D
- Status
T
tedjoy
Guest
This article is a good example of the Jesuitical hair-splitting that got the Church into its paederastic problems in the first place.
Though neither of these priests (or are they ex-priests – I’m not sure of their status) were, apparently, convicted of any crimes, their resignations and/or re-assignments from their pastoral duties by their superiors amount to a de facto conviction.
Anyone who has been a journalist, a social worker, a law enforcement officer, a member of the health-care professions, a member of the court system, a clergyman or, even, just a reasonably observant human being knows that most crimes go unprosecuted, most criminals unconvicted.
SNAP’s manners have not been the best not their motives entirely pure, but far better to have an ill-mannered exposure of a spoiled or rogue priest than to have a cordial acceptance of one.
Best wishes,
Ted Joy
Though neither of these priests (or are they ex-priests – I’m not sure of their status) were, apparently, convicted of any crimes, their resignations and/or re-assignments from their pastoral duties by their superiors amount to a de facto conviction.
Anyone who has been a journalist, a social worker, a law enforcement officer, a member of the health-care professions, a member of the court system, a clergyman or, even, just a reasonably observant human being knows that most crimes go unprosecuted, most criminals unconvicted.
SNAP’s manners have not been the best not their motives entirely pure, but far better to have an ill-mannered exposure of a spoiled or rogue priest than to have a cordial acceptance of one.
Best wishes,
Ted Joy
M
Maranatha
Guest
IMHO, it’s better that people, including priests, are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There is a bail system in place to protect society while the process is in motion. If you don’t like process don’t go after accused individuals but work to make changes in the system.
T
tedjoy
Guest
Maranatha,
Why is it every time I see IMHO I’m inclined to reach for my hat and leave because I know sure as the dickens the opinion that follows is not going to be the least bit humble – and usually not much more sensible.
Of course, in this case, that’s not so.
It is, though, incredibly naive.
As anyone who has spent any time in and around the court system knows, what goes on there is much more a kind of ritualized combat bound by all sorts of esoteric and abstruse rules than any real quest for either truth and justice.
(Is that a pompous enough statement for you?)
Look, Maranatha, would justice really be served if every priest accused of a predilection for young boys were hauled off to the slammer – there to be allowed bail and to exercise his presumption of innocence before a court, the press and the whole world?
I assume that you’re familiar with such things as statutes of limitations and rules of evidence. These two would play a major part in the affair.
I don’t know how the law reads where you live, but let’s assume that the statute of limitations on juvenile buggery runs at seven years.
Then, if the priest in question were to have sodomized every altarboy and half the choir but he had done it all eight years ago, he would be untouchable.
No matter what the facts in the case were, no matter what the damage done, that man would still be a dangerous pervert and – except in your eyes – a despicable criminal.
If those are the sorts of priests and clergy you want to defend, then so be it.
I just don’t think I’d want to sit in the same pew with you or receive the Eucharist from such a minister.
But, as they say, to each his own.
Oh, and by the way, presumably the priests that are mentioned in the article had already been investigated by their bishops and found wanting – at the least – in the eyes of Mother Church.
Perhaps you don’t see your Faith as devoted to what’s good and right as you do your local bailbondsman.
Affectionately – but not so humbly,
Ted
Why is it every time I see IMHO I’m inclined to reach for my hat and leave because I know sure as the dickens the opinion that follows is not going to be the least bit humble – and usually not much more sensible.
Of course, in this case, that’s not so.
It is, though, incredibly naive.
As anyone who has spent any time in and around the court system knows, what goes on there is much more a kind of ritualized combat bound by all sorts of esoteric and abstruse rules than any real quest for either truth and justice.
(Is that a pompous enough statement for you?)
Look, Maranatha, would justice really be served if every priest accused of a predilection for young boys were hauled off to the slammer – there to be allowed bail and to exercise his presumption of innocence before a court, the press and the whole world?
I assume that you’re familiar with such things as statutes of limitations and rules of evidence. These two would play a major part in the affair.
I don’t know how the law reads where you live, but let’s assume that the statute of limitations on juvenile buggery runs at seven years.
Then, if the priest in question were to have sodomized every altarboy and half the choir but he had done it all eight years ago, he would be untouchable.
No matter what the facts in the case were, no matter what the damage done, that man would still be a dangerous pervert and – except in your eyes – a despicable criminal.
If those are the sorts of priests and clergy you want to defend, then so be it.
I just don’t think I’d want to sit in the same pew with you or receive the Eucharist from such a minister.
But, as they say, to each his own.
Oh, and by the way, presumably the priests that are mentioned in the article had already been investigated by their bishops and found wanting – at the least – in the eyes of Mother Church.
Perhaps you don’t see your Faith as devoted to what’s good and right as you do your local bailbondsman.
Affectionately – but not so humbly,
Ted
D
Della
Guest
In spite of your lack of confidence in our judicial system, tedjoy, it was designed to keep people from being hanged for crimes they didn’t commit because: “Everyone just KNOWS they did it!” I’d rather risk having a criminal get off scott free than see innocent people hauled off to jail for crimes they didn’t commit.
And if the statute of limitations is flawed, then we ought to work to have such statutes revised to fit the realities of our times rather than use them as an excuse for venting anger at persons who may or may not be guilty of anything.
Besides, when it came to convicting priests, statutes of limitations were thrown out or rewritten just so they could be prosecuted. So much for the constitutional guarantee preventing people from being retroactively prosecuted using laws just passed. No one seemed to be bothered about that–even though it could be used against anyone for any reason if the courts and legislators wish it. Now, that scares me, and ought to scare all Americans. But, you’re all right with it because, once again, “Everyone just KNOWS they did it?”
Just being accused is not the same thing as being found guilty. A priest at one of our local parishes was accused, investigated thoroughly, and found quite innocent of any misbehavior. But, according to your way of thinking he should have been tied to the pillory and flogged, never mind if he ever laid a hand on anyone or not. (How’s that for hyperbole?
)
And if the statute of limitations is flawed, then we ought to work to have such statutes revised to fit the realities of our times rather than use them as an excuse for venting anger at persons who may or may not be guilty of anything.
Besides, when it came to convicting priests, statutes of limitations were thrown out or rewritten just so they could be prosecuted. So much for the constitutional guarantee preventing people from being retroactively prosecuted using laws just passed. No one seemed to be bothered about that–even though it could be used against anyone for any reason if the courts and legislators wish it. Now, that scares me, and ought to scare all Americans. But, you’re all right with it because, once again, “Everyone just KNOWS they did it?”
Just being accused is not the same thing as being found guilty. A priest at one of our local parishes was accused, investigated thoroughly, and found quite innocent of any misbehavior. But, according to your way of thinking he should have been tied to the pillory and flogged, never mind if he ever laid a hand on anyone or not. (How’s that for hyperbole?
)
T
tedjoy
Guest
I left out a few words in the seventh paragraph from the bottom.
It now reads: “No matter what the facts in the case were, no matter what the damage done, that man would still be a dangerous pervert and – except in your eyes – a despicable criminal.”
It should read: "No matter what the facts in the case were, no matter what the damage done, that man would not, could not, be found guilty of any crime, but he would still be a dangerous pervert and – except in your eyes – a despicable criminal.
–tj
It now reads: “No matter what the facts in the case were, no matter what the damage done, that man would still be a dangerous pervert and – except in your eyes – a despicable criminal.”
It should read: "No matter what the facts in the case were, no matter what the damage done, that man would not, could not, be found guilty of any crime, but he would still be a dangerous pervert and – except in your eyes – a despicable criminal.
–tj
T
tedjoy
Guest
Della, Della, Della, my dear.
Your response is a perfect example of hyperbole. Overwrought hyperbole, even.
Where to begin?
First, you accuse me of wanting to hang poor, innocent priests.
What in your fevered imagination made you come up with that sort of nonsense?
I thought we were talking about some folks passing out handbills notifying neighbors of priests gone bad about what kind of predators they had living next door.
I somehow fail to see the equivalence between lynching a man and providing the public with information about his past misdeeds. When you’re in a more rational mood, I’d appreciate it if you could explain further.
Secondly, you accuse me of a lack of confidence in our judicial system. I don’t think I said anything to warrant that. What I did say was that our legal system was not set up to determine truth – better make that with a capital T – Truth and Justice.
What it is set up to do – and does reasonably well – is arbitrate disputes and maintain public order.
For the record, I am a great admirer of the American judicial system – though I have to admit that a reasonable improvement to it would be to hang about five per cent of the lawyers each year, more or less at random.
From the style of your rhetoric – being scared, Scared, SCARED – I’m guessing you must be a Liberal of some sort.
If that is so, then I assume that you believe in the Constitution as a “living document.” I may be all wrong here, but bear with me a moment longer.
So, if you subscribe to that sort of jurisprudential outlook, then you should have no problem with these sorts of retroactive laws – all of which, if I remember correctly, have withstood many, many constitutional challenges.
Matter of fact, let me offer a friendly word of advice. If you really don’t like these sorts of laws and aren’t too terrified to do something about them, why don’t you work for the appointment of strict constructionists to the state and federal benches.
On the whole, though, I think statutes of limitation are very good ideas but – here’s the subtle part – I also think that there needs to be other mechanisms for dealing with situations where the court processes are egregiously unjust.
Some people – perhaps you, based on the tone of your argument – seem to think that lynching is the only alternative.
I, on the other hand, am a much more mellow sort of guy. I think passing out handbills will do a much better job of it.
Also, my friend, based on your projections on me of all sorts of fantasies of lynching and flogging et cetera let me suggest that you work out some of your psychic energy by googling bd/s&m.
That sounds like it would be pretty much up your alley.
Oh, one other thing, I was surprised you didn’t work George Bush into your screed somehow and point out that he and I were in cahoots for wanting to abuse, torment and torture non-convicted child molesters.
Maybe next time.
Best wishes,
Ted
Your response is a perfect example of hyperbole. Overwrought hyperbole, even.
Where to begin?
First, you accuse me of wanting to hang poor, innocent priests.
What in your fevered imagination made you come up with that sort of nonsense?
I thought we were talking about some folks passing out handbills notifying neighbors of priests gone bad about what kind of predators they had living next door.
I somehow fail to see the equivalence between lynching a man and providing the public with information about his past misdeeds. When you’re in a more rational mood, I’d appreciate it if you could explain further.
Secondly, you accuse me of a lack of confidence in our judicial system. I don’t think I said anything to warrant that. What I did say was that our legal system was not set up to determine truth – better make that with a capital T – Truth and Justice.
What it is set up to do – and does reasonably well – is arbitrate disputes and maintain public order.
For the record, I am a great admirer of the American judicial system – though I have to admit that a reasonable improvement to it would be to hang about five per cent of the lawyers each year, more or less at random.
From the style of your rhetoric – being scared, Scared, SCARED – I’m guessing you must be a Liberal of some sort.
If that is so, then I assume that you believe in the Constitution as a “living document.” I may be all wrong here, but bear with me a moment longer.
So, if you subscribe to that sort of jurisprudential outlook, then you should have no problem with these sorts of retroactive laws – all of which, if I remember correctly, have withstood many, many constitutional challenges.
Matter of fact, let me offer a friendly word of advice. If you really don’t like these sorts of laws and aren’t too terrified to do something about them, why don’t you work for the appointment of strict constructionists to the state and federal benches.
On the whole, though, I think statutes of limitation are very good ideas but – here’s the subtle part – I also think that there needs to be other mechanisms for dealing with situations where the court processes are egregiously unjust.
Some people – perhaps you, based on the tone of your argument – seem to think that lynching is the only alternative.
I, on the other hand, am a much more mellow sort of guy. I think passing out handbills will do a much better job of it.
Also, my friend, based on your projections on me of all sorts of fantasies of lynching and flogging et cetera let me suggest that you work out some of your psychic energy by googling bd/s&m.
That sounds like it would be pretty much up your alley.
Oh, one other thing, I was surprised you didn’t work George Bush into your screed somehow and point out that he and I were in cahoots for wanting to abuse, torment and torture non-convicted child molesters.
Maybe next time.
Best wishes,
Ted
P
puzzleannie
Guest
anybody who has been a member of any of these professions also knows that “innocent until proven guilty” has become a constitutional anachronism when applied to high profile crimes like this.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Sounds like a modern day equivalent to a non-lethal lynch mob.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I’m sorry but this is entirely out of line. If you can’t reply without the personal attacks, you shouldn’t reply at all.
Peace
Tim
T
tedjoy
Guest
Tim,
You’re quite right about personal attacks.
People should not be accused of saying things that they haven’t said and of having advocated things that they haven’t advocated. Nor should they be the objects of others strange projections.
I quite agree with you.
Et cum spiritu tuo
Ted
You’re quite right about personal attacks.
People should not be accused of saying things that they haven’t said and of having advocated things that they haven’t advocated. Nor should they be the objects of others strange projections.
I quite agree with you.
Et cum spiritu tuo
Ted
- Status