1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Catholic Church Advocating Murder

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Coot, Dec 6, 2002.

  1. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    I've looked at this story 3 or 4 times this morning, and I cannot fathom the level of turpitude the catholic church is willing to sanction to avoid scandal.
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Why hasn't the appropriate grand juries come out with charges of Cardinal Lay and others? They clearly aided and abetted felonious acts. Why aren't the citizens of these communities marching on the DA's office? It is unbelievable to me that with all these revelations nobody has acted.
  3. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Difference between advocated positions and the actions of one man or two men.
  4. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    I read that one this morning and I couldn't believe it. Is this how our
    moral representatives should be setting an example for the flock?

    Couple this with the story about the Boston Archdiocese considering
    bankruptcy to avoid paying the settlements from the lawsuits and I'm
    beginning to think the Catholic Church should lose its tax exempt
    status for a century or so.
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Jim, you have posted with experience from a prosecutor's office so I guess you were speaking to my question. Sorry, but he air is real dense down here today and I have no idea what you are saying.
  6. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    An organization to maintain credibility still has to condemn the actions of individuals that are in its employ.

    Seeing how the Catholic Church is supposed to be a leader of morality, it can reasonably be expected to be held to a much higher standard than an ordinary secular organization.

    I find the recent actions that have come to light in context with past admissions to be wholly incomprehensible.

    How can the leadership of the Church continue to maintain moral authority when they seem to be in denial of past actions?
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Okay, but are not individuals such as Lay accountable for their actions. He reassigned the same person more than once. He did not turn in him, he aided and abetted the individual in his actions. A cardinal of the church - the church protecting him and doing the bankruptcy thing has just lowered the RC church even more in my eyes. They are as a body protecting these criminals and are worthy of no respect period.

    Still don't understand why they have not been prosecuted. Ya, let's get religion involved in our government. Say, this might be why government is for sale, we have not separated it from the church far enough.

    Sorry if my disgust is coming through but this is much more despicable than Enron, by far.
  8. jamming

    jamming Banned

    I was saying it to Coot, a difference between a man's action and the Catholic Churches'. Jedi Writer has Prosecutor's Office experience, my experience was a little different.

    Ken Lay = Enron & Cardinal Law = Catholic Church in New England
  9. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Sorry Jim, that one's not going to fly with me. The actions of the Cardinal all the way down the line have been sanctioned by the Church itself. From his inaction and obfuscation on the child molestations to the bankruptcy and now this. That, in my estimation eliminates any difference between Law and the church itself.
  10. valgore

    valgore Veteran Member

    if I confess to a priest about a crime I have committed isn't the priest immune from being forced to testify against me? confidentiality or whatever it's called. so if a priest confessess to another priest wouldn't the same rules apply? just throwing out a thought here.
  11. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    It seems to me that just the other day I was having someone here tell me that priests don't enjoy protection from the law due to separation of church and state.

    Heh... yeah right. :rolleyes:
  12. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Valg and friends,

    There is a difference entirely between what is learnt in the confessional, which is privileged, and what the church knows from evidence, which is required, without exemption, to be reported, if failing to do so would create the condition of accessory. Without a lengthy research into Massachusetts statute, I do not know the limitations on negligent homicide. In NY, we have a depraved indifference homicide statute, which is very specific.

    Thus, had the statute of limitations expired, reporting served no purpose. If, however, the act were a homicide under then current statute, and the act had no temporal limitations, then, and only then, does the act constitute abetting.

    The churchs position has been made clear, that her discipline will prevail, and canon law will apply regarding the removal and reassignment of priests. That, however, is an entirely different problem that the one the pope acknowledges, to wit, that a priest living in our territorial jurisdiction is subject to all civil laws, and the privilege granted the confessional is a court is a matter of civil law.

    (Arguendo, the law changed, and that privilege were removed, a priest who refused to testify would do so, like a reporter with sources being so lawfully ordered by a judge, at peril of contempt. That is so hypothetical that it is nonsense, of course.)

    The pope cannot see that, as long as evidence not obtained in the confessional is gathered, that evidence is required or not required to be given to the authorities dependent solely upon statute.

    Furthermore, there is a distinction under US law between churches having hierarchical and non hierarchical structure as to the level of invasiveness of courts, at least as pertaining to contract law. It is no large step to create conspiracy, thus: the Cardinal knew about an act, and by keeping silent created a conspiracy, thus the act lives as long as the conspiracy lives, insofar as the act beginning the conspiracy was not covered by the temporal limitations at the time of discover. An easy example: if the staute for theft expires in 7 years, and my boss knows I stole from my former boss within those seven years, he silence is conspiratorial, and the original act remains warrantable due to conspiracy. If, however, he learns after eight year, so to speak, his knowledge is irrelevant. The state statutes alone determine these issues of time

    Now, the question that you all are seeing is the following: is Cardinal Law the successor in interest of whomever was his predecessor in office in 1969, and, if information were known, and carried over in direct line, such as: I tell my successor, watch out for Shiny Top, he was a problem at the golf course, the conspiracy is continued, even though the original parties are no longer subject to prosecution, through death, of loss of golf clubs, etc.

    If the church, as a hierarchical ecclesiastical group knew, and that knowledge began at the time of the actus reus, and that knowledge continued conspiratorially, Law would, theoretically, be an accomplice, accessory, or conspirator. Personally, and no one finds the diocesan conduct more odious than I, for very personal reasons, I could not, without the luck of the Irish, make such a case, as there are too many possibilities, and too much time elapsed between 1969 and 1993. Unless, in Massechussetts there is no statute of limitations on depraved indifference homicide, and, secrecy of the confessional did not apply, i e, the church learnt about the acts independently of confession.

    Thus, we need to be very careful, while condemning the diocese for its turpitude, the like of which I have never seen, nor hope to see again, not to assert the case justiciable when it is in fact not.

    Just to clarify:

    The act has to be committed.

    The knowledge of the commission has to be gained during the time when the compliant would be triable.

    The conspiracy would have to be present continuously.

    Civil privilege and the seal of the confessional are not one and the same thing, and are unrelated.

    Priests are subject to both canon law, and the law of the territorial jurisdiction in which an act takes place.

    The church is used to having to take no account of the latter, as ecclesiastical privilege, while not part of European law, is so deeply ingrained that the concept of invasion of civil curial procedure into canonical curial procedure is unthinkable.

    The current pope feels that civil law has no bearing upon the conduct of ecclesiastics. This issue was resolved in the US by the first amendment, in England in the time of Henry VIII, and, later in the First Republic in Europe.

    In the US, ecclesiastics are not protected by their status.

    Simply, then, the only question is whether Laws predecessor in interest as far back as 1969 knew, and created a line by passing the knowledge, or, if there is no statute of limitations upon negligent homicide in Massachusetts.

    I cannot determine the former, but, as soon as I retrieve my Lexus password, I can determine the latter. Even so, stretching conspiracy to include an act in 1969 is more than anyone can pull off in a real courtroom, with real lawyers, real judges, and real juries, subject to real appellation.

    My personal belief is that, were there a god, the triability of these issues is relevant here, and moot in eternity.

    Damnation is scant punishment for their actions.

    All good wishes,
  13. jamming

    jamming Banned

    I was just using that part to show that there are two people, Lay and Law. I was not equating the two. The actions in this article are about Law before he was a Cardinal or did I read it wrong?
  14. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Law, was I believe Cardinal in 1993 when he learned about the murder. What he did in 1995 was beyond belief.
    Martin, thanks for the explanation on points of law.
  15. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Despite having this information, Law decided in 1995 to allow Foley to return to an active ministry in Salem where he remained until Thursday when he reportedly was abruptly suspended as his files were made public.

    If anything untoward were to occur, that action, provided the statement is accurate, consitutes, by and of itself, the necessary proof of accessory, given the knowledge of Foley's previous behaviour.
  16. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    <small>As said by Haywire,</small>
    "It seems to me that just the other day I was having someone here tell me that priests don't enjoy protection from the law due to separation of church and state.

    Heh... yeah right."

    That's correct Haywire. To quote Martin "<b>Priests are subject to both canon law, and the law of the territorial jurisdiction in which an act takes place.</b>"

    I would urge you to become more familiar with some of these terms as misunderstanding what the term "separation of the church and state" means might cause you to jump to the wrong conclusions.
  17. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    I'm not jumping to anything. Because of the separation of church and state, the head honchos of any church have more capabilities of protecting their resident perverts and criminals.

    Tale, for instance, the fact that priests didn't have to tell the police about a man confessing to a murder during confession. I'm not sure how it goes now, but I don't think they still have to. I think all they're bound to do by the church is to try and convince the murderer to turn hm self in. I could be wrong there, but that's the way it was not long ago.

    The Catholic church is doing it right now, as so many here enjoy the liberty of pointing out quite frequently here. They don't have to turn their perverts in. They can hide them or hide the crime itself.
  18. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Again, you are mostly right Haywire.
    Priests are excused from having to testify to any crime heard in confession.

    However, while members of the church cannot reveal anything they hear in
    the confessional, that does not allow them to cover up a crime.

    They are bound by the same laws (if not higher laws) and they would be
    required to turn a fellow priest into the police if they knew of a murder.
    They are not excused in any way.

    Any asshole can <u>not</u> turn in a murderer even if they wear a frock.
    It is not right and not legal.
  19. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    I was born catholic. Thats as far as it went. God was explained to me as someone who would send me to hell for not *fill in the blank*. I decided the people who were telling me this were simply cruel and not to be believed. So I never had a faith to loose.

    Yet I still got drug to church till I was about 12. I still had 3 catholic schools to get kicked out of. They were not concerned how much money they got from my parents or my education. They were primarily concerned with the fact that I would never grow up to be a contributor.

    This left me sitting there observing those around me. I saw no reason of trust, nor wisdom, or kindness in those that work for that business. That does not start till you get down to the volunteer level. There is more love and belief in the pews than on the alter.

    My cousin is a nun. She spent years helping the little black babies in Africa. Now she is in some wonderful nunnery in Ireland. I saw her last year in New York. She was unhappy. We got wasted . At that time I had not concerns over the Catholic Church. I love my cousin.

    I dont think I know anything, so when I see faith benefit someone I whole heartedly approve of the whole thing. Faith has either saved people I love or been the rock that they held steady to. I am me. No one is wrong. I respect that that.

    So now comes this. I most certainly never guessed anything like this was happening. I even was an alter boy for a time when they thought the smoke or something would convert me. Nothing funny happened. He had a growl on his face till he walked out that door.

    This news of late is sad. I, being of no faith, do not enjoy seeing the knees knocked out of, well, everything. I have to tell you now that my older sister is a lesbian. Guess what?

    So was my cousin.

    The nun.

    I laughed at an NPR interview months ago about the Catholic Church being organized in promoting alternative lifestyles. Bit scared now. I was born to a catholic family and know how hard some can work for the church.

    This does not look good.

    If things go south, who will rise up to take the mantel from the Pope?
  20. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Actually, I would enjoy it. Great residences, libraries, food, wine,no one tells me my encyclicals are too long, I could have a Ferrari as my car, instead of that stupid pope-mobile, and, there are many promiscuous nuns.

    Plus, my father was Polish, I speak fluent Italian, and know every restaurant in Trastevere.

    I would be good at it, and love Rafael and Brunelleschi.

    Breaking totalk to my agent,

Share This Page