Christopher Jarvis gets 12 months for child porn.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This guy was hired by the church to investigate paedophile claims. He is not a priest.

And the folks that made the hiring choices, were they Church people?

Irrelevant. No one knew he was downloading child porn.

You can prove that?

[Animavore]

This guy was hired by the church to investigate paedophile claims. He is not a priest.

And the folks that made the hiring choices, were they Church people?

Irrelevant. No one knew he was downloading child porn.

You can prove that?

It's more of a stretch to say the church deliberately hired a paedophile to look into their peadophile cases.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's more of a stretch to say the church deliberately hired a paedophile to look into their peadophile cases.

Why? It's a classic tactic. Get a dirty DA to investigate corruption in the police department.

[Coito ergo sum]

I lean towards animavore here. I find it hard to believe that the appointment of a known pedophile to such a post would be covered up by the non-pedophiles in the bunch. Generally, non-pedophiles would either report the situation to the authorities and/or resign. It would seem to me that not only would there have to be nothing but pedophiles at the management ranks of the Catholic Church, but among those pedophiles there would have to be nobody who was even trying to control his behavior -- there couldn't be one that knew his impulses had to be restrained. From what I understand, some folks join the Catholic Church thinking that the discipline and religion and worship can help them stop sinning - whether it be sex addicts, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. Is the group so rife with evil bastards that nobody would blow the whistle?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I lean towards animavore here. I find it hard to believe that the appointment of a known pedophile to such a post would be covered up by the non-pedophiles in the bunch. Generally, non-pedophiles would either report the situation to the authorities and/or resign. It would seem to me that not only would there have to be nothing but pedophiles at the management ranks of the Catholic Church, but among those pedophiles there would have to be nobody who was even trying to control his behavior -- there couldn't be one that knew his impulses had to be restrained. From what I understand, some folks join the Catholic Church thinking that the discipline and religion and worship can help them stop sinning - whether it be sex addicts, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. Is the group so rife with evil bastards that nobody would blow the whistle?

Oh, come on. The whole system has been in place for centuries and they know how to play it. The "unawares" would be weeded out at early stages and more "aware" folks co-opted into the system to help cover the pedos tracks. This works for corrupt organizations of all kinds. Tammany Hall, anyone?

[klr]

I'm with Ani and CES. The Church picked a (very) bad apple here, someone who likely knew how to cover their tracks and how to come across as "normal".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm with Ani and CES. The Church picked a (very) bad apple here, someone who likely knew how to cover their tracks and how to come across as "normal".

And that differs from your everyday priest/pedo in what fashion?

[Coito ergo sum]

I lean towards animavore here. I find it hard to believe that the appointment of a known pedophile to such a post would be covered up by the non-pedophiles in the bunch. Generally, non-pedophiles would either report the situation to the authorities and/or resign. It would seem to me that not only would there have to be nothing but pedophiles at the management ranks of the Catholic Church, but among those pedophiles there would have to be nobody who was even trying to control his behavior -- there couldn't be one that knew his impulses had to be restrained. From what I understand, some folks join the Catholic Church thinking that the discipline and religion and worship can help them stop sinning - whether it be sex addicts, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. Is the group so rife with evil bastards that nobody would blow the whistle?

Oh, come on. The whole system has been in place for centuries and they know how to play it. The "unawares" would be weeded out at early stages and more "aware" folks co-opted into the system to help cover the pedos tracks. This works for corrupt organizations of all kinds. Tammany Hall, anyone?

Well, it's a fine hypothesis. I'd like to see some proof. Enough priests have been subjected to enough depositions and criminal investigations that somebody may well have wanted to spill the beans for immunity and/or insulation from liability.

As the numbers required for a conspiracy of silence goes up, the likelihood of a secret remaining a secret goes down.

Hey - priests are way down on my list of trustworthy characters. Anyone who would enter the priesthood is of low character, in my estimation. But, even the worst criminals spill the beans to save their own arses.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think you guys are just too nice to see that big picture. Okay then.

[Drewish]

This guy was hired by the church to investigate paedophile claims. He is not a priest.

And the folks that made the hiring choices, were they Church people?

Irrelevant. No one knew he was downloading child porn.

You can prove that?

It's more of a stretch to say the church deliberately hired a paedophile to look into their peadophile cases.

In the absence of all the other damning stuff that the Catholic Church, I'd agree, but this is one case where there has been shown to exist a legitimate conspiracy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bingo.

[klr]

I'm with Ani and CES. The Church picked a (very) bad apple here, someone who likely knew how to cover their tracks and how to come across as "normal".

And that differs from your everyday priest/pedo in what fashion?

The time-frame for this is within the last 10 years or so, when the RCC would have been very much aware of the problem of paedophilia, it's own problems in dealing with it, and the extremely negative public perception of same. Hiring someone like this was part of the response. I don't see conspiracy where stupidity/lack of rigour (on the part of the RCC) and devious behaviour (on the part of the convicted) can adequately explain the situation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm with Ani and CES. The Church picked a (very) bad apple here, someone who likely knew how to cover their tracks and how to come across as "normal".

And that differs from your everyday priest/pedo in what fashion?

The time-frame for this is within the last 10 years or so, when the RCC would have been very much aware of the problem of paedophilia, it's own problems in dealing with it, and the extremely negative public perception of same. Hiring someone like this was part of the response. I don't see conspiracy where stupidity/lack of rigour (on the part of the RCC) and devious behaviour (on the part of the convicted) can adequately explain the situation.

The RCC is just shucking and jiving, not correcting the problem.

[DaveD]

The RCC have abused being given the benefit of the doubt so often, they won't get it from me automatically any more. Even if they didn't, or couldn't, know about this guy's proclivities, they've prevaricated for so long on this issue, they now deserve any and all opprobrium that they get. It probably isn't all they deserve - new cases seem to be emerging all the time.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

For one glorious moment my heart soared like an eagle...but alas.....