Court finds RC Church liable for abuse of 8 altar boys

[stignasty]

Court finds RC Church liable for abuse of 8 altar boys

The late Rev. James Hickey was jailed for sex abuse committed in 1970s

Last Updated: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 | 11:56 AM NT

CBC News

After a decade-long court fight, the Roman Catholic Church in St. John's has been found liable for the sexual abuse of eight altar boys by the late Rev. James Hickey in the late 1970s.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...rch-liable.html

[Chris in KW]

Court finds RC Church liable for abuse of 8 altar boys

The late Rev. James Hickey was jailed for sex abuse committed in 1970s

Last Updated: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 | 11:56 AM NT

CBC News

After a decade-long court fight, the Roman Catholic Church in St. John's has been found liable for the sexual abuse of eight altar boys by the late Rev. James Hickey in the late 1970s.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...rch-liable.html

Hm... This is interesting. Now, in my opinion, the actual crime of the church is that they covered up the original crimes. So we're not saying that the RC church (as an organization) is guilty of the actual offense, but I guess the argument is that they were aware and didn't stop it? The article doesn't really go into that.

Hypothetical question - if a different organization (eg, organizers of minor-league hockey) had covered up crimes of this nature, would our court system be penalizing the organization the same way?

Do we abhor the Catholic church's sins more because of our belief that as a religious organization they should be better?

[Riverwind]

Do we abhor the Catholic church's sins more because of our belief that as a religious organization they should be better?

None of above. The Catholic Church on the hook beccause it has money, assets and parisioners that can be blackmailed into coughing up cash to save their place of worship. A minor-league hockey association would have none of those so nobody cares whether they are vicariously liable.

Perhaps one of the most odious aspect of our system today is the tendency to use tenuous links to slap financial obligations on entities that have money for no reason other than the fact that they have money.

[guyser]

Perhaps one of the most odious aspect of our system today is the tendency to use tenuous links to slap financial obligations on entities that have money for no reason other than the fact that they have money.

I am not so sure about your "tenuous "links aspect. The courts in effect ensure that the hurt are compensated.

And in this day and age, vicarious liability is one reason why cross insurance is pretty much mandatory.

[ToadBrother]

Hm... This is interesting. Now, in my opinion, the actual crime of the church is that they covered up the original crimes. So we're not saying that the RC church (as an organization) is guilty of the actual offense, but I guess the argument is that they were aware and didn't stop it? The article doesn't really go into that.

Hypothetical question - if a different organization (eg, organizers of minor-league hockey) had covered up crimes of this nature, would our court system be penalizing the organization the same way?

I would think so. If any organization attempts to hide a crime, they could very much be held criminally liable. When you find out someone, even a member of your group, is abusing children, you're first action, legally, must be to contact the authorities.

Do we abhor the Catholic church's sins more because of our belief that as a religious organization they should be better?

I don't really see what that has to do with anything.

[Riverwind]

The courts in effect ensure that the hurt are compensated.

And that is a big problem because the definition of vicarious liability is extended beyond all reasonable bounds because the court thinks that the hurt should be compensated. The fact that the people/organizations with the money had nothing to do with the crime is irrelevant.

It is a rediculous standard that simply increases insurance rates and costs for everyone. If we really think that victims of crime deserve compensation then we should give some compensation to all victims. A system that only rewards those victims that can make a plausible link to a deep pocketed/well insured bystander is arbitrary and unfair.

If you want a concrete example: there was this case where someone was sued because they hosted a party where someone left drunk and caused injury. They were sued successly in lower courts and it took the SCC to over turn this travesty of justice. The fact that case even went to court in the first place is a symptom of the problem.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

OKAY I can see if some homo-errotic pediphile priest acts out because he can not control his destructive dominating animal urges - I could see a few..but a thousand? And a ten thousand abuse cases that will never see the light of day ---- This must be some sort of occultish practice that is quietly and secretly condoned by the RC high archy...It is a type of vampirism -a priest might just believe if he takes the life from a boy and that boys future and power - that somehow he may absorb the power of the innocent - Take the Italian Mafia - the right of passage for a Capo consists of killing not the toughest man in the village - but the most innocent - This goes back to the cruxifiction of Christ - where an innocent man is executed - and they steal his power - which they did and it is the church that does opposite to what Christ commanded......to hell with them!

[WIP]

None of above. The Catholic Church on the hook beccause it has money, assets and parisioners that can be blackmailed into coughing up cash to save their place of worship. A minor-league hockey association would have none of those so nobody cares whether they are vicariously liable.

Oh really! Do you know of any minor league hockey associations that knew about pedophile coaches and deliberately interfered with attempts to prosecute them by: moving coaches out of province, or even out of country when the RCMP were brought into the case....or threatened metaphysical religious retribution if the complainants alerted police or outside authorities before the hockey association had concluded their own investigation.....or told the victim that they had sinned and were responsible for the actions of the pedophile hockey coach? Get the picture?

[guyser]

And that is a big problem because the definition of vicarious liability is extended beyond all reasonable bounds because the court thinks that the hurt should be compensated. The fact that the people/organizations with the money had nothing to do with the crime is irrelevant.

I dont agree. The people /organizations with the money are the 'owners' of that Diocese and benefit from the monies raised. The connection is there, so will be the liability.

If it were to be denied, then the church (local) could simply bankrupt itself and the insured party would be denied justice.

Coke doesnt sell to you or me, they licence local distributors/makers for the product. If that maker does not have money or whatever to satisfy the claim against them,then Coke is on the hook. My inclination is that this is no different.

It is a rediculous standard that simply increases insurance rates and costs for everyone. If we really think that victims of crime deserve compensation then we should give some compensation to all victims. A system that only rewards those victims that can make a plausible link to a deep pocketed/well insured bystander is arbitrary and unfair.

As to the compensation remark above, we in fact do pay into a compensation plan for victims, it is a surcharge on all tickets (at least in this province).....but sadly that money is hoarded and not paid out.

If you want a concrete example: there was this case where someone was sued because they hosted a party where someone left drunk and caused injury. They were sued successly in lower courts and it took the SCC to over turn this travesty of justice. The fact that case even went to court in the first place is a symptom of the problem.

That si not a sympton of the problem.

The courts recognized that we all (party holders) have a duty to our guests not to let them get drunk and drive. The ability to uphold that is fraught with many concerns, did the person stop elsewhere for a drink?...did the person consume booze before he came the the party?....did the lag for the intoxicants to show up occur after the person left the party?...plenty of mitigating factors.

I will bet in the case you mention, the SCC overturned it based on the inability to prove that the server (household resident) could have met the threshold test for liability for serving drinks to intoxicated people.

[eyeball]

Do we abhor the Catholic church's sins more because of our belief that as a religious organization they should be better?

To be perfectly honest, I think diddling with people's minds is just as damaging as diddling with anything else priests and other superstitous quacks might diddle with.

I encouraged my kids to be as careful about using skepticism as they did condoms and I would no more leave a Ouji board lying around the house than a bible.

I think the RCC should be nailed to a cross for pedophilia. As Oleg mentions, the disproportionate number of cases involving priests suggests there might be something about their religion or organization that contributed to their abuse and abusiveness. I lean strongly towards the absence of skepticism myself.

[WIP]

To be perfectly honest, I think diddling with people's minds is just as damaging as diddling with anything else priests and other superstitous quacks might diddle with.

The Church's criminal negligence by suppressing this issue for decades and causing untold damage to young children is bad, but if we are using effects and consequences as the guide to judge harmful dogma, the pedophile priest issue is a small one considering the small number of people involved. On the other hand I think the most damaging thing the Vatican has done in the last 30 years is to use their Church's influence to shut down efforts to control population growth -- all environmental policies are only delaying the inevitable if population growth continues.

http://www.population-security.org/14-CH6.html

[eyeball]

The Church's criminal negligence by suppressing this issue for decades and causing untold damage to young children is bad, but if we are using effects and consequences as the guide to judge harmful dogma, the pedophile priest issue is a small one considering the small number of people involved. On the other hand I think the most damaging thing the Vatican has done in the last 30 years is to use their Church's influence to shut down efforts to control population growth -- all environmental policies are only delaying the inevitable if population growth continues.

http://www.population-security.org/14-CH6.html

I think the stupifying effects of superstition in general are definitely implicated in our disturbance of our planet's natural systems. The Catholic Church has certainly done it's part by deeply unculturating our society to place great faith in authority in general starting with itself and by extension any government or institution that its blessed. The worst consequence of this is how the capacity to suspend disbelief has been systematized to the extent that it has, especially in the infallibility of things like Church or government policies.

Vast numbers of people quite literally believe as if the hereafter is more real and important to their lives than the here and now. This capacity for dualism is reflected in our economy which appears to treat the environment as if it to were somehow separate from it, economists even go so far as refering to the environment as an externality. The consequence has been to act as is we can take just as much out and spew as much waste back as we like. We have an economic system that takes it as a matter of faith that it can do so while growing forever and ever and ever, like it was in Heaven. I suspect many who might be alarmed about birth control undermining morality would be just as alarmed about it undermining economic growth, either way it would still be a sin.

[Riverwind]

I dont agree. The people /organizations with the money are the 'owners' of that Diocese and benefit from the monies raised. The connection is there, so will be the liability.

The only connection that the church has to the crime is it employed the criminal. The only reason the church is getting sued is because lawyers know that the church has money and/or assets. If the church had no money/assets there would be no lawsuit and no finding of 'vicarious liability'.

At the end of the day this is all about money - not justice no matter what philosphical or logical contortions the lawyers and judges choose to use.

The courts recognized that we all (party holders) have a duty to our guests not to let them get drunk and drive.

I realize that some people in our society have convinced themselves that no one is responsible for themselves anymore and that an automatic 'duty of care' falls on anyone who happens to have the money to pay the lawyers. However, that does not make it right.

Personally, I think people should not be held liable for the chioces others unless there are circumstances that mean the person was an active participate in the intent to commit a crime. This 'your are liable because you did not stop someone else from making bad choices' school of thought is a sign of a society that has lost all sense of personal responsibility.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

I think the stupifying effects of superstition in general are definitely implicated in our disturbance of our planet's natural systems. The Catholic Church has certainly done it's part by deeply unculturating our society to place great faith in authority in general starting with itself and by extension any government or institution that its blessed.

That is the key troubling feature of having people motivated by faith, rather than reason, in deciding the merits of public policy issues. Authoritarian power structures, whether government or church, love faith-based thinking because people are trained right from childhood not to question or raise objections, but instead to accept the word of the authority figure who is acting on God's behalf......and when church authority figures confer God's blessings on political leaders, most of the flock follows along with the ridiculous notion that the politician is trying to carry out God's will -- what other explanation is there for George Bush leaving office with a 27% job approval rating! 27%!!!!!! Brian Mulroney was in single digits because of the GST and economic stagnation, and here's the biggest clusterf#### of all time who ever sat behind the desk in the Oval Office, and he still has over one quarter of eligible U.S. voters willing to do it all over again!

The difference between Bush and Mulroney was that Brian didn't have prayer breakfast's every 2nd Sunday with lots of video of televangelists asking God to bless every stupid policy he came up with. And besides the members of the Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard fan clubs, mainstream churches like the RC's, have been very vocal in U.S. politics (not so visible in Canada) about making "life" issues to decide which candidate to support; so U.S. Catholics who believe all this will support the leader who bans funding for embryonic stem cell research, even if he is lazy and dangerously incompetent.

Before I get too far offtrack about the political use of religious authority, it should be mentioned that these cases of child abuse by religious authorities (it happens outside the Catholic Church too) are the tip of the iceberg -- and we unfortunately have good reason to believe this because the few cases of Catholic priests and other ministers being prosecuted by state authorities for preying upon children and teenagers, is that these predators have been shown to have deliberately targeted children who come from the most devout families and have the most trust in adult authority figures. Many victims have testified that by the time they did start questioning and refusing to cooperate, the priests, realizing that the first strategy wasn't working, would switch to blackmailing the victim by reminding him or her that their parents were very devoted to the church, and how upset they would be if they learned about the scandal.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, they deserve extra condemnation for sexual abuse crimes because the governing church authorities are complicit in suppressing legal action of the victims and victim's families, and moving offending priests out of province, and even out of country, to continue preying upon new victims.

[eyeball]

Personally, I think people should not be held liable for the chioces others unless there are circumstances that mean the person was an active participate in the intent to commit a crime. This 'your are liable because you did not stop someone else from making bad choices' school of thought is a sign of a society that has lost all sense of personal responsibility.

The fact our society has chosen to look so far the other way for so long about this issue only indicates it's allowed itself to be led astray. That's definitely our fault.

[Riverwind]

The fact our society has chosen to look so far the other way for so long about this issue only indicates it's allowed itself to be led astray. That's definitely our fault.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Victims of crimes deserve sympathy and support, however, that support should not include imposing financial burdens of people and/or organizations that did not commit any crime. If there is really evidence that the church was a willing accomplice to the crime then the people running the church should be charged accordingly. Using the lower standard of civil cases to extort money out of innocent bystanders is obscene. Edited February 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[scorpio]

If there is really evidence that the church was a willing accomplice to the crime then the people running the church should be charged accordingly. Using the lower standard of civil cases to extort money out of innocent bystanders is obscene.

In the case of my wife vs. the Church, the Bishop (now deceased) said that money was the only way they could compensate her for the abuse she suffered for most of her childood. The offending priest was near death and they felt civil was a better way to go. No charges were laid. The Bishop died soon afterward and everything was settled by mediation judge. Judgement sealed of course. But it's on record that the Bishop knew full well he had pedophile priests in the clergy, and shuffled them throughout the diocese.

[Riverwind]

But it's on record that the Bishop knew full well he had pedophile priests in the clergy, and shuffled them throughout the diocese.

Again - that is his responsibility - not the church's or the pararishoners that have to foot the bill. In this case, the charge would be something similar to 'accessory after the fact'.

I also suspect the that the Bishop's claim that "money was the only way they could compensate" was based on the presumption that he and/or his estate would not need to come up the cash. It is easy to be generous when you can use someone else's money to assauge guilt for wrongs that you have personally committed.

Bottom line. A cash settlement paid for by the church should have never been an option in the first place because the church (i.e. the people who support the church today) is not responsible for the crime. The priest the committed the act and the bishop that facilitated his crimes are the only guilty parties and the only ones who should be held financially liable for the consequences of the crimes.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Melanie_]

Again - that is his responsibility - not the church's or the pararishoners that have to foot the bill. In this case, the charge would be something similar to 'accessory after the fact'.

I also suspect the that the Bishop's claim that "money was the only way they could compensate" was based on the presumption that he and/or his estate would not need to come up the cash. It is easy to be generous when you can use someone else's money to assauge guilt for wrongs that you have personally committed.

Bottom line. A cash settlement paid for by the church should have never been an option in the first place because the church (i.e. the people who support the church today) is not responsible for the crime. The priest the committed the act and the bishop that facilitated his crimes are the only guilty parties and the only ones who should be held financially liable for the consequences of the crimes.

Can a priest bear personal financial responsibility for anything? Don't they give up all their worldly possessions, including all money, when they join the priesthood? The way I understand it (and I could be wrong about this, I'm not a Catholic), is the church takes financial responsibility for someone when they join the priesthood. The priest has no money to compensate his victims with, so he gets it from the church.

[tango]

Again - that is his responsibility - not the church's or the pararishoners that have to foot the bill. In this case, the charge would be something similar to 'accessory after the fact'.

I also suspect the that the Bishop's claim that "money was the only way they could compensate" was based on the presumption that he and/or his estate would not need to come up the cash. It is easy to be generous when you can use someone else's money to assauge guilt for wrongs that you have personally committed.

Bottom line. A cash settlement paid for by the church should have never been an option in the first place because the church (i.e. the people who support the church today) is not responsible for the crime. The priest the committed the act and the bishop that facilitated his crimes are the only guilty parties and the only ones who should be held financially liable for the consequences of the crimes.

Riverwind, while I understand a desire to defend one's church, you then become complicit in minimizing and covering up the crimes against children, and you allow the institution to continue to be complicit in institutional sex crimes against children that are rampant throughout the church. It is the people of the Catholic church who need to be alert and accountable, need to be willing to speak out, not cover up for these ongoing crimes against children, because the church institution has shown itself incapable and continually complicit in silence. The recent public statements of the Pope to me just reinforced the complicity of the church since the Pope was sorry for "the scandal" to the church, not the damage to the children, and he didn't know the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. How can you say you are ridding the church of 'them' when you don't even know what 'they' are?

Some other thoughts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholi...Catholic_Orders

IF the priests committed sexual crimes against children using their position of authority in the church as leverage to extort silence, as they did/do, then the church is liable for lack of oversight.

IF the church failed to appropriately address reports of sexual crimes against children, instead covering up the crimes as they did/do, then the church is liable for complicity in the crimes.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who had served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[3][4] ... The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about allegations and reassigned the accused instead of removing them,

While the church in the United States claims to have addressed the issue, others maintain the only change is the church has hardened its defences while allowing abuse to continue. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops convened a meeting in Dallas on June 12, 2002 to address the sex abuse scandal. However a Dallas Morning News article revealed nearly two-thirds of the bishops attending had themselves at one point covered for sexually abusive priests.[9

# 3 Church actions

* 3.1 Abusers moved to different locations

* 3.2 Failure to report criminal acts to police

* 3.3 Allegations of systematic plots to conceal evidence

* 3.4 Payments to victims

IF the crimes are widespread, occurring everywhere the church exists, then it's an institutional problem not an individual one, and the church is liable.

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* 1 Australia

o 1.1 Archdiocese of Sydney

o 1.2 Archdiocese of Melbourne

o 1.3 Archdiocese of Brisbane

o 1.4 Archdiocese of Perth

o 1.5 Archdiocese of Townsville

o 1.6 Archdiocese of Ballarat

o 1.7 Archdiocese of Bunbury

o 1.8 Archdiocese of Wagga Wagga

o 1.9 Marist Fathers of Tasmania

* 2 Austria

o 2.1 Archdiocese of Vienna

* 3 Belgium

o 3.1 Diocese of Antwerp

o 3.2 Diocese of Bruges

o 3.3 Diocese of Liège

o 3.4 Diocese of Namur

* 4 Brazil

o 4.1 Diocese of Anápolis

* 5 Britain

o 5.1 Diocese of Arundel and Brighton

o 5.2 Buckfast Abbey School

* 6 Canada

o 6.1 Archdiocese of St. John's

* 7 Croatia

o 7.1 Archdiocese of Zagreb

o 7.2 Archdiocese of Rijeka

* 8 Czech Republic

o 8.1 Archdiocese of Olomouc

* 9 France

o 9.1 Archdiocese of Paris

o 9.2 Archdiocese of Besançon

* 10 Germany

o 10.1 Archdiocese of Regensburg

* 11 Ireland

o 11.1 Archdiocese of Dublin

o 11.2 Diocese of Ferns

o 11.3 Archdiocese of Tuam

* 12 Italy

o 12.1 Diocese of Brixen

o 12.2 Diocese of Verona

* 13 Mexico

o 13.1 Archdiocese of Mexico City

* 14 The Netherlands

o 14.1 Diocese of Den Bosch

o 14.2 Diocese of Roermond

o 14.3 Diocese of Rotterdam

* 15 New Zealand

* 16 Peru

* 17 Philippines

* 18 Poland

o 18.1 Archdiocese of Poznan

o 18.2 Diocese of Plock

* 19 Slovenia

o 19.1 Archdiocese of Ljubljana

* 20 United States

o 20.1 Archdiocese of Anchorage

+ 20.1.1 Diocese of Fairbanks

o 20.2 Archdiocese of Boston

o 20.3 Archdiocese of Chicago

o 20.4 Diocese of Davenport

o 20.5 Diocese of Honolulu

o 20.6 Archdiocese of Los Angeles

o 20.7 Archdiocese of Miami

o 20.8 Diocese of Orange

o 20.9 Diocese of Phoenix

o 20.10 Archdiocese of Portland

o 20.11 Archdiocese of San Antonio

o 20.12 Diocese of San Diego

o 20.13 Diocese of Spokane

o 20.14 Diocese of Tucson

I suggest that those who would defend the Catholic Church need to research the facts first. The Pope obviously has no serious thought, other than regretting the "scandal" is has caused the church itself. Sorry ... not impressed ... just not good enough ... not sincere ... just more cover up.

What the Pope is saying is we need to do a better job of covering up.

It is entirely an institutional problem, imo.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, while I understand a desire to defend one's church...

I don't belong to any church. Never have - never will. It is rather silly to assume that I take this view out of self-interest.

This is an issue of fairness that can best summarized as "two wrongs don't make right". What happened to these children was wrong and the response of Church officials was appalling. However, one does not correct a "wrong" by imposing financial burdens on people who had nothing to do with the crime.

In this case, the burdens are being placed on congregations who have invested time and energy into the maintainance of the places of worship that could be confiscated to pay off the victims lawyers. This amounts to theft in my view. More importantly, this perversion of justice has been extended into many other realms such as the example where a host of a party who had to spend years defending themselves because somebody left their house drunk.

If you want to make sure that organzations are accountable the you pass laws that would allow individuals to be charged as acccesories to a crime if the cover things up. Just like executives are now personally liable if they sign off on frauduant books. A system which relies on civil suits with payments to inviduals will simply encourage gold digging on the part of victims and their lawyers.

It is time to step back and recognize that these kinds of settlements are really about paying off lawyers and have nothing to do with the victims. If it was really about the victims then there would be more effort to ensure the money is distributed to people who were unfortnate enough to be victims of crimes where no deep pocketed bystander is conveniently available.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Can a priest bear personal financial responsibility for anything?.

Should the church be liable if a priest kills someone while driving drunk? I don't think so and don't see the issue of covering up child abuse to be any different. Both are crimes that deserve punishment but both are not the fault of the church.

[tango]

I don't belong to any church. Never have - never will. It is rather silly to assume that I take this view out of self-interest.

This is an issue of fairness that can best summarized as "two wrongs don't make right". What happened to these children was wrong and the response of Church officials was appalling. However, one does not correct a "wrong" by imposing financial burdens on people who had nothing to do with the crime.

In this case, the burdens are being placed on congregations who have invested time and energy into the maintainance of the places of worship that could be confiscated to pay off the victims lawyers. This amounts to theft in my view. More importantly, this perversion of justice has been extended into many other realms such as the example where a host of a party who had to spend years defending themselves because somebody left their house drunk.

If you want to make sure that organzations are accountable the you pass laws that would allow individuals to be charged as acccesories to a crime if the cover things up. Just like executives are now personally liable if they sign off on frauduant books. A system which relies on civil suits with payments to inviduals will simply encourage gold digging on the part of victims and their lawyers.

It is time to step back and recognize that these kinds of settlements are really about paying off lawyers and have nothing to do with the victims. If it was really about the victims then there would be more effort to ensure the money is distributed to people who were unfortnate enough to be victims of crimes where no deep pocketed bystander is conveniently available.

Admittedly it would be cheaper for the churches if they didn't have to pay the cost of their crimes. So what? You do the crime, you do the time. You don't want to pay lawyers?

Don't fight the charges. Simple.

Personally, I think it's time the churches went bankrupt, so I haven't much sympathy for today's poor parishioners who are 'paying the cost of something they didn't do' ... and turned a blind eye to in the history and practice of their church, apparently.

So what?

The issue is corruption of and by the organizations themselves.

[Riverwind]

Admittedly it would be cheaper for the churches if they didn't have to pay the cost of their crimes.

The "churches" did not commit any crimes. Individuals working for the churches did. There is a huge difference.

Personally, I think it's time the churches went bankrupt, so I haven't much sympathy for today's poor parishioners who are 'paying the cost of something they didn't do' ... and turned a blind eye to in the history and practice of their church, apparently.

Pathetic. A perfect example of the ethical bankruptcy that drives these kinds of claims. It has nothing to do with justice or fairness for you - it is all about eliminating a social institution that you dislike.

In fact, based on your comments I assume that you are a strong supporter of Isreal's 'collective punishment' tactics where an entire community is punished for the actions of a few? If not why not? After all you have just said that all church members deserved to be punished because they 'looked the other way'. To be consistent you must agree that all palastinians deserve to be punished because they 'looked the other way' while Hamas commits crimes.

If you actually take the time to look beyond your own hatreds and prejudices you would actually realize my point and understand that punishing innocent people for the crimes of a a few is an affront to justice.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The "churches" did not commit any crimes. Individuals working for the churches did. There is a huge difference.

There is no difference whatsoever. Canada was held liable for the abuse of native kids in residential schools that individuals and institutions, like various churches, working for the government perpetrated.

The church like Canada, were accessories to the henious crimes perpetrated against the 8 boys in question. The facts are indisputable. If I were a Catholic I'd be just as ashamed of my church as I am my country and at least I'd have the luxury of renouncing my church and disassociating myself from it completely. I'd like nothing better than to renounce my citizenship and dissasociate myself with my government but I can't, so I have to bear my shame the best I can.

Lately though I've actually been given some hope that I might be able to put some distance between myself and our government. Native people where I live are becoming ever more assertive, to the point now of stating that any economic activity that goes on in their territories will be subject to their granting permission and our paying taxes and royalties to them directly. I look forward to the day when the local Hawiih becomes the dominant governing influence in my life.