BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clerical rape of children is, in part, due to the celibacy of priests and must change

Rape and sexual torure of children is widespread within the Catholic church, so much so that it can not be a mere co-incidence. One reason is the unnatural staright jacket of priestal celibacy, which is manifested in the sickening crimes committed by the Chritsian brothers. There is no basis for enforced celibacy and by making sex such a taboo the church has, and continues to, force priests down the path of rape and crime as they release their sexual tension. In no way is this excusing the repulsive, sinister and vile individuals at the heart of these traumatic cases but the church must re-assess and reform its policies to ensure it doesn't happen again. It is too far-reaching to accept the rapes a Catholic co-incidence, something has toi change.
To an extent

I agree that the rule of celibacy could contribute to priests 'loneliness' and drive them to such acts. Are these priests all evil, or are their actions a result of being bound by Human law, which tells them they cannot marry, or have a relationship, with anyone except God? The Bible says, 'go forth and multiply' and their is clear encouragement of relationships in the example of Mary and Joseph. This human ideal that the Catholic Church has adopted seems to appear as follows: "To be truly Holy, you must fix your eyes on God and nobody else. A wife, would be a distraction to your discipline so you must not mate nor marry." I think this is wrongly placed. If you take away the right of a priest to marry, your saying that he can't be fully Holy if he's married and presumably bearing children with his wife. What right have the Vatican got to do this? It appears to be one of those interpretations that has gone horribly wrong. Who are the Church, made of Humans, to say who's Holy and who isn't. Holy is the acceptance of God and His way into your life. Not whether you're having sex with your wife! In short I feel that the Catholc Church needs to reform it's policy on priests. The whole thing appears to be fabricated. The Bible didn't say it. So neither should they.
There's already been a reform

The reform already happened, although it is usually not called "the reform", but "the Reformation". Anyone who wants to be a part of a church characterized other than the Catholic church, has many alternatives: Anglicanism, Presbitarianism, Pentacost, and so on, and so forth. Still not happy? Creating a new church is always a possibility. The Catholic church represents those who chose to stick with the idea of the Pope as God's representative on Earth despite the shortcomings of this idea; this applies to other elements of Catholicism which may be controversial today. For this reason, all of the Yes points are pretty much irrelevant.
Too much responsibility on the Pope

Catholicism centres on the Pope. All are to do as he does. All are to believe what he believes. He is the ultimate decision maker, apart from God himself of course. In the light of all these allegations against priests being child abusers, how can one elderly gentleman be responsible for them all? The Pope would never have met these priests and yet he is being held accountable for them. This simply is not a fair representation of the Pope and his level of belief. The Catholic Church needs to reform to take the blame away from the Pope and into the smaller Parishes in which these child molesting priests reside. Power should be localised, not centralised.
Decentralisation would men Parishes would have greater level of control over strayed priests

With all the power centralised on the Pope, there is less control locally. Before any decision would be made, the Pope would need to be consulted. But when there are so many issues and meetings that the Pope has to attend, how can all misdemeanours be reported to him? Perhaps there is not a cover up, just a reluctance to get the Pope involved when it would take so long to get his assembly and then for a decision to be made. Like the police forgoing petty crimes to avoid excessive paper work. The solution then is to give Parishes their own power. Allow the leader of the Parish to take decisions. The let there be a higher head in the region to which the leaders of the Parishes are responsible to. This way, incidents would be reported quicker and dealt with quicker. This minimises the chances of repeat attacks on children.
It currently promotes loyalty to the institution not the laity

With such a large body of centralised power, the clergymen have a different view towards their followers; the laity, the believers who have no power to the institution. This could be seen in 1968 when John Paul II outlawed contraception once more. [[http://www.theopolitics.com/index.php?p=11&ID=54&d=1]] He went about enforcing this law by stating that any priest that disagreed would not see promotion. Therefore, against the needs of the Catholic followers, priests would give advice to not use contraception in order to achieve a higher standing in the institution. But surely what the Church should be doing is offering the correct advice for the individual circumstances rather than generic advice which aids them climb the Church ladder. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church needs reform.
To expect everyone to believe the same on every marginal issue is un realistic and inhumane

Surely this defies the whole point of religion! With any monotheism, should it not be the case that all are t believe and act as God stated in the Holy Scriptures? To say that the Catholic Church needs to account for different world views is to submit the will of God to the people. But surely, God being the almighty, the omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent should not have to submit to the will of the mere mortals? To try and adapt religion to cater for the current beliefs of people is not in a religious spirit. Religion is what it is, people either believe or they do not. Religion should not be subject to localised/localized changing; even of the marginal issues. Christianity is certainly not confined to Catholicism. Or always agreeing with the pope; certainly most Christians feel the need for the church to do something about sexual abusing priests.
Clerical rape of children is, in part, due to the celibacy of priests and must change

Celibacy requires 'not' mating; which obviously does not entail raping boys. Nuns are not busy raping children; now are they? Understood that sexual tension from repression can cause desperate measures; but that certainly does not justify statutory rape. Priests could secretly visit prostitutes but they do choir boys(and again this is NOT something most priests do). The problem is that such behavior is ignored and dismissed by the Pope himself; who strictly opposes homosexuality. The attitudes of the priests is not dissimilar to that of frat boys(members of a college fraternity), members of secret (boys')societies/clubs, and other all-male groups. Fraternity members are encouraged to have frequent sex; yet commit 90% more gang rapes than their non-fraternity college boy counterparts. The problem is not repression/suppression but the spread; one priest gets away with it and he's followed by many who know there no consequences for there actions from the church. The argument also ignores the fact, that child abuse goes on in non-celibate clergy (Protestant, Orthodox, Judaism, Islam). The abuser is also most likely a family member. If celibacy was a critical factor, we would not except these facts. The argument also fails to address the fact, that the priests who do abuse are a very small minority of the celibate clergy.
To an extent

The argument begs the question in favor of Sola Scripture/Bible Alone-theology. The Catholic Church recognize three authorities: Sacred Scripture (The Bible), Sacred Tradition (The writtings of the Church Fathers) and the Magisterium (the college of bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome). Ignoring the above point, the Bible actually praises celibacy in several verses. An example respectively from the Old Testament, The Gospels and the Epistles: "The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place'" (Jer. 16:1-2). "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt 19:12) I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord (1Cor 7:32-35)
There's already been a reform

The Reformation was not actually a reformation of the Catholic Church but a reformation of Christianity. Therefore the Catholic Church itself has not had a reform. Furthermore, the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism reach far and beyond that of the Pope. They are different belief systems altogether with Protestantism being far more secular as a belief system. The Catholic Church is not defined by the Pope as a representative but as the totality of the belief system. This is what needs to remain in tact if Catholicism is to remain Catholicism through the reformation.
Too much responsibility on the Pope

Being the Pope has quite a lot responsibility,priests,bishops,and etc..are inform of the responsibility you must take on when becoming Pope.Just as the President of the United States has the responsibility of taking care of it.Just Consider the Pope as a religious president for the church,he is accountable for the priests.If a person from the U.S.A went to a different country and blow up their cities then the Presidents would be held accountable,because it is his job.
It currently promotes loyalty to the institution not the laity

The Catholic Church does not believe in targeted ethical solutions. It would make the Church even more of an irrelevance to the world if its pronouncements on, say, contraception, were that the Pope and the Church "believe" it is wrong, but individual priests may make up their own minds. Further, the priests and cardinals who work higher up in the organisation tend have more training and experience in Catholic theology than individual parish priests. The most important descisions in any organisation must be made by those with the most knowledge and experience. Last, having a strong institution with strong centralisation of power will help the Church solve some of its problems. If the Pope and Cardinals see the dangers and decide to act, e.g on the paedophile priests scandal, then change can be more easily brought than if power is diluted amongst all of the individual parish priests who might have little to no power whatsoever when compared to, e.g, the local Bishop.
Putting cameras into court will improve the trial process, as public monitoring provides a powerful ...

Lawyers and the judiciary are already sufficiently accountable. Barristers are self-employed and the likelihood of continuing in work, and receiving a ‘repeat brief’, largely depends on the quality of their performance in court.Although the judiciary enjoys much greater security of tenure, their competence is constantly monitored by means of reports from the solicitors and barristers appearing before them. Therefore, nothing is to be gained by making the lawyers and judges ‘accountable’ to a mostly uneducated public through the medium of television. Moreover, television cameras actually harm the standard of debate. The coverage of debates in the House of Commons, and particularly ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ has contributed towards ‘soundbite politics’. Depth of analysis and discussion is replaced by pithy comments that sound striking on news bulletins. During the course of a trial it is crucial that every issue is investigated as thoroughly as possible, in order to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The search for the truth will not be assisted by encouraging the protagonists to rely on one-liners for the cameras.
A video record of a trial will provide a powerful new tool for both the judiciary and the defendant....

Every moment of every crown court trial in Britain is already recorded and stored for the assistance of judges or lawyers involved in any potential appeal. In addition, a stenographer in the courtroom records every word for the benefit of the people involved in the trial. A video recording is unnecessary. Furthermore, the reason that appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts is not because they were not present themselves at the original trial. In the common law system, the jurors, and not judges, try the facts. It is for a jury to reach a decision on the facts, as presented by each witness. It is for the judge to advise and apply the relevant law. Using a video record in order to overturn jury verdicts would require a revolution in the criminal justice system. The jury would effectively have to be abolished.
In a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public galle...

In a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch a part or the whole of a trial, or appeal. In Britain the public are even allowed to attend the highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, just as anyone can watch the Supreme Court of the United States in session. There is therefore no constitutional reason why trials should not be televised. However, at the moment only a few people can take advantage of their rights. As courts sit during the week, it is difficult for people in full-time employment to watch a trial. Travelling to courts across the country is costly. The galleries for the public have only a limited number of spaces. Visitors to well- publicised trials often have to arrive several hours in advance of the hearing in order to ensure a seat. We should not have to make such sacrifices of time and money in order to enjoy our democratic rights. In addition, the events in court are often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Coverage on television could include a commentary that would make watching a trial a more profitable and educational experience. In the age of the television, and even the internet, we should utilise modern technology to enhance the rights of the citizens.
Courts should be televised for the same reason that we see the proceedings in parliament on our tele...

Courts should be televised for the same reason that we see the proceedings in parliament on our televisions. The laws are made in parliament and developed in the courts. Common law countries employ the doctrine of precedent. This means that the reasoning in an earlier case can determine the outcome of a subsequent one. Consequently, the decisions in courts could have as much impact on our lives as those taken in parliament. We have a right to know about these decisions.Secondly, even if every case does not determine new law, we should know how laws are to be applied. Seeing law made in parliament is only half the story.
Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice a...

Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice as a whole. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a system that most of them never see! The judiciary often appear to be a secretive and closed club. The occasional clumsy comments that are made by judges are ridiculed in the media. It is necessary to dispel this unrepresentative image by showing the competence, efficiency, and sensitivity of the majority of judges throughout the legal system. Judges have made efforts to improve their public profile in recent years.
Televised trials will be an antidote to the hysterical and sensationalist coverage of trials that we...

Televised trials will be an antidote to the hysterical and sensationalist coverage of trials that we see in the print media. Instead of relying on a journalist’s report of a case, and the sketches of a courtroom artist, we will be able to see for ourselves the evidence, the demeanour of the defendant, and the trial process. Cameras in the courtroom will prevent the public being misled.
Putting cameras into court will improve the trial process, as public monitoring provides a powerful ...

Putting cameras into court will improve the trial process, as public monitoring provides a powerful incentive for the judiciary and the lawyers to increase their efficiency and adhere to good standards of behaviour. Would any judge make an occasional ignorant comment if he or she knew that it would be beamed into every home in the land? The introduction of cameras into the British Houses of Parliament resulted in significantly improved quality of debate, punctuality and greater attendance of the members of parliament. We can expect the same procedural benefits from cameras in the courtroom.
A video record of a trial will provide a powerful new tool for both the judiciary and the defendant....

A video record of a trial will provide a powerful new tool for both the judiciary and the defendant. At present, an individual who has been convicted may appeal to a higher court. However, the appeal court judges are very reluctant to question the quality of evidence given by the witnesses at the trial, as they were unable to see this evidence being given. Hence the right of appeal against conviction is very limited. Yet, by watching the video record of this evidence, judges would be able to assess the demeanour, body language and overall impression given by each witness ; elements that are inevitably missing from a written transcript. These characteristics are nevertheless necessary in order to ascertain the veracity of the evidence.
In a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public galle...

There is a clear tension between the democratic right of the people at large to watch a trial, and the liberty of the defendant in any given case. It is a fundamental precept of many legal systems that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. By showing the defendant on television, the general public will be able to reach conclusions about guilt or innocence that may not be reflected in the final verdict of the jury. People will tend to assume that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ – although this principle cannot properly be applied to the criminal justice system. Although the identity of alleged victims of certain crimes are protected by law, the judge in a criminal trial rarely orders that the defendant should remain anonymous. In fact, it would be unlikely that the trial of a defendant whose identity was protected would be televised, as much of the audience and human interest is derived from the behaviour of this central character in the courtroom. By enlarging the constitutional right of access we will be pre-judging the defendant. He will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. Even if he is found not guilty, the publicity he has already suffered may ruin his chances of future employment or anonymity. This would be contrary to the principle of rehabilitation that is at the core of penal policy. In short the rights of the defendant should be placed ahead of the supposed rights of the general population to see trials on television.The real motivation, in any case, behind televising trials is no the pursuit of some noble democratic right, but simply the pursuit of drama and titillation. ‘Court TV’ in the United States features tabloid-style and sensationalist programming. Its audience seeks entertainment rather than education. Fictional dramas, including those set in court, already provide such entertainment. We should not jeopardise individual liberty in the pursuit of a real-life courtroom thriller.
Courts should be televised for the same reason that we see the proceedings in parliament on our tele...

Courts do have some role in developing the law. However, the courts which do so tend to be the courts of appeal, and the supreme courts, or in the case of Britain, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. It would be extremely unlikely that a television channel would seek to cover these hearings, as they consist of dry legal argument, and feature none of the witnesses, the cross-examination or the emotive speeches to the jury that we would associate with courtroom drama. These are proceedings for lawyers, carried out by lawyers. Few members of the audience would have the understanding or the inclination to watch such programs. Likewise, watching the application of law is not particularly enriching. Whilst we can understand the important principles of any new law, the actual details, which may be argued in court, are of primary interest to lawyers. Written reports of every case already provide lawyers with this information.
Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice a...

The system of justice will actually be harmed by televising trials, for two reasons ; the effect upon the witnesses and victims of crime, and the possible corruption of the jury and witnesses.Firstly, the prospect that an alleged victim of a crime will have to give evidence in court already deters many from bringing prosecutions. Victims will be much less prepared to give evidence if they know that this painful experience is going to be seen by an audience of millions. Evidently, we will not have confidence in a system of justice which fails to bring the accused to trial.Secondly, a popular following of a trial will encourage witnesses and jurors to become involved in the media coverage. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case. In Britain it is unlawful to disclose the proceedings within the jury room or the jurors’ opinion on people involved in the case. Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already led to trials being abandoned. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus. Ultimately, payment of participants in the fact-finding process of a trial may lead to the wrong verdict being reached. Wrong verdicts will not inspire confidence in the criminal justice system.
Televised trials will be an antidote to the hysterical and sensationalist coverage of trials that we...

The example of Court TV in America suggests that the sensationalist elements of the print media will pervade on television. In fact, television is likely to distort the representation of the truth to an even greater extent. As trials of heinous crimes typically continue for many days or even weeks, some measure of editorial discretion will be required in order to produce a brief and informative program. Whereas newspaper reports summarise the events of a whole day in court, the cameras can focus on a dramatic incident that is unrepresentative of the entirety of the proceedings. The most memorable event from the trial of O. J. Simpson was his inability to fit his hand into the glove found at the murder scene. However, much less prominence was given in the television coverage to the hours of scientific evidence that proved it was possible that the glove had shrunk.