Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 2

message: Why is there no mention in this article of the widely publicized John Jay study?  --Radarthreat 19:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Jay study 

message: The scandal is not that some priests are pedophiles.  So are some rabbis and cops.  The scandal is the institutional culture that covered it up; a culture that persists to this day.  Note the ruling by Ratzinger excommunicating any catholic who blows the whistle.  Bernard Law is more guilty than John Geoghan was.
:Sorry, I forgot to sign the above.  Too Old 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classic "I'm less responsible for my own actions" thinking. John Geoghan is of course more guilty because he is the one that actually did the crimes. Do you think if the Church had defrocked him and helped send him to prison he'd have stopped being a pedophile? That said the Catholic Church in Massachusetts was apparently horrid in its running. They suck up to the rich by giving Kennedy's anullments when they want them and most of the Catholic politicians in the state favor abortion laws more liberal then even France's. Ideally all priests who did this should be sent to cloistered monasteries in Siberia for the rest of their life, the courts could never do anything like that, and background checks should be done on entering seminary. Not the "are they gay" background checks, but "are they psychotics or felons" type background checks. Possibly full psychological testing too.--T. Anthony 04:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Besides being inflammatory, the above is either patently untrue or in contention. There was not a single systematic "cover up"; further, many actions which are currently being criticized were considered acceptable or exemplary at the time they occurred--before the 1980's, it was believed by the medical community that pedophilia could be cured and the healthy individual could return to normal life. I will point to Pontifical Secret for dispution of your assertation against Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger). Brlancer 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What have I said that is untrue? Many teen-aged lovers were proscuted and jailed for statutory rape because their sweethearts were under the age of consent. I doubt whether anyone in the church would have opposed such punishment.  I have read the article on Pontifical Secret. I note that the passage quoted below, which you apparently regard as refuting me, besides being logically ridiculous, (they were keeping it secret only from themselves?) was made in the context of a legal case, and postdates the scandal in Boston.  In other words, they locked the barn door after the horse was gone. The extreme efforts that the Roman Catholic Church made over many years to keep these things secret from all outside the church bear evidence on the matter.  As far as being 'inflammatory' - perhaps there should have been more inflamation previously.  By the way, I feel the same way about all official secrets, no matter which religious or civil organization is involved.  Too Old 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi there, I hope it will be alright for me to include the updates. I made no mention of contumacy - which in canon law relates to how a crime can only class as a crime if it is known by the perpetrator to be a  crime . I have not studied canon law to do with paedophilia but I have read it concerning  other church activity .  Contumacy- means: if these  paedophile priests (some rapes would perhaps  be of  adults) did not know that what they did was a crime , then  it were no crime .So- If I swung  out of the jungle , fancy your ass and grab you and  rape you - I'm a monkey  . I expect someone here could  quote the relevant canons , or are there none  . If I think you are a cutey, a bit young but you seem to like me raping you or encourage me ( the argument has been broadcast ) , and if I don't see that this is wrong and in conflict with my canon law duty to be nice to you , well I'm just being nice  to you  by raping you , perhaps ? Thats not contumate, and so not a crime , seems . I shouldn't say it really , as it's a better let-off . In fact if  my bishop knows I'm like a monkey and don't have an understanding or shame  , well since I have not  committed a canon crime, he doesn't commit a contumate crime by allowing me to continue if he thinks  similarly , that a bit of sex is just natural monkeys.  Sorry to say that  Editorial Crime  we all notice pronto .There is very thin ice around  the  WP lake , and  canon law is simple as pie compared to WP law  (oops) .And  yes- "allegations" is POV , as was conspiracy . EffK 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''What'' is the scandal?