• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bishops OK anti-abuse steps, but skeptics seek tougher moves

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,397
Reaction score
19,248
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Associated Press

Bishops OK anti-abuse steps, but skeptics seek tougher moves
​

Roman Catholic bishops approved new steps this week to deal more strongly with the clergy sex-abuse crisis. But activists and others say the moves leave the bishops in charge of policing themselves and potentially keep law enforcement at arm’s length.

As their national meeting in Baltimore concluded Thursday, leaders of the U.S. bishops conference stopped short of mandating that lay experts such as lawyers and criminal justice professionals take part in investigating clergy accused of child molestation or other misconduct. They also did not specify a procedure for informing police of abuse allegations that come in over a newly proposed hotline.

“Even the bishops themselves recognize they have lost their credibility in monitoring this dreadful crisis,” said Thomas Groome, a professor at Boston College’s School of Theology. “Without strong oversight by competent lay people, it won’t be seen as credible.”
Groome said the bishops should have no hesitation in declaring that credible allegations should be reported to police.

COMMENT:-

Come on folks, cut the RCC Inc. some slack. I mean they have really toughened up by moving from "Well, maybe you should think about reporting abuse allegations o someone higher up in the RCC Inc. hierarchy (provided that you were actually present when the abuse supposedly took place and thereby have some grounds to believe that the allegations are truthful - when denied by the supposed abuser)." to "Well, maybe you should think really hard about reporting abuse allegations to someone higher up in the RCC Inc. hierarchy (provided that you were actually present when the abuse supposedly took place and thereby have some grounds to believe that the allegations are truthful - when denied by the supposed abuser).".
​
 
nota bene said:
This WaPo article suggests that U.S. Bishops have been stymied by the Pope: https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...bishops/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68d4dd25249c
Click to expand...

They were! The US conference of Bishops had a special, dedicated meeting to put in place a strong national policy on this. The president of the conference wanted to send a very strong message, in the hopes that all children would be protected and we could move forward. (His own diocese has very strong policies, including mandatory reporting to law enforcement and mandatory training for all volunteers in organizations that work with youth.) On the eve of approval of the policy, the pope ordered them not to vote.

I've been pretty disappointed with this Pope. I suspect there's a significant cultural difference, and perhaps a distrust of governments, due to his background. He should be deferring to the US Conference for this type of administrative issue (which is why they are there), but he's not.
 
dcsports said:
They were! The US conference of Bishops had a special, dedicated meeting to put in place a strong national policy on this. The president of the conference wanted to send a very strong message, in the hopes that all children would be protected and we could move forward. (His own diocese has very strong policies, including mandatory reporting to law enforcement and mandatory training for all volunteers in organizations that work with youth.) On the eve of approval of the policy, the pope ordered them not to vote.

I've been pretty disappointed with this Pope. I suspect there's a significant cultural difference, and perhaps a distrust of governments, due to his background. He should be deferring to the US Conference for this type of administrative issue (which is why they are there), but he's not.
Click to expand...

Even though they weren't able to include "mandatory," I think there will be a strong push toward compliance. Why do you suppose Francis didn't want the "mandatory"--distrust of the laity maybe?
 
nota bene said:
Even though they weren't able to include "mandatory," I think there will be a strong push toward compliance. Why do you suppose Francis didn't want the "mandatory"--distrust of the laity maybe?
Click to expand...

That's what I suspect. If you look at his personal history, he grew up with a lot of political unrest. His family left Italy because of political oppression there (Mussolini), and moved to Argentina, which has had more than its share of political turmoil. He butted heads with both the Argentine government and other Catholics. I wouldn't be surprised if that left him with a profound mistrust of governments.

Pope Francis - Wikipedia
 
dcsports said:
That's what I suspect. If you look at his personal history, he grew up with a lot of political unrest. His family left Italy because of political oppression there (Mussolini), and moved to Argentina, which has had more than its share of political turmoil. He butted heads with both the Argentine government and other Catholics. I wouldn't be surprised if that left him with a profound mistrust of governments.

Pope Francis - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

But the laity aren't a government.
 
nota bene said:
But the laity aren't a government.
Click to expand...

ah. I guess I'm not really concerned about that part. To me, the bigger issue is that they report it to 'civilian' authorities. In my diocese, they report all issues to law enforcement and Child Protective Services (The state agency responsible for that). They perform the investigation. For the Diocese it then becomes an employment issue based on the findings.
 
dcsports said:
ah. I guess I'm not really concerned about that part. To me, the bigger issue is that they report it to 'civilian' authorities. In my diocese, they report all issues to law enforcement and Child Protective Services (The state agency responsible for that). They perform the investigation. For the Diocese it then becomes an employment issue based on the findings.
Click to expand...

I had lunch today with a friend who's a philosopher/Catholic theologian and mentioned our conversation. He agreed with you and also told me that reporting to the appropriate law enforcement services first is a de facto mandate in our state, a done-deal if you want to work in the diocese in any capacity--priest, deacon, teacher, coach, office staff, and even volunteers, and all have to go through training too.

The purpose of not going to, say, your school principal but, rather, to the police and CPS is to provide a layer of transparency that will avoid even the appearance of impropriety and stave off later accusations of cover-up. I'd call this a rending-unto-Caesar win...but I do appreciate the reality that the Pope's experience is of Argentina, South America, and Marxism.
 
Interesting, thoughtful thread.

But I'm afraid too many horses have left this rather beautiful barn...
 
nota bene said:
I had lunch today with a friend who's a philosopher/Catholic theologian and mentioned our conversation. He agreed with you and also told me that reporting to the appropriate law enforcement services first is a de facto mandate in our state, a done-deal if you want to work in the diocese in any capacity--priest, deacon, teacher, coach, office staff, and even volunteers, and all have to go through training too.

The purpose of not going to, say, your school principal but, rather, to the police and CPS is to provide a layer of transparency that will avoid even the appearance of impropriety and stave off later accusations of cover-up. I'd call this a rending-unto-Caesar win...but I do appreciate the reality that the Pope's experience is of Argentina, South America, and Marxism.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, you normally have to report to a specific person within your organization, who coordinates with the authorities and does follow-up / record-keeping on behalf of the organization. I guess my point is that the organization itself isn't responsible for the investigation. This puts the investigation in the hands of the people with the authority (and hopefully training) to do so. This avoids the appearance of a cover-up.... and also the responsibility of the investigation.

Now granted, I've heard of a couple of recent cases where organizations were sued for 'not stopping' an abuser. The response was 'we fired the person and turned it over to the police. They didn't prosecute - a decision we have no role in making. How are we responsible for his actions four years later?'
 
dcsports said:
Just for clarification, you normally have to report to a specific person within your organization, who coordinates with the authorities and does follow-up / record-keeping on behalf of the organization. I guess my point is that the organization itself isn't responsible for the investigation. This puts the investigation in the hands of the people with the authority (and hopefully training) to do so. This avoids the appearance of a cover-up.... and also the responsibility of the investigation.

Now granted, I've heard of a couple of recent cases where organizations were sued for 'not stopping' an abuser. The response was 'we fired the person and turned it over to the police. They didn't prosecute - a decision we have no role in making. How are we responsible for his actions four years later?'
Click to expand...

That's just what I mean. I was surprised to learn today that calling law enforcement first is, in practice, mandatory, but I think it's a sensible idea.
 
Foxes promising to take care of the hen house.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
nota bene said:
Even though they weren't able to include "mandatory," I think there will be a strong push toward compliance. Why do you suppose Francis didn't want the "mandatory"--distrust of the laity maybe?
Click to expand...

One "good" reason why someone wouldn't want "mandatory" included would be that including it would

expose the local franchise managers of RCC Inc. to criminal prosecutions, and

exposing the local franchise managers of RCC Inc. to criminal prosecutions would

result in negative publicity for RCC Inc. and
​

negative publicity for RCC Inc. would
​

result in decreased revenues for RCC Inc.
​
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
One "good" reason why someone wouldn't want "mandatory" included would be that including it would

expose the local franchise managers of RCC Inc. to criminal prosecutions, and

exposing the local franchise managers of RCC Inc. to criminal prosecutions would

result in negative publicity for RCC Inc. and
​

negative publicity for RCC Inc. would
​

result in decreased revenues for RCC Inc.
​
Click to expand...

Are you trying to create a shape poem here? Is there a point I'm missing to this eccentric format?
 
nota bene said:
Are you trying to create a shape poem here? Is there a point I'm missing to this eccentric format?
Click to expand...

"B" follows "A"

"C" follows "B"

"D" follows "C"

and so on.

But I don't think that you "missed" anything (which is not to say that I do think that you want to admit actually getting the point).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"B" follows "A"

"C" follows "B"

"D" follows "C"

and so on.

But I don't think that you "missed" anything (which is not to say that I do think that you want to admit actually getting the point).
Click to expand...

Well, actually, I think your organization would make B a subset of A and C a subset of B and so on.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Either way, you got the message.
Click to expand...

Your format was so distracting that I didn't; in fact, I had to reread just now to see what it was. Your real point was to insult the denomination by referring to it as a corporation with local "franchise managers" whose only concern is avoiding negative publicity because this causes revenues to decrease.

It's not a very thoughtful point.
 
Stay away from priests and you'll have no problems with unwanted sexual advances.
 
bongsaway said:
Stay away from priests and you'll have no problems with unwanted sexual advances.
Click to expand...

What about drunks in bars and at parties? Perverts in parks? :roll:
 
nota bene said:
What about drunks in bars and at parties? Perverts in parks? :roll:
Click to expand...

What are priests doing at parties getting drunk and then going into the park? I thought the thread was about bishops meeting to discuss sexual perversion in the church?
 
bongsaway said:
What are priests doing at parties getting drunk and then going into the park? I thought the thread was about bishops meeting to discuss sexual perversion in the church?
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're suggesting then that the bishops were meeting to do this? Just stop. Really.
 
nota bene said:
Oh, so you're suggesting then that the bishops were meeting to do this? Just stop. Really.
Click to expand...

Can you point to where I suggest that? I'm exercising my right to my opinion so no, I won't stop.
 
nota bene said:
Your format was so distracting that I didn't; in fact, I had to reread just now to see what it was. Your real point was to insult the denomination by referring to it as a corporation with local "franchise managers" whose only concern is avoiding negative publicity because this causes revenues to decrease.

It's not a very thoughtful point.
Click to expand...

I see that you are one of those who are unable to differentiate between "the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" and "the corporate operations of the Roman Catholic Church".

The RCC Inc. has next to nothing to do with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the RCC Inc. IS as concerned about avoiding negative publicity because this causes revenues to decrease as any other corporation with "local franchise managers" is.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I see that you are one of those who are unable to differentiate between "the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" and "the corporate operations of the Roman Catholic Church".

The RCC Inc. has next to nothing to do with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the RCC Inc. IS as concerned about avoiding negative publicity because this causes revenues to decrease as any other corporation with "local franchise managers" is.
Click to expand...

Playing coy here is really unattractive. You have no way of knowing what I'm able or even willing to differentiate, but I will certainly, despite your derisiveness, defer to your expertise on the Roman Catholic Church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom