Equal Justice.

[Verisimilitude]

I was just watching a news story about the large settlement the Church is making on behalf of abuse victims. A comment was made that suggested the Church would no longer contest access by the local civil authorities who have legal jurisdiction when crimes are committed by a priest. I think that is a just thing to do.

The power of the state over religion.

The reverse should have it’s due.

48 Catholic members of Congress have signed a letter warning that the church risks bringing “great harm” on itself if bishops decide to deny Communion to legislators who support abortion rights or take other public positions that are odds with church doctrine.

In a 10 May letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, the legislators, all House Democrats, wrote that they were concerned about recent statements by some members of the Catholic hierarchy “indicating that the sacrament of communion should be withheld from certain Catholic legislators because of their votes on public issues.”

“We do not believe it is our role to legislate [according to] the teachings of the Catholic Church,” wrote the legislators, some of whom oppose abortion rights. “For any of us to be singled out by any bishop by the refusal of communion or other public criticism ***because we vote in what we believe ***are the requirements of the United States Constitution and laws of our country, which we are sworn to uphold, is deeply hurtful.”

The legislators said denying the sacrament to legislators based on their voting records “would be counter-productive and would bring great harm to the Church.”
cathnews.com/news/405/116.php

I disagree with the legislators letter. I would vote for a Catholic politician because they are Catholic expecting they would vote their beliefs which conform to my own. Some things are that serious. They should leave office or the Church if they do not have the integrity to stand for the basic sanctity of life the faith declares.

For such public figures I think the Church has the authority and obligation to take action on the individual.

 

[melensdad]

I would vote for a Catholic politician because they are Catholic expecting they would vote their beliefs which conform to my own. Some things are that serious. They should leave office or the Church if they do not have the integrity to stand for the basic sanctity of life the faith declares.

For such public figures I think the Church has the authority and obligation to take action on the individual.

I agree with you on this but I also see the view of the politician. I think there may be some times when a Catholic politician may, to survive in an election cycle, be forced to cast votes that are in opposition of the Catholic teachings. However, it also strikes me that there are SOME issues that are just too large, too important, to vote against the Church teachings.

I guess I could overlook SOME votes on SOME issues if the MAJORITY of the votes were pro-Catholic and if the IMPORTANT votes were all pro-Catholic. It sort of falls into the concept of doing greater good more often than not, when if that particular Catholic politician were replaced, he/she might be replaced by someone who would be far worse.

So sometimes we have to vote for the lesser of the evils. Sometimes we have to accept the lesser of the evils. But always we should make our voices heard, and when someone votes against our positions we should remind them of our beliefs. The Church leaders also have the right, and the obligation, to remind Catholic politicians that there are some positions that are simply unacceptable and if they cross the line on those issues then they may face retribution from the Church.

 

[AndyF]

Verisimilitude:

I would set the condition that if the victim agrees to be compensated then a trial is not held and civil authorities should honour that decision and bow out of the case. I would also set some strict rules on the victim. If the condition is that there is a gag order and agrees to accept compensation then the civil authorities recognize the Church’s option of filing it’s own lawsuit and claim a return of the monies given.

These are not asking anything outside of the norms of any democratic civil code.

I would vote for a Catholic politician because they are Catholic expecting they would vote their beliefs which conform to my own. Some things are that serious.

In all things.

AndyF

 

[Verisimilitude]

So sometimes we have to vote for the lesser of the evils. Sometimes we have to accept the lesser of the evils. But always we should make our voices heard, and when someone votes against our positions we should remind them of our beliefs. The Church leaders also have the right, and the obligation, to remind Catholic politicians that there are some positions that are simply unacceptable and if they cross the line on those issues then they may face retribution from the Church.

I understand the reality of politics, but have never subscribed to accpeting the lesser of two evils ideology. I know what you mean, and not to make too fine a point; it is only if we as an individual be it a politician or average person on the street stick to our personal philosophy without compromise, our civil laws will reflect the majority opinion which I think would be more in line with the Church.

If the politician is a declared Catholic, I will expect no less. If they lost an election due to such a stance- so be it.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude:

I would set the condition that if the victim agrees to be compensated then a trial is not held and civil authorities should honour that decision and bow out of the case.

Hi Andy,
To some degree you might be correct, but in another degree I think not. If the victim is a 8 year old boy being sexually molested by a priest, decon…within the Church I would like to see the full weight of civil authority crush the evil of abuse without pity to the abuser. Gods retribution may come later.

I would also set some strict rules on the victim.

As in some cases the victim has lived for years with the shame and shadows of the abuse. Only the light of the truth should have rules.

These are not asking anything outside of the norms of any democratic civil code.

In all things.

AndyF

I think we need to be carefull that Gods moral code is not being violated for civility.

Thanks.

 

[AndyF]

Verisimilitude:

Mercy is at the heart of Chritianity.

As it is with all things involving children, their representative makes the decision along with any fallible decision he may make. This is understood generally by society and it’s the best we can do.

The message of Mat 5,24-25 instructs us how we are to approach court cases. What is occuring in this passage is Jesus emphasising the settlement of disputes as quickly as possible. Settling implies defining what is required for restitution and carrying that out as quickly as possible to restore an individual’s state. Any punishment delivered that isn’t covered in it is extra and breaks that rule in God’s presence, as it says in effect that the previous state between the parties was an unresolved issue.

This is why the criminal record-cum-sentencing is frowned on by God. The original intent of it meant as a discreet file for monitoring and investigation by the police, now is an instrument for sale at the highest bidder to anyone who has the money. Now it’s effect is a sentencing tool not mentioned at the trial, as it provides a behind the scene perpetual punishment for the offender not stated then. It also makes a mockery of the statement “paying his due to society” as justice is rigged to ensure this never happens. The offense now made by society falls under the act of deliberate slander as that is what is occuring here.

In our case the point is the victim/rep contracted not only before the court but before God to accept money and remain quiet about it. This was seen as sufficient compensation. The victim/rep now needs to explain to God why he needs to exact more than what he stated was sufficient. If when he becomes an adult he finds the settlement gesture not to his liking, his argument is with his rep not the offender. But then this also isn’t charitable has the victim needs to honour his rep’s decision no matter what it was. If he goes to the media the act becomes one of slander, has it was the victim or the court which represents him that stated restitution was previously made.

Some will say it seems like a funnel where there are no options and that is true, that is the reality. We are channeled into proper behaviour and we know when we deviate. We are offered options by civil law and options by devine law. We are servants and obliged to give people other chances to turn to a good path. God insists that he is our brother and we cannot reject him.

You can easily see now that the payment is made. We cannot “by the way” the offender to ask for 50cents more than the original 50$ fine, because now we are asking 50cents from a non-offender as the 50$ was **judged as fair compensation by the court **representing the victim.

There is a time where society/individuals need to let go. 2 Cor 2,6 makes this point more directly, and the concern in this scene is for the offender. Paul sees him reinstated into society but society sees it different. He felt it necessary to break them out of their lynch mob mentality.

The misconception is that the option to punish outside that which is stated is always there to be applied at random and at any measure, when that isn’t true. Nation and it’s ideal of the morally correct way of handling justice is not the ideal model for Christians.

AndyF

 

[Sixtus]

Verisimilitude

Equal Justice.
I was just watching a news story about the large settlement the Church is making on behalf of abuse victims.

Just because the Church ‘pays up’ does not mean that abuse has always taken place.

Here in UK there has been numerous reports carried in the media about allegations of abuse. The Church has paid up and it has later proven to be the case that there was no abuse. The claim false in its entirety.

I do not know why the Church just ‘pays up’ without investigating the case but it has and does happen

 

[Verisimilitude]

Just because the Church ‘pays up’ does not mean that abuse has always taken place.

I agree.

Here in UK there has been numerous reports carried in the media about allegations of abuse. The Church has paid up and it has later proven to be the case that there was no abuse. The claim false in its entirety.

It is a shame, prudence should never give way to fear.

I do not know why the Church just ‘pays up’ without investigating the case but it has and does happen

Someone in another thread pointed out how small the actual % of abuse occured by priests compared to the general population, which does not make it any less an issue to the Church, but should make a difference in public opinion. As others too have said, I hold the Church and Her memebrs to a higher standard. I think the world does too.

It is difficult standard at times if not impossible to live by, but it is the Truth. Only by risking the fall will we achieve its height. I think it is more rare to fall so far that there is no hope, but always through Justice will hope remain- especially for the innocent victims who are often denied any justice.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude:

Mercy is at the heart of Chritianity.

Truth is at the heart of Justice.

I do not care about the money. That child’s life is now soiled; nothing on this planet will make that clean again. Some learn to cope, compartmentalize, and re-join life within typical norms. Some do not. None get past what is always there, and it doesn’t ever go away.

Priest/child sexual abuse is worse in one way only- the fall is greater for the offender. Every confirmed victim should have a personal interview with no less than a Bishop, who asks the victim/family what they need for help in the matter, and give it. The Church should not hinder, but assist in a fair investigation. If an offender publicly confesses or if the accusation/suspicion warrants it, turn the offender over to the civil authorities for adjudication.

All adult/child sexual abuse is the topic, or should be. What of the victims abused by someone in, or close to their family? What of those kidnapped or sold into prostitution? Where is their Catholic Church to blame and get compensation from?

If the payment by the Church brings greater awareness to a much greater problem outside the Church, and is shown to be a true sanctuary for abuse victims, maybe there will be less abused children, and/or more come to Her. They way to keep someone from continually knocking on the door for reasonable help is to keep the door open.

The public spotlight on the Church now should be amplified by the light of the world.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Mark 4:22
For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.

 

[AndyF]

Mark 4:22
For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.

This saying is one of many commentaries on the revelation of the reign of God. {NAB}

Slander’s mal intent also includes the use of truth as well as lies. The point being the contracts are agreed on. The truth will be revealed at judgment as it will with everything hidden.

AndyF

 

[melensdad]

If the politician is a declared Catholic, I will expect no less. If they lost an election due to such a stance- so be it.

I suppose I would rather have a semi-good Catholic in office who will defend my faith MOST of the time than an anti-God Athiest who can be counted on to work to destroy, little by little, any correlation this nation has with a Judeo-Christian based ethic and morality.

If the payment by the Church brings greater awareness to a much greater problem outside the Church, and is shown to be a true sanctuary for abuse victims, maybe there will be less abused children, and/or more come to Her. They way to keep someone from continually knocking on the door for reasonable help is to keep the door open.

The public spotlight on the Church now should be amplified by the light of the world.

Agreed on this point. The Bishops, by hiding away these priests and covering up the sins and abuses in the name of protecting the church have done it far greater harm than good. It is now all coming out into the open and we will be far better off as a faith if we learn from this terrible lesson that the truth must be told, the guilty must be punished and the crime must not be tolerated. It is part of the basis of our trust.

 

[Sixtus]

Working in the criminal justice system I can categorically and specifically state…and you may quote me on it:

Sadly and tragically child abuse happens in all occupations and social groups.

Nealy all other occupations are far far worse than among clergy.

It always has and may always be. It is usually a family member who is the most likely offender.

Children are statistically more at risk of abuse with their OWN natural mothers than they are with a Catholic Priest

Catholic Priests are among the lowest occupations for child abuse. So low in fact that it is negligible. Tragically [and we all know the reasons why] that when it does occur, it gets high media attention which portrays the false image that Catholic Priests are the main offenders.

It happens in all denoms. Again Catholic Priests are in the minority in both incidence and frequency. In other words, among other clergy and occupations including the care of their OWN mothers,children are most safe when they are in the care of Catholic Priests

DON’T LET MEDIA OR ARGUEMENT LET YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THIS AS THIS IS FACT!

 

[Trader]

Does equal justice include the falsely accused priest?

A very fine priest I know was accused of abuse that was long in the past. The closest he ever came to abusing me as as server was to tell me not to ring the bells so loud at 6:00 AM Mass.

While the Diocese investigated the case they had to put the priest on leave. When they investigated the accuser’s background it was discovered that his parents rarely brought him to church, he was never alone with the priest, and he was currently on probation for two federal felony convictions that included wire fraud. The reason he got probation was that he was such an inept criminal that he was not much of a danger. Nevertheless, had he been convicted of perjury in the abuse case, he would have been eligible for an enhanced sentence as an habitual offender. He wisely decided to drop the case and find the money to pay his lawyers from his other cases somewhere else.

Is anyone out there surprised that the false accusation got a lot more press coverage than the exoneration?

Equal justice is frequently a casualty to political considerations. I know first hand that a man will be prosecuted for a misdemeanor battery of a woman, and he should be, but a woman who uses felony perjury as weapon against her husband will not be prosecuted.

Equal protection under the law is a basic priciple of the constitution our prosecutors take an oath to support and defend. Too often the choose to dishonor their own oath.

 

[melensdad]

Does equal justice include the falsely accused priest?

Certainly equal justice applies to those falsely accused, but that does not mean the media will provide equal coverage. After all, the headlines that read “Priest did NOT abuse child” would not sell a newspaper.

 

[Trader]

Certainly equal justice applies to those falsely accused, but that does not mean the media will provide equal coverage. After all, the headlines that read "Priest did NOT abuse child" would not sell a newspaper.

A headline “Perjurer Sentenced To Prison And Restitution” might sell some newspapers. It certainly would be unusual.

 

[Sixtus]

Trader posted:

Certainly equal justice applies to those falsely accused, but that does not mean the media will provide equal coverage. After all, the headlines that read “Priest did NOT abuse child” would not sell a newspaper.

In UK a national newpaper ran a front page series on Priest -abuse over several weeks. The Catholic Church even paid out compensation.

The matter related to alleged abuse at a convent school the injured parties had attended. The school had long since closed and been demolished. Previously there had been no complaints or records of abuse taking place there.

The claimants convinced psychiatrists [and the courts] they had suffered permanent injuries from the abuse which had wrecked and plagued them all their adult life.

By now, everyone in UK knew of the school and that ‘it was a den of iniquity for child abuse’. Protests from former pupils who disagreed with the claim, fell on deaf ears, no-one was interested in listening to first-hand testimony. The press had done a brilliant demolition job on Catholic Convent education.

A routine check by a minor local education authority town council clerk revealed that none of those who claimed damages had ever attended the school. The facts were re-investigated and the claimants prosecuted for fraud. The truth and the convictions were not covered by the press!

The national newspaper ran a very discreet and small retraction on a page few looked at.

The fraud and the press destroyed over a century of impeccable reputation for quality education and care of pupils.

The Church did not get back any of the money it had paid out wrongfully in compensation by miscarriage of justice. Worse, the damage to its reputation will never be rectified.

This was 10-years ago, ordinary folk al over UK still talk about the abuse at the Convent even though the press published a retraction.