10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia

[Kulindahr]

Mikey, this is ridiculous. The poster is correct. You care nothing for the victims, only the priests and your church. Regardless of how difficult you think a vow of silence is, it doesn't compare to the rat trap that is the prison system. They need to be punished, and all you're doing is enabling their vices and helping them avoid taking responsibility for their crimes.

Hardly. He's trying to explain why a penitential monastery would be more of a punishment than a prison. What you don't understand is that not a day would go by when they would be allowed to not face the responsibility for their crimes -- whereas in prison, once you're in your spot in the pecking order, you never have to think about your crimes again.

 

[Kulindahr]

Everything you have just described is false imprisonment and is prohibited by law. Are you honestly trying to defend using crime as a solution to another crime? The church has no more authority to detain its parishioners than do the members of the Jane-Austin-book-of-the-month club. False imprisonment for a crime in a monastery is the church equivalent of a lynch-mob. The days of pitch-forks and torches are over. Punishment for a crime is not contingent upon the personal beliefs if the offender.

No, it's not prohibited by law -- it comes under church discipline, with which the state does not interfere because it is part of a legitimate contractual relationship. So there's no "false imprisonment" here, there's just obedience as signed on to by the priest.

Were it merely a parishioner, you'd have a point -- but not with a priest.

 

[FirmaFan]

How?

We've explained how in this sort of monastery there is no leaving: a penitent goes in, and comes out only in a pine box.

Such places, should they actually exist, would be every bit as unlawful as the actions of the priests we have been discussing. If what you say is true, than we have exposed yet another atrocity within the church. It wasn't enough that they would harbor criminals, now you are saying they are subverting due process to administer their own form of justice? I am in no way defending the actions of criminal priests, nor do I believe they are undeserving of punishment, but that punishment is administered within the confines of the law - to do otherwise is just as criminal. So, a monastery that forces someone to enter and provides only a "pine box" as an exit is disgusting and should no more be allowed than any other of the many crimes it seems the church engages in on a regular basis. How many more skeletons are we going to unveil from the church's seemingly infinitely deep closet?

 

[FirmaFan]

No, it's not prohibited by law -- it comes under church discipline, with which the state does not interfere because it is part of a legitimate contractual relationship. So there's no "false imprisonment" here, there's just obedience as signed on to by the priest.

Were it merely a parishioner, you'd have a point -- but not with a priest.

If used to avoid punishment under state or federal law for a crime, it most certainly is illegal. And I would love to see how long a contract granting permission for a private organization to imprison an individual holds up in court when said individual no longer wishes to be detained.

 

[Kulindahr]

Such places, should they actually exist, would be every bit as unlawful as the actions of the priests we have been discussing. If what you say is true, than we have exposed yet another atrocity within the church. It wasn't enough that they would harbor criminals, now you are saying they are subverting due process to administer their own form of justice? I am in no way defending the actions of criminal priests, nor do I believe they are undeserving of punishment, but that punishment is administered within the confines of the law - to do otherwise is just as criminal. So, a monastery that forces someone to enter and provides only a "pine box" as an exit is disgusting and should no more be allowed than any other of the many crimes it seems the church engages in on a regular basis. How many more skeletons are we going to unveil from the church's seemingly infinitely deep closet?

I think you just hate religion. You're twisting everything to turn it into something else. There's no atrocity, there's church discipline. There's no subversion of due process -- you're just making that up.

The church is the entity that is responsible for the behavior of these priests. Why should we punish the taxpayers instead of letting the church bear the financial burden?

 

[Kulindahr]

If used to avoid punishment under state or federal law for a crime, it most certainly is illegal. And I would love to see how long a contract granting permission for a private organization to imprison an individual holds up in court when said individual no longer wishes to be detained.

Um, it's done all the time, especially in the US southwest. The courts send people there all the time.

 

[Kulindahr]

if said "wayward" priest didn't ask for permission from his superiors to rape a child, what makes you think he would ask their permission to leave the monastery?

Because that's the only way out -- they quite literally hold the keys.

I have a feeling they won't agree...they'd probably be laughing at that idea as they shackle the pedo priest and stuff him into the
prison transport

Why would a prison transport come to get him from where he's supposed to be?

I'm more worried about him practicing his pedophilia than his silence

Then send him to such a monastery.

so tell me, how are these masses said by the pedo priest going to provide any comfort, healing. or justice for the victims that you seem to ignore?

I have to agree here. There's nothing legitimate about a private mass in the first place; Jesus instituted a ceremony involving a group of people -- doing it alone is a perversion, with no benefit to anyone except maybe the ego of the one doing it.

 

[FirmaFan]

I think you just hate religion.

And I think you have compartmentalized your tolerance for your specific religion so well that you are completely unable to see the injustice or hypocrisy of the actions of the church that you are attempting to justify.

You're twisting everything to turn it into something else. There's no atrocity, there's church discipline. There's no subversion of due process -- you're just making that up.

Where is the due process when a person, instead of being arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for a crime is simply shuffled away by other members of his little club.

The church is the entity that is responsible for the behavior of these priests. Why should we punish the taxpayers instead of letting the church bear the financial burden?

Because that is the law that has been established. Please give me a specific example where a person of the church committed a crime and by permission of either a state or federal court the church was allowed to institute their own form of due process and punishment.

 

[FirmaFan]

Um, it's done all the time, especially in the US southwest. The courts send people there all the time.

A quick google search turned up nothing with regards to state or federal courts sentencing someone to a monastery. Wouldn't such actions be in violation of the establishment clause?

 

[bankside]

How?

We've explained how in this sort of monastery there is no leaving: a penitent goes in, and comes out only in a pine box.

The bottom line is, only a prison authorized under criminal law has the authority to say "I don't care" when an inmate says "I'd like to leave now." Any other place where a person lays his head at night has a duty to facilitate his egress if he decides he'd rather sleep somewhere else the next day.

Or do you mean to tell me that the Catholic Church has been permitted to run a private gulag?

If so, we have two reasons to despise the Catholic Church: first, blaming victims and deflecting blame to soften the consequences for pedophile priests, and second, running a forcible confinement racket.

 

[Kulindahr]

A quick google search turned up nothing with regards to state or federal courts sentencing someone to a monastery. Wouldn't such actions be in violation of the establishment clause?

Now you're changing the subject -- that's not what you said.

I don't think it would be in violation of the establishment clause to turn people back to the organization that was supposed to be responsible for them. If this was Buddhists, I'd be saying sentence them to lifelong confinement in Buddhist monasteries in Mongolia or Tibet. I see it as a way of disciplining the organization which wasn't on the job.

I don't think Mormons have monasteries, so we'd just have to have them thrown from the pinnacle of their temple.

 

[Kulindahr]

The bottom line is, only a prison authorized under criminal law has the authority to say "I don't care" when an inmate says "I'd like to leave now." Any other place where a person lays his head at night has a duty to facilitate his egress if he decides he'd rather sleep somewhere else the next day.

Or do you mean to tell me that the Catholic Church has been permitted to run a private gulag?

If so, we have two reasons to despise the Catholic Church: first, blaming victims and deflecting blame to soften the consequences for pedophile priests, and second, running a forcible confinement racket.

That's not so. There even used to be a Lutheran monastery in the midwest that had lifetime "commitment": if someone committed for life, they stayed for life.

And it's within the free exercise of religion for them to discipline their own.

 

[FirmaFan]

Now you're changing the subject -- that's not what you said.

I don't think it would be in violation of the establishment clause to turn people back to the organization that was supposed to be responsible for them. If this was Buddhists, I'd be saying sentence them to lifelong confinement in Buddhist monasteries in Mongolia or Tibet. I see it as a way of disciplining the organization which wasn't on the job.

I don't think Mormons have monasteries, so we'd just have to have them thrown from the pinnacle of their temple.

What makes a religious organization so special that you think it would be appropriate to just "turn people back to the organization that was supposed to be responsible for them"? They obviously weren't responsible enough in the first place. What would qualify an organization to accept that responsibility? Would a bowling league qualify? What about a yacht club? Country club? To administer a punishment based upon the transgressors religious belief or to allow punishment to be administered by the organization representing that religious belief would be a state or federal endorsement of that religion and would thus violate the establishment clause. For a secular court to administer a religious punishment is a clear violation and can not be (and thankfully not is) tolerated.

 

[Kulindahr]

1. If you're not going to pay attention to the thread, I'm not going to bother with you.

2. Court rulings already exist that show it would not be a violation of the establishment clause. It would be serving a secular purpose (major test) and wouldn't involve any government entanglement with religion (another major test). It would be no different than federal money going to church daycare centers, which happens everywhere.

3. Secular courts allow religious institutions administer programs and punishments all the time. People get sent to Salvation Army, Teen Challenge, and other centers for both treatment which also counts as incarceration.

 

[bankside]

That's not so. There even used to be a Lutheran monastery in the midwest that had lifetime "commitment": if someone committed for life, they stayed for life.

And it's within the free exercise of religion for them to discipline their own.

That is absolutely so. There is no other interpretation but that religious orders have been illegally maintaining people as captives if they are held despite a wish to end their voluntary association with their club.

Someone cannot voluntarily incarcerate himself in the care of a private cult for the very reason that his freedom of conscience permits him to dissociate himself at any time. It is exactly because of what you accurately observe that your proposal has no teeth:

It's within the free exercise of religion for them to discipline their own.

But all it takes is a declaration that "I don't want to be here any more" and the monastic penitent ceases to be one of "their own."

That's the distinction between a cult member and an inmate. The inmate has no choice. The cult member can decide at will that he has been deprogrammed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are any of you reading the thread before you pounce?

 

[FirmaFan]

1. If you're not going to pay attention to the thread, I'm not going to bother with you.

2. Court rulings already exist that show it would not be a violation of the establishment clause. It would be serving a secular purpose (major test) and wouldn't involve any government entanglement with religion (another major test). It would be no different than federal money going to church daycare centers, which happens everywhere.

3. Secular courts allow religious institutions administer programs and punishments all the time. People get sent to Salvation Army, Teen Challenge, and other centers for both treatment which also counts as incarceration.

If a state or federal court sentences a person for a crime to serve some sort of community service or whatever with an organization that has affiliations to a specific church, fine, but at no point has it ever been within the law to allow a religious institution to both decide and administer a punishment for a crime. That power has, and always will, be with the government. Furthermore, a court has never sentenced someone to be placed into the custody of a monastery instead of a prison. The church simply does not have the power to detain anyone. Your claims in previous posts that courts regularly sentence people to imprisonment within monasteries where "the only exit is a pine box" has never been substantiated. And the fact remains that if a church detains someone against their will, regardless of their crime, that act is criminal.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Monsignor William Lynn, formerly Secretary for Clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has been found guilty of child endangerment and sentenced to 3-6 years in prison. He handled priest assignments and sexual assault complaints for the Archdiocese from 1992-2004. He shuttled Edward Avery, now a defrocked jail bird pedophile ex-priest, from parish to parish. Finally, assaulting altar boys in church caught up to him, through no fault of the Archdiocese. Lynn allegedly compiled a list of pedophile priests, but Cardinal Bevilacqua had it destroyed. Lynn, given a choice of saving children and obeying the law, chose to obey his bishop and keep silent. Bad choice. The law supercedes any oath of obedience to the church hierarchy, as should a sense of right and wrong. He should have come forward then and had Bevilacqua thrown in jail where he belonged.

 

[Kulindahr]

Monsignor William Lynn, formerly Secretary for Clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has been found guilty of child endangerment and sentenced to 3-6 years in prison. He handled priest assignments and sexual assault complaints for the Archdiocese from 1992-2004. He shuttled Edward Avery, now a defrocked jail bird pedophile ex-priest, from parish to parish. Finally, assaulting altar boys in church caught up to him, through no fault of the Archdiocese. Lynn allegedly compiled a list of pedophile priests, but Cardinal Bevilacqua had it destroyed. Lynn, given a choice of saving children and obeying the law, chose to obey his bishop and keep silent. Bad choice. The law supercedes any oath of obedience to the church hierarchy, as should a sense of right and wrong. He should have come forward then and had Bevilacqua thrown in jail where he belonged.

He should have gone over the Cardinal's head to the Pope. If the Pope ignored it, he should have gone to the cops -- and the FBI should have issued a warrant for the Pope's arrest for conspiracy support of child sexual abuse.

 

[TX-Beau]

...but at no point has it ever been within the law to allow a religious institution to both decide and administer a punishment for a crime. That power has, and always will, be with the government...

In the U.S. no, but I believe that Henry VIII had a huge fight with the Catholic Church over the doctrine that only the church had the right to try, convict, and sentence clergy. That WAS law in Europe for quite awhile.

Not sure when it ended, but things like that (the church meting out ridiculous "punishments" for pretty serious crimes) that helped lead to schism, Enlightenment and ultimately the U.S. of A!!!

I think our forefathers understood far better than we do the dangers of entanglement between government and it's functions and religion.

It's pretty ridiculous to say that Catholic Monasteries - especially ones in the U.S. are going to incarcerate a priest who wakes up one day and breaks his vow of terribly difficult and punitive silence by saying "..Fuck Y'all, I'm a Moony now, see ya!"

I mean what the hell can they do about that? Strong-arm him into a convenient oubliette and say some masses for his heathen soul? Isn't the Catholic Church out of practice at that sort of thing?

Please.