Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Question for Ivorythumper and JoeB
Topic Started: Mar 13 2010, 10:36 AM (1,373 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Dewey
Mar 13 2010, 08:13 PM
Quote:
 
They certainly seem like professionals, but, then again, there are not uniform standards of conduct for the profession. A Catholic priest and a rabbi aren't really subject to the same rules ... while all lawyers, all accountants, all architects, and all doctors have a basic code of conduct for their profession.


All lawyers, all accountants, all architects, and all doctors performing services within the same state abide by the same professional standards. But those standards vary from state to state. Similarly, rabbis and Catholic priests do not abide by the same common standard, but they do abide by the standard set for all Catholic priests, or for all rabbis of the same tradition, respectively. Just as accountants do not have to abide by the standards set for civil engineers within the same state in order to be considered professionals, various forms of clergy do not have to abide by some imaginary common standard in order to be considered professionals. Plus, as pointed out in my last post, there are actually legal requirements that govern clergy that do, in fact, apply across the traditional and denominational board.
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.

Quote:
 
various forms of clergy do not have to abide by some imaginary common standard in order to be considered professionals.


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:

Quote:
 
To date, California is the only state[] that do[es] not have professional conduct rules that follow the format of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JoeB
Mar 13 2010, 10:59 PM
If a third person (not a priest) should accidentally or otherwise hear a confession he is also bound by the seal of the confessional.

I hope you're joking. :wacko:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
No, I am not joking.

Quote:
 
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 13 2010, 10:16 PM
JoeB
Mar 13 2010, 10:00 PM
For a Catholic priest the seal of the confessional is absolute and without exception. Does this mean that a priest must break Ohio law if someone confesses molestation?
It means the priest must choose between obeying Ohio law and maintaining the seal of confession.

The priest can choose to obey Ohio law and accept one set of consequences (presumably those to be meted by the Catholic church), or the priest can choose to maintain the seal of confession and accept a different set of consequence (presumably those to be meted out by Ohio).
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 14 2010, 01:12 AM
JoeB
 
A Catholic priest may not break the seal even to save a life.
"May not" does not imply "cannot."

To the extent that the priest "can" (as in "has the ability to") break the seal, the priest has a choice.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 01:33 AM
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?


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
blondie
Mar 14 2010, 04:46 AM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
blondie
Mar 14 2010, 05:02 AM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 09:03 AM
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 01:33 AM
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?


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.

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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Mikhailoh
Mar 13 2010, 01:18 PM
it can be of a lesser priority than faith quite easily.
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Steve Miller
Mar 14 2010, 09:41 AM
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.
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
George K
Mar 14 2010, 09:44 AM
Moi?
No - different George.
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Steve Miller
Mar 14 2010, 09:41 AM
Mikhailoh
Mar 13 2010, 01:18 PM
it can be of a lesser priority than faith quite easily.
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.
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Mikhailoh
Mar 14 2010, 09:58 AM
It was in response to BJ's assertion that anyone who foreswore sexual relations was in some way pathological themselves.
Not pathological perhaps, but certainly delusional.
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JoeB
Mar 14 2010, 08:55 AM
No, I am not joking.

Quote:
 
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.


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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 09:19 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 09:03 AM
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 01:33 AM
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?


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.

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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Steve Miller
Mar 14 2010, 09:41 AM
Mikhailoh
Mar 13 2010, 01:18 PM
it can be of a lesser priority than faith quite easily.
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 02:33 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 09:19 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 09:03 AM
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 01:33 AM
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?


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.

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.
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.


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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 02:47 PM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Piano*Dad
Mar 14 2010, 02:45 PM
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply