Woman Abused By 7 Priests Gets Pay-out

[st-annes]

Even if they didn't use force, the priests should have known better, and it is certainly [u]not something a priest should be doing[/u]! The fact that a few of you seem to cast no aspersions on the priests is appalling. Sex is okay for a man, but only scornful for the woman? Where did you get that idea?

The question of whether or not they committed statutory rape depends on the state of the U.S. in which the incidents happened, because each state sets its own laws on the age of consent. In any state, the issue of the victim's "consent" to statutory rape is irrelevent, because the states all regard the consent of a person underage as invalid. Therefore, even if they said or acted like they wanted to participate, the state assumes the other person, whichever one is *over* the age of consent, to have committed statutory rape; the victim cannot give permission, because then the crime would not exist--indeed, nothing could be called a crime if the person to whom it was done can wish away the status of the law. The law stands whether anyone likes it or not, and the people over the age of consent certainly know better.

"But I really *wanted* to!" and "But they wanted to!" are not defenses if any party in the incident was underage by the definition of their state. If all people involved were over the age, then there is no question. But if anyone was under, then somebody's in trouble. Simple. If the woman wanted to take part and was of age, the only thing this removes is the status of the event as a crime of rape. It does not make the matter any less sleazy, reprehensible or despicable on the part of the priests. Laypeople do not take vows of celibacy. Priests do. The same action can't be called good for one party and bad for another; that's a double standard, not to mention sexist.

However, since this case is a civil lawsuit, it's different from the criminal courts. The standards of proof are different in civil court. Remember that O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but found liable by a civil court.

In any event, the priests should not have been having affairs. If they felt pressure to break their vows, they should have resigned.

Awww, she tempted you? Take a cold shower.

[MIKOTHEFREAKSHOW]

[quote name='st-annes' post='1431033' date='Dec 7 2007, 11:01 PM']Even if they didn't use force, the priests should have known better, and it is certainly [u]not something a priest should be doing[/u]! The fact that a few of you seem to cast no aspersions on the priests is appalling. Sex is okay for a man, but only scornful for the woman? Where did you get that idea?

The question of whether or not they committed statutory rape depends on the state of the U.S. in which the incidents happened, because each state sets its own laws on the age of consent. In any state, the issue of the victim's "consent" to statutory rape is irrelevent, because the states all regard the consent of a person underage as invalid. Therefore, even if they said or acted like they wanted to participate, the state assumes the other person, whichever one is *over* the age of consent, to have committed statutory rape; the victim cannot give permission, because then the crime would not exist--indeed, nothing could be called a crime if the person to whom it was done can wish away the status of the law. The law stands whether anyone likes it or not, and the people over the age of consent certainly know better.

"But I really *wanted* to!" and "But they wanted to!" are not defenses if any party in the incident was underage by the definition of their state. If all people involved were over the age, then there is no question. But if anyone was under, then somebody's in trouble. Simple. If the woman wanted to take part and was of age, the only thing this removes is the status of the event as a crime of rape. It does not make the matter any less sleazy, reprehensible or despicable on the part of the priests. Laypeople do not take vows of celibacy. Priests do. The same action can't be called good for one party and bad for another; that's a double standard, not to mention sexist.

However, since this case is a civil lawsuit, it's different from the criminal courts. The standards of proof are different in civil court. Remember that O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but found liable by a civil court.

In any event, the priests should not have been having affairs. If they felt pressure to break their vows, they should have resigned.

Awww, she tempted you? Take a cold shower.[/quote]


ROCK ON!

I AM NOT ARTICULATE AT ALL OR ELOQUENT IN WRITTEN DEBATES... i can write lyrics though lol
but what u wrote - HELL YEAH!!
thank you thank you thank you

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Catholictothecore' post='1430932' date='Dec 7 2007, 09:23 PM']just remember two things. One, these men are priests, and no matter how low they go, NOTHING can change that. Therefor, I personally would ask for the grace to still call tem "father," even if that woman could not.

Secondly, NOTHING can change that. Christ is going to judge them even more keenly to be like Himself. Nothing can change that.[/quote]

This is EXACTLY part of the mentality that has contributed to the coverup - the whole "he's a priest, he consecrates Eucharistic, he is not subject to civil law, it's up to God to judge, you should instead be kissing his hands instead" mentality expressed previously by others who either have misguided piety or simply have their heads stuck so far up their butts that they can do their own colonoscopies visually. But what does God's word say about it? Let's take a look.

1 Timothy 5:19-20 (bold emphasis mine):
[quote]Pay no attention to an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. The ones who do commit sin, however, are to be [b]publicly[/b] reprimanded, [b]so that the rest may fear to offend[/b].[/quote]

To answer your question in your next post, [b]deterrance[/b] is what civil punishment is designed for, as well as [b]protection of society[/b]. Besides, if it involves breaking a [b]civil[/b] law, the [b]civil[/b] authorities have jurisdiction. It's simple common sense.

[Justin86]

This caught my attention in the article:

[quote]"[b]I thought that the church would make everything OK[/b], that they would punish them," she said. "After the church showed me that they didn't care about what happened, I realized what they were really about, that they were more like a business.[/quote]

Do people who've feel like they've been raped claim that anything can "make it ok"? Was this woman really raped?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1431025' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:53 PM']Because she was young and impressible, like most young people. As well as these where priests they would have had alot of authority over her, and they abused it and her as well. God have mercy![/quote]

I guess I'm just in SHOCK that there was a network (for lack of a better word) of abusive priests working together to share their victims. This is a first for me, even with all the news about this scandal in the media. That's why I can see someone being bullied by one, but adding six more afterwards just boggled my mind. Trust me, I'm just shocked at how SEVEN priests can share the same victim.

But now that I think about it, it is probably analogous to a CEO coercing his secretary and then sharing her with board members.

[Lil Red]

to those who said that the problem is because of modernism - more than half (i'm not sure the exact numbers) of those who said they were molested were from priests who were formed in the 50s and 60s, the 'allegedly golden eras' of priests.

[MIKOTHEFREAKSHOW]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1431044' date='Dec 7 2007, 11:16 PM']This caught my attention in the article:
Do people who've feel like they've been raped claim that anything can "make it ok"? Was this woman really raped?[/quote]

well if we are arguing over semantics here, "make everything OK" isn't that great of a standard. it's not like she said "i thought the Church would make everything GREAT" she wasn't expecting things to go awesome or anything. just that the Church would do something..

point is, it would be terrible analysis if we denied that she was raped because she chose the phrase "make everything OK"

what phrase did you want to come out of her mouth....

like she said, she wanted the Church to punish the priests. priests who suggested "abortion" as a solution.

we are so quick to be cynical towards the one who accuse priests just because they are priests.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1431044' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:16 PM']This caught my attention in the article:
Do people who've feel like they've been raped claim that anything can "make it ok"? Was this woman really raped?[/quote]
how dare you cast aspirations on a woman because she's not saying/doing what YOU think a rape victim should say/act.

maybe she said that because she expected Church officials to stand with HER and not these disgusting priests.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1431045' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:20 PM']I guess I'm just in SHOCK that there was a network (for lack of a better word) of abusive priests working together to share their victims. This is a first for me, even with all the news about this scandal in the media. That's why I can see someone being bullied by one, but adding six more afterwards just boggled my mind. Trust me, I'm just shocked at how SEVEN priests can share the same victim.[/quote]
me too

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1431038' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:08 PM']1 Timothy 5:19-20 (bold emphasis mine):
To answer your question in your next post, [b]deterrance[/b] is what civil punishment is designed for, as well as [b]protection of society[/b]. Besides, if it involves breaking a [b]civil[/b] law, the [b]civil[/b] authorities have jurisdiction. It's simple common sense.[/quote]
THANK YOU! and amen!

[KnightofChrist]

Modernism was a serious problem in the Church even before Vatican II (VII is not to blame) or before the 1960's. Saint Pope Pius X fought it greatly in his time.

No matter the years of the abuse the root cause is Homosexuality, modernism, and dissent.

Edited December 8, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Lil Red]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1431064' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:33 PM']Modernism was a serious problem in the Church even before Vatican II (VII is not to blame). Saint Pope Pius X fought it greatly in his time.

No matter the years of the abuse the root cause is Homosexuality, modernism, and dissent.[/quote]
okay, it just sounded like some people were saying what i thought they said

[siebersusi]

I'm sure with her attorney being Glori Allred this story was 98% blown out of proportion for the victims sake...

[Lil Red]

[quote name='siebersusi' post='1431128' date='Dec 7 2007, 11:44 PM']I'm sure with her attorney being Glori Allred this story was 98% blown out of proportion for the victims sake...[/quote]
even if it was, how does that justify what this woman went through?

[Justin86]

If she ever went through anything...

[Lil Red]

the priests involved and the Church officials involved ADMITTED that it happened! i'm honestly disgusted by your attitude.

[Justin86]

You never really know.

You can be "disgusted by my attitude" all you want. I don't care.

[Lil Red]

look, i'm not one to believe all the talk surrounding abuse cases. but when the parties involved have admitted their involvement, shouldn't we believe what she's saying?

[siebersusi]

How do you know if she didn't seduced these men? It's seems to me if a woman this woman went through so much trama with one priest she would not of opened up her legs for 6 more...

[Lil Red]

i pray nothing like this ever happens to you, and people just pass it off as "well, she just opened her legs up for six more, she deserves it."