PDA

View Full Version : |Re: Boston Diocese offers 55M settlement in CSA cases


Kane
August 17th 03, 05:01 PM
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:05:09 -0700, "bobb" >
wrote:

>I still think this in an attack on the catholic church... and not
unlike the
>attack on the cigarette companies.

You probably don't even understand why you are right, but I'll be kind
and tell you:

Yes, it is very alike. The tobacco litigation was not just about the
injury done, but especially about the companies who knew early on the
damage caused and covered it up, deliberately.

The damage done by sexually molesting the children was, if the
evidence proves correct, known to the higher ups in the church, and
they covered it up, from the time they found out...early on, and did
nothing to stop it but counsel and move the perps. The children were
given no help...nothing.

The minimizing of the effects of sexual abuse, something I believe
I've seen you've post in favor of, is coming home to roost in this
situation and I suspect it will in others as well. It's not just the
Catholic church, bobb, but many organizations that interacted with
children who were molested and nothing was done and the perps turned
loose.

>
>It's all about money.
>

You'd prefer what then?

If your neighbor's kid ****s your kid, the neighbor learns of it,
conceals it from you and 20 years later, your grown kid, suffering the
fallout from childhood sexual abuse discloses it to you, what would
you like to do to the perp and the person responsible for NOT telling,
allowing it to continue, or just packin' up and movin' away?

>If anyone should be sued, it should be the individual priest; not the
>church.

Are you aware "the church" knew of the abuse and simply kept moving
the perp, with counseling for the perp, but NOTHING for the child. No
help, no acknowledgement of wrong doing on the part of the perp. No
counceling. Not even a "we are truly sorry for our sin"?

>Even so, the harm alleged by victim's of the priest's is nothing
>more than an 'improper' touch....

This isn't two kids playing "you show me yours and I'll show you mine"
in a back bedroom, boob. This is one person in a position of great
power and implied trust using another person smaller, weaker, and with
very little power, for their own gratification.

What do you think an "improper touch" is, boob?

>which hardly rises to effects

Let me see now. How about the following:

Uncertainty, in the case of boys, of their own sexual gender
preferances;

Uncertainty, in the case of girls, of their right to control their own
body and who and how anyone else has access to it;

Feelings of confusion about their faith (even as an atheist I find it
deplorable that such a thing should happen to a trusting child) and
it's meaning in their lives;

Low self esteem because of the confusion over what is and isn't
appropriate in disproportionate power relationships...in other words,
the possibility of THEM becoming a perp themselves later;

>caused by
>the cigarette companies which alleges death and serious health
issues.
>Certainly this is an imbalance here.

Well, you just went from saying their was, at the beginning of your
post, a similarity to now claiming their is a difference.

In other words, even your circular reasoning (a habit of yours...as
someone schooled in logic to explain the problem) falls on its ass.
But then that's nothing new for you.

I doubt it will do you any good but I suggest you study this issue
much more deeply.

The Catholic church needs to clean house. It did not do so willingly
when it had the opportunity. Now it will have to under public scrutiny
and the force of law.

My own experience with the Catholic church strongly suggests that it
has more than enough moral, ethical, and responsible people in it,
clergy and laity, to do just that. Give it time. The irresponsible
ones are being removed under the force of the suits and public
exposure.

The church failed on a value of its own: the forgiveness of sinners.
It mistook forgiveness for reinstatement. The correct thing for them
to have done was to allow for repentance, forgiveness, and STILL kick
out the perps. Had they done so this situation would probably not be
coming up now.

That's how the system is supposed to work.

>
>bobb
>

Yah just can't spell it right.

Kane

R. Steve Walz
August 18th 03, 01:07 AM
Kane wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:05:09 -0700, "bobb" >
> wrote:
>
> >I still think this in an attack on the catholic church... and not
> unlike the
> >attack on the cigarette companies.
-------------
And?

> You probably don't even understand why you are right, but I'll be kind
> and tell you:
>
> Yes, it is very alike. The tobacco litigation was not just about the
> injury done, but especially about the companies who knew early on the
> damage caused and covered it up, deliberately.
>
> The damage done by sexually molesting the children was, if the
> evidence proves correct, known to the higher ups in the church, and
> they covered it up, from the time they found out...early on, and did
> nothing to stop it but counsel and move the perps. The children were
> given no help...nothing.
>
> The minimizing of the effects of sexual abuse, something I believe
> I've seen you've post in favor of, is coming home to roost in this
> situation and I suspect it will in others as well. It's not just the
> Catholic church, bobb, but many organizations that interacted with
> children who were molested and nothing was done and the perps turned
> loose.
-----------------------
The RC church isn't a police agency. But just for being rich and
fascist toward children they deserve anything they get here, even
if the altar boys all enjoyed the sex.


> >It's all about money.
>
> You'd prefer what then?
-------------------------
I like it. Let's loot the church.


> If your neighbor's kid ****s your kid, the neighbor learns of it,
> conceals it from you and 20 years later, your grown kid, suffering the
> fallout from childhood sexual abuse discloses it to you, what would
> you like to do to the perp and the person responsible for NOT telling,
> allowing it to continue, or just packin' up and movin' away?
--------------------------
Neither, just ask them for the horny details. Then ask my kid why he
never mentioned it, and if it was my fault for oppressing my kid's
sexuality, then I'd be the perp for not making my kid more sexually
informed instead of guilty and shamed. The sex is secondary to that.


> >If anyone should be sued, it should be the individual priest; not the
> >church.
>
> Are you aware "the church" knew of the abuse and simply kept moving
> the perp, with counseling for the perp, but NOTHING for the child. No
> help, no acknowledgement of wrong doing on the part of the perp. No
> counceling. Not even a "we are truly sorry for our sin"?
-------------------
It's not even the church's business if they didn't have good reason
to turn them in to police.


> >Even so, the harm alleged by victim's of the priest's is nothing
> >more than an 'improper' touch....
>
> This isn't two kids playing "you show me yours and I'll show you mine"
> in a back bedroom, boob. This is one person in a position of great
> power and implied trust using another person smaller, weaker, and with
> very little power, for their own gratification.
--------------
If their parents EVER implied they should obey priests without any
question, then those PARENTS are the REAL perps!


> Uncertainty, in the case of boys, of their own sexual gender
> preferances;
---------------
That's not damage, that's enlightenment.


> Uncertainty, in the case of girls, of their right to control their own
> body and who and how anyone else has access to it;
-----------------
If they are brainwashed prudes it did them good.


> Feelings of confusion about their faith (even as an atheist I find it
> deplorable that such a thing should happen to a trusting child) and
> it's meaning in their lives;
----------
No meaning, no loss. Enlightenment.


> Low self esteem because of the confusion over what is and isn't
> appropriate in disproportionate power relationships...in other words,
> the possibility of THEM becoming a perp themselves later;
--------------------------
You mean they questioned their brainwashing? Excellent.

Too many ****ing whiners who secretly liked it.
Steve