Topic: Catholic Church once again leads the way in countering sexual abuse.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U started this discussion 7 years ago #83,929
Pope Francis leads crusade against the abuse and sexual slavery of nuns.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134033
Yet another example of how the Church hierarchy is at the forefront of the fight against horrific sexual crimes committed by imposters in its lower ranks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134033
Yet another example of how the Church hierarchy is at the forefront of the fight against horrific sexual crimes committed by imposters in its lower ranks.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later[^] [v] #964,981
What a pile of pure crap.
Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery
Only after a reporter asked the Pope about the Bishops creating a Sex Slave ring of Nuns.
Note not a single Bishop or Priest has been removed or sanctioned for this and that includes the forced Abortions of the Nuns and the mass burials of Fetus.
Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery
Only after a reporter asked the Pope about the Bishops creating a Sex Slave ring of Nuns.
Note not a single Bishop or Priest has been removed or sanctioned for this and that includes the forced Abortions of the Nuns and the mass burials of Fetus.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,024
get thee to a nunnery
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,025
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,026
@964,981 (B)
> Note not a single Bishop or Priest has been removed or sanctioned for this
Yet. These things take time. "Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools" - Ecclesiastes 7:9.
In other words, patience my child. Patience.
> Note not a single Bishop or Priest has been removed or sanctioned for this
Yet. These things take time. "Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools" - Ecclesiastes 7:9.
In other words, patience my child. Patience.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,027
The Church seems very interested in telling people that it's going to do something about this "real soon" and "any day now" over and over without actually fixing the problem.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,028
First Pope Peter AD 30/33 – 64/68
Bishops have fucked children since the beginning - OK sure back then Popes could marry the child they messed with.
Bishops have fucked children since the beginning - OK sure back then Popes could marry the child they messed with.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,029
@965,027 (D)
In the Catholic Church any priest bishop or Pope can abuse a child and simply go to confession and be forgiven. They can do this infinite number of times.
In the Catholic Church any priest bishop or Pope can abuse a child and simply go to confession and be forgiven. They can do this infinite number of times.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,030
When I think "child molestation", the first organization that comes to mind is the Catholic Church. Glad they're sticking to what they know.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,031
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> When I think "child molestation", the first organization that comes to mind is the Catholic Church. Glad they're sticking to what they know.
What does "child molestation" have to do with anything in the article posted?
Secondly, why are you "glad" that someone would "stick" to molesting children?
> When I think "child molestation", the first organization that comes to mind is the Catholic Church. Glad they're sticking to what they know.
What does "child molestation" have to do with anything in the article posted?
Secondly, why are you "glad" that someone would "stick" to molesting children?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 51 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,032
@965,029 (F)
It's nice that secular law is finally starting to pick up the slack where God only provides vague promises and coverups. I'll be interested to see how George Pell's (Still a Cardinal BTW) sentencing will shake out later this month.
It's nice that secular law is finally starting to pick up the slack where God only provides vague promises and coverups. I'll be interested to see how George Pell's (Still a Cardinal BTW) sentencing will shake out later this month.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,040
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,041
@965,029 (F)
> In the Catholic Church any priest bishop or Pope can abuse a child and simply go to confession and be forgiven. They can do this infinite number of times.
No they can't. This is not remotely how confession works or what it is for.
> In the Catholic Church any priest bishop or Pope can abuse a child and simply go to confession and be forgiven. They can do this infinite number of times.
No they can't. This is not remotely how confession works or what it is for.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,042
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You're right. Confession sometimes also involves priests making sexual advances toward you while you are confessing. That's an important distinction.
You're right. Confession sometimes also involves priests making sexual advances toward you while you are confessing. That's an important distinction.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,079
@previous (D)
Show me where in that article there is a single shred of evidence for your claim. I shall wait.
Show me where in that article there is a single shred of evidence for your claim. I shall wait.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 22 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,095
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
CDF Priest Steps Down Following Accusations of Sexual Harassment in Confession.
If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
CDF Priest Steps Down Following Accusations of Sexual Harassment in Confession.
If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,098
@previous (Anonymous D)
> If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
Trufax. That pretty much screams out GUILTY!
> If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
Trufax. That pretty much screams out GUILTY!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,102
@965,095 (Anonymous D)
> CDF Priest Steps Down Following Accusations of Sexual Harassment in Confession.
>
> If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
Or, more accurately, he has stepped down while the investigation (that he himself is asking for) is carried out and also reserves the right to pursue a future civil lawsuit against his accuser.
But, you know, don't let those pesky things called 'facts' get in the way of your narrative.
> CDF Priest Steps Down Following Accusations of Sexual Harassment in Confession.
>
> If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
Or, more accurately, he has stepped down while the investigation (that he himself is asking for) is carried out and also reserves the right to pursue a future civil lawsuit against his accuser.
But, you know, don't let those pesky things called 'facts' get in the way of your narrative.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,103
@965,098 (I)
> >If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
>
> Trufax. That pretty much screams out GUILTY!
It actually screams out 'LEGAL PRECEDENT' but again, those pesky facts.
> >If he was innocent he would have not stepped down.
>
> Trufax. That pretty much screams out GUILTY!
It actually screams out 'LEGAL PRECEDENT' but again, those pesky facts.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,110
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-reveals-how-many-priests-defrocked-for-sex-abuse-since-2004/
3400 cases of priests raped or molested children investigated by the Vatican. NONE Found Innocent. 3420 cases actually. Data 2014 and of course 1000's more have been accused since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
3400 cases of priests raped or molested children investigated by the Vatican. NONE Found Innocent. 3420 cases actually. Data 2014 and of course 1000's more have been accused since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,114
@previous (J)
> 3400 cases of priests raped or molested children investigated by the Vatican. NONE Found Innocent.
Yep, as I said: Catholic Church hierarchy leading the fight against child abuse. 3400 cases investigated by the Vatican, every single one leading to a verdict of guilty. Thanks for debunking the earlier posts in this thread about the Church never holding its clergy to account!
> 3400 cases of priests raped or molested children investigated by the Vatican. NONE Found Innocent.
Yep, as I said: Catholic Church hierarchy leading the fight against child abuse. 3400 cases investigated by the Vatican, every single one leading to a verdict of guilty. Thanks for debunking the earlier posts in this thread about the Church never holding its clergy to account!
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,119
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
The Church only agreed to investigate after centuries of doing nothing. Forced to investigate because of the free press. Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and even Popes have raped and mutilated and killed children and covered it up for centuries.
The Church only agreed to investigate after centuries of doing nothing. Forced to investigate because of the free press. Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and even Popes have raped and mutilated and killed children and covered it up for centuries.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 45 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,158
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 17 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,159
CDF Priest Strips Down Following Aquisitions of Sexy Ass in Confession
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,186
@965,079 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Show me where in that article there is a single shred of evidence for your claim. I shall wait.
Well, we have a victim making accusations. That doesn't count as evidence in your world? I guess if some guy shows up and claims someone mugged him you patiently wait for his assailant to come in and confess to it all before believing him or even considering it a crime?
Seriously, this is why the Catholic Church is fucking dying. The Church used to be a beacon of learned and reserved men standing for moral goodness and tradition. They've abandoned that for a boys' club that operates like an international sexual abuse syndicate. I'm sure two years from now Pope Francis will still be "urgently working to solve" these problems. He is "urgently working" to find new ways to look like he is dealing with a rampant lack of oversight that has gone on for decades. In the end, what will the solution be? A strongly worded letter? Seven Hail Marys? Dismissing some guy in a silly dress and stupid hat from his private council? What does that help the victims? We don't need solutions that look good to a PR firm. We need solutions that make things better for real people.
@965,114 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Yep, as I said: Catholic Church hierarchy leading the fight against child abuse. 3400 cases investigated by the Vatican, every single one leading to a verdict of guilty.
That doesn't exactly scream credibility. Just that they are finally being forced to admit to a crime. Because there is such a wide variety of cases to choose from, let us pick a recent example: Galveston, Texas: Catholic Archdiocese Of Galveston-Houston Names 42 Clergy “Credibly Accused” Of Sexual Abuse.
After pressure from the DA, they decided they would release some names. Just before a deadline set by court! Isn't it fortuitous that God has decided now is the time? By a happy coincidence, all the names they released are of clergy that have died or have had the statue of limitations expire on their crimes. That's a hell of a long time to sit on "credible allegations" WITHOUT DOING FUCKING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I'm sure glad the Catholic Church is leading the way in strongly worded letters and 'stern talkings to' for people who fuck kids. What a fucking moral guidepost they must feel like today.
LOL Fucking creepy. I think the victims are ready to left alone and move on with their lives. You need to step away from the victims Cardinal. You've done enough.
> Show me where in that article there is a single shred of evidence for your claim. I shall wait.
Well, we have a victim making accusations. That doesn't count as evidence in your world? I guess if some guy shows up and claims someone mugged him you patiently wait for his assailant to come in and confess to it all before believing him or even considering it a crime?
Seriously, this is why the Catholic Church is fucking dying. The Church used to be a beacon of learned and reserved men standing for moral goodness and tradition. They've abandoned that for a boys' club that operates like an international sexual abuse syndicate. I'm sure two years from now Pope Francis will still be "urgently working to solve" these problems. He is "urgently working" to find new ways to look like he is dealing with a rampant lack of oversight that has gone on for decades. In the end, what will the solution be? A strongly worded letter? Seven Hail Marys? Dismissing some guy in a silly dress and stupid hat from his private council? What does that help the victims? We don't need solutions that look good to a PR firm. We need solutions that make things better for real people.
@965,114 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Yep, as I said: Catholic Church hierarchy leading the fight against child abuse. 3400 cases investigated by the Vatican, every single one leading to a verdict of guilty.
That doesn't exactly scream credibility. Just that they are finally being forced to admit to a crime. Because there is such a wide variety of cases to choose from, let us pick a recent example: Galveston, Texas: Catholic Archdiocese Of Galveston-Houston Names 42 Clergy “Credibly Accused” Of Sexual Abuse.
The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops decided they would release names of the “credibly accused” after pressure for further transparency last fall. The 15 dioceses of Texas each published individual lists of accused clerics on their websites, naming a total of 286 members of the clergy, going back to at least 1950.
After pressure from the DA, they decided they would release some names. Just before a deadline set by court! Isn't it fortuitous that God has decided now is the time? By a happy coincidence, all the names they released are of clergy that have died or have had the statue of limitations expire on their crimes. That's a hell of a long time to sit on "credible allegations" WITHOUT DOING FUCKING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I'm sure glad the Catholic Church is leading the way in strongly worded letters and 'stern talkings to' for people who fuck kids. What a fucking moral guidepost they must feel like today.
In response to today’s revelations, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston said this was a day for victims to feel like they are not alone.
LOL Fucking creepy. I think the victims are ready to left alone and move on with their lives. You need to step away from the victims Cardinal. You've done enough.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,194
@previous (D)
> By a happy coincidence, all the names they released are of clergy that have died or have had the statue of limitations expire on their crimes
Wasn't that convenient.
This is why TG-Merrin pretends to be a priest. He knows that he can molest children and get away with it, because that has been the policy of the Catholic Church.
> By a happy coincidence, all the names they released are of clergy that have died or have had the statue of limitations expire on their crimes
Wasn't that convenient.
This is why TG-Merrin pretends to be a priest. He knows that he can molest children and get away with it, because that has been the policy of the Catholic Church.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,195
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,197
@965,027 (D)
I read an interesting take once that it keeps happening because they actually do really unironically believe in forgiveness and repentance.
I read an interesting take once that it keeps happening because they actually do really unironically believe in forgiveness and repentance.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #965,201
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> unironically believe in forgiveness and repentance
Well that's fine, but self-flagellation doesn't help the world. If I fuck someone over and then feel bad about it... Good on me, right? Should I not then try to mend the wrong the I did? I don't think Catholic Priests believe that their sins go away completely once they apologize to the inside of their head about it, but I don't think they have an idea of what kind of problems a general toleration of sins is causing in aggregate.
I can't claim to have any great insights into the Catholic Church. I think it's a likely a problem of time and lack of accountability and a broken system? I don't envy Francis if he is trying to fix a corrupt system from within. (assuming he isn't a part of the problem) He seems like a nice guy. I hate how this must weigh on him. More transparency and less vague PR would go a long way to keeping community churches in the fold.
> unironically believe in forgiveness and repentance
Well that's fine, but self-flagellation doesn't help the world. If I fuck someone over and then feel bad about it... Good on me, right? Should I not then try to mend the wrong the I did? I don't think Catholic Priests believe that their sins go away completely once they apologize to the inside of their head about it, but I don't think they have an idea of what kind of problems a general toleration of sins is causing in aggregate.
I can't claim to have any great insights into the Catholic Church. I think it's a likely a problem of time and lack of accountability and a broken system? I don't envy Francis if he is trying to fix a corrupt system from within. (assuming he isn't a part of the problem) He seems like a nice guy. I hate how this must weigh on him. More transparency and less vague PR would go a long way to keeping community churches in the fold.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,294
@965,186 (D)
> > Show me where in that article there is a single shred of evidence for your claim. I shall wait.
> Well, we have a victim making accusations. That doesn't count as evidence in your world?
"Alleged victim". Not, as you wrote, "victim". Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. I know we live in a post-facts world and a little thing called 'due process' is just one more relic of that bygone age before "innocent until accused by someone". But still, those pesky facts.
And no, to answer your question, an "accusation" does not "count as evidence". Here, watch: I accuse you of being a child rapist. Is that "evidence" enough for you?
> I guess if some guy shows up and claims someone mugged him you patiently wait for his assailant to come in and confess to it all before believing him or even considering it a crime?
You mugged me last night. I formally accuse you. Is that enough? Are you starting to get the idiocy of your approach?
To walk you through it more slowly, I neither believe nor disbelieve him. I call the police on his behalf and let the justice system do the work it is paid to do. Part of that whole "living in a civil society" thing. Or we could all just be like India and accuse people on WhatsApp, leading to public lynchings and burnings.
> The Church used to be a beacon of learned and reserved men standing for moral goodness and tradition.
Yeah, those Medici and Borgia Popes were really something weren't they?
> > Show me where in that article there is a single shred of evidence for your claim. I shall wait.
> Well, we have a victim making accusations. That doesn't count as evidence in your world?
"Alleged victim". Not, as you wrote, "victim". Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. I know we live in a post-facts world and a little thing called 'due process' is just one more relic of that bygone age before "innocent until accused by someone". But still, those pesky facts.
And no, to answer your question, an "accusation" does not "count as evidence". Here, watch: I accuse you of being a child rapist. Is that "evidence" enough for you?
> I guess if some guy shows up and claims someone mugged him you patiently wait for his assailant to come in and confess to it all before believing him or even considering it a crime?
You mugged me last night. I formally accuse you. Is that enough? Are you starting to get the idiocy of your approach?
To walk you through it more slowly, I neither believe nor disbelieve him. I call the police on his behalf and let the justice system do the work it is paid to do. Part of that whole "living in a civil society" thing. Or we could all just be like India and accuse people on WhatsApp, leading to public lynchings and burnings.
> The Church used to be a beacon of learned and reserved men standing for moral goodness and tradition.
Yeah, those Medici and Borgia Popes were really something weren't they?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,295
@965,194 (M)
> This is why TG-Merrin pretends to be a priest. He knows that he can molest children and get away with it, because that has been the policy of the Catholic Church.
Firstly, I don't "pretend" to be a priest. I actually am one. Secondly, your reasoning is flawed (quelle surprise). If I were only "pretending", then I would not be afforded the 'protections' that you (falsely) believe the Catholic Church gives its clergy.
Think, before posting my boy. Think.
> This is why TG-Merrin pretends to be a priest. He knows that he can molest children and get away with it, because that has been the policy of the Catholic Church.
Firstly, I don't "pretend" to be a priest. I actually am one. Secondly, your reasoning is flawed (quelle surprise). If I were only "pretending", then I would not be afforded the 'protections' that you (falsely) believe the Catholic Church gives its clergy.
Think, before posting my boy. Think.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U triple-posted this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,298
@965,201 (D)
> I can't claim to have any great insights into the Catholic Church.
It took you long enough but you finally made an accurate statement. Bravo, you got there in the end.
> I can't claim to have any great insights into the Catholic Church.
It took you long enough but you finally made an accurate statement. Bravo, you got there in the end.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,299
@965,294 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You just buttfucked him so hard you must have mistaken him for an altar boy.
You just buttfucked him so hard you must have mistaken him for an altar boy.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,302
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,307
@previous (P)
> Ice burn.gif
Not really, it's an oldie (but admittedly a goodie, I always get a laugh out of it).
> Ice burn.gif
Not really, it's an oldie (but admittedly a goodie, I always get a laugh out of it).
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,312
If father merrin is actually a priest then he're not a very good Christian and probably shouldn't be
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,316
@previous (Q)
> If father merrin is actually a priest then he're not a very good Christian
Do explain.
> and probably shouldn't be
Probably shouldn't be a good Christian? You're all over the map here, my boy.
> If father merrin is actually a priest then he're not a very good Christian
Do explain.
> and probably shouldn't be
Probably shouldn't be a good Christian? You're all over the map here, my boy.
Anonymous L replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,319
hoc rursusque
Anonymous Q replied with this 7 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,334
@965,316 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
The grace of god is not in your heart. Bless you and may you come to more peaceful understanding of the world.
The grace of god is not in your heart. Bless you and may you come to more peaceful understanding of the world.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,359
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,475
@965,294 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Here, watch: I accuse you of being a child rapist. Is that "evidence" enough for you?
No. Randomly accusing people you don't know doesn't make a compelling argument. The person you asked about, Geissler, has multiple accusations against him from multiple women who were in the same religious community who talked about their experiences with other people after they happened. That's qualitatively different than a random accusation about someone you don't know.
I understand that you're trying really hard to move the goalposts around about what counts as evidence. You want to consider every claim a baseless accusation and set an unrealistically high bar for what you admit to be evidence. I'm not sure how you can take someone's eyewitness testimony of a wrong being done to them as anything other than a piece of evidence. You seem to want to have it both ways here. You want to pretend like the Church is doing its duty by investigating these things, but you also want to deny that any of these claims have any merit.
> Here, watch: I accuse you of being a child rapist. Is that "evidence" enough for you?
No. Randomly accusing people you don't know doesn't make a compelling argument. The person you asked about, Geissler, has multiple accusations against him from multiple women who were in the same religious community who talked about their experiences with other people after they happened. That's qualitatively different than a random accusation about someone you don't know.
I understand that you're trying really hard to move the goalposts around about what counts as evidence. You want to consider every claim a baseless accusation and set an unrealistically high bar for what you admit to be evidence. I'm not sure how you can take someone's eyewitness testimony of a wrong being done to them as anything other than a piece of evidence. You seem to want to have it both ways here. You want to pretend like the Church is doing its duty by investigating these things, but you also want to deny that any of these claims have any merit.
Anonymous Q replied with this 7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,481
@965,359 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Because he who is angry with his brother is liable for judgement, he who insults his brother is liable to the council and he who says "you fool" will be in danger of the fire of hell, and by saying words of contempt you reveal the corruption in your heart, and a corrupt heart cannot host the Lords grace. I'll say a prayer for you tonight.
Because he who is angry with his brother is liable for judgement, he who insults his brother is liable to the council and he who says "you fool" will be in danger of the fire of hell, and by saying words of contempt you reveal the corruption in your heart, and a corrupt heart cannot host the Lords grace. I'll say a prayer for you tonight.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #965,732
@965,475 (D)
> > Here, watch: I accuse you of being a child rapist. Is that "evidence" enough for you?
> No.
And your journey to understanding begins.
> Randomly accusing people you don't know doesn't make a compelling argument.
Whereas accusing people you do know is "evidence"? Fine: your colleague accuses you of raping her. Is this "evidence" now?
> The person you asked about,
I did not "ask about" anyone, but don't let me stop your attempts to change the facts of this discussion.
> Geissler, has multiple accusations against him from multiple women who were in the same religious community who talked about their experiences with other people after they happened.
10 of your colleagues accuse you of raping them. "Evidence"? They can now be called "victims", and not "alleged victims"?
Are you starting to see how you have no idea what the words you are using mean? Which is problematic, because your entire position is based upon using those words.
> That's qualitatively different than a random accusation about someone you don't know.
Add "qualitatively" to the ever-growing list of legal terms that you do not understand.
> You want to consider every claim a baseless accusation
No, I want every claim to be properly investigated by the appropriate legal channels before leaping to describe one party as guilty and the other party as "victims". You on the other hand want to turn a civil society into a witch-burning vigilante Pakistani village.
You have yourself a wonderful day my child.
> > Here, watch: I accuse you of being a child rapist. Is that "evidence" enough for you?
> No.
And your journey to understanding begins.
> Randomly accusing people you don't know doesn't make a compelling argument.
Whereas accusing people you do know is "evidence"? Fine: your colleague accuses you of raping her. Is this "evidence" now?
> The person you asked about,
I did not "ask about" anyone, but don't let me stop your attempts to change the facts of this discussion.
> Geissler, has multiple accusations against him from multiple women who were in the same religious community who talked about their experiences with other people after they happened.
10 of your colleagues accuse you of raping them. "Evidence"? They can now be called "victims", and not "alleged victims"?
Are you starting to see how you have no idea what the words you are using mean? Which is problematic, because your entire position is based upon using those words.
> That's qualitatively different than a random accusation about someone you don't know.
Add "qualitatively" to the ever-growing list of legal terms that you do not understand.
> You want to consider every claim a baseless accusation
No, I want every claim to be properly investigated by the appropriate legal channels before leaping to describe one party as guilty and the other party as "victims". You on the other hand want to turn a civil society into a witch-burning vigilante Pakistani village.
You have yourself a wonderful day my child.
Anonymous I replied with this 7 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,742
@965,295 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Firstly, I don't "pretend" to be a priest. I actually am one.
Citation needed
> Firstly, I don't "pretend" to be a priest. I actually am one.
Citation needed
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,760
@previous (I)
> >Firstly, I don't "pretend" to be a priest. I actually am one.
>
> Citation needed
Errrm...you've just provided it?
("Citation" means quotation of a claim's source).
> >Firstly, I don't "pretend" to be a priest. I actually am one.
>
> Citation needed
Errrm...you've just provided it?
("Citation" means quotation of a claim's source).
Anonymous I replied with this 7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,763
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,826
@previous (I)
> No, you need to provide proof of your claim dumbass.
Then you should have said that shouldn't you, 'dumb*ss'? Instead of demonstrating you have absolutely no idea what "citation" means.
> No, you need to provide proof of your claim dumbass.
Then you should have said that shouldn't you, 'dumb*ss'? Instead of demonstrating you have absolutely no idea what "citation" means.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,858
@965,732 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Oh look. Now you're retreating into semantics and trying to argue that no one knows what words mean.
> You on the other hand want to turn a civil society into a witch-burning vigilante Pakistani village.
Nice strawman. Do you usually cram all the straw in from the front or the rear?
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Oh look. Now you're retreating into semantics and trying to argue that no one knows what words mean.
> You on the other hand want to turn a civil society into a witch-burning vigilante Pakistani village.
Nice strawman. Do you usually cram all the straw in from the front or the rear?
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,861
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,897
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
If you can get me elected Pope, then I'll need some time to familiarize myself with the internal politics and structures of the Church. I could probably have a roadmap to the solution hammered out for you in a few years. Honestly, I have no realistic idea what kind of work would be involved to change a massive organization like that from the inside as just one person. I would imagine that the Pope is several levels removed from a lot of the problems. In many cases, I think a lot of the damage has been done already - to people, to families, to the reputation of the Church. It can only be fixed moving forward.
When you look at the stories that are coming out all over the world, it looks like these problems are taking place regionally where clergy are working to sweep things under the rug and forgive a few transgressions while higher-ups shuffle repeat offenders around hoping they can change. My guess is that these kind of systems have been in place for a while and probably developed naturally and with good intentions.
You can see the same kind of systems developing around problem children that get second and third chances before being pushed off to a different school in hopes that a new peer group will give them a chance to start over. Everyone at each level is trying to be understanding and solve the immediate problem in front of them, and they're happy to forgive and forget and get the issue off of their desk. If the kid doesn't get better and ends up stabbing someone on the playground, it looks bad once people start looking into that kid's history of problem behaviors and wondering why no one did anything substantial to help.
I think the Catholic Church has been playing some version of this game for decades, except without the kind of oversight you might expect from any other institution. Even the big problems can be minimized and hidden behind layers of internal investigation and private settlements and PR spin. I have a feeling these systems have become entrenched over decades or generations. The glimpses we're getting from Australia, Germany, and different states around the US are glimpses into bureaucratic machinery inside the Church that moves people and blame around so that everyone can forget about whatever happened and move on with their lives. I don't think the process, on the whole, is nefarious. There might be some pockets of real predatory activity that develop within an organization that tries to protect its members as thoroughly as the Catholic Church, but I have trouble believing all of it is coordinated from the top down.
I think one piece of the puzzle is the same problem institutions everywhere face. How do you retain working members who are trained and knowledgeable while also maintaining accountability? If you don't like the school analogy, maybe try considering how law enforcement agencies re-assign problem officers or how companies might shuffle upper management around to minimize complaints. I'm sure it's harder for the Church because they aren't held accountable in the same way other institutions are held accountable.
I'm not sure what the Pope could do. There must be something he could do to start the ball rolling, right? How do you ensure accountability without publicly airing everyone's dirty laundry? Transparency and privacy are hard to balance in this case. Saying that the Church is treating all these claims seriously is nice, but that's what they've been doing for ages. There's no way to verify it and, from the glimpses we get into their records, it doesn't look like they've been doing that at all. So it's hard to trust them.
If you can get me elected Pope, then I'll need some time to familiarize myself with the internal politics and structures of the Church. I could probably have a roadmap to the solution hammered out for you in a few years. Honestly, I have no realistic idea what kind of work would be involved to change a massive organization like that from the inside as just one person. I would imagine that the Pope is several levels removed from a lot of the problems. In many cases, I think a lot of the damage has been done already - to people, to families, to the reputation of the Church. It can only be fixed moving forward.
When you look at the stories that are coming out all over the world, it looks like these problems are taking place regionally where clergy are working to sweep things under the rug and forgive a few transgressions while higher-ups shuffle repeat offenders around hoping they can change. My guess is that these kind of systems have been in place for a while and probably developed naturally and with good intentions.
You can see the same kind of systems developing around problem children that get second and third chances before being pushed off to a different school in hopes that a new peer group will give them a chance to start over. Everyone at each level is trying to be understanding and solve the immediate problem in front of them, and they're happy to forgive and forget and get the issue off of their desk. If the kid doesn't get better and ends up stabbing someone on the playground, it looks bad once people start looking into that kid's history of problem behaviors and wondering why no one did anything substantial to help.
I think the Catholic Church has been playing some version of this game for decades, except without the kind of oversight you might expect from any other institution. Even the big problems can be minimized and hidden behind layers of internal investigation and private settlements and PR spin. I have a feeling these systems have become entrenched over decades or generations. The glimpses we're getting from Australia, Germany, and different states around the US are glimpses into bureaucratic machinery inside the Church that moves people and blame around so that everyone can forget about whatever happened and move on with their lives. I don't think the process, on the whole, is nefarious. There might be some pockets of real predatory activity that develop within an organization that tries to protect its members as thoroughly as the Catholic Church, but I have trouble believing all of it is coordinated from the top down.
I think one piece of the puzzle is the same problem institutions everywhere face. How do you retain working members who are trained and knowledgeable while also maintaining accountability? If you don't like the school analogy, maybe try considering how law enforcement agencies re-assign problem officers or how companies might shuffle upper management around to minimize complaints. I'm sure it's harder for the Church because they aren't held accountable in the same way other institutions are held accountable.
I'm not sure what the Pope could do. There must be something he could do to start the ball rolling, right? How do you ensure accountability without publicly airing everyone's dirty laundry? Transparency and privacy are hard to balance in this case. Saying that the Church is treating all these claims seriously is nice, but that's what they've been doing for ages. There's no way to verify it and, from the glimpses we get into their records, it doesn't look like they've been doing that at all. So it's hard to trust them.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,901
@965,858 (D)
> Oh look. Now you're retreating into semantics and trying to argue that no one knows what words mean.
I am pointing out that "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means, and for good reason. That 'good reason' being: it would lead to a vigilante society. It's no good lashing out at me just because you're being tied up in knots over this.
> > You on the other hand want to turn a civil society into a witch-burning vigilante Pakistani village.
> Nice strawman. Do you usually cram all the straw in from the front or the rear?
That was an analogy, not a "strawman" (which ought to be two separate words by the way; otherwise you're complimenting me on some kind of scarecrow). And I stand by it. You have decided that an accusation is enough to label one party "guilty" and the other a "victim". You have decided this based on a complete misuse (or else misunderstanding) of the word "evidence". I am saying that due process matters in a civil society.
> Oh look. Now you're retreating into semantics and trying to argue that no one knows what words mean.
I am pointing out that "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means, and for good reason. That 'good reason' being: it would lead to a vigilante society. It's no good lashing out at me just because you're being tied up in knots over this.
> > You on the other hand want to turn a civil society into a witch-burning vigilante Pakistani village.
> Nice strawman. Do you usually cram all the straw in from the front or the rear?
That was an analogy, not a "strawman" (which ought to be two separate words by the way; otherwise you're complimenting me on some kind of scarecrow). And I stand by it. You have decided that an accusation is enough to label one party "guilty" and the other a "victim". You have decided this based on a complete misuse (or else misunderstanding) of the word "evidence". I am saying that due process matters in a civil society.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,908
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> You have decided that an accusation is enough to label one party "guilty" and the other a "victim". You have decided this based on a complete misuse (or else misunderstanding) of the word "evidence". I am saying that due process matters in a civil society.
You're making things up. I haven't used the word guilty. At no point have I encouraged witch-burning vigilante justice. This is your strawman. Considering evidence doesn't mean the presumption of guilt or vigilante justice. And yes, someone witnessing an event and reporting on it constitutes some degree of evidence of it happening. This is why courts have been admitting testimony from witnesses as evidence since forever.
> You have decided that an accusation is enough to label one party "guilty" and the other a "victim". You have decided this based on a complete misuse (or else misunderstanding) of the word "evidence". I am saying that due process matters in a civil society.
You're making things up. I haven't used the word guilty. At no point have I encouraged witch-burning vigilante justice. This is your strawman. Considering evidence doesn't mean the presumption of guilt or vigilante justice. And yes, someone witnessing an event and reporting on it constitutes some degree of evidence of it happening. This is why courts have been admitting testimony from witnesses as evidence since forever.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,910
@previous (D)
> someone witnessing an event and reporting on it constitutes some degree of evidence of it happening.
Yes it does. Whereas someone merely saying they witnessed an event does not.
Are you beginning to understand why your idiotic dismissal of due process matters in a civil society?
> someone witnessing an event and reporting on it constitutes some degree of evidence of it happening.
Yes it does. Whereas someone merely saying they witnessed an event does not.
Are you beginning to understand why your idiotic dismissal of due process matters in a civil society?
Anonymous Q replied with this 7 years ago, 58 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,911
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,913
@965,910 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> your idiotic dismissal of due process matters in a civil society?
When have I advocated dismissing due process?
> your idiotic dismissal of due process matters in a civil society?
When have I advocated dismissing due process?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,914
@previous (D)
> > your idiotic dismissal of due process matters in a civil society?
> When have I advocated dismissing due process?
Today and yesterday.
> > your idiotic dismissal of due process matters in a civil society?
> When have I advocated dismissing due process?
Today and yesterday.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,917
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
If I ask for evidence of that, are you going to flip the fuck out again about the meaning of evidence?
If I ask for evidence of that, are you going to flip the fuck out again about the meaning of evidence?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,920
@previous (D)
No, I'll simply point you to your post where you described the accusers of an unconvicted person as "victims".
No, I'll simply point you to your post where you described the accusers of an unconvicted person as "victims".
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,930
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Would you rather I say "alleged victims"? I fail to see how you get from my describing someone as a victim to my advocating the breakdown of civil society. Apparently it has something to do with due due process. Could explain all the steps in between?
Would you rather I say "alleged victims"? I fail to see how you get from my describing someone as a victim to my advocating the breakdown of civil society. Apparently it has something to do with due due process. Could explain all the steps in between?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,947
@previous (D)
> Would you rather I say "alleged victims"? I fail to see how you get from my describing someone as a victim to my advocating the breakdown of civil society. Apparently it has something to do with due due process. Could explain all the steps in between?
Prefatory matters: I don't know what "due due process" is. Tardy justice perchance?
Secondary matters: when you label someone a "victim" based on no conviction and with reference to "evidence" which is not actually "evidence", you are skipping over due process.
Those are "the steps in between" that you asked for. They've been given to you already in this thread, and more than once, but I gathered long ago that you're a person who needs slowly walking through the same very basic point several times before you get it. Therefore, feel free to keep asking me to enlighten you.
And, above all else, God bless you my child.
> Would you rather I say "alleged victims"? I fail to see how you get from my describing someone as a victim to my advocating the breakdown of civil society. Apparently it has something to do with due due process. Could explain all the steps in between?
Prefatory matters: I don't know what "due due process" is. Tardy justice perchance?
Secondary matters: when you label someone a "victim" based on no conviction and with reference to "evidence" which is not actually "evidence", you are skipping over due process.
Those are "the steps in between" that you asked for. They've been given to you already in this thread, and more than once, but I gathered long ago that you're a person who needs slowly walking through the same very basic point several times before you get it. Therefore, feel free to keep asking me to enlighten you.
And, above all else, God bless you my child.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,957
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
That's not a very good explanation or even really a series of steps. You're restating the initial claim. The person claims to be a victim. I can soften that language when I talk about it, but that doesn't change the event or any process that follows. I'm not even a part of that process. What I'm curious about is how you got from a word I used to vigilante witch burnings.
That's not a very good explanation or even really a series of steps. You're restating the initial claim. The person claims to be a victim. I can soften that language when I talk about it, but that doesn't change the event or any process that follows. I'm not even a part of that process. What I'm curious about is how you got from a word I used to vigilante witch burnings.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,971
@previous (D)
> That's not a very good explanation or even really a series of steps.
A "series of steps" wasn't needed, your train of 'thought' is not that involved. You made your mistake at the very beginning when you described an accuser of an unconvicted person as a "victim".
> You're restating the initial claim.
Because the initial claim is where you tossed aside the concept of due process. You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> The person claims to be a victim.
No she doesn't. In legal terms, she made a statement. YOU claimed her as a "victim". And so again: your colleague claims you raped her and...oh never mind, you've avoided the scenario so far and no doubt you'll keep on doing so because you have no way of addressing it.
> I can soften that language when I talk about it,
Don't get ahead of yourself. Focus first on understanding the meanings of the words you are using before moving on to coloring them.
> but that doesn't change the event or any process that follows.
Which "process" followed from the "event" that lead to you describing the accuser as a "victim"?
> I'm not even a part of that process.
I know right? Man you really made an idiot of yourself with that one.
> What I'm curious about is how you got from a word I used to vigilante witch burnings.
Which, for the 1000th time, is why you seem to require the same thing spelled out for you eight hundred times before you start to get it.
Once again, you have yourself a blessed night my child.
> That's not a very good explanation or even really a series of steps.
A "series of steps" wasn't needed, your train of 'thought' is not that involved. You made your mistake at the very beginning when you described an accuser of an unconvicted person as a "victim".
> You're restating the initial claim.
Because the initial claim is where you tossed aside the concept of due process. You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> The person claims to be a victim.
No she doesn't. In legal terms, she made a statement. YOU claimed her as a "victim". And so again: your colleague claims you raped her and...oh never mind, you've avoided the scenario so far and no doubt you'll keep on doing so because you have no way of addressing it.
> I can soften that language when I talk about it,
Don't get ahead of yourself. Focus first on understanding the meanings of the words you are using before moving on to coloring them.
> but that doesn't change the event or any process that follows.
Which "process" followed from the "event" that lead to you describing the accuser as a "victim"?
> I'm not even a part of that process.
I know right? Man you really made an idiot of yourself with that one.
> What I'm curious about is how you got from a word I used to vigilante witch burnings.
Which, for the 1000th time, is why you seem to require the same thing spelled out for you eight hundred times before you start to get it.
Once again, you have yourself a blessed night my child.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,982
@965,897 (D)
> If you can get me elected Pope, then I'll need some time to familiarize myself with the internal politics and structures of the Church. I could probably have a roadmap to the solution hammered out for you in a few years. Honestly, I have no realistic idea what kind of work would be involved to change a massive organization like that from the inside as just one person. I would imagine that the Pope is several levels removed from a lot of the problems. In many cases, I think a lot of the damage has been done already - to people, to families, to the reputation of the Church. It can only be fixed moving forward.
>
> When you look at the stories that are coming out all over the world, it looks like these problems are taking place regionally where clergy are working to sweep things under the rug and forgive a few transgressions while higher-ups shuffle repeat offenders around hoping they can change. My guess is that these kind of systems have been in place for a while and probably developed naturally and with good intentions.
>
> You can see the same kind of systems developing around problem children that get second and third chances before being pushed off to a different school in hopes that a new peer group will give them a chance to start over. Everyone at each level is trying to be understanding and solve the immediate problem in front of them, and they're happy to forgive and forget and get the issue off of their desk. If the kid doesn't get better and ends up stabbing someone on the playground, it looks bad once people start looking into that kid's history of problem behaviors and wondering why no one did anything substantial to help.
>
> I think the Catholic Church has been playing some version of this game for decades, except without the kind of oversight you might expect from any other institution. Even the big problems can be minimized and hidden behind layers of internal investigation and private settlements and PR spin. I have a feeling these systems have become entrenched over decades or generations. The glimpses we're getting from Australia, Germany, and different states around the US are glimpses into bureaucratic machinery inside the Church that moves people and blame around so that everyone can forget about whatever happened and move on with their lives. I don't think the process, on the whole, is nefarious. There might be some pockets of real predatory activity that develop within an organization that tries to protect its members as thoroughly as the Catholic Church, but I have trouble believing all of it is coordinated from the top down.
>
> I think one piece of the puzzle is the same problem institutions everywhere face. How do you retain working members who are trained and knowledgeable while also maintaining accountability? If you don't like the school analogy, maybe try considering how law enforcement agencies re-assign problem officers or how companies might shuffle upper management around to minimize complaints. I'm sure it's harder for the Church because they aren't held accountable in the same way other institutions are held accountable.
>
> I'm not sure what the Pope could do. There must be something he could do to start the ball rolling, right? How do you ensure accountability without publicly airing everyone's dirty laundry? Transparency and privacy are hard to balance in this case. Saying that the Church is treating all these claims seriously is nice, but that's what they've been doing for ages. There's no way to verify it and, from the glimpses we get into their records, it doesn't look like they've been doing that at all. So it's hard to trust them.
And this is some world class nonsense right here.
> If you can get me elected Pope, then I'll need some time to familiarize myself with the internal politics and structures of the Church. I could probably have a roadmap to the solution hammered out for you in a few years. Honestly, I have no realistic idea what kind of work would be involved to change a massive organization like that from the inside as just one person. I would imagine that the Pope is several levels removed from a lot of the problems. In many cases, I think a lot of the damage has been done already - to people, to families, to the reputation of the Church. It can only be fixed moving forward.
>
> When you look at the stories that are coming out all over the world, it looks like these problems are taking place regionally where clergy are working to sweep things under the rug and forgive a few transgressions while higher-ups shuffle repeat offenders around hoping they can change. My guess is that these kind of systems have been in place for a while and probably developed naturally and with good intentions.
>
> You can see the same kind of systems developing around problem children that get second and third chances before being pushed off to a different school in hopes that a new peer group will give them a chance to start over. Everyone at each level is trying to be understanding and solve the immediate problem in front of them, and they're happy to forgive and forget and get the issue off of their desk. If the kid doesn't get better and ends up stabbing someone on the playground, it looks bad once people start looking into that kid's history of problem behaviors and wondering why no one did anything substantial to help.
>
> I think the Catholic Church has been playing some version of this game for decades, except without the kind of oversight you might expect from any other institution. Even the big problems can be minimized and hidden behind layers of internal investigation and private settlements and PR spin. I have a feeling these systems have become entrenched over decades or generations. The glimpses we're getting from Australia, Germany, and different states around the US are glimpses into bureaucratic machinery inside the Church that moves people and blame around so that everyone can forget about whatever happened and move on with their lives. I don't think the process, on the whole, is nefarious. There might be some pockets of real predatory activity that develop within an organization that tries to protect its members as thoroughly as the Catholic Church, but I have trouble believing all of it is coordinated from the top down.
>
> I think one piece of the puzzle is the same problem institutions everywhere face. How do you retain working members who are trained and knowledgeable while also maintaining accountability? If you don't like the school analogy, maybe try considering how law enforcement agencies re-assign problem officers or how companies might shuffle upper management around to minimize complaints. I'm sure it's harder for the Church because they aren't held accountable in the same way other institutions are held accountable.
>
> I'm not sure what the Pope could do. There must be something he could do to start the ball rolling, right? How do you ensure accountability without publicly airing everyone's dirty laundry? Transparency and privacy are hard to balance in this case. Saying that the Church is treating all these claims seriously is nice, but that's what they've been doing for ages. There's no way to verify it and, from the glimpses we get into their records, it doesn't look like they've been doing that at all. So it's hard to trust them.
And this is some world class nonsense right here.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #965,993
@965,971 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Because the initial claim is where you tossed aside the concept of due process. You're really struggling with this aren't you?
No. The initial claim had nothing to do with due process. That's you reading what you want into the statement. The initial claim had nothing to do with due process, witch burnings, vigilante justice, or the breakdown of civil society.
It's hilarious that you have to make up an entirely different set of claims to get upset about. For someone so concerned about evidence, you really take a lot of liberties when it comes to inventing your own.
@previous (A)
Glug. No it's not.
> Because the initial claim is where you tossed aside the concept of due process. You're really struggling with this aren't you?
No. The initial claim had nothing to do with due process. That's you reading what you want into the statement. The initial claim had nothing to do with due process, witch burnings, vigilante justice, or the breakdown of civil society.
It's hilarious that you have to make up an entirely different set of claims to get upset about. For someone so concerned about evidence, you really take a lot of liberties when it comes to inventing your own.
@previous (A)
Glug. No it's not.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #966,130
@previous (D)
> > Because the initial claim is where you tossed aside the concept of due process. You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> No. The initial claim had nothing to do with due process.
"That is never too often repeated, which is never sufficiently learned" - Seneca.
Therefore, as diligent educators, we shall walk you through it yet again. Ready? Here we go: you skipped over the required legal process before deciding that the person was a "victim". Someone made an accusation and that was enough "evidence" for you to conclude that they were a "victim" before having that accusation properly investigated. Hence, skipping over 'due process' (which I'm starting to realise is yet another term whose meaning you do not know).
You have yourself a blessed day my child. I know I will.
> > Because the initial claim is where you tossed aside the concept of due process. You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> No. The initial claim had nothing to do with due process.
"That is never too often repeated, which is never sufficiently learned" - Seneca.
Therefore, as diligent educators, we shall walk you through it yet again. Ready? Here we go: you skipped over the required legal process before deciding that the person was a "victim". Someone made an accusation and that was enough "evidence" for you to conclude that they were a "victim" before having that accusation properly investigated. Hence, skipping over 'due process' (which I'm starting to realise is yet another term whose meaning you do not know).
You have yourself a blessed day my child. I know I will.
Anonymous Q replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #966,132
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 32 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #966,140
I didn't read this thread since my last post but I just want to say I've changed my mind and I think Father Merrin has convincingly lost the argument. RIP.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 6 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #968,624
Yet another example of the Church hierarchy leading the way in fighting abuse:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47264130
Note the Cardinal's statement:
"Some months ago, I was advised by the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, that an allegation of sexual abuse of a teenager from almost fifty-years ago had been made against me. At that time I was a priest of the Archdiocese of New York.
While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence, I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency, and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process.
My sadness was deepened when I was informed that the allegations had been determined credible and substantiated.
In obedience I accept the decision of The Holy See, that I no longer exercise any public ministry.
I realize this painful development will shock my many friends, family members, and people I have been honored to serve in my sixty-years as a priest.
While I have absolutely no recollection of this reported abuse, and believe in my innocence, I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people".
You see? Allegation made, Holy See took swift and decisive action.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47264130
Note the Cardinal's statement:
"Some months ago, I was advised by the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, that an allegation of sexual abuse of a teenager from almost fifty-years ago had been made against me. At that time I was a priest of the Archdiocese of New York.
While shocked by the report, and while maintaining my innocence, I considered it essential that the charges be reported to the police, thoroughly investigated by an independent agency, and given to the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York. I fully cooperated in the process.
My sadness was deepened when I was informed that the allegations had been determined credible and substantiated.
In obedience I accept the decision of The Holy See, that I no longer exercise any public ministry.
I realize this painful development will shock my many friends, family members, and people I have been honored to serve in my sixty-years as a priest.
While I have absolutely no recollection of this reported abuse, and believe in my innocence, I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people".
You see? Allegation made, Holy See took swift and decisive action.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
50 years cover up joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #968,649
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Again the catholic church covers up pedophilias so they can destroy the lives of people and all with the approval of Jesus.
Again the catholic church covers up pedophilias so they can destroy the lives of people and all with the approval of Jesus.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #968,669
@previous (50 years cover up)
> Again the catholic church covers up pedophilias so they can destroy the lives of people and all with the approval of Jesus.
"In obedience I accept the decision of The Holy See, that I no longer exercise any public ministry"
You'll find that actually reading things will give you a functional understanding of the issues you write about.
> Again the catholic church covers up pedophilias so they can destroy the lives of people and all with the approval of Jesus.
"In obedience I accept the decision of The Holy See, that I no longer exercise any public ministry"
You'll find that actually reading things will give you a functional understanding of the issues you write about.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #968,673
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
50 years latter. The Catholic church fixes leaks peeling paint in the church walls faster, than taking action on a pedophile.
50 years latter. The Catholic church fixes leaks peeling paint in the church walls faster, than taking action on a pedophile.
Troll detector replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #968,674
Give it up TG. No question you're top dog pedophile as well as a troll.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 7 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #968,675
@968,673 (S)
The alleged incident happened 50 years ago. The accuser came forward only recently.
Again: read first, write second. It's the simplest and quickest way to not making an idiot of yourself.
You have yourself a blessed day my child!
The alleged incident happened 50 years ago. The accuser came forward only recently.
Again: read first, write second. It's the simplest and quickest way to not making an idiot of yourself.
You have yourself a blessed day my child!