Thousands beaten, raped in Irish reform schools

Southern Man said:
Why is it weak? That is a policy almost uniform in this litigious world. If someone accuses you of something you keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer handle it.
Click to expand...

If you knew your client was guilty of molesting a child could you defend him?
 
Southern Man said:
It has nothing to do with kiddie-fiddling, just basic liability. My insurance does not protect me if I knowingly break a law.
Click to expand...

Basic liability?

You are saying that a document which requires a bishop, upon being informed that an employee is alleged to have molested children, not to utter a word to anybody and to require the victim to undertake a vow of secrecy is somehow "standard" practice?

You live in a strange old world, SM.
 
charver said:
Basic liability?

You are saying that a document which requires a bishop, upon being informed that an employee is alleged to have molested children, not to utter a word to anybody and to require the victim to undertake a vow of secrecy is somehow "standard" practice?

You live in a strange old world, SM.
Click to expand...
According to your link the policy "calls for " the victim to be secret, not "requires" it. You are misrepresenting the policy.
 
Southern Man said:
According to your link the policy "calls for " the victim to be secret, not "requires" it. You are misrepresenting the policy.
Click to expand...

What a moral position to take, eh?

Faced with those allegations who amongst us wouldn't immediately think - hmm...let's get this vulnerable child to swear a vow of secrecy, i'll have a word with the alleged molester and move him to some other place where nobody knows him and we'll say no more about this to anyone, including the police.

It would take a very brave organization to, say, encourage the victim to report the abuse to a police officer. Who could possibly think that would be a good idea?
 
charver said:
What a moral position to take, eh?

Faced with those allegations who amongst us wouldn't immediately think - hmm...let's get this vulnerable child to swear a vow of secrecy, i'll have a word with the alleged molester and move him to some other place where nobody knows him and we'll say no more about this to anyone, including the police.

It would take a very brave organization to, say, encourage the victim to report the abuse to a police officer. Who could possibly think that would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

Again you have misrepresented the policy. Where does it require the victim to "swear a vow of secrecy"?

You're taking this Catholic bashing to a new low.
 
Southern Man said:
Again you have misrepresented the policy. Where does it require the victim to "swear a vow of secrecy"?

You're taking this Catholic bashing to a new low.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry "calls for".

That makes the position a whole lot better.

What a moral position to take, eh?

Faced with those allegations who amongst us wouldn't immediately think - hmm...let's "call for" this vulnerable child to take an oath of secrecy, i'll have a word with the alleged molester and move him to some other place where nobody knows him and we'll say no more about this to anyone, including the police.

It would take a very brave organization to, say, encourage the victim to report the abuse to a police officer. Who could possibly think that would be a good idea?

Happy now?
 
charver said:
Oh sorry "calls for".

That makes the position a whole lot better.

What a moral position to take, eh?

Faced with those allegations who amongst us wouldn't immediately think - hmm...let's "call for" this vulnerable child to take an oath of secrecy, i'll have a word with the alleged molester and move him to some other place where nobody knows him and we'll say no more about this to anyone, including the police.

It would take a very brave organization to, say, encourage the victim to report the abuse to a police officer. Who could possibly think that would be a good idea?

Happy now?
Click to expand...

I'd be happier if you took the time to understand the nature of the confessional. "[The Church policy] focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation." In other words, discussions of sins committed are to be kept secret. That is an elemental requirement of the sacrament of penance.

Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes -- e.g., as a witness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly -- i.e., by repeating them in so many words -- or indirectly -- i.e., by any sign oraction, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession.
Click to expand...
 
Southern Man said:
I'd be happier if you took the time to understand the nature of the confessional. "[The Church policy] focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation." In other words, discussions of sins committed are to be kept secret. That is an elemental requirement of the sacrament of penance.
Click to expand...

Any organization that does not immediately remove a known child molester from a position of authority over children is not worth defending.
 
Southern Man said:
I'd be happier if you took the time to understand the nature of the confessional. "[The Church policy] focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation." In other words, discussions of sins committed are to be kept secret. That is an elemental requirement of the sacrament of penance.
Click to expand...

First they didn't have a policy of secrecy, then it was a legal requirement now it's an intricate part of "confession"?

Keep spinning there, SM.

Maybe all those paedophile priests your church organization supports, with your wholehearted blessing, will club together and get you a medal minted for your valiant efforts in defending them against the harsh words of those despicable victims of abuse?
 
Southern Man said:
How would I know he's guilty if he hasn't yet been tried? *shrug*
Click to expand...

Your knowledge of his guilt does not require a trial. You are avoiding the question.

If he confessed to you then you would know he is guilty. If you walked in on him molesting a child you would know he is guilty. If he videotaped himself molesting a child you would know he is guilty.

But if you won't or can't answer the question thats ok. *shrug*
 
charver said:
First they didn't have a policy of secrecy, then it was a legal requirement now it's an intricate part of "confession"?

Keep spinning there, SM.

Maybe all those paedophile priests your church organization supports, with your wholehearted blessing, will club together and get you a medal minted for your valiant efforts in defending them against the harsh words of those despicable victims of abuse?
Click to expand...

I'm not spinning at all; I am reading from your link and trying to educate you with respect to the policies of the Church. Your link clearly refers to confessional conversations, and the required secrecy of these conversations are well document policies of the Church.

You should also understand that this policy is and has been controversial throughout history, but it is absolutely necessary due to the nature of the sacrament.
 
Southern Man said:
Agreed. Now explain to me when the Church did that and how they "knew".
Click to expand...

I'd say 60 years of consistent complaints would be a good clue.

Even without proof you do not put someone in charge of children unless you are sure they are not a pedophile.
 
WinterBorn said:
Your knowledge of his guilt does not require a trial. You are avoiding the question.

If he confessed to you then you would know he is guilty. If you walked in on him molesting a child you would know he is guilty. If he videotaped himself molesting a child you would know he is guilty.

But if you won't or can't answer the question thats ok. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Your previous question was answered by me in relation to my knowledge of evidence that required judgment by a court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top