Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-08-2002, 09:34 AM

From the wire:<a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/050602_congress.htm" target="_blank">In the halls of Congress, where lawmakers are eager to offer opinions and hold hearings on virtually any topic, the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church has generated a startlingly unusual reaction: dead silence.</a>

This article contains a number of observations about the current state of religion in government, with ample quotes from Barry Lynn of <a href="http://www.au.org" target="_blank">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a>, who must be on every reporters list of people to call up on any religious matter.

(snip)

Quote:

"God has silenced them. It's a miracle," said the Rev. Robert Drinan, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a former member of Congress from Massachusetts. "They talk about everything else. Thank God they haven't talked about it."

{From what I remember of Drinan, that was probably said tongue in cheek.}

Gar · 05-08-2002, 10:06 AM

I'm not entirely sure it is the job of Congress to deal with the pedophiles in the Catholic church, either. What is not acceptable is ignoring it and letting the church deal with it. They may see it as "telling the church what to do", but the priests need to be treated the same as the next pedophile.

theyeti · 05-08-2002, 10:09 AM

I guess what gets me is the hypocrisy. If this were a minority religion, or (gasp!) a secular group, Congress would be all over it like flies on dog shit. Congress feels that it's perfectly olay to interfere with religion, unless it's their religion.

theyeti

Grumpy · 05-08-2002, 03:53 PM

Congress doesn't need to leap into action every time there's a problem, IMHO. However, if you view the pedophile priest scandal as an organized crime problem, then Congress might have grounds for hearings. I'd like to see leaders of the Catholic Church, Salvation Army, Bible Camp or what-have-you, all lined up like tobacco executives, lying their asses off to Congress.

But I won't hold my breath.

Vorkosigan · 05-09-2002, 02:58 AM

Yes, I don't see why the RICO statutes don't apply here.

Did you catch Cardinal Law doing a Bill Clinton at the deposition today? ROTFL. What a hypocrite!

Vorkosigan

Toto · 05-09-2002, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
<strong>Yes, I don't see why the RICO statutes don't apply here.

</strong>

A civil suit has been filed under the RICO statutes against a number of people, including Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles.
Mahoney's record (see coverage in <a href="http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2002-05-02/feature.html/1/index.html" target="_blank">New Times LA</a>, is comparable to Law's. In a suit involving a pedophile priest under his supervision when he was bishop in central California, he impressed one jury as lying under oath.

I noticed in one news story (no time to dig it up now) that Law backed out of his settlement agreement because he hopes to take advantage of a Massachusetts statute that limits damages against a charitable institution to $200,000. There's no such law in California, and RICO would supercede that law anyway.

One can only hope that these financial challenges force some changes in the church's authoritarian structure and divert some of its money from its conservative political agenda.

sullster · 05-10-2002, 02:52 PM

Come on, we are talking about politicians here. The mid-term elections are coming up this November for the House and some Senate seats. What member Congress would dare express an opinion on this issue, given the possible consequences on election day?

They are scared s**tless of offending catholics. This is double true for Democrats who traditionally represent heavy Catholic areas. Republicans are also wary, even though they tend to suck up to the Protestant sects, they still don't want to piss off any conservative Catholics who may vote for them.

Don't forget the long history in America of anti-Catholicism. Not even the most right wing Republican wants some fundy preacher supporting a statement that looks anti-Catholic. This issue is a death sentence for politicians, no matter what. Don't expect even a passing comment from any of them.

Peregrine · 05-13-2002, 06:04 AM

It may become a State Department issue. I was watching the news last week when it was reported that the RCC at this time would not evoke diplomatic immunity for their Cardinals, bishops, and priests.

It seems that since the US recognized Vatican City (I think Ronnie did it)priests et al are considered diplomats of Vatican City. So if Boston would seek prosecution of Cardinal Law for obstruction, Vatican City could declare diplomatic immunity.

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

05-08-2002, 10:06 AM	#2
Gar Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Boston, Mass Posts: 347	I'm not entirely sure it is the job of Congress to deal with the pedophiles in the Catholic church, either. What is not acceptable is ignoring it and letting the church deal with it. They may see it as "telling the church what to do", but the priests need to be treated the same as the next pedophile.

05-08-2002, 10:09 AM	#3
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	I guess what gets me is the hypocrisy. If this were a minority religion, or (gasp!) a secular group, Congress would be all over it like flies on dog shit. Congress feels that it's perfectly olay to interfere with religion, unless it's their religion. theyeti

05-08-2002, 03:53 PM	#4
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Congress doesn't need to leap into action every time there's a problem, IMHO. However, if you view the pedophile priest scandal as an organized crime problem, then Congress might have grounds for hearings. I'd like to see leaders of the Catholic Church, Salvation Army, Bible Camp or what-have-you, all lined up like tobacco executives, lying their asses off to Congress. But I won't hold my breath.

05-09-2002, 02:58 AM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Yes, I don't see why the RICO statutes don't apply here. Did you catch Cardinal Law doing a Bill Clinton at the deposition today? ROTFL. What a hypocrite! Vorkosigan

05-10-2002, 02:52 PM	#7
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	Come on, we are talking about politicians here. The mid-term elections are coming up this November for the House and some Senate seats. What member Congress would dare express an opinion on this issue, given the possible consequences on election day? They are scared s**tless of offending catholics. This is double true for Democrats who traditionally represent heavy Catholic areas. Republicans are also wary, even though they tend to suck up to the Protestant sects, they still don't want to piss off any conservative Catholics who may vote for them. Don't forget the long history in America of anti-Catholicism. Not even the most right wing Republican wants some fundy preacher supporting a statement that looks anti-Catholic. This issue is a death sentence for politicians, no matter what. Don't expect even a passing comment from any of them.

05-13-2002, 06:04 AM	#8
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	It may become a State Department issue. I was watching the news last week when it was reported that the RCC at this time would not evoke diplomatic immunity for their Cardinals, bishops, and priests. It seems that since the US recognized Vatican City (I think Ronnie did it)priests et al are considered diplomats of Vatican City. So if Boston would seek prosecution of Cardinal Law for obstruction, Vatican City could declare diplomatic immunity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.