Gr666mer Updates

[Creedmoor]

I'm not defending anything that happened, or anything that still does. Yes, I know there are still plenty of guilty men out there who wormed their way into the system and made friends in high places, and to this day have never seen consequences anywhere near commensurate with the crimes they committed. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is one name that comes to mind.

What I'm taking issue with is you singling out the Catholic Church, out of all the institutions that perpetrate this problem. If you really think that the Catholic Church has done a worse job of handling this issue than most any other institution out there, then you are either misinformed on the facts, or you just have a bone to pick with Catholics.

Secondly, this claim of yours: "The Churches ... Allows Known Pedophiles around Children." is patently and absurdly false. (Unless you're talking about woke churches allowing sexual deviants into positions in schools, who are not clergy, in which case, yes, sadly that's a problem in many Catholic schools almost as much as it is in secular schools.)

Nowadays, any priest who is even accused of misconduct is suspended from ministry and not allowed around children until a thorough investigation takes place, and if they're found to be guilty, there's no way they're going to be allowed around children again.

Yes, shielding past offenders from consequences is definitely still an issue, and there is a great deal of criticism deserved on that count, but the claim that offenders are just allowed to continue being around children simply isn't correct. Sure, you can still find pockets of that sort of thing somewhere, but to claim that it's a systemic problem isn't accurate. I've already named names of priests who were put through the wringer in recent years on even the most frail and far-fetched of accusations, which has absolutely become the norm nowadays, not the exception.

Oct 24th 2019
Yea The Churchs did the right thing wifh these employees.
Maybe just maybe they should have notified local LE when the accusations came out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religi...y-accused-sex-abuse-are-unsupervised-n1062396

 

[Creedmoor]

This proves my point. If this behavior became known, it would not be tolerated and they would be forced to quit and move. The behavior is often tolerated today.

So no one would then move from out of town to the empty house thats been recently been vacated?
Loads of familys moved here in the last three hundred years over others standards since 1791.

 

[buckwacker]

So no one would then move from out of town to the empty house thats been recently been vacated?
Loads of familys moved here in the last three hundred years over others standards since 1791.

 

[Creedmoor]

So the do gooders runs a day shift dancer at PT's out of town over her standards arnt cohesive with some of the other citizens standards.
No one is going to move to that town and take her place?

Others standards are the reason that people have moved here for well past 300 yrs now.

Who am I to tell my neighbors what standards to live by.
Who here sets these standards?

 

[buckwacker]

So the do gooders runs a day shift dancer at PT's out of town over her standards arnt cohesive with some of the other citizens standards.
No one is going to move to that town and take her place?

Others standards are the reason that people have moved here for well past 300 yrs now.

Who am I to tell my neighbors what standards to live by.
Who here sets these standards?

I'm sorry, I must be dense, because I'm still not quite understanding the point you're trying to make.

I simply pointed out that a decline in the moral character of a culture precipitates it's decline and eventual collapse. It's an observable recorded phenomenon occurring repeatedly throughout history, so we're a bit beyond the correlation doesn't equal causation argument.

Its understandable that those who's moral standards have declined from those of earlier generations would bristle at having that pointed out. It's in our nature to want what we want and justify those desires in spite of the deleterious effects they might have on society. It often takes wisdom, some real introspection, and a good dose of selflessness to do whats best for society when satisfying our basest desires becomes acceptable and even celebrated.

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm sorry, I must be dense, because I'm still not quite understanding the point you're trying to make.

I simply pointed out that a decline in the moral character of a culture precipitates it's decline and eventual collapse. It's an observable recorded phenomenon occurring repeatedly throughout history, so we're a bit beyond the correlation doesn't equal causation argument.

Its understandable that those who's moral standards have declined from those of earlier generations would bristle at having that pointed out. It's in our nature to want what we want and justify those desires in spite of the deleterious effects they might have on society. It often takes wisdom, some real introspection, and a good dose of selflessness to do whats best for society when satisfying our basest desires becomes acceptable and even celebrated.

Again, who sets the moral standards to live by?

 

[buckwacker]

Again, who sets the moral standards to live by?

What say you?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Oct 24th 2019
Yea The Churchs did the right thing wifh these employees.
Maybe just maybe they should have notified local LE when the accusations came out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religi...y-accused-sex-abuse-are-unsupervised-n1062396

Did you even read the article you linked?

In two of the three examples they delve into, the accusations were reported to police, but the police decided not to press criminal charges. It was the Church that decided to take action against the accused, even when civil authorities thought the evidence wasn't strong enough.

This whole piece was a ridiculous, thoroughly biased attack on the Church. Consider this quote:

"...the daunting problem of how to monitor and track priests who often were never criminally charged and, in many cases, were removed from or left the church to live as private citizens."

So basically, the Church has employees or clergy who are accused, never convicted of any crime (even, in many cases, with the authorities being involved and being fully capable of pressing charges) but since the Church wants to set a higher standard, they still fire or laicize the accused person, just in case they might be guilty. How in the world is the Church supposed to now be responsible for the actions of that person? Do you want the Church to set up some sort of private police to run around and keep tabs on everyone? Or do you want the Church to have authority to place un-convicted persons on a sex offender registry based only on the Church's own internal investigation? Would you ever be part of an organization that had the authority to designate you as a sex offender with no trial, based only on their own internal decision making process?

Yeah, there were definitely still some cases where things that should have been reported to LE were instead covered up, but your article doesn't provide a shred of evidence that this is still a systemic problem. I'm not saying there's no more to be done, but the fact is that in most countries now the Catholic Church has policies in place that require anyone learning of potential abuse to report it immediately to civil authorities, or they can potentially be considered partly guilty as well, and face consequences.

 

[Creedmoor]

Did you even read the article you linked?

In two of the three examples they delve into, the accusations were reported to police, but the police decided not to press criminal charges. It was the Church that decided to take action against the accused, even when civil authorities thought the evidence wasn't strong enough.

This whole piece was a ridiculous, thoroughly biased attack on the Church. Consider this quote:

"...the daunting problem of how to monitor and track priests who often were never criminally charged and, in many cases, were removed from or left the church to live as private citizens."

So basically, the Church has employees or clergy who are accused, never convicted of any crime (even, in many cases, with the authorities being involved and being fully capable of pressing charges) but since the Church wants to set a higher standard, they still fire or laicize the accused person, just in case they might be guilty. How in the world is the Church supposed to now be responsible for the actions of that person? Do you want the Church to set up some sort of private police to run around and keep tabs on everyone? Or do you want the Church to have authority to place un-convicted persons on a sex offender registry based only on the Church's own internal investigation? Would you ever be part of an organization that had the authority to designate you as a sex offender with no trial, based only on their own internal decision making process?

Yeah, there were definitely still some cases where things that should have been reported to LE were instead covered up, but your article doesn't provide a shred of evidence that this is still a systemic problem. I'm not saying there's no more to be done, but the fact is that in most countries now the Catholic Church has policies in place that require anyone learning of potential abuse to report it immediately to civil authorities, or they can potentially be considered partly guilty as well, and face consequences.

There is lots to still be done.

 

[Creedmoor]

Again, who sets the moral standards to live by?

What say you?

Earlier you posted,

You can say what you want about the prudish standards of our grandparents generation, but if we'd hew a little closer to them, we wouldnt be suffering the social train wreck we're experiencing now.

If someones social behavior has no impact on my family or myself why should I care?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

There is lots to still be done.

Of course there is. But misrepresenting the situation doesn't help.

 

[Creedmoor]

Of course there is. But misrepresenting the situation doesn't help.

LOL. I dont own any rose colored glasses.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

LOL. I dont own any rose colored glasses.

I'm not saying the Church is perfect, but singling them out and trying to paint them as a haven for child predators because you have a chip on your shoulder against religious people isn't helping anybody.

 

[buckwacker]

Earlier you posted,

You can say what you want about the prudish standards of our grandparents generation, but if we'd hew a little closer to them, we wouldnt be suffering the social train wreck we're experiencing now.

If someones social behavior has no impact on my family or myself why should I care?

How do you know that they don't?

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm not saying the Church is perfect, but singling them out and trying to paint them as a haven for child predators because you have a chip on your shoulder against religious people isn't helping anybody.

Your embellishments have no bounds.
Chip, religious people, good will and all that. lol

I know this my friend, the one you just said has a religious people chip has done more for you than you will ever do for me.

I was taught never to hold someone religious or political beliefs against them.

 

[Creedmoor]

How do you know that they don't?

Why do you think they would?

 

[buckwacker]

Why do you think they would?

History.

 

[BugI02]

If someones social behavior has no impact on my family or myself why should I care?

Ask Martin Niemöller

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Your embellishments have no bounds.
Chip, religious people, good will and all that. lol

I know this my friend, the one you just said has a religious people chip has done more for you than you will ever do for me.

I was taught never to hold someone religious or political beliefs against them.

Well if you don't have anything against religious people, then what is motivating your verbal attacks against the Catholic Church? You seemed to insinuate that the Church is a particular perpetrator of sexual abuse against children, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, your response seems to be that presenting such evidence constitutes viewing the world through "rose colored glasses." What am I missing here?

And seeing as we have never met each other outside of the internet, what on earth does any of this have to do with what you think I would or would not ever do for you?

 

[Creedmoor]

Well if you don't have anything against religious people, then what is motivating your verbal attacks against the Catholic Church? You seemed to insinuate that the Church is a particular perpetrator of sexual abuse against children, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, your response seems to be that presenting such evidence constitutes viewing the world through "rose colored glasses." What am I missing here?

And seeing as we have never met each other outside of the internet, what on earth does any of this have to do with what you think I would or would not ever do for you?

Again, your embellishment is amazing my friend.
Good day.