and if doctorates somehow assured "facts" were produced, all doctors in a particular field would agree. They don't.

Your discussions go poorly because you take things personally and fall back to talking about doctors.[/quote]Winchester, this I actually take personally. To show you what I do when I do take someone personally, I use the awesome feature Phatmass offers called IGNORE. I had a lot of respect for you before this. But this constant accusation of something I haven't written or said is becoming tiresome and quite idiotic.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288219495' post='2183071']
No. Nobody gives a poo about your doctors. No one is impressed, no one is going to surrender their own intellect in the face of a rag issued by a college. A doctorate is not required for "factual education," and if doctorates somehow assured "facts" were produced, all doctors in a particular field would agree. They don't.

Your discussions go poorly because you take things personally and fall back to talking about doctors.
[/quote]
They're also left anonymous. Maybe if there was some citation of who these mysterious doctors are, it [i][u][b]may[/b][/u][/i] make a difference (however slight), but as long as they are nameless, there is no way to check the credentials. They could have gotten a doctorate following a two week internet course or something!

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1288219783' post='2183073']They're also left anonymous. Maybe if there was some citation of who these mysterious doctors are, it [i][u][b]may[/b][/u][/i] make a difference (however slight), but as long as they are nameless, there is no way to check the credentials. They could have gotten a doctorate following a two week internet course or something![/quote]So if I make reference to a teacher I had in CCD, I need to reference their name too? What if I make a reference to a teacher I had in High School? I need to give you the address and name of them as well? I'm not demanding anything, only making reference. I'm not going to accept "[i]just because[/i]" from someone else when someone who has credibility on the matter taught me otherwise. Just like I don't expect you or anyone else to...

Maybe that's just TOO FREAKIN hard to accept... Maybe just maybe... people are so dim they can't get that. If that's the case, I won't mention them ever again. I don't want to be confusing people unnecessarily.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288219971' post='2183074']
So if I make reference to a teacher I had in CCD, I need to reference their name too? What if I make a reference to a teacher I had in High School? I need to give you the address and name of them as well? I'm not demanding anything, only making reference. I'm not going to accept "[i]just because[/i]" from someone else when someone who has credibility on the matter taught me otherwise. Just like I don't expect you or anyone else to...

Maybe that's just TOO FREAKIN hard to accept... Maybe just maybe... people are so dim they can't get that. If that's the case, I won't mention them ever again. I don't want to be confusing people unnecessarily.
[/quote]
Or maybe it's the way you drop the term "doctor" in there, as if that should make all the difference when you don't have anything to back it up.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1288222374' post='2183082']Or maybe it's the way you drop the term "doctor" in there, as if that should make all the difference when you don't have anything to back it up. [/quote]Maybe your just reading into it what you want... I just sort of assumed people could write "Statue of Limitations" into this magical program called "Google". They could get information like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations Which explains some of the basics of the matter. But what gets me the most is that you think the Church doesn't have lawyers who can't speak up about this? IF you think that the statue of limitations not applying was SO horrible, why aren't the defense attorneys speaking up about it? I honestly see the attorneys trying to settle things outside of court more frequently than not, which is rather normal.

So because I made an idle and sarcastic reference to my education, your thinking I want people to bow down to my perspective? No, I'm not. In fact in multiple topics I have said just the opposite. In fact in many cases I have welcome and encouraged disagreement. BUT yeah, even in face of that you want to pretend that this is all my evil scheme to fool you, [i]I really do want you to bow to my passing comments in these subjects[/i] even though I said I really don't want that, [i]I want you to arbitrary accept stuff from me[/i] even though I encourage people to disagree thinking for themselves, and [i]most importantly all my sarcastic and idle comments are of course the center of my arguments[/i] even though I highlight so much more.

It all makes perfect sense now!!! How when I am sourcing something legitimate to discussion I give a quotation, source, and information regarding it. But in situations like these its just a passing comment meant to be sarcastic, because I don't expect anyone to take it too seriously. But of course, don't let reason stop you from pretending that my evil scheme is unimpeded by any of this. No, no, no... Please don't.

Really, MissScripture, I am just UTTERLY flabbergasted by this... Are you REALLY proposing this or are you just trying to harass me because I actually listened to my professors?

[havok579257]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288186384' post='2182954']
I never said they should not have a legal recourse or defense. I only said that calling victims of sexual abuse by priests should not be assumed to be money sucking individuals. They are people who want some form of justice for the unjustifiable. I think those priests should have the cases laid out and they should provide a defense. However, our legal system, as a rule, protects criminals more so than victims because we operate under the system of "Better to let a guilty man go free than an innocent man get jailed." Which isn't a bad system, but even the legal system will not provide some sort of closure. Besides, the Vatican has stated publicly that the secular legal authorities should get involved.

I am not against priests having a legal recourse, I am against the assumption that victims of priest molestation are money hungry individuals. No one wants to get violated, or even raped, by a priest, and they all deserve an opportunity under the law to seek justice. As Catholics we have a long and established tradition of siding with victims. Throwing stones at them, and being their accusers, is so far from our traditions I do not know how such a line of thinking slipped in. It is so out of line with how the bishops and Benedict are treating the issue tha tit boggles the mind.

havok: Compensation is the only means a person can be repaid for an act like this. There is no way to restore dignity, honor, or any higher value through the legal system. I don't know the vatican's role, but if they are complacent in dealing with their own members then maybe they had a role yet. I'd rather both sides get to make their arguments in front of a court.
[/quote]


so your saying money will make a rape victim better? so your saying all rape victims need is money and they will be alright?

[Winchester]

So basically, I just won.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1288232972' post='2183116']
so your saying money will make a rape victim better? so your saying all rape victims need is money and they will be alright?
[/quote]

No, but money, in as much as compensation can be made, is some compensation.

That is, their emotional issues that lead to counseling will at least be at the cost of the perpetrator. The jobs lost because of one's incapacity to maintain them could be alleviated with money. The partners they could have had, the sexual problems that result (anywhere from promiscuity to a coldness) and the costs of such can be aided with money. No money doesn't cure the problem, but it can be beneficial. That is why we award money in court.