You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I guess it’s not that surprising if it’s true. I think it’s apparent now that there was an institutional attitude to protect the Church at almost any cost. It’s also apparent that that attitude is changing because of Pope Francis.
The question I have is where did the attitude of Church protectionism come from? I think it probably came from the top. I think it’s probably been around for a very, very long time. But, how long has that attitude been applied to pedophile priests? And how institutionalized was it? These questions are inevitable, and will sooner or later be asked, by authorities at various secular levels, of the Vatican.
The question I have is where did the attitude of Church protectionism come from? I think it probably came from the top. I think it’s probably been around for a very, very long time. But, how long has that attitude been applied to pedophile priests? And how institutionalized was it? These questions are inevitable, and will sooner or later be asked, by authorities at various secular levels, of the Vatican.
M
Maxirad
Guest
Please keep Canon 1373 in mind.
M
MapleLeaf1
Guest
Not the staunchest defender of everything Francis, but this seems sketchy to me. She claims he must have known because…he must have known. If this were credible you would think places like LifeSite would have picked this up. If even they can’t touch this with a 10 foot pole, that says something about the story.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Are you attempting to answer my questions with this Canon?Please keep Canon 1373 in mind.
Last edited:
J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
“Good Ole Boy Network”
S
stpurl
Guest
That’s a pretty common view, but it isn’t quite accurate. There was an attitude ‘back then’ which was backed up not only by medical professionals, i.e. psychologists, as well as legal professionals, i.e. lawyers, police, courts, that is very different from today’s attitude.
One can compare it to the attitude in the U.S. about abortion. Prior to R v W, abortion across the board was viewed as evil, or at best, as a ‘last resort’ in certain extreme situations. Today, it’s a legal right and defended as not just right and good in some situations, but a positive blessing --for the aborted child above all, lest he be born ‘unwanted’.
It wasn’t just the "Catholic Church’; it was the Baptist Church, the Jewish synagogue, the local schools, the Scouts, and private citizens. It was considered (again, this is by medical and legal professionals, not “The Church’ going against professionals, or in the face of every other church or group who 'let it all hang out”) in the best interest of the victim, as well as the perp (who often claimed innocence and in the face of there usually being no witnesses) to settle this without harming the reputations of either person.
I know it’s ‘hard to believe’ but until the 1990s 'The Church", in reassigning men who were CURED (according to MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS), was following medical and legal advice given to EVERY OTHER 'GROUP".
So why do so many single out the Catholic Church as if only it ‘covered up’, and only for the basest of motives, without telling the whole truth?
One can compare it to the attitude in the U.S. about abortion. Prior to R v W, abortion across the board was viewed as evil, or at best, as a ‘last resort’ in certain extreme situations. Today, it’s a legal right and defended as not just right and good in some situations, but a positive blessing --for the aborted child above all, lest he be born ‘unwanted’.
It wasn’t just the "Catholic Church’; it was the Baptist Church, the Jewish synagogue, the local schools, the Scouts, and private citizens. It was considered (again, this is by medical and legal professionals, not “The Church’ going against professionals, or in the face of every other church or group who 'let it all hang out”) in the best interest of the victim, as well as the perp (who often claimed innocence and in the face of there usually being no witnesses) to settle this without harming the reputations of either person.
I know it’s ‘hard to believe’ but until the 1990s 'The Church", in reassigning men who were CURED (according to MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS), was following medical and legal advice given to EVERY OTHER 'GROUP".
So why do so many single out the Catholic Church as if only it ‘covered up’, and only for the basest of motives, without telling the whole truth?
A
AlNg
Guest
Because of the claims made by the Catholic church, it is held to a higher standard than many other institutions.So why do so many single out the Catholic Church…
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
This really doesn’t hold water. There would be no problem mounting a defense in a criminal court case if any of that was true. How could a bishop be held responsible if he was simply following the common medical and legal practices of the time that every other group followed?I know it’s ‘hard to believe’ but until the 1990s 'The Church", in reassigning men who were CURED (according to MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS), was following medical and legal advice given to EVERY OTHER 'GROUP".
S
stpurl
Guest
This is going to be even harder to believe, but the law doesn’t actually work like Matlock or Perry Mason. Lawyers get together at the start, and they determine what is going to be discussed and covered. You can have all the documents at your hand showing that Bishop A was assured in month day year by the following psychologists B, C, and D that Father X was ‘cured’ and their recommendation was for Father X to be sent to parish Newby with a 'clean slate", as well as depositions by victims E and F that they agreed to this, signed and witnessed by Police Chief H. . . and those documents may never be ruled in as evidence or heard. All kinds of reasons for them to be ‘inadmissable’. As for running in a paper or something? Sorry, libel laws, etc.
The American judicial system, like so many others, is in a state of chaos. Oh, in some cases it works just fine. But a lot of the time, a given ruling will depend on who YOU are, or who you know, and not SPIT on what you actually have done or did not do.
Sad, but true.
The American judicial system, like so many others, is in a state of chaos. Oh, in some cases it works just fine. But a lot of the time, a given ruling will depend on who YOU are, or who you know, and not SPIT on what you actually have done or did not do.
Sad, but true.
A
abucs
Guest
The church was too liberal with regards to sin after the sexual revolution.
It should have been much more rigid in insisting on Catholic teaching.
It should have been much more rigid in insisting on Catholic teaching.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.