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

← Catholic Church reverses course on bill to eliminate statute of limitations on sex abuse of minors

Catholic Church reverses course on bill to eliminate statute of limitations on sex abuse of minors - Comments

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 1 by irate_atheist

Bye asked Culhane why no other institution, beyond the church, had any problem with the bill. Culhane said he did not know why.

No, I can't imagine why, can you?

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:55 UTC | #612092

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 2 by Ignorant Amos

"I think we are looking at bankruptcy your holiness, perhaps we should get out to South America while we still have a frock on our backs......."

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:57:10 UTC | #612099

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 3 by strangebrew

OP

I am shocked that anybody is shocked!

RCC had no intention of leaving the door open for retrospective claims. Far to many of those to consider, and they know it. There will be claims still under wraps in Vatican nest and probably more arriving everyday from every part of the globe. But Benny managed to silence the majority by threatening hell's damnation on anyone that dared repeat the claims outside the control of a crows council!

Corrupt to the core...always has been...always will be...it is what they do!

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:04:24 UTC | #612107

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 4 by xmaseveeve

'Michael C. Culhane, spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, testified last year that changing the rules retroactively was not fair.'

Wait a minute. Child abuse was already a crime when the offences were committed.

Today's juries would be more likely to convict? What a strange thing to say. Child rape is not a new crime and 'attitudes' to it have not changed. He says that society has changed, but how does he get from there to juries not understanding evidence for a clearly established crime?

'Horton said, “Societal standards change over time, especially on sensitive subjects such as sex, race and the like. ... A juror raised under today’s standards might infer the existence of sexual misconduct from such actions that a juror 40 or 50 years ago would not have inferred,” Horton testified.'

Seriously, what does that even mean?

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:04:31 UTC | #612108

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 5 by strangebrew

@4

Seriously, what does that even mean?

It means the Vatican is staying with the last scapegoat they whined about recently.

[The Changing Times]

They are seriously trying to paint the past indiscretions on society at the time.

Apparently they consider that child fiddling priests were acceptable back then because society did not regard it as much of a crime as they do now.

" In Pope Benedict’s view, the sexual abuse of children by priests in the ’70s was the norm. And he further reasoned that the 70s version of pedophilia was not “evil in itself.”

They have run out of hysterical excuses which impressed no one except the already brain dead, so now come the far reaching and patently ludicrous ones to try and bamboozle the Secular denizens.. A tactic they are presumably more at home with.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:29:59 UTC | #612131

Aztek's Avatar Comment 6 by Aztek

Taken from an internal memo of the RCC: Nothing should interfere with our effort to do good, take responsibility for our actions and protecting kids...except money.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:14:59 UTC | #612166

Hellboy2's Avatar Comment 7 by Hellboy2

Unbelievable. And yet, not so much. Let's face it, retroactive claims would open the floodgates that would have wrung the Vatican's coffers bone dry; and the last shreds of respectability, held by catholics of their institution, blown away in the wind.

I'm betting there were many a sleepless night before the Vatican realised exactly what would be unleashed if this bill went ahead. If 100 lawsuits alone were brought against this - so called 'Doctor'- Reardon, can you imagine the thousands that would pour in against priests all over the world and in every nook and cranny that they are cowering in??!

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:08:49 UTC | #612204

Iain Mott's Avatar Comment 8 by Iain Mott

Although the church seems to be quite proud of itself when it comes to championing the idea that 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world', what would one think if they chose to use these actions as a display of their piety?

On the Catholic News Agency website, Archbishop Henry J. Mansell puts forward a remarkably weak argument against the law, but is at pains to point out how unfair it would be for the 'Catholic Church and other non-public entities' to be 'at-risk' of the legislation, whilst state institutions would not. 'Obviously, the justice here is highly uneven' he lugubriously states.

Somehow, I cannot bring myself share in the good archbishops' concerns. Nor can I resist pointing out that before stating how foul he thinks child abuse is, we are told that 'the Catholic Church today is the safest place for youngsters' ... according to? .... 'various observers'! Really?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1222

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:50:55 UTC | #612224

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 9 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, a politician grows a spine and tells it like it is:

Congressman Calls Catholic Bishop a Paedophile Pimp

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:11:15 UTC | #612239

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 10 by SomersetJohn

Comment 4 by xmaseveeve :

'Horton said, “Societal standards change over time, especially on sensitive subjects such as sex, race and the like. ... A juror raised under today’s standards might infer the existence of sexual misconduct from such actions that a juror 40 or 50 years ago would not have inferred,” Horton testified.'

Seriously, what does that even mean?

Is this poisonous cretin suggesting that 40 or 50 years ago a jury would have found it acceptable for a priest to fuck a child in the arse? Because that is exactly what this suggests.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:59:53 UTC | #612289

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 11 by SomersetJohn

Comment 5 by strangebrew :

" In Pope Benedict’s view, the sexual abuse of children by priests in the ’70s was the norm. And he further reasoned that the 70s version of pedophilia was not “evil in itself.”

Can this quote be accurately attributed to any reasonably high ranking priest?

If it can then we can honestly say that Ratzo does not believe the sexual assault of children is an offense, because I for one see no difference between such crimes then and now. Why does this sick old man say such things? Of course, very often pedophiles truly believe they are not doing harm to their victims. Does this suggest anything to anyone? Perhaps someone should be looking around those dioces Ratzo was associated with back in the 50's 60's and 70's.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:13:29 UTC | #612293

BowDownToGizmo's Avatar Comment 12 by BowDownToGizmo

Comment 9 by Ivan The Not So Bad :

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, a politician grows a spine and tells it like it is:

Congressman Calls Catholic Bishop a Paedophile Pimp

BAM!! What a legend, more of this please

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:24:57 UTC | #612295

plasma-engineer's Avatar Comment 13 by plasma-engineer

Its very easy to get around this. Set the limit for the statute of limitations at, say, a nice round 100 years. (I could be persuaded to compromise at 'three score years and ten' if pushed.)

Then everyone is happy! Oh - except the paedophiles and child abusers of course. We wouldn't want to breach THEIR human rights would we?

Well actually . . . maybe we would.

(Of course having spotted that the p word appeared to be a spelling mistake on this comment because I tend to use UK English, I expect I am now on the register of official suspects for having looked up the spelling with Google. And me saying this is now my cover story. And I'm being recursively paranoid now.)

The point of the last paragraph was that the police are out looking for paedophiles and accusing innocent parents of taking illegal photos of their children, but they ought to go for the priests who are being protected by the Vatican, and then for the Vatican for protecting them.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:46:51 UTC | #612332

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 14 by strangebrew

11

Can this quote be accurately attributed to any reasonably high ranking priest?

How about ...Pope Benedict XVI..?

Benny made his remarks during his Dec. 20 address to the Roman Curia.

It is all available via google.

How the Church must hate the Internet...it will be deemed ungodly soon...now't so sure!

Another report here

And here

And here

So desperate the lies are becoming ever more like those of kiddies caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Pathetic does not describe it...totally banal and insulting.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 06:34:08 UTC | #612500

keddaw's Avatar Comment 15 by keddaw

Comment 14 by strangebrew :

So desperate the lies are becoming ever more like those of kiddies caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Pathetic does not describe it...totally banal and insulting.

You mean their invisible friend did it?

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:23:56 UTC | #612597

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 16 by strangebrew

@15

You mean their invisible friend did it?

Would you put it beyond their collective insipidity? Their insanity almost demands it...'by god's will ' or some such petulant whine! They are losing respect hand over fist, they must wonder why jeebus is so pissed at them!

That thought distracts them....and they panic themselves yet deeper into the tar pit of obsolete mythology. So it is...so it shall be!

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:00:56 UTC | #612612

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 17 by DocWebster

Why was there ever a statute of limitations on rape? Especially when it's the rape of a child. There isn't one for murder and I contend that dealing with rape is more painful for the victim than any pain a murder may cause the victim's survivors.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:54:21 UTC | #612653

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 18 by Vorlund

"Michael C. Culhane, spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference, testified last year that changing the rules retroactively was not fair. "

A lot of things are not fair, doG doesn't appear to be particularly fair, natural selection doesn't either, what about the asymmetry of time and space? Nope. probability? How about an adult man overpowering a child to sodomize him. Is that fair? What about social justice and wealth, ah well it seems to me that fuck all is actually fair. I suspect fairness is a mythological thingy that some people believe in when they can't get their own way or when some shit falls off the fence in their direction and they think it isn't their turn for the shit.

He could try praying to doG.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:09:14 UTC | #612662

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 19 by xmaseveeve

Comment 10, Somerset john,

'Is this poisonous cretin suggesting that 40 or 50 years ago a jury would have found it acceptable for a priest to fuck a child in the arse? Because that is exactly what this suggests.'

Yes, it is what he's saying. I genuinely wanted someone to tell me I'd misunderstood.

In Comment 5, Strangebrew gave a link to an excellent wee article about this. It includes a link to the full Christmas speech, and

' the Pope finding yet another scapegoat for the decades-long cover up of the clerical sexual abuse of children. What is it this time? Apparently, the freewheeling and sexually liberating 1970s. During a Christmas address to bishops and cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI blamed the ’70s for creating the “ideological foundation” for pedophilia. In Pope Benedict’s view, the sexual abuse of children by priests in the ’70s was the norm.'

This is the most twisted nonsense yet (and that's saying something). If society is growing more sexually permissive and promiscuous, then today's juries should be more tolerant of sexual crimes, by his logic, not less. He can't use that argument both ways. I beg the Dope's pardon, but my parents and grandparents (all except one, lapsed bloody Catholics) thought that anyone who took advantage of a child was the worst monster imaginable. And now, nonces have an idological foundation? What is this guy on? Seriously bad acid, at least.

I think the priesthood has always been the obvious career choice of child molesters clever enough to learn Latin. They see sex with a constant supply of children as the ultimate job perk. Requiring a man to be celibate is like locking a weightwatcher in Harrod's chocolates department, or shutting a fox in a chicken shed and making it promise not to eat. How is that atheists' fault?

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:23:24 UTC | #612721

GamerFromJumpZ's Avatar Comment 20 by GamerFromJumpZ

The RCC protecting child rapists is like Muslims rioting over a slight.

So common as to not be a surprise anymore.

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:17:32 UTC | #613318

loqueelviento's Avatar Comment 21 by loqueelviento

In many countries there were no laws preventing from putting "it" up a child's arse. Actually. Yes it was legal. (Like marital rape for instance.) And since the RCC always lags a few centuries behind, it will probably condemn paedophilia in 2312.

Sat, 09 Apr 2011 04:36:11 UTC | #613426

Wolfgang Brosche's Avatar Comment 22 by Wolfgang Brosche

Nobody should be surprised. The Catholic Church is NOT interested in the welfare of mankind (or innocent children), it is only interested in ruling over everybody and that mankind follows their rules! The Church says that erveybody, even just born babies, is a sinner! This concept of faith will make it possible to blame the victims for the sex abuse...
There is a propaganda-war supervised by members of Opus Dei und the Pius-Bretheren - they blame the student revolution in the sixties and the following sexual revolution of the sexual abuse of children by priests throughout the world. They even dare to say that it was Satan himself who led those "poor" priests astray, just as Satan led the entire Catholic Church astray during the 2nd Vaticanum. The Vatican and its´ criminal organisations are not ashamed of utilizing the worldwide abuse scandal as a means for their rollback. I have already heard some clerics say that the children they abused were possessed by the devil - thus blaming their victims for their crimes.

Tue, 10 May 2011 19:38:14 UTC | #625502

Wolfgang Brosche's Avatar Comment 23 by Wolfgang Brosche

Ah, I forgot some disgusting statements of prominent conservative Catholics in Germany and even some statements of German Bishops, commenting on the sexual abuse scandal in Germany. They dared to state that this scandal was caused by Homosexuals. Their vicious minds made up an appalling excuse for their clerics: most of the victims, they said, were boys, so it really must have been the homos who were to blame for the sex crimes. Civil Rights for homosexuals, they said, had corrupted society and thus even pedophile crimes would be accepted. It was breathtaking how they excused their clery and accused the gays they hate in almost the same sentence.

Tue, 10 May 2011 19:48:59 UTC | #625508