Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

[Ronja]

It would be conceding that divine law is at least on equal footing with secular law.

I think it would be conceding that secular law trumps their 'divine' law.

I very much doubt that they will do anything even remotely in that direction as long as The Emperor's Evil Twin lives.

[charlou]

I also don't think we should be waiting on the church to give assurances and to otherwise do the right thing. Like any pedophile ring, we should be going in and routing out the abusers and bringing them to justice. Like any organisation that deals with children and vulnerable people, members ought to be required to have police checks.

[apophenia]

Since teachers and the rate of child sex abuse among teachers has been used as some kind of comparison to demonstrate that the campaign against the priesthood and church is somehow unwarranted and undeserving, amounting to unfounded vilification, the main difference btw the two has been left out.

The education departments of various states and countries have not participated in massive cover ups of child sexual abuse. They have not harboured known perpetrators who went on to commit more crimes.

Thus, the ed. depts are not themselves complicit in the crimes in the way that the church hierarchy is criminally complicit and who in effect aided and abetted.

Tell that to the women on college campuses who have been doubly raped, first by their rapist, and then by the school that steers them away from civil authorities and into the feeble mockery of campus disciplinary hearings.

I thought you might invoke the case of privately owned schools and colleges.

Like all institutions there is potential for abuse and sometimes systems that enable abuse.

But private schools are not part of a greater organisation. They do not move known criminal teachers from one school establishment to another to continue their abuses like the church did.

Whoah, Nelly. Can everybody hear that scraping sound? That's the sound of them goalposts being moved again. You know, if we could just harness the energy involved in moving them goalposts, I think man's energy problems could be solved.

And you're also guilty of special pleading. I never limited my remarks to private institutions, anyway. Once again, Mortie dear, FAIL.



And thank you Seraph. I was glad I could capitalize on the opportunity to bore you back. I guess I had to expect some cheekiness from yanking your chain in Santa's thread.

Now, as Charlou rather diplomatically pointed out, this thread appears to have forked into criticisms of the Catholic church and criticisms of apophenia. I see no new ideas being introduced, considered or debated, and I see no profit in discussing "criticisms of apophenia", so I shall rest. Your turn Seraph. Dazzle us with something.

ETA: I spoke too soon, Seraph, Charlou and Ronja dumped some juicy ideas while I was busy here editing. Sneaky. Not fair.

[apophenia]

I have to step back and ask myself "What is what I'm doing contributing to my life?" and "What am I contributing to the world by what I'm doing?' Any help answering those questions will be most appreciated.

I liked reading you.

Sometimes I think I live solely for the benefit of the few Cunts that exist in the world.

wait. that came out wrong.

[Ronja]

I have to step back and ask myself "What is what I'm doing contributing to my life?" and "What am I contributing to the world by what I'm doing?' Any help answering those questions will be most appreciated.

I liked reading you.

Sometimes I think I live solely for the benefit of the few Cunts that exist in the world.

wait. that came out wrong.

Actually, IME of this forum that came our exactly right.

[Cunt]

Here is a question for all you marketing buffs:
How could this event be 'spun' to have the largest effect in reducing future incidences of crimes of this type?

An assurance by the catholic church - from the pope downwards - that anybody at all suspected of paedophilia and any other form of sexual abuse will no longer be protected by the confessional, that the confidence of a confessional will no longer be an obstacle for doing so. That is to say, that the confessional does not constitute quasi-immunity from being hauled up in front of a secular court of law. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, though. As Charlou mentioned earlier, there's too much at stake for the church. It would be conceding that divine law is at least on equal footing with secular law.

Thanks for taking the time to write, but I meant something possible, and within our reality.

But if I had a better idea, I would have had it.

---------

I have to step back and ask myself "What is what I'm doing contributing to my life?" and "What am I contributing to the world by what I'm doing?' Any help answering those questions will be most appreciated.

I liked reading you.

Sometimes I think I live solely for the benefit of the few Cunts that exist in the world.

wait. that came out wrong.

Oh, but it sounded so right!

[.Morticia.]

What other people and organisations do, in this case teachers and schools, is a red herring.

We are discussing what priests and the catholic church have done and are still doing.

And there is no doubt as to their guilt.

Of course, we must be careful to not go on a witch hunt lest the innocent be caught up .

[Cunt]

What other people and organisations do, in this case teachers and schools, is a red herring.

We are discussing what priests and the catholic church have done and are still doing.

And there is no doubt as to their guilt.

Of course, we must be careful to not go on a witch hunt lest the innocent be caught up .

How would you exclude pedophiles from your witch hunt, .Morticia.?

[.Morticia.]

What other people and organisations do, in this case teachers and schools, is a red herring.

We are discussing what priests and the catholic church have done and are still doing.

And there is no doubt as to their guilt.

Of course, we must be careful to not go on a witch hunt lest the innocent be caught up .

How would you exclude pedophiles from your witch hunt, .Morticia.?

how about being careful when naming people

how about presumption of innocence

how about relying on evidence

iow, justice

[Cunt]

What other people and organisations do, in this case teachers and schools, is a red herring.

We are discussing what priests and the catholic church have done and are still doing.

And there is no doubt as to their guilt.

Of course, we must be careful to not go on a witch hunt lest the innocent be caught up .

How would you exclude pedophiles from your witch hunt, .Morticia.?

how about being careful when naming people

how about presumption of innocence

how about relying on evidence

iow, justice

I have a pedophile right here. What should be done with him? (I don't 'have' him, but he is just a few meters away)

Too late for a presumption of innocence, he is guilty. His name isn't important, but it is known. Evidence overwhelmingly points to his being a pedophile.

What is justice, .Morticia.? Do you need to know more? What other facts do you need?

[Pappa]

I had this nagging feeling that I was going to discover that the CRB check (Criminal Record Beureau) in the UK would have exemptions on religious grounds, so I did a bit of digging earlier. I was pleased to discover that there are no such exemptions. So Sunday school teachers and the like need a CRB check if there are in contact with kids regularly. I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that the Anglican Church (or at least some of it's diocese, don't know if it a top down policy) insist on an 'enhanced' check for anyone who works with kids in their churches, even though the law only requires the standard check. Nice work CofE. OK, so they're still brainwashing kids, but at least they're making real efforts to ensure the kids aren't being butt raped too.

[klr]

...

I don't egregiously misquote, and I read enough following the "how do I know" to make it clear in my mind that I was being asked to front up some sources to go with my earlier claims,.

Awesome. So in other words, you didn't read far enough, and this "I read far enough" business is just so much C.Y.A. But by all means, don't accept responsibility for not reading far enough to make an intelligent response based upon what I actually wrote, and instead based it on a partial reading.

And your nitpick about you not being authority is just a distraction. Who cares. You represented yourself as knowledgeable and I accepted. The rest is ass tooting.

Good grief. Take the time out to quote give someone a few helpful links ...

I see. So treating somebody according to a stereotype is okay so long as there are actually people who fit the stereotype. I guess this is an admission that it would be okay of me to characterize you as a depressed, nihilistic, gay kiddy diddler because that's a stereotype that some have of atheists, and there are depressed, gay, kiddy diddling atheists. Are you black? If you were, would I be justified in demanding an explanation for your statement that you don't like watermelon?

I didn't say it was OK, I merely pointed out why it happened. And here's something: Had I known that you were a veteran of on-line discussions, I would have probably been made no bones about the need for a newcomer to declare about themselves and their background/outlook before jumping straight in to a serious debate. But since I didn't know, I skirted around it and gave you the (unstated) benefit of the doubt.

So you may take it or leave it. No harm done, no-one got killed. Actually, I did make one clear error, but politeness prevents me from mentioning it here.

Yes, I understand that tropes establish themselves on the basis of some empirical validity, but using that as a justification for holding people to stereotypes is just intellectual laziness. And remember, I've been an op on one of the most popular channels on EFNet for over 10 years, so this, "you obviously haven't been around, let me straighten you out" is condescending bullshit. I have dealt with thousands of people throughout the years, and hundreds of tossers who thought their little fucking around was the latest and greatest thing. I understand the problem, I have lived it, and I have not descended to your depths. What you're saying to me seems essentially a variant of, "we could have treated you as an individual, but it was just easier not to." Indeed. It is easier. Is it better? I don't think so. And people like Morticia seem more interested in using my words as some sort of Ouija board to divine my hidden thoughts. Here's a radical thought -- if you want to know what somebody thinks and feels, ASK THEM. That you seem to trust more in your gifts as a head doctor probably rests on a lack of communication skills. I have repeatedly qualified my assertions, contextualized them and done everything I could to qualify my intentions. To no avail. It's just been easier to shit on me and make lame excuses later ("oh, I read enough, I think.." -- no you did not). Not a single one of you here asked me directly, am I defending the church's actions. And I've produced voluminous confessional which elucidate where I'm coming from. To no avail (e.g. Morticia).

For someone who seems to take such umbrage at the idea of them being somehow stereotyped or pigeon-holed on the basis of little evidence, you seem to engage in a remarkable amount of it yourself. You know nothing about me, yet you feel free to cast aspersions on my communication skills, or that say that I think I'm a head doctor, or that "I have not descended to your depths". Quite charming, I'd say. Nowhere in any of my responses to you have I said anything even remotely comparable.

So I'll say it again: Chill out, it's only an Internet forum.

FWIW: I've also done more than my fair share of mod and admin work (not here I might add), and am more than sufficiently acquainted with social dynamics on the internet.

...
Both you and Zilla mishandled the text you were given, and at least Zilla admitted his mistake with the humorous emoticon. You seem determined to engage in a complex obfuscations to cover up and avoid taking responsibility for your error. But good news. The Catholic church has need of people with such skills, and, they're hiring.

Oh please: More personalisation, completely unwarranted analysis of my thoughts and motives, and grandstanding to boot. I have no intention of responding in kind. Moreover, should you continue to respond to me in this manner, I will most likely ignore you completely in the future, or to whatever extent suits me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to simply walk away from any situation where I feel there is no benefit to staying.

[charlou]

I had this nagging feeling that I was going to discover that the CRB check (Criminal Record Beureau) in the UK would have exemptions on religious grounds, so I did a bit of digging earlier. I was pleased to discover that there are no such exemptions. So Sunday school teachers and the like need a CRB check if there are in contact with kids regularly. I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that the Anglican Church (or at least some of it's diocese, don't know if it a top down policy) insist on an 'enhanced' check for anyone who works with kids in their churches, even though the law only requires the standard check. Nice work CofE. OK, so they're still brainwashing kids, but at least they're making real efforts to ensure the kids aren't being butt raped too.

Hey, that's good to know. Thanks for looking it up, Pappa.

[charlou]

I have a pedophile right here. What should be done with him? (I don't 'have' him, but he is just a few meters away)

Too late for a presumption of innocence, he is guilty. His name isn't important, but it is known. Evidence overwhelmingly points to his being a pedophile.

What is justice, .Morticia.? Do you need to know more? What other facts do you need?

Is he abusing children?

If he is, what do you think ought to be done about it?

[Cunt]

I have a pedophile right here. What should be done with him? (I don't 'have' him, but he is just a few meters away)

Too late for a presumption of innocence, he is guilty. His name isn't important, but it is known. Evidence overwhelmingly points to his being a pedophile.

What is justice, .Morticia.? Do you need to know more? What other facts do you need?

Is he abusing children

Bit of a sloppy question but he is not, to my knowledge, currently abusing children.
He has been convicted repeatedly, though.

If he is, what do you think ought to be done about it?

If he were doing that I would stop him. Further I would report him to the authorities.
...but you asked what 'ought' to be done about it, didn't you?

I don't know, charlou, to be honest. I think there is a lot of religious hysteria around it, and some people even go so far as to suggest that the punishment should far exceed the damage caused by the crime without any seeming religious crap attached at all.

It's a tough issue, with lots of 'everybody knows' bullshit. I think and feel quite differently about it. My thinker suggests institutionalisation, wherever it is cheapest. My feelings suggest something more dignified for everyone, but then I don't think I have the stomach for killing people.

Can't we just talk about the new girls as yet unrevealed pissflaps?