| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Question for Ivorythumper and JoeB | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2010, 10:36 AM (1,373 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | Mar 14 2010, 01:33 AM Post #51 |
|
Cheers
|
IT - so your view is that, absent documentary evidence that Razinger knew why he was being sent for treatment, that its safe for us to assume that he approved the man's transfer to therapy without being told what condition his diocese was seeking to treat? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| blondie | Mar 14 2010, 04:46 AM Post #52 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I'm not Joe or IT but here are my thoughts. Kids need to grow up to be adults not victims of child abuse. Regardless of research done in the 80's supporting "therapy", church people should've applied maximal common sense to any situation where allegations of such abuse were made of church people in positions of leadership. These people should've been removed from contact with children. My gosh, even the stupidest among us back then would act to protect little brother Pete from his weirdo perv Uncle Tom if we suspected/knew & could, right? This church has made big time errors affecting the most innocent of it's members. Thus all in positions of leadership need to fall. All of them must be held accountable. There needs to be a whole new structure of leadership and management of leaders. Covering up such abuse comes so close to matching the atrocities of the abuse itself. This church's leadership has no credibility; it's own members are fast losing respect for their own religion. |
![]() |
|
| blondie | Mar 14 2010, 05:02 AM Post #53 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
There's an expression I often use: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." I may not be what IT terms a "faithful" Catholic, but God certainly knows I don't stand idle defending wrongful illegal immoral stupidity when I see it. I believe more Catholics "faithful", recovering, otherwise, should be making themselves part of the solution concerning this. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 14 2010, 05:16 AM Post #54 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That's not entirely accurate. Although the rules can vary from state to state, there's Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers (and similar things for doctors and architects), which is adopted by most of the states. Moreover, there's an overall professional authority ... the ABA, the AMA, etc., which helps set uniform rules. I'm not sure there's anything analogous for the clergy.
The standard for lawyers, doctors, and architects is not imaginary. There are national professional organizations that set it out. It's written. Unless something written can also be imaginary ... Edit:
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/model_rules.html 49 out of 50, with only minor variations, is pretty uniform. And certainly not imaginary. Edited by QuirtEvans, Mar 14 2010, 07:12 AM.
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 14 2010, 07:31 AM Post #55 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I hope you're joking.
|
![]() |
|
| JoeB | Mar 14 2010, 08:55 AM Post #56 |
|
Senior Carp
|
No, I am not joking.
From Code of Canon Law (Vatican English) If you think about it for a second it is a perfectly logical extension of the prohibition on the clergy. |
| "There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 08:57 AM Post #57 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Yes it does. St John Nepomuk was killed by the King rather than betray the seal of confession against the Queen. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 09:00 AM Post #58 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It's an English thing, Ax. "Can" means only that he has the physical ability to do something. "May" means he has permission (and a just moral choice) to do something. But by your reasoning, yes you "can" murder your wife and children, but you may not do so with impunity. So you have a choice to do so as far as you have free will, but not morally so. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 09:03 AM Post #59 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You will assume all sorts of things here, Jon, and so far you have not indicated that you would assume anything good about Ratzinger. I am not assuming anything, and only looking at what we apparently know about the facts of the case based on the various (possibly incorrect) journalistic accounts. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 09:06 AM Post #60 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So does a policeman on the take, or a corrupt judge or legislator mean that the whole political system needs to torn down and rebuilt? Do mistakes and even crimes made by civil authorities mean that the whole system of governance has no credibility? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 09:10 AM Post #61 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Part of that process of educating and informing ourselves as laypeople as to the real facts (such as the apparent fact the Ratzinger was not in any way protecting a child molester, but rather permitted him into the diocese for the purpose of therapy). |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 14 2010, 09:19 AM Post #62 |
|
Cheers
|
We know he approved therapy for a child molester rather than calling the authorites. He failed in his moral obligation in my mind, and, depending which post of yours one reads, perhaps yours as well. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Mar 14 2010, 09:41 AM Post #63 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This is of course, utter nonsense. I used to get in to long arguments with George (remember George?) over this. He would argue that pedophile priests were having a crisis of faith and I argued that they were pervs who had to be kept away from children. He could not be dissuaded. The "crisis of faith" thing is how the Church has justified their actions for 2000 years. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 14 2010, 09:44 AM Post #64 |
|
Finally
|
Moi? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Mar 14 2010, 09:48 AM Post #65 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No - different George. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 14 2010, 09:58 AM Post #66 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Read the thread, Steve. My comment was not referring to pedophiles or people with other sexual pathologies. It was in response to BJ's assertion that anyone who foreswore sexual relations was in some way pathological themselves. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Mar 14 2010, 10:04 AM Post #67 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Not pathological perhaps, but certainly delusional. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 14 2010, 10:12 AM Post #68 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
So your position is that anyone who does not think as you do is delusional? Scratch a liberal... |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 14 2010, 10:34 AM Post #69 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Do you not think a person's civic duty trumps Canon Law in this respect? It's not like I'd go to hell or anything if I overheard a criminal confessing a crime and told the police. In any case I am not bound by Canon Law. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 02:33 PM Post #70 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Why should it not be assumed that anyone consigned to therapy was already being properly taken care? Do you have any evidence to the contrary from the authorities in Essen, from whence he was moved? Do you know that this might not have been done as, say a court order plan for treatment? As I said, I don't know, and neither do you, but our difference is that you have a rush to judgment based on things that you have no knowledge of. Why do you do that with the Catholic Church? Because it does not fit your prejudices. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 02:35 PM Post #71 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Do you have a shred of evidence that "crisis of faith" or any significant degree of child abuse has been going on in the Church for 2000 years? Or are you just making thing up? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Mar 14 2010, 02:45 PM Post #72 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
People will do that when they have deeply held feelings or prejudices. This is a red meat case for anyone who dislikes Roman Catholicism, or religion in general. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 14 2010, 02:47 PM Post #73 |
|
Cheers
|
Jan. 1980 H moves to a parish in Munich to undergo therapy after being accused of molesting boys, a decision that was taken with the approval of the archbishop. He is allowed to resume pastoral work by the vicar general. Jan. 1985 H is relieved of his duties in Grafing following allegations of sexual abuse and a police investigation. June 1986 H is convicted of sexually abusing minors and given an 18-month suspended sentence with five years of probation, fined 4,000 marks and ordered to undergo therapy. There's the timeline, bud. Continue your denial if your ideology requires it. But realize how it looks to those of us not so afflicted. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 14 2010, 03:00 PM Post #74 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You of course omitted (intentionally or not) the key dates that in 1981 Ratzinger was appointed to Rome and in 1982 he moved to Rome and left Munich. And during Ratzinger's tenure there were no known (unaddressed or covered up) cases of child abuse in Munich diocese. So your silliness about denial makes no sense. I am not denying that Ratzinger let him into the diocese for the purpose of therapy. Nor am I denying that Gruber subsequently, unfortunately and inexplicably had H working pastorally in some undefined capacity. Nor am I denying that years after Ratzinger left Munich, H was moved to Grafing where he seems to have resumed his previous criminal pattern, and was found guilty and convicted. Your argument is that Ratzinger is somehow morally responsible for the actions of someone who did something while he was not under his authority, and that he was remiss in not telling the authorities (although you have not produced any evidence of that point) about a person who was brought into his diocese for the purpose of treatment regarding something that happened elsewhere. You're grasping at straws there, Jon. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 14 2010, 03:00 PM Post #75 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
True enough some people will sometimes fabricate lies or inflate events to suit their prejudices. All the same though, there have been a few rather morally dubious male personalities associated with and at times highly placed in the church hierarchy during the last 1500 years. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








11:13 AM Jul 11