I didn't point out that they haven't been convicted of anything, I point out the fact that many of them may not be guilty. You can be guilty of something without being convicted of it (O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson). I simply point out that it is unreasonable to equate an accusation with guilt. That is what happens in witch trials.

10/2/2005 4:34:51 PM

4 fucking Percent

10/2/2005 4:35:28 PM

catholics are worse than terrorists

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 11:24 PM. Reason : !]

10/2/2005 11:24:18 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/funeral.home.slayings.ap/index.html

Quote :

"HUDSON, Wisconsin (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that a Roman Catholic priest who hanged himself in December almost certainly killed two people at a funeral home more than three years ago. Circuit Judge Eric Lundell's finding came in the case of the Rev. Ryan Erickson, who committed suicide after being questioned by police about the 2002 slayings. "I conclude that Ryan Erickson probably committed the crimes in question," Lundell said at the end of a daylong hearing. "On a scale of one to 10, I would consider it a 10. It is a very strong case of circumstantial evidence." The testimony also established a possible motive for the slayings: The funeral director suspected the priest was molesting children and planned to confront him the day of the killings. At the hearing, a deacon testified that Erickson confided that he shot to death funeral home director Dan O'Connell, 39, and employee James Ellison, 22. "He tells me that 'I done it and they were going to catch me,"' Deacon Russell Lundgren testified. Although Erickson cannot be charged, the victims' families requested the hearing to determine who was responsible for the killings. The so-called John Doe hearing is used in only a few states, typically as an investigative tool. The hearing was closed to the public, but some reporters were allowed to attend. The day the funeral director was killed, he asked school bus driver Mary Pagel if she had ever seen the priest touch a child inappropriately and said he had a meeting with Erickson that afternoon, Pagel testified. Pagel said she warned O'Connell not to meet the priest alone. She said she urged him to talk to police first. "Dan told me, 'I can handle it,"' Pagel said. Police believe O'Connell was shot once in the head, and Ellison was killed when he came into the office to see what had happened. Erickson, 31, was found hanged December 19 from a fire escape at St. Mary's Church in Hurley several days after he was questioned by police and denied any involvement in the killings. "

10/4/2005 2:54:30 AM

ok, wolfpack, let me try this again. You accused us of saying all priests were somehow guilty of these crimes, which nobody has said, obviously, and your justification for saying this was

Quote :

"Oh but you are. Salisburyboy posted something saying that the Vatican is part of a "cover up" because it denied recognitio to the US Bishops' first plan for dealing with the sex abuse stuff. What do you think that first plan was? It called for a priest to be suspended from ministry and thrown out of his house (priests live on church property) on the very first allegation. There are little things called "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process". "

that says NOTHING about assuming every priest is guilty. it says that any priest accused of these crimes should be punished. I, by the way, don't agree with such a thing. I DO think that any priest accused of molesting little boys should probably be kept away from them until he's proven innocent, just like I do about anyone who's accused of such a thing. I mean, say you have a little kid, and his teacher or someone is accused of molesting little kids. You're not, to be safe, going to keep yourkid away until you're sure he's innocent?

10/4/2005 8:44:49 AM

Quote :

"that says NOTHING about assuming every priest is guilty. it says that any priest accused of these crimes should be punished. "

Uh.. you don't punish someone if they are innocent of something.

Quote :

"should probably be kept away from them until he's proven innocent,"

Well see, that would be fine - but in America we have something called innocent until proven guilty. Which means that you do not have to prove your innocence in any situation - the accuser has to prove your guilt. "Innocent until proven guilty".

10/4/2005 12:02:09 PM

holy shit. you MUST be doing this on purpose. I just see no way that you're misunderstanding me so badly.

You are accusing people of saying EVERY priest is guilty of child molestation because a few of them are. That's NOT what we're saying, and there's no way that you actually think that's what we're saying. Notice that I followed up the first thing you quoted from me by saying

Quote :

" I, by the way, don't agree with such a thing. "

In other words, I don't think that any priest accused of molestation should be punished, UNLESS he's proven to have molested someone. Ok? Get it?

Quote :

" Well see, that would be fine - but in America we have something called innocent until proven guilty."

That applies to the law. He cannot be punished legally until he's proven guilty. That does NOT restrict a church from telling him he can't be a priest anymore until he's proven innocent. I would think that charges of a priest molesting little kids would be a pretty fair reason to suspend him prior to proving his innocense, considering it's the livelyhoods of the children that the church supposedly cares about.

10/4/2005 12:16:02 PM

I understand you perfectly. We are equivocating on the terms guilty and punishment.

Being suspended from ecclesial functions is a church punishment. Why should someone be punished unless he is proven guilty? "Innocent until proven guilty" seems to work well everywhere else - why should the Church hold priests to the reverse standard of "Punished until proven innocent"? That seems to violate basic human rights.

10/4/2005 2:21:11 PM

It's hard to determine the guilt of people whom the church goes to great lengths to keep out of the courtroom.

10/4/2005 2:26:07 PM

Again equivocating on guilt. Who said anything about a courtroom? Did I mention courtroom or civil tribunal or anything like that?

10/4/2005 2:26:56 PM

You are assuming that all the priests are innocent.

You are also assuming that everybody else is assuming that all the priests are guilty.

In fact, I would imagine that SOME of the priests are innocent and SOME are guilty. A three year grand jury investigation that concluded that at least 63 priests, but likely many more, had committed crimes of a sexual nature and, in many or all of the cases, covered it up.

Do you really think that, considering the evidence, NONE of these men did anything wrong?

Futhermore, regardless of what standard of judgement you happen to be using, whether it be from a legal standpoint, from the church's standpoint, or whatever, the manner in which the church handles the alleged crimes is very suspicious.

Do you really think it likely that, after being falsely accused of molesting a child, a priest would be moved to another parish and, COINCIDENTALLY be again falsely accused of the same crime in a different city? Do you think it is likely that this would happen over and over?

10/4/2005 2:38:25 PM

wolfpack, you're either blinded by your faith or lying through your teeth

if you ever have children, and someone very close to them is accused of child molestation, and you DON'T think it would be wise to remove that person from your children's company until he's proven innocent, I can't imagine how anyone would call you fit to be a parent.

10/4/2005 2:44:13 PM

I'm sure if his children said that a priest had raped them he would be willing to let the church thoroughly investigate the situation.

And then cover it up.

10/4/2005 8:36:56 PM

Quote :

"It's hard to determine the guilt of people whom the church goes to great lengths to keep out of the courtroom. Again equivocating on guilt. Who said anything about a courtroom? Did I mention courtroom or civil tribunal or anything like that?"

Again we go again, in circles ... who decides if he's "guilty"? The same church that is covering it up? If guilt is the issue, then they shouldn't cover it up, and they shouldn't send him unknowingly to another parish. Both of which they did ....

"If a priest molests a child in the confessional, and nobody's is willing to turn them in, does it make a crime?"

Quote :

"wolfpack, you're either blinded by your faith or lying through your teeth."

(Of course, I can't help but believe it's the first.)



[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 10:37 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

10/4/2005 10:36:15 PM

I can't believe Wolfpack2K would mock Michael Jackson, just another poor soul who has time and time again had his name dragged through the mud with false accusations.

10/5/2005 1:11:00 AM

Quote :

""Innocent until proven guilty" seems to work well everywhere else - why should the Church hold priests to the reverse standard of "Punished until proven innocent"?"

The church is not a democracy, and at the end of the day it is not spectacularly concerned with people's rights. The same goes for my own church. The purpose of religion is not to preserve some terrestrial rights. And again, you don't have to be removed from your position as priest, you just have to be removed from any position around children until you're proven innocent. Perhaps to some extent that is a punishment, but it seems far more a precaution to me and many others.

10/5/2005 1:56:35 AM

Quote :

"I can't believe Wolfpack2K would mock Michael Jackson, just another poor soul who has time and time again had his name dragged through the mud with false accusations. "

10/5/2005 7:19:56 AM

Precaution or not, not having to prove your innocence is a basic human right. Human rights come not from civil governments or "democracies", but from God - and the Church does not have the authority to abrogate them.

In any case, what we are talking about and what was suggested are two different things. Should someone be evicted from his house just because of an accusation? How does that sit with basic human rights?

10/5/2005 7:47:32 AM

YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE MAIN POINT HERE.

IT'S ALL "ANTI-CATHOLIC BULLSHIT"!!! IT'S ALL NONSENSE!! ALL OF IT!!

10/5/2005 8:15:50 AM

I think not being raped and molested is a more important human right.

but that's just the entire world outside of the church.

how much longer are you going to dodge the issue at hand? my guess is until you die.

10/5/2005 9:27:33 AM

Quote :

"Should someone be evicted from his house just because of an accusation? How does that sit with basic human rights? "

you're being wholly illogical here, but at this point, it's obvious you know that. evicting someone from his house for an accusation is not logically equivalent to keeping an accused child molester away from children.

10/5/2005 9:48:11 AM

Let's not forget the Crimine Solicitationies law, which threatens excommunication to anybody who doesn't provide "perpetual silence" with cases of sexual abuse. This applies to the clergy as well as the victims. Ratzinger sent out letters to the bishops in 2001 to remind them that this church law was still in full effect.

This same law, in addition, requires that the church not bind the accused to an oath to tell the truth, BUT REQUIRES AN OATH TO NEVER SPEAK ON THE MATTER "even for the most urgent and most serious cause for the purpose of the greater good" unless specific permission is given by the pope. This oath remains in effect until the person's death.

10/5/2005 4:24:38 PM

10/6/2005 12:48:20 AM

This thread got excommunicated.

10/6/2005 2:42:17 PM

omf schism

10/6/2005 4:13:12 PM

Quote :

"you're being wholly illogical here, but at this point, it's obvious you know that. evicting someone from his house for an accusation is not logically equivalent to keeping an accused child molester away from children."

But putting someone out of his house is exactly what the bishops' plan called for. And the whole reason we are discussing it is because salisbury accused the late Pope of supporting sex abusers because he denied approval for that plan.

10/7/2005 1:30:41 AM

IT'S ALL "ANTI-CATHOLIC BULLSHIT"!!! IT'S ALL NONSENSE!! ALL OF IT!!

10/7/2005 2:12:32 PM

SCHISM? MORE LIKE JISM!!!

10/7/2005 10:16:12 PM

Quote :

"Let's not forget the Crimine Solicitationies law, which threatens excommunication to anybody who doesn't provide "perpetual silence" with cases of sexual abuse. This applies to the clergy as well as the victims. Ratzinger sent out letters to the bishops in 2001 to remind them that this church law was still in full effect."

10/7/2005 10:42:43 PM

This is all just a bunch of anti-molestation bullshit.

10/9/2005 12:40:03 PM

4 %

10/9/2005 2:48:58 PM

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

10/10/2005 10:35:40 PM