| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
And I reiterate: The more time out from the so-called crime, the harder it is to prove innocence when inflammatory allegations are made, and inflated by leftist media out to destroy the Catholic Church. That is exactly what I meant by “Nifonging the Catholic Church.”
There will be more than a little backlash from the treatment of these cases, so much so that I pity any REAL victim in the future.
457:4 Marriageable. – No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.
(New Hampshire code)
According to this handy reference page at the Cornell Law School, Massachusetts allows for males who are 14 and females who are 12 to be married with parental consent, Hawaii is 15 with consent as is Missouri, and Mississippi does not have a lower age...provided there is parental consent. Most remaining states are 16.
Please note: this assumes that a marriage would be consummated. For sex outside of marriage, most states have an age of consent of 16.
But there are some weird exceptions. For example, South Carolina. Section 16-3-655 of their annotated code says:
(B) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree if:
(1) the actor engages in sexual battery with a victim who is fourteen years of age or less but who is at least eleven years of age; or
(2) the actor engages in sexual battery with a victim who is at least fourteen years of age but who is less than sixteen years of age and the actor is in a position of familial, custodial, or official authority to coerce the victim to submit or is older than the victim. However, a person may not be convicted of a violation of the provisions of this item if he is eighteen years of age or less when he engages in consensual sexual conduct with another person who is at least fourteen years of age.
And, of course, we must remember that the US is not the only country in the world. For example, in much of Europe the age of consent for unmarried sex is 14 (caution: wiki source), provided there is no exploitation or deception involved.
But I digress. There is no excuse for an ordained minister of any religion to be exploiting anybody. Period. It is a far more heinous thing when dealing with a person with whom that minister is an authority figure...and the lack of experience for a teenager or tweenager just makes that fact worse.
But there is a fundamentally different issue going on when the crime is with a pubescent or post-pubescent adolescent than when it is with a pre-pubescent child. Not a change in severity of the issue: but in the cause of it.
And understanding the cause and type of problem is really important when trying to screen out people. In other words, how do you fix it.
And it still comes down to the same thing: many of the bishops and many of the seminaries for years bought into the modern psychological hoax that there was not an issue of ordaining a homosexual who made a promise of celibacy. If it wasn't for that, you would still have a problem, but it would have paled in comparison to the problem that the US Church was forced to deal with back in 2002 and that the European Church is dealing with now.
Thanks for another sane post. I read that same information, but I figured it was too complex for most. Shame on me, it definitely belongs here.
And it is very relevant to “Nifonging the Church.”
You are right.
But unfortunately that is not universally how it goes.
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.
And that is the current policy within the US Catholic Church and has been since 2005 (after the 2002 explosion that happened here):
6. When an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is received, a preliminary investigation in accordance with canon law will be initiated and conducted promptly and objectively (CIC, c. 1717; CCEO, c. 1468). During the investigation the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, and all appropriate steps shall be taken to protect his reputation. The accused will be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel and will be promptly notified of the results of the investigation. When there is sufficient evidence that sexual abuse of a minor has occurred, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shall be notified. The bishop/eparch shall then apply the precautionary measures mentioned in CIC, canon 1722, or CCEO, canon 1473-- i.e., withdraw the accused from exercising the sacred ministry or any ecclesiastical office or function, impose or prohibit residence in a given place or territory, and prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist pending the outcome of the process....
8. When even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accordance with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1).(4)
Plain language:
The really fun part about this is that by taking the attitude they’ve taken (they are all a bunch of pedophiles), these folks are actually supporting the homosexual agenda. The homosexuals are just trying to divert peoples’ eyes from the real truth of the matter (it’s a homosexual problem) to one of it’s a pedophilia problem.
Pedophilia is a problem...in that there are a few who are in ministry...but focusing on that as the primary issue diverts attention from where the _main_ problem really is.
Yes, advancing homosexuality and destroying the Catholic Church are two of the attacks the left is making on America. I just don’t understand how people can’t see it.
Seriously. My responses to the insanity posted here tonight would be wasted except they are, by their own admission, posting for lurkers. They actually do not see that they are useful idiots.
No, it's not but molestation was the term the Dr. commented on and that can include rape since it covers a very broad range of acts.
Well this is not the subject one should keep demanding more examples as evidence because there is a tidal wave available. After a bit it becomes redundant and depressingly familiar.
And no matter how one parses the terms used the salient fact is that wolves were feeding on their flocks and the shepherds busied themselves keeping the authorities at bay.
But even Sodom has its defenders.
“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.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where I posted this.
“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?”
And where exactly did I post this?
“So, has this other account been banned?“
That’s accusatory. Why would my old account have been banned? I didn’t do anything wrong.
Actually, this is a perfectly legitimate question.
“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?“
Again, where did I write this?
I could keep cutting and responding but you get the drift.
Really? You've posted exactly one quote from me and that was where I asked why you were posting under a different name and that is because most people who make this claim HAVE been banned and your reluctance to reveal the other name only bolsters my theory.
Speaking of cover-ups....
Terence Melville Pidoto
Joseph Steele
Robert Burkholder
Albarracin Jose Virgilio
James Porter
Xavier Ochoa
John J. Geoghan
Ronald H. Paquin
Richard L. Lavigne
Alfred Willis
Edward Oleszewski
Jason E. Sigler
Alejandro Flores (accused)
Joseph P. Fratic (accused)
Bishop Thomas L. Dupre (accused)
And that's just a sampling....
Catholic bishops and sex abuse - Database of Diocese & Bishops Involved (Warning: LONG LIST!)
Well, I suppose that's one way to interpret the belief that Catholic priests are "married to the church"...
Ridiculous. I mentioned that having sex with a 13 or 14 yo is not rape if the adolescent is married. Now all of a sudden, it’s a big funny.
I find nothing about this entire situation funny, but I do see the usual suspects playing hate-the-Church games. I guess you care more about destroying the Catholic Church (what will be the reason you give God?) than you do about the child sexual abuse in your own church.
Well, I think that depends - did this theoretical married adolescent ask his/her spouse if having sex with the local Catholic priest was okay, and did the spouse grant permission? Does this mean that it's not "rape-rape"?
I guess you care more about destroying the Catholic Church (what will be the reason you give God?) than you do about the child sexual abuse in your own church.
The three most common types of "making it personal" on the Religion Forum are: 1) attributing motives to the other Freeper, 2) reading his mind or telling him what he personally believes, and 3) making the thread "about" individual Freepers. I do believe that Post #273 is remarkably concise trifecta of all three being committed.
Non-sequitur. The statement was made that sex with any 13 or 14 yo was rape. The truth is, not in the case of a married 13 or 14 yo. How many cases of presbyterian minister child sexual abuse have occurred since 1950? I submit we will never know, it has all been hushed up. That clearly shows that presbyterians and other anti-Catholic bigots care far more about slandering the Catholic Church than finding and rooting out their own sins. As has been said, it isn't so much the sin, as the coverup.
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.