| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
WELL?
“After YEARS of HARD EVIDENCE that those mafiosi in robes and high-hats covered up crimes of the utmost perversion, there can be NO comparison.”
In decades and centuries past, it was often thought better *by everyone* to handle such matters with discretion. This was not to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Especially in small towns, disclosure of the fact that a boy had been molested by a sodomite could be social and economic disaster not only for the victim, but for his entire extended family.
Certainly there was wrongdoing. However, not every decision to keep something out of the public eye was made to protect the guilty.
As Samuel Clemens wrote, “To arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man’s character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours.”
“It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption.”
If I could be pleased by my imagination as easily as you are disgusted by yours, I’d probably just daydream my life away.
Boiled down, refined, and condensed, the statement above reduces to this: “Both the defense of the innocent and the extension of a presumption of innocence until trial are not merely as bad as defending the guilty, they actually *are* defending the guilty.
IOW, when one defends the innocent, one defends the guilty.
“Defending such corruption doesn’t make Catholics look anything but stupid in the eyes of their fellow Americans.”
Really? I would think that equating defense of the innocent with defense of the guilty would be a better indication.
The fact that there were real offenses, real crimes (and I consider molesting a boy to be second only to murder in the rankings), is not a license to exaggerate without limit.
Some—some—of the accused priests are innocent.
Some—some—priests and bishops acted to protect sodomites from the consequences of their crimes, or at least turned a blind eye.
All—all—who did not are innocent.
This history is exactly as bad as it is, not a bit better, but also not a bit worse.
To repeat myself, the fact that there were real crimes is not a license to exaggerate without limit.
Nowhere in these United States is the age of consent for sexual activity 15 or 14. The youngest age in any state is 16.
Age of consent in 18 is my state.
Where do you live? Saudi Arabia?
Age of consent? Mere pettifogging.
I believe the question is "are we talking about statutory rape?"
From the website Legalmatch.com (emphasis in red mine):
What is Statutory Rape?
Statutory rape occurs when a person over the age of consent engages in sexual intercourse with someone under the statutory age of consent. In most states, the age of consent has been arbitrarily designated by statute. However, this age of consent varies widely from state to state. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense.
What is The Age of Consent?
Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18. Some states, such as California and New York, set an age at which all sexual intercourse is considered statutory rape. For example, a state might set the age of consent at 18. In this hypothetical state, two seventeen year olds who had consensual sex could both theoretically be convicted of statutory rape.
Other states imply a different method which, like the federal statute, takes into account the relative ages of both people. In these states, such as Texas, the age of consent is determined by age differentials between the two persons and limited by a minimum age. For example, a state might set a minimum age of 14, but limit consent to partners who are within 3 years of their age. This would allow a sixteen year old to lawfully have sex with a fourteen year old, but make it criminal for an eighteen year old to have sex with that same fourteen year old.
Examples of different state's statutory ages of consent:
- California - The age of consent in California is 18. It is illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor (someone under the age of 18), unless they are that person's spouse. California employs a tiered system where the greater the difference in age, the greater the penalty. If the person engaging in sex with a minor is less than 3 years older or younger than the minor, then they are guilty of a misdemeanor. If they are more than 3 years older than the minor then they are guilty of a felony. Those over the age of 21 engaging in sex with those under 16 are subjected to more harsh penalties.
- Florida - The age of consent in Florida is 18. It is illegal for anyone over the age of 24 to have sex with anyone under the age of 18, unless they are married.
- Illinois - The age of consent in Illinois is 17. It is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 18 if you are more than 5 years older than the minor.
- New York - The age of consent is 17. It is illegal for anyone to have sex with someone under the age of 17.
- Texas -The age of consent is 17. The minimum age is 14 with an age differential of 3 years; thus, those who are at least 14 years of age can legally have sex with those less than 3 years older.
I believe the question is "are we talking about statutory rape?"
From the website Legalmatch.com (emphasis in red mine):
What is Statutory Rape?
Statutory rape occurs when a person over the age of consent engages in sexual intercourse with someone under the statutory age of consent. In most states, the age of consent has been arbitrarily designated by statute. However, this age of consent varies widely from state to state. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense.
What is The Age of Consent?
Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18. Some states, such as California and New York, set an age at which all sexual intercourse is considered statutory rape. For example, a state might set the age of consent at 18. In this hypothetical state, two seventeen year olds who had consensual sex could both theoretically be convicted of statutory rape.
Other states imply a different method which, like the federal statute, takes into account the relative ages of both people. In these states, such as Texas, the age of consent is determined by age differentials between the two persons and limited by a minimum age. For example, a state might set a minimum age of 14, but limit consent to partners who are within 3 years of their age. This would allow a sixteen year old to lawfully have sex with a fourteen year old, but make it criminal for an eighteen year old to have sex with that same fourteen year old.
Examples of different state's statutory ages of consent:
- California - The age of consent in California is 18. It is illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor (someone under the age of 18), unless they are that person's spouse. California employs a tiered system where the greater the difference in age, the greater the penalty. If the person engaging in sex with a minor is less than 3 years older or younger than the minor, then they are guilty of a misdemeanor. If they are more than 3 years older than the minor then they are guilty of a felony. Those over the age of 21 engaging in sex with those under 16 are subjected to more harsh penalties.
- Florida - The age of consent in Florida is 18. It is illegal for anyone over the age of 24 to have sex with anyone under the age of 18, unless they are married.
- Illinois - The age of consent in Illinois is 17. It is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 18 if you are more than 5 years older than the minor.
- New York - The age of consent is 17. It is illegal for anyone to have sex with someone under the age of 17.
- Texas -The age of consent is 17. The minimum age is 14 with an age differential of 3 years; thus, those who are at least 14 years of age can legally have sex with those less than 3 years older.
Catholic apologetics, 21st century style: bugger a 14 yr old boy, and the priest can say he never violated his chastity vows. Everything's okay (and no one was hurt), because the Catholics now tell us that it wasn't rape-rape.
From Dominic Lawson's blog at The Independent:
The world of film – indeed, of art in general – regards this (Polanski's arrest, that is, not his abuse of a 13-year-old girl) as a scandal. This attitude was most clearly evident in the remark of the Hollywood actress Whoopi Goldberg, who last year defended him with the observation, "I know it wasn't rape-rape". With this remarkable neologism, Goldberg gave a new gloss to the old line (usually uttered by men) of "she said no, but she meant yes".It is not sexual misconduct, rather it is sexual assault, that Catholic priests were accused of in the John Jay Study. The topic isn’t “who’s accused of sexual misconduct”, it’s “who’s accused of committing a felony against a minor”...The John Jay study speaks of 4% of Catholic clergy (mostly priests ordained between 1950 and 1979) who were accused of raping underage male parishioners...Of the 38% of all Protestant clergy being accused of some level of inappropriate sexual contact, only 4.6% have engaged in actual sexual intercourse outside of marriage. And none of them of rape...If the Catholic apologist were really comparing apples to apples, the real statistics would speak of Protestant clergy accused of criminal sexual contact with minors, or would adjust the John Jay study’s four percent upwards to include inappropriate but otherwise legal sexual relations. But the Catholic apologist does no such thing. They start with John Jay’s 4%, move on to Protestantism’s 38%, and leave the reader thinking that 4% “statutory rape” is comparable to 38% “inappropriate relations”. Sometimes you have to keep score, to tell when the other side is moving the goalposts on you.
[Faithful Departed author Philip] Lawler points out that while less than five percent of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse, some two-thirds of our bishops were apparently complicit in cover-ups. The real scandal isn't the sick excesses of a few dozen pedophiles, or even the hundreds of priests who had affairs with teenage boys -- the bulk of abuse cases. No, according to Lawler, it is the malfeasance of wealthy, powerful, and evidently worldly men who fill the thrones -- but not the shoes -- of the apostles. In case after case, we read in their correspondence, in the records of their soulless, bureaucratic responses to victims of psychic torture and spiritual betrayal, these bishops' prime concern was to save the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar and mortgages. Ironically, their lack of a supernatural concern for souls is precisely what cost them so much money in the end.
-- excerpted from the "Inside Catholic" blog article and 'Catholic Caucus' thread Kneeling Before the World
....“The thesis of this book,” writes Lawler, “is that the sex abuse scandal in American Catholicism was not only aggravated but actually caused by the willingness of church leaders to sacrifice the essential for the inessential; to build up the human institution even to the detriment of the divine mandate.” Bishops again and again responded to the crisis as institutional managers, employing public relations stratagems to evade, deceive, and distract attention from their own responsibility. Lawler several times invokes the terse observation of St. Augustine, “God does not need my lie.” The bishops lied, says Lawler, and many of them are still lying. This is offered not as an accusation but as a conclusion that he believes is compelled by the evidence.
“The first aspect of the scandal, the sexual abuse of children, has been acknowledged and addressed,” Lawler writes. “The second aspect, the rampant homosexuality among Catholic priests, has been acknowledged but not addressed, and later even denied....The third aspect of the scandal has never even been acknowledged by American church leaders.” The third aspect, the malfeasance of bishops, “is today the most serious of all.”
-- excerpted from "Paved with the Skulls of Bishops" by Richard John Neuhaus
I personally think Luther was iffy by reading those comments.
But, to get to the point of this thread, I don’t see your comments or citations as Protestant-bashing or Lutheran-bashing.
They aren’t particularly hateful. You are just giving your point of view, and using true quotes, and so on.
Similarly, any time anyone criticizes the RC church - whether over the child abuse revelations or anything else - it doesn’t necessarily mean they are Catholic bashing.
Most are shocked and/or horrified over these abuse allegation, many of which have been proven, and have good questions to ask and good points to make. In no cases that I have read has the priest denied the charges! Although there may be such cases. There are legitimate concerns there. I think most of us know that not every allegation could possibly be true; that not all abuse was necessarily covered up; and that most priests are good guys.
But it is in the news and it is a big deal, a very big deal. So people are talking about it. Hopefully, and I actually think this is happening, the RC church in America will get some really good guidelines in place in the present and future to deal with wolves in priest’s clothing.
Like officers who kill someone in the line of duty. We most of us love our police and know they are good guys. But, if they kill somebody, they get put on paid administrative leave, before they are convicted of anything or disciplined, while those in charge look into things and make sure they are innocent of murder.
Similarly, I’d think that those in the clergy, if accused of child abuse, could reasonably be told to stay away from unsupervised minors until the charges are explored. Then the clergyman could be restored as before, or taken away in handcuffs, as appropriate.
The papacy has a cancer in its midst and it seeks a band-aid. Its priests rape children and Roman Catholic apologists decry the publicity.
Who's nifonging whom?
I didn’t HAVE them posting under my name. They just did a few times, inadvertently, while surfing FR and then deciding to comment here or there.
And the crime here is rape.
Therefore most of these pedophile priests are accused of (and found guilty of) raping children.
You just don't read that in the press. Wonder why? Instead the press bends over backwards to protect the RCC, regardless of how much RC apologists insist otherwise.
‘What gives you the idea that I am angry at you? “
Stuff like:
“I’m jumping to conclusions? You had your kids posting under your name on FR?”
That’s accusatory. As though I was ringleader of some conspiracy.
“Who is the current leader of the Lutheran Church? Shall we have a microscopic look at his background? At Lutheran pastors? At Lutheran pastor child molesters? At Lutheran pastor homosexuals? At the Lutheran COVER-UP of this reprehensible abuse? Because YOU KNOW it took place, and yet WHERE IS THE SELF EXAMINATION?”
That’s accusatory. I actually and in fact do not know of any Lutheran clergy molesting a kid. I assume, just due to sheer numbers, that there have been.
“So, has this other account been banned? “
That’s accusatory. Why would my old account have been banned? I didn’t do anything wrong.
“Oh, really? How “riled up” are “most of you” about protestant or presbyterian child sexual abuse? You KNOW it takes place as often in other churches. Why do I never see you start one of those threads, and face the problems in your own church? “
That’s accusatory. There has never been such a scandal in my church. It is small, granted. And it is always possible. There are pervs on the prowl everywhere. But I can’t get riled up about something I don’t know about.
I could keep cutting and responding but you get the drift.
In fact, it is not an anomaly, but the way of things within the papacy and it always has been.
From centuries ago when Rome castrated young boys for its choirs, a hierarchy of men who shun marriage and family and children is conducive to all sorts of sexual sins.
This is not just a homosexual problem. It is a problem of a priesthood which is now and has been for centuries filled with men who consider themselves to be "another Christ."
And thus, they believe they are "entitled."
lol. Apparently any negative title will do, even if the actual article was just as critical of Rome as it was of Presbyterians.
Origen castrated himself, a self made un-man? and Ambrose forbade married bishops conjugal relations. sort of a Platonic arrangement as it were.
No, it’s not a new scandal but easy communication and the waning deference of the secular world to religious organizations means it’s more difficult to keep the lid on.
lolol.
A woe-man.
You might want to read Wikipedia, “Age of Consent” for sexual contact, and find out what is a misdemeanor and what is a felony.
Misdemeanor/felony sexual contact, and statute of limitations vary by state. Here’s an example:
What is the statute of limitations on statutory rape? The statute of limitations on statutory rape varies from state to state and depends on whether the crime is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor is considered less serious than a felony and in most states it carries a shorter statute of limitations. Whether an incident of statutory rape is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony often depends on the age difference between the two parties. For example, in California the statute of limitations on misdemeanor statutory rape is one year and is charged when the two people involved are less than three years apart in age at the time of the crime, if the two people are more than three years apart at the time of the crime the charge become a felony and the statute of limitations increases to three years. To find out more about the differences between misdemeanor and felony statutory rape, including the statutes of limitations on each, contact your state Attorney Generals Office.
Link:
http://teenadvice.about.com/od/sexuallyactive/a/statutoryrape1.htm
That is ONLY ONE example.
So are pederast priests who rape 13-year-olds committing a misdemeanor or a felony?
And can credible accusations of child sexual abuse REALLY be made 20-50 YEARS LATER? If so, then look out: it could happen to anyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.