This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Colombia cardinal defends church's abuse policies

Colombia cardinal defends church's abuse policies - Comments

GodlessHeathen's Avatar Comment 1 by GodlessHeathen

Seriously?
Is this dirtbag for real?

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:43:00 UTC | #462601

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 2 by Stafford Gordon

If I knew full well that a member of my family was habitually breaking the law in a serious way I would certainly, for the sake of the famiily as a whole, report them to the police and testify against them; to not do so could lead to the break up the family.

That last I'm afraid, being wishful thinking as far as the RCC is concerned.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:48:00 UTC | #462605

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 3 by Jos Gibbons

A simple way of telling if it's OK for religion to do something is to imagine anyone else doing it. Suppose Microsoft had covered up a gazillion pederasts in its midst. "Oh, they're like family - we can't rat on them." No, they're your work colleagues, idiot.

Towards the end of this article, it gets even more ridiculous. It's as if every RC defence has to use an original scapegoat. This one opts for the Masons. What, seriously?

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:58:00 UTC | #462612

at3p's Avatar Comment 4 by at3p

So the Vatican is a crime family... I guess it's not a coincidence that it's located in Italy.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:58:00 UTC | #462613

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 5 by Szymanowski

Hitchens used a helpful analogy in a recent article: strip the Vatican of its fancy dress and it becomes just another multinational corporation.

Compare the Catholic church to something like GlaxoSmithKline and then imagine its senior executives defending practices of institutional perversion [of the course of justice]. Somehow I feel public opinion would be more strongly against GSK than it is now against the RCC.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:01:00 UTC | #462614

Bernard Hurley's Avatar Comment 6 by Bernard Hurley

"since I'm not stupid, I don't tell everything I know. Only drunks, children and idiots tell, and I'm not a child, nor a drunk, nor stupid."


This makes one wonder what else he does know.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:00 UTC | #462619

Mr. Forrest's Avatar Comment 7 by Mr. Forrest

"since I'm not stupid, I don't tell everything I know. Only drunks, children and idiots tell, and I'm not a child, nor a drunk, nor stupid."

oh, so it's a cosa nostra thing, eh? I ain't saying nuttin'! You, mr. colombian fucktard cardinal, are a horrible human being and I hope you die in agony.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:22:00 UTC | #462628

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 8 by Agrajag

I stopped here:

"...it's about defending the dignity and the human rights of a person, even the worst of criminals."

Steve

EDIT: ...but I had to go back. More great publicity!

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:24:00 UTC | #462631

dj357's Avatar Comment 9 by dj357

A moral imperative and a legal obligation DOES force family members to testify against one another. Being moved by that force is another matter.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:44:00 UTC | #462641

Armand K's Avatar Comment 10 by Armand K

John Paul II, that holy pope, was not wrong when he defended his priests so that they were not [...] treated like criminal pedophiles without due process.
Yeah, and he made damn sure, together with the then-Head Inquisitor Ratzinger, that the said priests don't get the due process. How convenient is that!

would have been like testifying against a family member at trial.

There are some other organisations that apply this very extended definition of "family" when it comes to shielding criminals and excusing their deeds. They also speak of honour and dignity and other such highly-esteemed sentiments. And most of them are on the list of criminal organisations.

The law in nations with a well-developed judiciary does not force anyone to testify against a child, a father, against other people close to the suspect. [...] It's not about defending a pedophile, it's about defending the dignity and the human rights of a person, even the worst of criminals."

I think the proper word for this specific policy is omertà: "a code of silence forbidding mafia members to betray their comrades to the authorities".
The human rights of "even the worst criminal" are defended by making sure he gets a just trial, not by pretending nothing happened.

Then, there's also the somewhat relevant detail that the Catholic Church and its tribunals only only have legal jurisdiction in Vatican City. Whatever they investigate and decide elsewhere on the planet doesn't (or shouldn't!) have any more weight than what the discipline committee of any other organisation decides.

at3p:
So the Vatican is a crime family... I guess it's not a coincidence that it's located in Italy.

Well, didn't you know? Italy has five major criminal organisations: Cosa Nostra, 'Ndrangheta, Camorra, Sacra Corona Unita and Chiesa Cattolica.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:52:00 UTC | #462643

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 11 by mjwemdee

Pass the sick-bag, Alice.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:03:00 UTC | #462647

Merax's Avatar Comment 12 by Merax

"It would have been like testifying against a family member at trial."

No, it wouldn´t. Because they ARE NOT family members. The law is very clear about that, and it doesn´t care about YOUR or MY definition of family.
The law does not care if I consider my co-workers, my buddies or my pen pal "family". And neither do YOU get to "decide" who is your family in front of the law.

This is just another case where a religious organisation demands a special treatment no "mundane" person is entitled to.

Sexual abuse isn´t limited to the RCC. Neither is trying to hide it or to care more about the "reputation" than the victims.
But actually EXCUSING this kind of behaviour, is.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:07:00 UTC | #462648

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 13 by PrimeNumbers

Smoking gun? More like smoking thermonuclear device.

The RCC are utterly corrupt and evil. Arrest Ratzinger now.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:10:00 UTC | #462650

Net's Avatar Comment 14 by Net

"The law in nations with a well-developed judiciary does not force anyone to testify against a child, a father, against other people close to the suspect,


is this guy seriously equating the church with a family? what sort of spin is this? come on! it's just an organisation, and everyone is an employee. this "father" "brother" "sister" nonsense debases the real meanings that these words have. the rcc a family? i've never heard anything so funny!

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:24:00 UTC | #462653

mrjohnno's Avatar Comment 15 by mrjohnno

People say things such as this because their ability to reason has been damaged. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that faith makes you stupid, I would however, be prepared to say that faith leaves you predisposed to acts of stupidity.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:25:00 UTC | #462654

sidelined's Avatar Comment 16 by sidelined

He would not give details, however, saying that "since I'm not stupid, I don't tell everything I know. Only drunks, children and idiots tell, and I'm not a child, nor a drunk, nor stupid."

Sounds more like he is throwing up his hands saying "I got nothing."

Like any person of faith asked to reveal evidence for their assertions, the verbal dodge is played to obscure what is likely a lack of substance behind the claims made.

What a putz!

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:28:00 UTC | #462656

maxamillion's Avatar Comment 17 by maxamillion

His comments came just days after the Vatican posted on its website guidelines telling bishops they should report abusive priests to police if civil laws require it. The Vatican has claimed that was long its policy, though it was never written before explicitly.


So if there is no local law against abuse then it's OK to ignore it?

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:46:00 UTC | #462659

MarcCountry's Avatar Comment 18 by MarcCountry

His Holiness Hoyos has HUGE huevos.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:52:00 UTC | #462660

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 19 by Bonzai

You mean no heuvos? :)

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:54:00 UTC | #462661

Andrea Gyori's Avatar Comment 20 by Andrea Gyori

He had better blame the whole thing on the Devil. It definitely would've sounded more convincing than all his arguments brought up so far. Isn't he ashamed of himself?

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:06:00 UTC | #462662

Willo290971's Avatar Comment 21 by Willo290971

I'm colombian.

This information is real.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:11:00 UTC | #462666

Detlef's Avatar Comment 22 by Detlef

Btw, Hoyos was opposed to the zero-tolerance policy for paedophile priests.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003565,00.html

The bisshop he praised was sentenced to 3 months in prison. The priest to 18 years.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:13:00 UTC | #462667

Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 23 by Saganic Rites

From 'Church of the poison mind' by Culture Club.


Who am I to say that's crazy
Love will make you blind
In the church of the poison mind

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:41:00 UTC | #462670

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 24 by mordacious1

Fine...the rcc is one big family...throw in a charge of incest too.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:45:00 UTC | #462672

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 25 by SaganTheCat

The law in nations with a well-developed judiciary does not force anyone to testify against a child, a father, against other people close to the suspect,"


interesting to see the vatican would rather pick and choose laws it agrees with. some might argue that regardless of the law, moral obligations might come into play even with ones own family

can we assume the vatican has given up its pretence to the moral throne in favour of obeying the law now? or is it just their own interpretation of whichever law suits at the time?

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:03:00 UTC | #462675

AndrewP's Avatar Comment 26 by AndrewP

Time to update the "excuses list" once more:

- suggesting that Satan walks the halls of the Vatican
- blaming the Jews
- blaming the Masons
- blaming homosexuals within the church
- blaming the media for corrupting the priesthood
- blaming the internet
- blaming pornography
- blaming sex education in schools
- blaming increased general sexual freedom
- blaming celibacy of priests
- blaming "lack of time"
- blaming the Curia
- it's a "family matter"; mind your own business

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:17:00 UTC | #462678

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 27 by Carl Sai Baba

I guess the kids don't qualify for protected Family status. A Made Man might rape your kids, but hey, he's a made man and you don't say nuthin about it.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:22:00 UTC | #462680

Detlef's Avatar Comment 28 by Detlef

@ AndrewP.

But a Peruvian cardinal who is also Lima's archbishop, Juan Luis Cipriani, also stepped up to defend the Church's claim to victimhood in the scandal.

"This is the work of the devil, even if that makes journalists laugh," said Cipriani, who is also a high-ranking Opus Dei figure in Latin America.


http://www.mysinchew.com/node/38103

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:30:00 UTC | #462684

Paul Spence's Avatar Comment 29 by Paul Spence

No AndrewP

The church does NOT blame the celibacy of priests. That was their idea so it can't be wrong.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:38:00 UTC | #462686

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 30 by rod-the-farmer

Is anyone here a lawyer who could testify as to the accuracy of the comment that family members are not required to report crimes by each other ? Spouses, and testifying in court, maybe. But reporting crimes ? Sounds like omerta, as mentioned previously.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:48:00 UTC | #462688