Vatican foot in mouth

Bluegrime on 16/4/2010 at 16:01

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

I thought it should be clear, and I haven't questioned the crimes themselves at all if you have noticed.Fortunately I'm not involved in the actual trials, but I bet my right arm that a great part of them are making accusations based on events not (reasonably) meeting the definition of child abuse or brute force (whatever it's called in English).

I may be wrong, but I believe child rape is pretty frowned upon everywhere. I'm really hoping that your point got lost in translation, because its looking like your trying to minimize the harm done to these victims. Just how far can a priest stick his hand down a kids pants before it "reasonably" meets the definition of child abuse? Do you think its acceptable for people to manipulate a position of trust to use children for their sexual urges as long as they keep it "legal"?

Quote:

What's the benefit? Of course you can sue for pain and suffering money, ever heard of it? I believe it's not a German curiosity, and besides that getting one's own back on someone you didn't like might be another aspect. So there is indeed a (monetary) benefit IMHO.

As I said before, I welcome you to find these cases of people suing the catholic church for monetary benefits. Your going to find that these people are the exception and not the rule. People are coming forwards about this because their upset about the fact that the same priests who raped them are not only in position to do it again, but are under no duress from the church to actually STOP doing it.

Quote:

Oh yes, and this "anti-homosexual religion" is just another example of picking out the bad things in order to form an opinion.

Up until very recently, the catholic church outright denied the right of gays to exist and called them an abomination against the will of god. When a religion focused on the afterlife clearly tells homosexuals they are going to hell, thats a pretty strong stance. And in SPITE of that, people are still coming forwards and admitting that male priests raped them.. Even though it is technically a "homosexual act".

Btw.. If you think Catholicism engenders tolerance of homosexuals, go down to Mexico and be as openly gay as you can. Their 90% catholic, so they should welcome you with open arms.

Quote:

That's why I mentioned the moon parallel, I've seen some German scientist pointing out why any proof for the actual moon landing wouldn't satisfy the disbelievers; they would always assume that the evidence on the moon was brought there afterwards, that the NASA was giving wrong information etc. etc.

So your saying that people who cling to the belief that the US of A didn't land on the moon are comparable to the people who believe the catholic church was at least aware of what is going on and didn't try to stop it? I'd say its the opposite.. The people claiming that nothing bad happened and the Vatican is completely without fault are the ones holding on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence.

Gingerbread Man on 16/4/2010 at 18:33

All I know is that - unless there's a specific, semantic, legal thing I'm unaware of - the word "rape" ought to be used a lot more in these priest cases. That'd put fire under things. Wouldn't be difficult at all to toss words like "authority" and "learned helplessness" etc to shut down the scumbags who start smarming over definitions of "forced" - as if that's their whole strategy.

D'Juhn Keep on 16/4/2010 at 20:50

In British law at least, I'm fairly sure rape has to be dick into vagina. Anything else is sexual assault

Edit: looked it up. It was changed to penis to mouth, vagina or anus in 2003

Al_B on 16/4/2010 at 21:45

Can you provide a link? I'm not disagreeing with what you've found - but I'm intrigued that rape has to involve a penis.

frozenman on 16/4/2010 at 22:13

I heard an interesting interview with one of the psychatrists who was in charge of a bunch of pedo-priests and he made the point that many many of these priests have very bizarre and unformed conceptions of sexuality- in some cases having gone into study when they were 13 or 14 years old. Which to me begins to suggest that this behavior is a natural consequence of having teenagers grow up studying theology in a modern world with tits and ass (and adorable boys) everywhere all the time.

Beleg Cúthalion on 16/4/2010 at 22:33

Just the short version of it because it's pretty late...

Matthew, as I said I don't think a complete separation is the non plus ultra to achieve and likewise do I not think a little sort of bonding like a statement in the constitution breaks the general attitude in a country.

Bluegrime, I'm not minimizing the harm done to the victims, I suggest that not all of those who claim to be victims really are. By the way I got the same sort of reproach by one of the crusades! burning witches! shouters on a German site, and he also wasn't able to see the difference between that. I'm making my point based on the things I hear about it here in Germany; and from what I've heard (after all I knew three guys who got accused) one of the "sexual assaults" was kneading the belly of a child with belly aching... sounds to me like he told his parents and they got fuzzy. Others concern the acts of violence, there are accusations now for priests giving children slaps in the face in the 1970s. Now I wonder how many people you'd have to arrest if every smack was a crime. But the media only have to mention child abuse once and everyone seems to think it MUST be child abuse in every case and it's dirty priests with nasty smiles fumbling on innocent children's underwear.

And now imagine you are one of those priests who hasn't done anything serious but is target to this tsunami of hyped indignation. I guess a newbie post in CommChat is eating a birthday cake compared to that.

D'Juhn Keep on 17/4/2010 at 06:00

Quote Posted by Al_B

Can you provide a link? I'm not disagreeing with what you've found - but I'm intrigued that rape has to involve a penis.

(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_2#pt1-pb1) Sure. Although it also states "he" in every case I'm guessing it's not gender-specific as otherwise it'd be a bit silly.

Starrfall on 17/4/2010 at 06:21

Dawkins may be a dick but he's a dick the vatican deserves as far as I'm concerned so you all will have to excuse me for not giving the slightest bit of a shit that someone is being a big meany to these fucking cuntrags

Vasquez on 17/4/2010 at 07:28

Quote Posted by frozenman

Which to me begins to suggest that this behavior is a natural consequence of having teenagers grow up studying theology in a modern world with tits and ass (and adorable boys) everywhere all the time.

I'd say the twisted sexuality springs more from the mandatory celibacy than "tits and ass" in magazines. Or should we cover people in burqas so that poor little catholic celibats wouldn't be tempted to fuck little boys?
Besides, I bet this buttfucking the choirboys is much older phenomenon anyway, it's just being uncovered now - probably partly because people have learned to talk more openly about sex and sexuality. In good old days the shame of a rape was mostly on the victim.

Kaleid on 17/4/2010 at 10:29

Quote Posted by Starrfall

Why is he a dick?

"Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341)

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
(http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366)
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

Richard "
(http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.