Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-12-2002, 03:20 AM

<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2002-05-08.htm" target="_blank">See here</a>

The incindiery first paragraph:

"Incredibly, lawyers for the Archdiocese of Boston are arguing that a six-year-old child was "negligent" in allowing himself to be raped by Father Paul Shanley, the advocate of man-boy love whom Cardinal Bernard Law knowingly protected�and that the boy's parents, who were unaware of Shanley's predations, were negligent as well. Legal and psychological experts, quoted by The Boston Globe, branded the negligence defense as a legal absurdity and a public-relations calamity.

The author argues that American Catholics invested the Church with too much trust and authority. No shit, but well-written.

Vorkosigan

Oresta · 05-12-2002, 04:51 AM

Gary Wills has an excellent, however hostile, article in the current issue of The New York Review of Books on this issue. His is an interesting take on the pediophile-priest and church authority.

<a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15380" target="_blank">http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15380</a>

Quote:

A man without a wife to puncture his pomposity, without children to challenge his authority, in relations carefully structured to make him continuously eminent, easily becomes convinced of his superior wisdom. Since many priests have been only sketchily educated outside their formal subjects, they feel that the source of their wisdom must be their supernatural powers, not their intellectual development. It is generally easy for religion to move from the numinous to the antinomian, to the idea that believers are above the rules that bind others.
<snip>

The "innocent" sexuality of antinomian sects is made even easier for a man who is so clearly marked off from others, for whom he prescribes the rules for absolution of their sins. This makes more explicable the fact that the priest-pedophile, even one who admits what he has done, shows so little awareness that it was wrong. Perhaps, for others, it is wrong. Not for him. Not for the antinomian. Father Cozzens, who has investigated and counseled pedophile priests, writes:
I sensed little guilt for their seductions. The only regret I could identify was associated with their being caught. For the most part, the men I worked with were more concerned about themselves and their futures than for their victims. From my relatively brief work with them I came to see them as focused sociopaths—little or no moral sense, no feelings of guilt and remorse for what they had done, at least in this area of their lives. When it came to their misconduct with minors there was minimal evidence of conscience. I remember having to ask, "Are you sorry for the harm you did, for the suffering of the victim?" They answered, not surprisingly, "Yes" —but with little conviction. I don't remember one priest acknowledging any kind of moral torment for the behavior that got him in trouble [emphasis added].
This conviction that they are above the law has much to do with the compliance of their victims. Not only is the priest a guardian of mysteries, respected by the victims' families and other authority figures, taking the victim into special places marked off from the "profane" and explicable. His own conviction adds to his weight of authority. If he is so sure that it is all right, who is the youngster to challenge his credentials?

05-12-2002, 05:30 AM

OBEY=don't think for yourself OBEY=don't study the world around you OBEY=do what religion's authority figures say OBEY=learn only what we teach.................Happy Mother's day...

hezekiah jones · 05-12-2002, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Incredibly, lawyers for the Archdiocese of Boston are arguing that a six-year-old child was "negligent" in allowing himself to be raped by Father Paul Shanley, the advocate of man-boy love whom Cardinal Bernard Law knowingly protected—and that the boy's parents, who were unaware of Shanley's predations, were negligent as well. Legal and psychological experts, quoted by The Boston Globe, branded the negligence defense as a legal absurdity and a public-relations calamity.

A public relations calamity, no doubt about it. Absurd on its face, absolutely. As for a strictly legal absurdity I'm not so sure. These sorts of things are necessarily addressed by defense attorneys in every sexual assault case, and lawyers often attempt to impugn the integrity of victims, no matter their age.

As reprehensible as it may be, especially in a case like this, it's a normal component of a thorough defense strategy. The one thing they may not argue is consent, since the law expressly precludes the possibility of consent to sexual activities by minors. Minors, by definition, are incapable of consent. Obviously there is a fine line between negligence and consent here and the Archdiocese lawyers are trying to exploit it, and I agree that, under the circumstances, it's revolting.

But if attorneys don't at least address all conceivable potential components of their defense strategy, they leave themselves open to ineffective assistance of counsel charges, which often can extend the appeals process ad infinitum and may even lead to reduced sentences or worse. That's why it's practically a professional obligation for defense attorneys to throw everything they've got in front of the state's case.

Like it or not, that's the way the system works and this is clearly one of the reasons that attorneys are often portrayed as heartless scumbags. I'm sure these particular attorneys are holding their noses while they cover this particular base. Obviously the especially egregious nature of this case, and many others like it, make it extremely difficult to divorce the facts from the technical realities of lawyering under the Constitution's numerous protections afforded to defendants.

Bible Humper · 05-12-2002, 12:40 PM

Would it be so unreasonable to expect an organization that claims to be THE "Absolute moral authority" as ordained by the "One true God(tm)" to actually try to see justice served even if it means rejecting what is technically their best chance of getting off the hook? Bah! Don't worry, I'm not quite so dumb as to expect that.

I wonder if I caught a priest from the local Catholic cult walking in a rough part of town, I could rob, rape, and beat him. It was his negligence that put him where he could have that happen to him!! You can expect to run into a thug in your local ghetto as much as you can expect to run into a paedophile in your local cult so if you go to either place, you've got what's coming to you

But of course, I can't afford "justice", and I don't have a church/hive full of drones who vote how I tell them the Good Lard told me they should vote so I guess not.

The sooner this Vampire Paedophilia Cult dies off, the better. At least the attention this is getting should help to that end.

Toto · 05-12-2002, 12:42 PM

But the author does argue that the children and parents were negligent:

Quote:

Yet, in a broader sense, negligence is the missing concept in the Church sex-abuse scandal�the negligence of Catholic parents in imbuing their children with an unquestioning faith in clerical authority, a faith so central to some parents that their children had to protect it by enduring rape in silence.

I don't think that the negligence is ever a defense in a criminal case - this must involve the civil case. It is probably on the check list of defense the lawyers have, and may not actually mean anything in terms of how they ultimately present their case.

Veil of Fire · 05-12-2002, 03:15 PM

I'm currently working on a "Mambo #5"-type song for the RCC... so far I have:

"A little bit of Peter on his knees
A little bit of foolin' diocese,
A little bit of Paul droppin' the soap
A little bitty wrist slap from the Pope
A little bit of Simon goin' down,
A little bit of movin; town to town
A little bit of Matthew on the side
A little bit of me the Church will hide!"

Still trying to perfect the dance-part tho...

"Move up and down, and spin it all around,
Put your ass in the air and your hands on the ground..."

is all I have so far tho...

PopeInTheWoods · 05-13-2002, 12:37 PM

A little bit of faith that the priest is good
A little blind eye when he lays the wood
To the little bitty kids in his trusting flock
A little bitty thrust with his tiny cock

Yeah, it's crude, rude, and obnoxious. But this subject pisse me off like no other.

Andy

05-12-2002, 03:20 AM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Excellent Atlantic Article on RCC & Pedophilia <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2002-05-08.htm" target="_blank">See here</a> The incindiery first paragraph: "Incredibly, lawyers for the Archdiocese of Boston are arguing that a six-year-old child was "negligent" in allowing himself to be raped by Father Paul Shanley, the advocate of man-boy love whom Cardinal Bernard Law knowingly protected�and that the boy's parents, who were unaware of Shanley's predations, were negligent as well. Legal and psychological experts, quoted by The Boston Globe, branded the negligence defense as a legal absurdity and a public-relations calamity. The author argues that American Catholics invested the Church with too much trust and authority. No shit, but well-written. Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2002, 05:30 AM	#3
G V Guest Posts: n/a	OBEY=don't think for yourself OBEY=don't study the world around you OBEY=do what religion's authority figures say OBEY=learn only what we teach.................Happy Mother's day...

05-12-2002, 12:40 PM	#5
Bible Humper Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,125	Would it be so unreasonable to expect an organization that claims to be THE "Absolute moral authority" as ordained by the "One true God(tm)" to actually try to see justice served even if it means rejecting what is technically their best chance of getting off the hook? Bah! Don't worry, I'm not quite so dumb as to expect that. I wonder if I caught a priest from the local Catholic cult walking in a rough part of town, I could rob, rape, and beat him. It was his negligence that put him where he could have that happen to him!! You can expect to run into a thug in your local ghetto as much as you can expect to run into a paedophile in your local cult so if you go to either place, you've got what's coming to you But of course, I can't afford "justice", and I don't have a church/hive full of drones who vote how I tell them the Good Lard told me they should vote so I guess not. The sooner this Vampire Paedophilia Cult dies off, the better. At least the attention this is getting should help to that end.

05-12-2002, 03:15 PM	#7
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	I'm currently working on a "Mambo #5"-type song for the RCC... so far I have: "A little bit of Peter on his knees A little bit of foolin' diocese, A little bit of Paul droppin' the soap A little bitty wrist slap from the Pope A little bit of Simon goin' down, A little bit of movin; town to town A little bit of Matthew on the side A little bit of me the Church will hide!" Still trying to perfect the dance-part tho... "Move up and down, and spin it all around, Put your ass in the air and your hands on the ground..." is all I have so far tho...

05-13-2002, 12:37 PM	#8
PopeInTheWoods Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Rochester NY USA Posts: 4,318	A little bit of faith that the priest is good A little blind eye when he lays the wood To the little bitty kids in his trusting flock A little bitty thrust with his tiny cock Yeah, it's crude, rude, and obnoxious. But this subject pisse me off like no other. Andy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.