Religion
Related: About this forum“Pope Francis: it’s time to protect the children and restore the faith.”
Michael Sugar, producer of the Oscar-winning "Spotlight" (well-deserved) speaking from the stage when accepting the award. He said said he hoped the film’s message – that institutional silence over child abuse was not to be tolerated – would “resonate all the way to the Vatican”.
He continued with a direct call to the pontiff. “Pope Francis: it’s time to protect the children and restore the faith.”
Is anyone else surprised that the Oscar voters would risk the wrath and power of the RCC?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bvf
(6,604 posts)The asshole Frank won't do shit beyond what his Fox correspondent/PR animal calls for. Why call even more attention to the crimes?
The RCC is a perfect haven for these bastards.
onager
(9,356 posts)Also see the previous OP in here, about Turner Classic Movies running movies banned by the One True Church.
Reflect that not so many years ago, this movie would have NEVER been made in the USA. Thanks to the political clout of CLOD, the Catholic Legion Of Decency and its buddies.
If it had been made by some Commie-atheist foreign troublemaker, it would have never been distributed here in One Nation Under God.
In fact, the Boston Globe articles on which the movie is based would have never run. And certain apologists for the church might be insisting that the problem of child abuse was just a few bad apples. Not a whole barrel full of rot and corruption. But that probably wouldn't happen here on DU. This is a liberal web site, after all.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but it's a very good sign. We've come a long way from Sinead O'Connor. Now if we could just purge the vestiges of ugly Catholic apologism from DU.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)One timeout at a time. 
Lancero
(3,271 posts)On Mon Feb 29, 2016, 12:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
More than a bit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=224311
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
> Now if we could just purge the vestiges
> of ugly Catholic apologism from DU.
DU doesn't need religious purges.
Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 29, 2016, 12:22 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see the call for a religious purge, but for apologism.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He'd not saying 'purge all the Catholics', he's saying purge those who try to 'defend' the church from criticisms related to their history of child sexual abuse.
...I get the feeling that a apologist alerted on this post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion,not a call to action.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Juror #6 was spot on. I have no doubt that this alert came from a rabid catholic apologist who is currently on vacation for getting too many hides, and has nothing to do but alert stalk (he'll probably try on this post, too).
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)All they can do is alert. Sad and pathetic.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Our local Catholic parishioners picketed The Da Vinci Code. Whatever power the RCC wields in its wrath, Ron Howard seems to be fine.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)real world.
Because not once have I seen members of the catholic church withholding funds, or picketing against the entire org to demand this problem be addressed.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Careful now!
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I was put out and did yell at them from across the street, "It's fiction, you idiots!" When I walked by later, they were gone.
Saw them picketing Planned Parenthood the next time I noticed the collars and habits holding the signs. Fewer future child rape victims, maybe? I don't like these people much.
onager
(9,356 posts)In Egypt. Well, tried to. The Coptic Xians went to the majority Muslim govt. and complained that the book and movie "insulted their religion."
That was pretty funny itself. The Copts and Muslims are often at each other's throats in Egypt. I lived in Alexandria, which had some major riots between the two religions in 2005-06. But when it came to censorship, they got along famously.
I remember reading the Egyptian Gazette story about the banning, and decided to check it out. Went to a few bookstores and they all had the book available, sitting in plain sight. Maybe the ban only went into effect after all copies were sold? I dunno. Just like the Xian Gawd, Allah and his minions often work in mysterious ways.
The movie might have been banned in theaters. But I was pretty sure I could find it. So I went to Ramleh Square, right in the middle of Alexandria, where bootlegged DVDs are sold all over the place. Sure enough, all the vendors were selling "Da Vinci Code." Again, right out in the open.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Vatican Radio, official radio service of the Holy See, called it "honest" and "compelling" and said it helped the U.S. Catholic Church "to accept fully the sin, to admit it publicly, and to pay all the consequences." Luca Pellegrini on the Vatican Radio website wrote that the Globe reporters "made themselves examples of their most pure vocation, that of finding the facts, verifying sources, and making themselves—for the good of the community and of a city—paladins of the need for justice."In February 2016, a Vatican City commission on clerical sex abuse attended a private screening of the film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)
http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/04/venezia_lo_scandalo_della_pedofilia_nella_diocesi_di_boston/1169430
http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/10/23/vatican-radio-praises-movie-on-boston-globe-coverage-of-clergy-abuse/
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)As long as Cardinal Law sits in his cushy apartment in the Vatican, honored and congratulated by his fellows, and immune from punishment for enabling child rape.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus the Vatican is NOT hiding Law from any criminal charges for Law committed no crime:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/ReillyExecSum.pdf
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He should certainly not be permitted to live a comfortable life anywhere, even if the law does not cover his offenses. If, as you claim, he actually has no attachable assets, he should be forced to live as if he doesn't.
Do you agree that he did horrible things?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Remember that is the accusation against Law, he failed to act and when he did act he acted Law Moved accused priest around to more victims as oppose to sending them to a place where victims could not be obtained. Law should have made a rule two accusation of molestation meant no assignment that involved contact with children. Law did not do it, and that is Law greatest fault, but is that terrible by itself? Failure to adopt a rule, he should have adopted? We can debate that point, but I can see we will never agree so let me just say, Law desires a dressing down for his failure, but he did not have anything to do with the actual criminal acts. Laws failure to adopt the rules he should have adopted, lead to the molestation, but had the molester NOT exist the failure to act would NOT have cause any harm. It was the existence of molesters that cause Law's failure to act to cause harm,. While that means Law should be dressed down for is failure, his acts when he fought for Civil Rights have to be taken into consideration when it comes to how he should live out his life. As a whole, leave him die in peace.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and his actions resulted the rape of children. And he had good reason to believe it would. And you're not sure if that was a bad thing or not?
Sorry, I'm going to need time to figure out just how sick that is.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Such as turning over men like Bernard Law who are sheltered at the Vatican? I'm not holding my breath.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus the Vatican is NOT hiding Law from any criminal charges:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/ReillyExecSum.pdf
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/ReillyExecSum.pdf
Massachusetts, like most states, did not require people in position of management to report Child abuse. Massachusetts did change the law as to mandatory reporters in 2002 in include priest, but Law left Boston for the Vatican later the same year. The Attorney General report of 2003 says the Diocese had made improvements AND in the previous 18 months no new allegations were brought to the attention of the Diocese. In Simple terms no complaints were filed in the Diocese After Priests became mandatory reporters and before Law left for the Vatican. i.e. nothing to report so no report were made. Thus Law committed no crime for him to be "sheltered" from.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The scene was Nixonian. A favorite of Pope John Paul II and a close friend of both Bush presidents, Cardinal Law was a red-hatted power broker in Washington and Rome — the two capitals that counted most. But he was under siege — and his assertions were bold.
“There is no priest in an assignment in this archdiocese whom we know to have been guilty of child abuse,” he said in response to questions.
The Globe’s Spotlight team of investigative reporters had revealed that Law and other bishops before him had covered up the priests’ crimes against children, then moved the priests to new parishes and, as it turned out, new victims.
http://www.wbur.org/2015/09/22/cardinal-bernard-law
The protection and sheltering at the Vatican means Law will never have to answer to the legal system for civil suits.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Attorneys want to be PAID and that is out of Judgments from someone who has assets to pay the Judgments. Law has no assets to attach thus is judgment proof (i.e. you can get all the Judgments you want against him, he will never have to pay any of it for he has no assets to pay such judgments).
On the other hand the Diocese of Boston has assets and is still located in Boston and thus subject to Civil Lawsuits. Such Lawsuits have been filed and have been settled. In the settlement of these lawsuits, Law did undergo depositions and it is from these depositions that we have most of the information on his thinking when it came to these cases. Thus Civil Lawsuits were filed and the Catholic Church paid the subsequent settlements.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because of Law, children were raped. That is why everything the RCC says about "paying consequences" and making things right is empty bullshit.
But at least you're here to defend them, so they've got that I guess.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This is pretty messed up here. You admit that Law is fully open to civil suits, and would probably lose them all, except that he conveniently has his entire life paid for by the RCC, so they can take the hit while he lives a life of luxury, and has no criminal stain on his record.
Are you really going to to continue with this defense of a global pedophile ring? (Because let's not let this case hide the fact that it wasn't just something that happened in Boston, but it's going on all over the Church's sphere of influence).
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What are they shielding him from? Think he'll ever dare set foot in the US again? Wonder why not?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And as such he wants to be as close to the Pope as he can be thus Law stays in Rome. It is like Bill Clinton after he was President, did he return to Arkansas? No, not because he was NOT wanted in Arkansas, but he saw New York City closer to the money elite he had become friends with.
Law was a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, he had to right to elect the next pope (till he turn age 80). As a Cardinal his support for other Cardinals was sought after, and he could use the position of Cardinal to further his own agenda,
Law was the Titular Arch-Priest of Santa Susanna, one of four main churches of Rome, and tied in with the US Catholic Church since 1914 (it is considered the "National Church of the US in Rome".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susanna
More on "National Churches in Rome":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_churches_in_Rome
Thus Law was the technical head of the Church any Catholic Church person HAS TO GO TO if in Rome. Law has to give that up when he turned 80, but as a former head of the Church he still has some say at that church.
Side note: Law was the Titular Arch Priest of the Church of Santa Suzanna. The Arch-priest of Santa Suzanna is a Cardinal (elector) of the pope. All of the Cardinals of the Catholic Church hold a Titular position within one of the churches of Rome. This goes back to the Dark Ages when the people of Rome themselves elected the Bishop of Rome, by the Dark Ages this was found to be unworkable so the priests of various churches of Rome were made Electors (This stated in 1059 AD). In the Twelfth Century, the Pope started to name "Priests" to these churches from outside Rome and making them "Arch-Priest" or "Dean" of that church (and sometimes Deacons of those churches. most Cardinal Deacons work within the Curia unlike Cardinal Priests). These outside Arch-Priests were Bishops and they often retain their Diocese outside Rome. The Actual Church inside Rome only saw these "Arch-Priests" once in a while, the day to day operation of the Churches were done by other Priests, Priests of the Diocese of Rome (appointed by the Pope or one of his assistant Bishops that do the actual running of the Diocese of Rome on a day to day basis). These "Arch-Priests" were then called Cardinals for they retained the right of the Priest of that Church to elect the Pope. Thus while local Roman Priests run the day to day operation of Santa Suzanna, but when it comes to election of the Pope AND interrelations between Rome and the Dioceses back home, the Cardinal is supreme. The various Churches of Rome have Arch-Priests (and other positions within their parish) that are tied in with National Churches. Santa Suzanna has been the "American" National Church since 1914 and the Arch-Priest of that Parish control the relations between Rome and the Catholic Church in the United States.
For more details see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_(Catholicism)#Cardinal_bishops
I wrote the above to show what power Law received when he became the Arch-Priest of Santa Suzanna, basically control of interaction between Rome and the US Catholic Church. That is a HUGE amount of power that Law was NOT going to give up. Law retains some of that Power as a retired Cardinal, thus there is no real reason for him to return to the US.
List of Titular Churches in Rome and which Cardinal is the Titular head of that Church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titular_churches_in_Rome
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)answers why Cardinal Law is welcome in the Vatican, after enabling the rape of children for decades.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Furthermore Law did have an excuse, that he relied on Psychologists. No one accuse Law of doing any illegal act himself, just not doing proper supervision of his lieutenants. You may not like that, but I have seen several leaders take hits for acts of their lieutenants that the leaders had little or no control over. City Mayors have this problem whenever a Police Officer shoots someone without just cause. Do we blame the Mayor, who signs the officer's check, or the Officer? In many cases that was the relationship between the priest doing the molestation and Law. Law did see the priest once every year or so, but so does the Mayor of most cities when it comes to their police officers.
Sorry, Law as a Bishop was like a Mayor of a City, you do not hold him liable for the acts of people not under his direct control. You can hold the organisation they belong to for that lack of supervision, but not the leader unless you can show he did something the lead to the act of Molestation (in the case of Law) or of a shooting by a Police Officer (as in the case of a Mayor of a City). That is the attitude of the Vatican and even the Courts when it comes to Law, he was to far removed from the act to be personally liable, but the organization he lead can be for that is the job of the organisation to prevent such harms.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I know you read this, so your reply becomes even more despicable:
The Globe’s Spotlight team of investigative reporters had revealed that Law and other bishops before him had covered up the priests’ crimes against children, then moved the priests to new parishes and, as it turned out, new victims.
Yes, these people absolutely were under his direct control. Law knew children were being raped, and not only did he fail to report it to the proper authorities, he sent the perpetrators to new parishes where they had access to more children, and said nothing to the people there, either. And yet, you seem to think this is all fine and dandy.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)? That was my first disconnect with religion, the day I recognized that religious institutions weren't concerning themselves, particularly, with conducting themselves according to their professed moral principles. And then I realized they weren't being unBiblicial in their conduct. The rest was cognitive dissonance.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)That is the purpose of the Courts, to right wrongs NOT to inform people on moral choices.
In the case of Law, Law was very active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, his problem was he did not believe someone who wanted to be a priest could do something evil. Law even admitted that, saying (and it appears more an excuse then a reason), that Law relied on Psychologists reports saying that the tendency to commit such acts could be "Cured". That was a opinion held by many Psychologists in the 1950s and 1960s, but most Psychologists had dropped it by the 1970s. Law seems to have relied on the earlier reports that such people could be "Cured" and decided to give then second and third opportunities to show that they had reformed. Law should have known better but he wanted to see himself progressive on that issue and went with the movement of the 1950s, long after that movement had reversed.
Law was NOT alone in trying to see if a priest had reformed, other Bishops did it. One writer called it Bishops embracing the reforms of Vatican II, without understanding why some of those old rules existed (A comparison can be made with the repeal of Glass–Steagall Act, the justification for the repeal was it was no longer needed for the harm it was designed to prevent no longer occurred. The problem was the reason the problem no longer occurred was do to the Glass–Steagall Act, as seen in the "Long Recession of 2008"
. As with the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, many of the old rules the Catholic Church had adopted over the last 1000 to 1500 years were design to prevent the harms we have seen (The Classic Example was the pre Vatican II Rule that if someone was in the bedroom of a Priest, it was treated as the Priest had sex with that person., i.e kick out of the Priesthood. The Bishops took the position you should NOT kick out a Priest, or assign him to a Monastery, just because some kid entered the bedroom to get a book.
The problem was the old rule related to what could be proven. It is HARD to prove anyone molested someone else for it ends up a he say, she say argument and if the burden of proof is on the victim, which is the case in Criminal, Civil and Church Courts, the victim has to show the molestation took place and in most sexual molestation cases that is HARD to prove. On the other hand, a kid in a bedroom can describe what was in the bedroom and thus carry the burden of proof that the kid was in the bedroom. Thus treating being in the bedroom the same as molestation, made it easier to convict a Priest of a wrong doing. That was the rule pre-Vatican II, Priests complained about it for it took in innocent priests as while as molesters. On the other hand molesters found it hard NOT to be sent to a Monastery under those old rules.
I bring up Vatican II for it is the start of the present pedophile scandal within the Catholic Church. You had cases before that date (in fact there is a paper from the Vatican dated from the 1950s telling how Priests should address such a statement in the Confessional. i.e. the Priest was to keep the Confessional statement to themselves, but tell the Confessor to tell the Bishop of the incident and to even exit the confessional and confront the confessor of the need to inform the bishop, but at the same time what was told the priest in the Confessional MUST NOT be discussed outside the Confessional) but the real jump in cases is post 1970 and then is certain dioceses only, other dioceses did not have these cases for they addressed the accusations as the accusations came up.
Remember the Courts have NOT said that one incident of Molestation is enough by itself. The Courts have long accepted one report may be a false report, or an attempt to attack a priest someone disliked by making a charge knowing it will hurt the priest even if the priest was innocent of the charge. The Courts have only held the Church Liable for repeated incidents and a failure to prevent those incidents once it became clear a priest was the molester. No court has held a Church Liable when a Priest was accused and then moved to another Parish and the accusation did NOT repeat itself. In fact such a move of an accused person is one way to see if the accusation has merit or a false report. On the other hand, if the report resurfaced in the new Parish, it helped proved the first set of accusation and the Diocese had to do something about it. That is where the courts held the Church Liable, after it became clear that the leadership knew or should have known of the priest's tendencies.
Since about 2000, the Bishops have adopted strict rules on how to handle accusations of molestation. If these rules are followed (and by all accounts the rules have been followed), these cases should disappear in 10-20 years (as the Statute of limitations run out and most victims get on with their lives AND the evidence to support further judgments get so old that it is no longer reliable.
As to the Courts, they have a problem. I use to do Children and Youth work, and most people will be shocked at the level of Pedophilia that occurs in the US. We hear of the Catholic Church for they have the assets to pay for the harm their priests have done to others, but the rate of Pedophilia for Catholic Priests are the same as the general population. i.e. roughly 2 % of all priests do Pedophilia, the same as the general population, but you have one priest for every 2000 Catholics, or about a Priest for 5000 people. In that 5000 people you will have 50 Pedophiles (and only one of them a Priest, 2 % of 5000 is 100, but 1/2 of the 100 is female with much lower rates of Pedophilia, thus the 50 out of 5000 or one out of 100). You do hear of the Catholic Priest who is a Pedophile but not the other 49 Pedophiles. Why? They have no money so suing them is a waste of time and in most cases by the time the victim makes an allegation the Statute of Limitation for Criminal Charges had expired.
Worse, most tend to be family members. Thus a Judge faces a dilemma, how do you punish the perpetrator without harming the victim worse. Think about it, if the family main income earner is the person doing the Pedophilia, if you sent him to jail, the victim loses that source of Income and thus his or her home, friends and school for he or she has to move to cheaper housing. Thus if a Judge jails such a father, the Judge gives the perpetrator free room and board, while the victim is kicked out into the streets (the perpetrator goes to Jail, the victim loses his or her home for the victim can NOT pay for the house since the main source of Family Income would be then in Jail).
Such cases are the norm not the exception in Pedophilia cases. How do you address such cases? Judges hear these cases all of the time but they are NOT reported in the press do to a policy of keeping the victims names private and the hearings closed to the press. In my opinion, that rule is causing harm to victims, for the general population just do not understand how widespread this problem is and when you do get a front line case, the general public have no idea on how to gauge the problem (and that is one of the problems with keeping such reports secret).
The Courts are happy to be able to go after someone with money to pay the damages done to the victim and the Catholic Church has made such payments. The biggest problem is most Pedophiles do not have the money to undo the harm they have done and rarely go to jail, for jailing them often leads to greater harm to the victim then the Pedophile. Thus to say the Courts are telling the Church how to be moral, is not quite right, it is the Courts trying to undo the wrong done by the Church for the church can undo that wrong, something most Pedophiles can not do.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)An excellent attempt at deflection.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No one is arguing that pedophiles don't exist outside the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, so you can drop that ridiculous strawman.
What makes the shit with your church (and I can only assume it's your church, because I never see non-Catholics defend it with such gusto) so unique is the coverup and protection of rapists within the institution, and the total lack of consequences for men like Bernard Law who helped make it happen.
What makes the shit with your church so unique is vile claims about 7-year-old children being at least partially culpable for their own rape.
And what makes the shit with your church so unique is the overabundance of members like yourself who ceaselessly and shamelessly deflect for it and defend its horrible actions, leaders, and the child rapists within. "...jailing them often leads to greater harm to the victim than the pedophile"??? What is this horrific bullshit???
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Do you know they have hanged seven year olds? It was in the early 1700s and in England itself. The details on the hanging are slim, but the seven year old was determined by a judge and jury to have the mental capacity of a "Normal" 14 year old, and thus subject to be hanged.
When the Church had its own records audited as to accusation of pedophilia, the records showed only one 10 year old (and no one below that age), and handful of 11 year olds and then a huge jump when the victims turned 12. This continued till the victims turn 14 and the rate of molestation start to fall. This follows the pattern of pedophilia, there is a group of men in our society that likes 12 to 14 year olds.
As to the Church's records, I bring this up to show NO SEVEN YEAR OLD WAS EVER A VICTIM, the bishop was just pointing out that age 7 is considered the age of reason under the law. In fact under the Common Law, 12 years were of the age to consent to sex, thus under the Common Law most of the victims of pedophilia would have no cause of action, for they "Consented" to the sex (in the cases in litigation, no accusation of force is ever made, the victim did NOT object to the sex, under the law if the victim was below the age of consent, the lack of consent does not matter, but if the victim is over the age of consent it is a huge factor).
Now the Common Law rule as to consent was disliked and every state (and most Countries) have increased that age since about 1850. Some to 14, others to 15, 16, and even 18. The Catholic Church in its own books of law uses age 15 (but also includes Victims over that age if the victim is in position of dependency to the perpetrator). Most states use the age of 14. The modern movement is a two tier system, consent can be given by someone between the ages of 14 and 16 if the other person is no more then four years older then the victim, 16 year old can give consent to have sex with anyone.
As I stated before I use to do Children and Youth work and as such I have a better ideal of the problem then most people for hearings involving children are closed to the general public. The Church followed the pattern of the day, in the 1950s and 1960s the move was pedophilia could be cured and the Church Hierarchy adopted that as its policy. By the 1970s, that treatment of pedophilia had changed, but the church was slow to change with it. Worse, pedophilia involving 12 to 14 year olds became tied in with the general trend to accept homosexuality, thus any movement in the 1970s and 1980s against pedophilia became tied in with this movement to accept homosexuality. In the 1980s the movement to accept Homosexuality started to abandon the movement to free up sex with 12 to 14 years old and get the general public to separate the two issues (On DU these are seen as two different issues, something no one would have accepted in the 1960s). The Catholic Church was slow in embracing that change. All together the Church found itself the victim of change beyond its control, the old rules on Homosexual conduct had been abandoned EXCEPT if it involved 12 to 14 year olds, then the rules became more rigid (The old attitude that such conduct was a family matter had died out).
I bring all of this up, for the Church problems with this issue hit the papers because of the lawsuits and payouts the Church has made. Other institutions (such as Public Schools) have seen similar incidents but do to the fact they can claim sovereign Immunity, they have NOT had to make such payouts and thus NOT front page news, even through they are more incidents in such places then in the Catholic Church (the Boy Scouts have recently have had the same problems as the Catholic Church, but local boy scouts troops tend to have much less assets then the Catholic Church and as such the cases tend to be dropped do to lack of funds).
As to your claim I am claiming defending the Church, you are mistaken, I just understand the context within the larger society and trying to explain that to people. Remember we started with Bishop Law and the finding he committed no criminal act. People in similar situations in other large institutions involving children (Schools, Boy Scouts etc) have had similar problems. Thus the law does NOT hold the head of those institutions criminally liable for such problems. The Courts hold such institutions for the harm they cause, but only if the institution has the assets to correct the wrong (A big exception is the public school system, where sovereign immunity kicks in). No assets, no civil lawsuit for Lawyers want to be paid and can only be paid out of winning a lawsuit AND ten collecting on that Judgement.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Pedophiles, yes, I told you to drop that lame straw man. But there is no institution that even begins to compare to your church in the depth and scale and moral depravity involved in their coverup and protection of rapists. NONE. What you are doing here is trying to say "No big deal, everyone did it, the church was no different, everybody just needs to let this go, it hurts the victims more than the rapists, yada yada yada." I find that line of thinking repulsive and I have absolutely nothing more to say to you.
Your words can just sit there for all to read. They make the argument against your church better than anyone else could.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...but if he's not a poe, then he's fucking hopeless.
My grandfather went to his deathbed regurgitating the same denialist tripe.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)That Child Rape Justifier needs a good MIRTing.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In fact the present push on pedophilia started in the Public Schools, but lawyers kept running against the concept of Sovereign Immunity, i.e. the legal doctrine that states "The King can do no wrong". you can sue the teacher who committed the crime, as an agent of the school BUT not the school even if the school knew about it and did nothing about it. The next move was against Day care Centers, but most were Mom and Pop businesses and had no money to pay to anyone. Then the Catholic Church showed up, and it had both assets AND was NOT covered by Sovereign Immunity. Yes the Catholic Church has paid for its crimes, but not public schools or other public institutions.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I am not interested in exploring the legalities and technicalities that you think give your church the cover to excuse its (in)action.
It is bad enough to read this filth here, let alone go search it out.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You should join the GOP, they embrace that concept big time. Trump is the ultimate when it comes to ignoring facts in favor of what he believes. Trump dismisses facts he disagree with all the time.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because I'm not the one defending child rapists and their protectors/enablers.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to denounce this crap. I wouldn't have thought you'd have to be an atheist to find this morally repulsive.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)But the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has been working hard to catch up in the moral depravity department.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Especially your church.
You have nothing on your side. Nothing.
You quote a seven-year-old being hanged here in England ("In England itself", whatever-the-fuck that's supposed to imply)
Are you suggesting that this bishop implied that it's fine to have sex with a 7-year-old because, hey, 7 is the age of reason? So I take it that you're happy with Mohammed being betrothed to a 6-year-old and not having sex with her until she was 9 and that's definitely old enough to decide whether she wants it or not? He showed great restraint, eh? Certainly more than many RCC priests do.
I have no idea why I'm engaging with you. There are a number of shameless apologists in this Group but you're willing to go even farther than the worst of them. Congratulations, I guess. Welcome to Ignore - all your peers are waiting for you.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Law has held seven year olds liable for crime as if they were adults. That is what the Bishop was saying and it is true. You do not like it, but it has been the law in the past and to a degree remains the law.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. I am floored to read this garbage on a liberal message board.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And in jail was killed. Law did NOT do any of the molestation (which can include rape and Statutory rape) but just failed to report it to authorities, something Law was NOT obligated to do at that time period.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Unless Law was too, he WAS obligated, if he had an ounce of decency, to not only report it, but to NOT knowingly expose even more children to the same sick bastard.
You really need to leave this board. I have no idea where this ugliness is coming from, but how you survived on a progressive web site for this long is mind-blowing.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Law had NO legal obligation to report anything to anyone. As a leader of a Institution he had duties to his flock, to protect them, but how he does that is generally left up to him. Any disputes as to how he manager his flock is reserved to the Civil Courts and then only if money damages can be awarded. Thus the Diocese of Boston paid out a lot of money, but no criminal charges against anyone.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)is the legality, I suppose.
But it's horrid.
He deserves to be in jail, and he deserves to answer to those who were abused because he turned a blind eye.
And arguing about the legality of his position is what lawyers do, in court, but it's not going to win hearts and minds here.
What Law did should be criminal. Maybe it legally wasn't. But it was immoral and evil.
(I am a practicing Catholic who is HAPPY that the priests and bishops and cardinals responsible for obfuscation and enabling statutory rape have been called out. Only with light shining on this issue can it be resolved. They should be begging for forgiveness from every single person affected by this.)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I'm not particularly interested in what the law says, because I think I have a pretty good grasp on what the ethical course of action might be should I ever come into knowledge that an associate of mine is raping children.
Clearly, Cardinal Law does not. And while he might not suffer legal consequences for his failure to consider potential victims while shuffling pederasts between parishes instead of reporting them to authorities, there's no fucking reason he shouldn't suffer personal consequences. Why in crikey fuck is he still a Cardinal? Why has he not been defrocked? Why is he living large in the Palazzo della Cancelleria and not doing penance in some fucking hellhole?
Oh, and I gotta say, someone pretending to be God's own moral authority on Earth falling back on the letter of secular law to avoid admission of wrongdoing... that's pretty fucking rich.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)perpetrated by your church. A bishop claiming that a 7-year-old child is culpable for their own rape? I can't imagine many things more foul than that, yet here you are going right along with it like a dutiful foot soldier.
Do you think a 7-year-old child who was raped is at least partially responsible for their own rape? Answer yes or no.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Your rabid apologetics for child rape will be very useful the next time someone here tries to claim that no one on the board ever defends it.
Just out of curiosity, is this ugly stuff actually coming from you, or is someone else feeding it to you?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)We are discussing Law and his role in that case. I never made a statement that the Rapist was not criminally liable for the rape, most ended up in Jail and worse one ended up killed while in jail. We are discussing Law, who NEVER was accused of Rape, but was accused of NOT reporting the incident to the Police once it was brought to his attention. At that time period, Religious leaders were NOT mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse and as such under American Law had no duty to report such incident to anyone (and for most people that remains the law, if you suspect child abuse you do NOT have to report it, you MAY do so, but it is NOT required UNLESS you are a Mandatory reporter such as a teacher or doctor).
The issue involving Law was how he handled the accusation of Child abuse NOT that he participated in it, thus he was NOT a rapist.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)was not limited to the law. In fact, the catholic church trumpets not simply going beyond the requirements of the law, but the actual violation of the law if a higher moral principle is at stake. So you fail miserably there.
Second, as you continue to avoid addressing, Law knowingly transferred rapist priests to new parishes, giving them access to new children to rape, while keeping their crimes a secret. Saying he thought they were "cured" is just more horseshit. If that were true, why wouldn't he have openly told the parents of children in the new parish "this guy raped kids at his last post, but he's much better now, so I'm approving him to be alone with your children, too. Nothing to worry about!"
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)with many of your posts in the past, skepticscott (I only point that out to show how strongly I believe in what I'm about to write)… but I can not disagree with anything you wrote on this topic. He (Law) had a moral imperative that he ignored. Evil evil man.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)
All too often, people in here seem to take the wrong side of an argument, or say nothing at all when they should speak out, rather than agree with someone they are not favorably inclined towards.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)I think it's internet-wide pride. But you are right on this one. 100%. What happened in the church is disgraceful. And I've always held and voiced the opinion that the church leadership has reaped what they've sown. The lack of trust and disgust is a (small) by-product of their actions.
I am still a practicing Catholic (Partly because it's habit, partly because I believe, and partly because i like and am involved in my parish in Brooklyn), but our leadership (local Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio and worldwide) don't always make it easy. I respect Catholics (and non-Catholics) who are working hard to expose the problems and trying to fix them. It's an uphill battle, and they are met with a lot of resistance.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)When men of God rely on secular law to protect children and fail to do so wherever secular law doesn't enjoin them to, where is the moral high ground? I do agree that religious people can be misled by their faith, which does result in harm to others. I do not think that the influence of religious delusion should be a legal defense to wrongdoing, nonetheless. The argument didn't work for Andrea Yates, at any rate.
Are you really suggesting that it's better to leave a victim co-housed with a predator because the predator is employed? That position leaves me without words, except, Are you kidding me?
I do not hold the institution accountable that there are predators within clerical ranks. That will happen in any human endeavor, for some perverse reason. However, when an institution fails to address the problem and fails to protect the victims over decades and centuries, the institution should be held accountable by secular courts and especially by its parishioners. This problem has been addressed before by the institution, even in my lifetime. Only more time will tell if Francis the Magnif can route out the root of the problem. I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)above secular law and secular authorities. They did this to make sure the priest class was never tarnished by the misdeeds of some, that the illusion of being more "godly" was maintained (and along with it, the power and respect from the flock). This was more important than protecting children. Let that sink in - those in power in the Catholic Church preferred to have unknown numbers of children raped, and their lives destroyed, than break with the tradition of holding themselves above the law.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)But if you look to the scriptures for condemnation of those actions, you'll not find much. To borrow a phrase from Chris Shelton, the seeds are in its very DNA.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #57)
Post removed
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)It seems a bit of a red herring, considering that currently priests don't provide support for the children they molest.
If our only options are putting a child on the street or leaving the child in the hands of their predator, we are one fucked up society. That's all. And if no other options are available within a religious community, that community isn't one iota better than the worst that our secular society has to offer.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And other male relatives. I was putting these cases in perspective of the real world. Catholic priests have done a lot of abuse, but at no higher rate then the general population. In most cases of abuse the abuser is also the main financial support for the victim. While not true of these priests, it is much more common than a lot of people what to admit.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Catholic priests' behavior is one thing and really isn't the topic of my concern. If you ever want to address or defend the church's response to child abuse within its ranks, I'd be fascinated. So far you have utterly failed to address the issue, except to say that Francis will fix it. I suggest that he probably won't.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I was raped *repeatedly* as a child by the person living in my house
You know what made me feel really fucking good? When his slimy ass was finally in jail. We were already living below the poverty line before, and doubly so once one income was removed. But you know what's worse than having not as much food, or getting rid of cable? Knowing as soon as your mom goes to sleep, you're gonna get fingerbanged by the other adult living in the house. Maybe you'll be forced to give a blowjob too. Or just regular fucked. Or all three.
When he got out of jail, even though he wasn't living with us again, I was in fear. I was an adult and I was in fear every day. For myself, and for the DOZENS Of other children that he went on to fuck, fingerbang, and orally rape until he was finally put in prison AGAIN...only to get out again. Fear struck again but thankfully now, he's in prison for the rest of his life PLUS 50 years.
Do not *EVER* presume to speak of what is "best" for victims of child molestation. Their rapists being on the street "able to work" is *NOT* what is best for them. EVER.
You are fucking sickening, and the fact that you keep toping yourself with even more ridiculous, child-rape apologist blather is just...let me say the following:
1) Please, don't self-delete your posts. Let everyone see how your mind works (Jail is bad for molesters!!! They should be able to earn a living!)
2) Please don't ever EVER EVER pretend to or actually advocate for victims of child rape. Seriously. It would be literally the worst thing in the world. I'd rather be raped again (and I was raped a lot) than have you pretend with your wordy and erroneous psychobabble to be looking out for my psychological wellbeing. You literally have NO idea what you're talking about when you talk above, repeatedly, about what is best for survivors. NONE. None at all. Not in a logical sense and CERTAINLY not in any sense that is supported by the psychological sciences.
The things you promote, propose, and suggest are sick. They are psychologically damaging to victims.
Victims *WANT* their perpetrators to be in jail. Why? BECAUSE IT MEANS WE ARE SAFE FROM BEING RAPED AGAIN. Yet you argue that no no, that's not best. They should be out, working, making amends.
THAT
DOES
NOT
HAPPEN
They rape again. They find other victims, other families, other latch-key children. They continue and continue, which adds not only to the guilt the victim/survivor has at the act itself that happened against THEM but now they feel guilt because it happened to someone ELSE. The "If I only X then Y wouldn't have happened to me" is now "If I only X then Y wouldn't have happened to me, and to her, and to him, and to them"
Seriously. Stop playing Psychologist. Stop playing Abuse Advocate. You are promoting terrible, terrible things. Please go away. Find some other pro-child-rapist-don't-go-to-jail place where you can peddle your bullshit.
--
and for the eventual alert -- JURORS STOP. Just stop and read this poster's other posts above where he
1. agrees that 7 year olds *can* be culpable for being raped because 7 year olds have been tried as adults, ergo, 7 year old can be adult and so that makes sense. Notice how they come very close, but not exactly express that since a 7 year old can be tried as an adult, and since no actual 7 year old were molested, then it's okay, And if a 12-15 year old was molested it was more like statutory rape than rape-rape.
2. Bishops and cardinals didn't have to tell anyone about other priests molesting children because it wasn't against the law at the time and anyways, they weren't forced to tell anyone so they didn't have to
3. that rape victims don't want their rapists to go to jail
4. that it's actually UNHEALTHY for the rapist to go to jail because they could be out working and paying some mythical "support" to the rape victim (not sure what rape support payments are but, whatever).
It will be hard for the jurors to read through the verbose, poorly written and error-prone posts of HappySlug to find these gems. But they're there. Just look at the subthread. Look and notice I'm not the only one calling them out on this bullshit. They are posting things that are hurful and abusive THEMSELVES.
Please think before you vote to hide this post. I stand behind everything I've written, and I think it's shameful that such filth as Happyslug is posting above, repeatedly, and doubling and tripling down on is left to stand.
Thank You
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
And
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)but I am definitely not sorry that you said every word that you posted here.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But are important to give perspective in these situations where someone tries to reason away a crime.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I am speechless and appalled.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)
No one should have to go through that and then go through re-victimization by this guy.
Ok, I had words after all.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
I am taking away all of the internets I gave to trotsky and AC and blur and giving them to you instead. Use them wisely!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)It is the State that has refused to address the problem of financial support of victims. In my home county that support is $265 a month for a family of two. It has not increased since 1982. Low end rent in my area starts at about $400 a month, thus with out support from both parents most low income families can not pay their rent from any welfare they receive. The judges know this and try to arrange a way to protect the victim, punish the abuser, and prevent further harm. It is a tough call.
The State Legislature has refused to fund any program to help such victims, telling them to go after the abuser for any support. Thus jailing most abusers ends up punishing the victim more then the abuser for in jail the abuser can not pay support.
If the abuser has a history of not working, judges will quickly throw them in jail, but if the have a work history the judges want them to pay support. The judges will keep such abusers away from their victims at the same time and I agree with that position. The judges try to make sure such abusers are subject to supervision, but most probation officers have to many other criminals to watch to do more then spot checks.
At the same time the State puts pressure on the courts to minmize state expenditures, I.e. Keep the cost to the state low and charge fees to such abusers that must be paid before support. Another pressure is to force payment of support so to the minimise welfare expenditures. Yes, the state value money more then safety.
I regret that you had to go through the Children and Youth System, it is NOT a nice procedure for the victims. Most of my clients were on welfare and as such had to file for support (it is a welfare requirement) and in addition to going through CYS, they had to go through the courts to ask for support, even through they knew they were not going to get any. Thus another set of interaction with the abuser. It is just rough and your comment reflects how badly you were treated by the system.
People have propose changes, but no one wants to pay for the needed changes, thus the system stays as it is. I express my regrets that you had to go through the system, I would apologize for the system but I did not design it, the State Legislature and the Federal Government did. Thus I can express my regrets and sympathized with you and I can see your point of view. On the other hand, no one with access to a steady stream of income wants to help people like you. Thus judges have to decide how NOT to punish the victims more then the abusers, and that is difficult. Thus many abusers end up on the street, as what happened in your case, for the State wants them to pay support so that victims will not be on welfare and such abusers can not pay support while in jail. The State also wabts the abusers working to pay off fines and court costs, so to keep taxes low. That is the rut the system is in and no one is actually fighting to change it. Thus you should start complaining to your state legislators to change the system, so victims do not have to rely on the income of their abusers.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)I have a couple of questions for you. Maybe you already said it and I missed it, but, Do you personally think, regardless of the law, that he should have reported the systematic raping of children by his underlings to the police?
And
Do you think that he should have been removed from his position and excommunicated for his actions or lack of actions?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Both police and the church has a roblem with cracking down on friends and co workers. It is hard to do for most people. It is easy to go after someone you do not know but think about it, ehat would you do if your spouse is accused, and there is no evidence except for the accusation? Most people will say the accusation is wrong for the friend would never do something like that. That is the probkem behind both police brutally cases and these Catholic abuse scandals.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Other bishops and cardinals and maybe even the Pope don't do something about it now. They certainly can and make a good point at the same time. The problem here is they won't. They have no reason not to.
The Pope should call him in, tell him what he did was wrong and send him packing. Then make a statement that there are more coming. The Pope doesn't do this though, the guy is still there even though we all know what he did. That's why people are pissed off and can't understand why people support an organization that has been doing this to children for centuries.. with hardly any repercussions. Confess..get forgiven.. rape children.. Confess..get forgiven..rape children... repeat. .
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Your response to her open post about the horrible things that happened as a child is to say:
I regret that you had to go through the Children and Youth System, it is NOT a nice procedure for the victims
OMG seriously????
Maybe try this:
"I'm so sorry these terrible things happened to you and you are right. I should not be posting this fucked up shit and I'll stop"
trotsky
(49,533 posts)When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Sorry for what happened to you.
I can't even imagine..
You are strong and very brave to type out those things especially in response to what we've seen going on in this thread..
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Thank you.
Anyone who would think it needs to be alerted on or hidden should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)This post should be the perfect end to that ridiculous line of "reasoning."
I'm sorry you had to live the experience. Hopefully your words will make him see the errors in his words.
Beautifully put.
bvf
(6,604 posts)and I'm so sorry to hear the horrors you went through.
It's a sad thing that you had to say it at all, but scum needs to be answered, and you did so beautifully.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This "it punishes the victim more to take the abuser away" nonsense is as fucked up a thing as I've ever seen here.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Pardon me for any loose language, but I just read someone advocating child rapists not going to jail because it could hurt the child.
Like, read the post I just replied to, seriously this has gone to far. Child rapist belong in jail. Full stop. People who enable them do too.
If you think otherwise then you really need to reevaluate your life.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In most cases the abuser is also the main source of financial support for the child. If the abuser goes to jail, no support. No support, no home for the child. Is that what you want?
Welfare in my home county pays $265 a month for a family of two. Try to rent a house for that much. The family may get food stamps but that can only be used to pay for food. Public housing has a two year waiting list. In most families if the abuser goes to jail, he gets a roof over his head and three meals a day. The victim has to live with his other parent trying to pay the household bills without the income of the abuser.
Remember most abusers are a male relative of the child, generally the victim's father. Thus if the abuser goes to jail, the child losses over half of his family's financial assets. Thus by sending the abuser to jail you end up punishing the victim worse then the abuser. Is that what you want?
Now, no one wants the victim and abuser in the same household, so the abuser will be order out of the home of the victim and order to pay support. The problem is if the abuser goes to jail, he has no income to pay the support order, and thus the child ends up on welfare with his mother on some sort of program to get off welfare. If she can not do the program for any reason the victim even losses that financial support. Please note the five year limit on welfare still applies to the victim's family, thus if the family had been on welfare for five years, the victim does not even get welfare.
The judges hearing these cases know this and do not want to punish the victim worse rhen the abuser, how would you achieve that a given no one will change the above? I.e. Welfare grant for two of $265 a month? $80 for each addition child in the family?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Rapist = Jail
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Notice thus sub thread is on a situation where the abuser is the main source of income for the family of the victim. Jailing the rapist ends that support. Thus you want the victim to be homeless? I notice you did not address the issue of support for the victim.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Not to mention sexist...you suppose that the mother can never get a job and support her child? That if we don't let these abusers go free there will be an epidemic of welfare.
And of course, that someone who is capable of raping a child will somehow be ok with paying child support????
Having gone through this with my own daughters I can tell you that they didn't hestitate to send that bastard to jail and I didn't hestitate to support my children in every way possible (it happened after I left him during visitation). That fucker got out of jail after 3 years and NEVER paid a fucking dime of child support...not even BEFORE he went to jail. And they NEVER saw him again.
Yes I had to go on welfare and yes it was hard, but I got off of welfare after 2 years and got a job.
I think you should just stop talking now. You are just getting more vile with every post. And bringing this air of authority with you makes me want to throw up.
If you rape a child you go to jail. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF DISCUSSION.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And so do the victims, several of which have posted here and whose experience you are invalidating.
Why do you want rapists on the street? A fair a question as the one you asked me.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and enabling of child rape by the catholic church, but arguing that as long as someone is the sole financial support for a child, they're essentially paying for the right to sexually abuse them.
Based on your elaborate defense of this shit, I'm guessing lawyer. Probably lawyer who is very familiar with child sexual abuse defendants. You dodged my question of where this is coming from. I'm guessing it didn't just pop into your head yesterday.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Separating them from the victim is not a problem, that can be done without jailing them, electronic surveillance is effective. The issue is jailing such people provides no support for the victim.
I notice you did not address how the victim is to be house and feed. $265 a month for two, one parent and child, is NOT enough unless you thonk a mother and child can live off $265 a month.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Meth dealers, bank robbers and burglars? It seems to me there is one violation where you think the offender should receive special treatment in the courts for the child's sake and that is only in cases where the child is the victim. Your position is indefensible and vile.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)the other fucking parent to support them.
THis is the most fucked up line of argument I've ever read on DU. That's saying something.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Because there is no other way for a mother to support her children.
Ugh
ETA: Even if they do end up on welfare, that is 10000X better for the child than knowing that your rapist is wandering the streets free to come get you whenever they want. Or rape other children.
Ugh again.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Mu position is the same as CYS, separate the victim from the abuser but also makes sure the victim gets all of the support they are legality entitled to. If the abuser is in jail he can not pay support and in that situation when you are jailing the abuser, you end up hurting the victim worse then the abuser. Is that what you want?
Thus sub thread has long left the Catholic church scandal behind. In those cases the abuser had no duty to support the victim unlike most cases when the abuser does have a duty to support the victim.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)where these elaborate and enthusiastic defenses of child rapists are coming from. Did you just think of them yourself since yesterday? I doubt it, and if not, how did you come to be so conversant with the arguments you're making? Why have you put so much thought into this subject?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)to point out that you seem to me to be an objectionable, unfeeling, unempathetic, self-centred piece of shit.
Go ahead. Alert. I don't give a fuck. Any jury that will read the nasty drivel you've spewed in this thread and vote to disagree with me is one which I would never see eye to eye with anyway. If I get a hide well, your nastiness is still there for all to read.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I deal with issue of support and abuse on a daily basis. I have NOT done CYS work in over 20 years, but I do still deal with people still in that system. i have to work within the system and the system is how I describe it, it appears the system is to your dislike, I dislike it, but I have to deal with the system as it IS, not what is should be,
When it comes to anything to do with Welfare, the push is to minimize costs to the State. Since the 1960s the Federal Government has offered each state that the Federal Government will pay 1/2 of all welfare costs involving children under age 18 up to the Standard of Need (in 2016 that is $733 a month per person). No state has EVER taken up that offer to the maximum amount of $733. When a State has a budget crisis the first thing they tend to cut is Welfare, for they do NOT want to pay even their 50% of any welfare grant. That is how the State Legislature views Welfare for Children under age 18, as a cost to be minimize even through the Federal Government will pay 50% of the cost of such payments. It is so bad I had to fight to get Foster Care Money for Grandparents for the State did not even want to give them that, if the Grandparents would accept the much lower welfare amount first (and the Grandparents had to be willing to "Give" the Child to CYS on the grounds they could not support the child on the welfare grant, only then would CYS authorize Foster Care money to such non parent custodians of a minor child).
Maybe I have become an "unfeeling, unemphatic, self-centered piece of shit" but the welfare system assumes that to be the case of anyone applying for Welfare and if you will not embrace that point of view, you will get the least from Welfare.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Work release...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I knew a couple of people on work release, but generally it is for minor offenses like failure to pay support, minor drug offense, minor assault charges etc. They served they time in the county system and worked during the day. Doable if the person is assigned to the County System, but such assignment only occurs if the sentence is less then three years. If the sentence is longer, it is the state system and most State Prisons are far away from where people had worked prior to their conviction. Work release sounds good, but it amounts to no more then probation given the tendency for many people to work non standard hours (i.e. weekends). Work release is a great program but only if the abuser is assigned to the local county jail, if assigned to the state system it is not workable.
In fact in most states that fact that you are in jail does NOT end your duty to pay child support. Thus the person with the support obligation ends up running up arrears while they are in jail. The problem is the arrears are NOT forwarded to the person entitled to the support until actual cash is earned and put into the system. Thus a person given a 20 year sentence, will be accessed support payments obligation during that 20 years, but no payment to the person entitled to the support till the prisoner is released and obtains employment, and then any welfare the Victim received must be paid back first and then the remainder to the family.
The system is designed to minimize costs to the State, NOT to provide adequate support to the victim.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)You are in the wrong here.
Stop now.
My ex-husband abused my daughters. And they sent him to jail. And I fully supported my daughters and they never saw him again.
Fuck child support... it is a fantasy that you've trotted out that we must either let the children die alone on the streets or let the abuser stay out of jail. And it's an insult to the mothers of those children to say that they can't help their own children.
Again, from my post earlier:
If you molest a child, you go to jail. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF DISCUSSION.
All of your innocent "but it's better for the victim to let their abuser stay out of jail" nonsense is vile.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)absolutely and wholly disgusted by this line of argument.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)the fuckity fuck does this have to do with Cardinal Law shuffling priests around?
(Though to answer your question, yes, the PEDOPHILE should be jailed. Save the child. Give the family financial assistance. I can't believe that's a serious question.)
happyslug
(14,779 posts)We are off on an tangent, for Law and the Catholic Church owns these victims no support (The Catholic Church does own the victim for the damage done to these victims but that is a separate issue from support). I brought up support for in 90% of pedophile cases it is the father of the child (or other male relative) who has done the abuse not a non family member (such as a Priest, teacher or boy scout troop leader).
Like the Catholic Church the State also owns the Child NO duty of support, the State MAY provide Welfare and if the State does, the Federal Government will pay 50% of the cost of such a welfare program, but the State does not have to support the child. Given that set of facts, the facts that exist today, jailing the abuser can and often does cut off support for the victim. No one wants to address the issue of support for it is tied in with Welfare, and in my home county a family of two is entitled to only $265 a month. That is NOT per person, that is for BOTH people in a family of two. My state has NOT changed that amount since 1982.
I agree with you we have to save the child, but that can be done in many cases without jailing the abuser (Electronic surveillance in the form of an ankle monitor is one way). We need to punish the abuser, but that can be done without him going to jail (Probation is one way along with requiring reports to be done on the abuser).
The problem is the third thing you mentioned, Support of the Child via some sort of Financial Assistance. Right now the only such assistance is welfare of $265 per month for a family of two UNLESS the abuser is employed, then his wages can be attached up to 55% to pay support for the child (60% if more then one child). The problem is the only way to collect such money is wage attachment and if someone is NOT working there are no wages to attach. If the Abuser ends up in jail, there is no way to earn money (Work release is possible but only if the person is in a County Jail, and the employment is in that County).
Mariana
(15,622 posts)When the rapist is left walking the streets, more children are put at risk of being raped. If the rapist is locked up, zero children will be raped by that particular individual during the incarceration.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)This is the point that needs to be hammered home, apparently.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I think you can stop after protecting the children.
Might keep them protected.