Court finds RC Church liable for abuse of 8 altar boys

[Oleg Bach]

The problem is sexual union with the opposite sex - when done in grace and honour plus love creates a powerful mini-kingdom - Normal and less oppressive and controling Christian sects encourage priests to marry - because they encourage power in others - Catholics steal power thinking that the denying of it is power. Jesus the Christ - had siblings - his mother had sex - and for all accounts he as a demi-god - experienced everything that all other men experenced - woman! When you deny a Catholic power - he will naturally attempt to steal it in the most occultish sinsister fashion - from children!

[Riverwind]

There is no difference whatsoever.

A nonsense position because it presumes that individuals have no responsibility for there own acts. These kinds of crimes are committed by individuals which means a only individuals can be held responsible.

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.

Again. The abuse was perpertrated by individuals and the government of Canada has no moral or ethical responsibility for that abuse. The government responsibility is limited to things which were under its control - i.e. inadequate funding.

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.

Well, that is your problem. Personally, I find the people who insist that I should feel guilty for crimes that I did not commit because of my membership in a group are as vile as people who say I will burn in hell because I choose not to join a particular group.

In fact, your kind of 'if one person is guilty the entire group is guilty' thinking is the root cause of the many ethnic and religious conflicts that infest this world. If you really care about things like justice and peace then I suggest that you step back and reflect on how your own views are part of the problem.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

If one is guilty - the entire lot is not guilty nor should they be convicted and condemned. But if there are a thousand such sins and it is systemically hidden - then the lot is guilty.

[eyeball]

Again. The abuse was perpertrated by individuals and the government of Canada has no moral or ethical responsibility for that abuse. The government responsibility is limited to things which were under its control - i.e. inadequate funding.

Canada apologizes to the Nuu-chah-nulth people for its role in planning, designing, building and administering the system of Indian Residential Schools and accepts that the existence of the schools was profoundly disrespectful of Aboriginal people.

Canada apologizes for all the suffering of Nuu-Chah-Nulth children who were victims in these institutions of emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

Source

Why? Because our government was guilty of aiding and abbetting sexual abuse amongst other things, and has the moral and ethical responsibility to own up to that. Again, so does the Catholic Church.

[Riverwind]

Why? Because our government was guilty of aiding and abbetting sexual abuse amongst other things, and has the moral and ethical responsibility to own up to that. Again, so does the Catholic Church.

I can give quotes from different people insisting that certain people have a moral and ethical duty to kill infidels but that does not mean it true or just. IN the same way, the fact that certain elements within our society have given into the nonsense that the government is responsible for the crimes of individuals does not make it true nor just.

As I said before. The entire concept of 'vicarious liability' is as symptom of deeper sickness in our society that will simply increase the number of people claiming victimhood because claiming to be "victim" can be quite lucractive.

[scorpio]

A nonsense position because it presumes that individuals have no responsibility for there own acts. These kinds of crimes are committed by individuals which means a only individuals can be held responsible.

Read this: ...the Vatican issued a secret document, "Crimen Sollicitatiois" (In English: "The Crime of Solicitation") during 1962. 1

"It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with 'any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex'."

"It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation, and any witnesses." 2

According to the Evening Standard, a UK newspaper:

"The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated."

"The [bBC] Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican... accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off [i.e. fired] or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims." 3 source

Still think the Church wasn't morally responsible??

Edited February 15, 2009 by scorpio

[scorpio]

The entire concept of 'vicarious liability' is as symptom of deeper sickness in our society that will simply increase the number of people claiming victimhood because claiming to be "victim" can be quite lucractive.

That statement is an utter insult to the thousands of victims who seek justice against the Catholic Church. Try and lay a claim against the church. Our Bishop obstructed justice 94 times before they eventually settled. This was after the Priest had confessed in Discovery.

[Riverwind]

"The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated."

There are how many people in the Catholic Church? 1 billion? How many old men made those decisions? Probably not much more than 100 or so. These men abused their power and deserve to be punished for their abuse of their power. But that does not mean the Catholic Church, as respresented by the billion or so believers, deserve to be punished for the crimes of a few.

[Riverwind]

That statement is an utter insult to the thousands of victims who seek justice against the Catholic Church. Try and lay a claim against the church. Our Bishop obstructed justice 94 times before they eventually settled. This was after the Priest had confessed in Discovery.

There are laws against "obstruction of justice" which should have been used to punish the Bishop for his actions. Cash compensation nothing but a cop out designed to allow the truely guilty to evade responsibility by bribing the victims and their lawyers.

In the 1960s the Catholic Church used the threat of ex-communication to protect the guilty. Now they use cash bribes. I don't see why one is better than the other.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[scorpio]

There are how many people in the Catholic Church? 1 billion? How many old men made those decisions? Probably not much more than 100 or so. These men abused their power and deserve to be punished for their abuse of their power. But that does not mean the Catholic Church, as respresented by the billion or so believers, deserve to be punished for the crimes of a few.

This bit I quoted above concerned every Priest, Bishop and Cardinal in the Church for decades. Add it up. It was an official directive from the church. I know that the church is more than it's administrators. But you cannot deny that the "officials" were all involved in criminal conspiracy either by remaining with the church or refusing to challenge this order. And many parishioners still put their 10 bucks in the plate when they knew all about their abusive priests. That is probably the larger crime.

Edited February 15, 2009 by scorpio

[scorpio]

There are laws against "obstruction of justice" which should have been used to punish the Bishop for his actions.

In order to settle, we were gagged from mentioning this. That's how the system works. Even the mediating judge didn't know that until we cornered her during a break and told her about it. She was appalled but could not violate the previous agreement we had already made with the lawyers. And this shit happens all the time within the courts of justice.

[eyeball]

There are how many people in the Catholic Church? 1 billion? How many old men made those decisions? Probably not much more than 100 or so. These men abused their power and deserve to be punished for their abuse of their power. But that does not mean the Catholic Church, as respresented by the billion or so believers, deserve to be punished for the crimes of a few.

The difference between the Church and Canada of course is that Canada is a democracy and as such Canadians are responsible for the actions of their governments. The Catholic Church on the other hand is anything but a democracy so Catholics cannot be held personally liable for the actions of their Church.

Ironically, Catholics are free to renounce their church and be completely free of it but Canadians can't renounce their government. That being the case, perhaps Canadians really aren't responsible for what the government does. So why do we have to pay for its crimes again?

[Riverwind]

But you cannot deny that the "officials" were all involved in criminal conspiracy either by remaining with the church or refusing to challenge this order.

And thanks to wonders of civil litigation and liability insurance none of the people responsible for the crimes will ever be held responsible. Ironically, millions more who had nothing to do with the crime will be forced to pick up the tab in various ways.

And many parishioners still put their 10 bucks in the plate when they knew all about their abusive priests. That is probably the the larger crime.

Of course. Unsubstantiated innuendo designed to rationalize your position. The majority of catholic probably knew nothing about what was going on and those that did had no way to know if it had any basis in fact. The true criminals are the people like the bishop who had the power and the knowledge to do something but did nothing.

[Riverwind]

In order to settle, we were gagged from mentioning this. That's how the system works.

Sounds like we agree on something. The system is broken and the bishop should have had to answer for his role.

[Riverwind]

Canadians can't renounce their government.

Conrad Black did. You can too. The only detail is you will have to find somewhere else to live just like catholics who renounce their church can't keep showing up at the church for sunday mass.

[Oleg Bach]

Conrad Black did. You can too. The only detail is you will have to find somewhere else to live just like catholics who renounce their church can't keep showing up at the church for sunday mass.

There is not need of a public renouncement of the church..that may lead to persecution if you live in a Catholic nation or general parish. To renounce the church publically would be like renoucing the corrupt courts pubically or with in their juridiction - say in the court room - To hold any authority in contempt and bring about the weight of public scrutiny is unwise - renounce in private and no on has to know - simple boycott would do...just say you have the flu ---- perminently :lol:Show All

[eyeball]

Conrad Black did. You can too. The only detail is you will have to find somewhere else to live just like catholics who renounce their church can't keep showing up at the church for sunday mass.

Conrad Black chose to become a citizen of another country which is not something I'd just automatically do. If the church can be equated to a country then forcing anyone to submit to sovereignty against their will is tantamount to forcing people to submit to religion against their will.

Human beings have a natural right to exist on the planet that long precedes anything a religion or country can claim. That said if either would be so kind as to provide me with a starship I'll gladly be on my way and they can have the place to themselves.

[tango]

And thanks to wonders of civil litigation and liability insurance none of the people responsible for the crimes will ever be held responsible.

Yes they have, according to the article in the op:

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 in the late 1970s by Rev. James Hickey, now deceased.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court's trial division made the ruling against the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John's on Monday.

Ironically, millions more who had nothing to do with the crime will be forced to pick up the tab in various ways.

They are not "forced".

They have a choice.

It's called freedom of religion.

---

I just came across this, not related to this particular case but ... relevant ... speaking of free choice of Catholics ... it appears that some are speaking out ...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/irelan...3867938494.html

WHEN THE Vatican state participates in the international system, “religious freedom is endangered, women’s lives are placed at risk and public health efforts are hampered,’’ Jon O’Brien, president of the liberal Catholics for a Free Choice group, has said.

...

The Vatican was the only non-member state to hold permanent observer status at the UN, he said. This allowed it “to have some state privileges . . . such as being able to speak and vote at UN conferences. No other religious body is granted this elevated status”.

He added that it was represented at these meetings by the hierarchy “whose views are in no way reflective of the views of the one billion-plus Catholics the world over. And when others object to the hierarchy’s policies, the Vatican’s representatives denounce such objections as anti-Catholic or anti-religious”.

He said the Vatican’s claims to statehood can change depending on the circumstances and recently it “claimed statehood to ask for diplomatic immunity from sex abuse cases in the US while denying statehood to refuse co-operation with the International Criminal Court”.

Edited February 16, 2009 by tango

[Oleg Bach]

The Universal Church was supposed to have been built on the doctrines of Christ not on the failings of Saint Peter the non-commital coward who betrayed his teacher. Christ mentioned the death penalty once - regarding the theft of young souls through rape. "If anyone harms these little ones (pointing to the children), they will wish they were never born and will have millstones tied to their necks and tossed into the sea" - I would say those are harsh words...and clearly the death penalty for those that steal the future of male children..who after molestation will never be able to relate to a woman full nor will they ever have a strong and successful family...maybe that is the reason that molestation is approved of? Without the poor and the weak - there is no purpose for the Catholic Church.

[eyeball]

He said the Vatican’s claims to statehood can change depending on the circumstances and recently it “claimed statehood to ask for diplomatic immunity from sex abuse cases in the US while denying statehood to refuse co-operation with the International Criminal Court”.

Its a wonder God hasn't levelled the place with an asteroid, but I guess that would be too obvious. That said I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to deflect any incoming - nope, let God's will be done.

Who knows though perhaps God is a pedophile. I recall seeing various religious paintings of naked kids and adults all tangled up together in bedsheets. What's that all about anyway do they depict some sort of heavenly Neverland Ranch?

[Oleg Bach]

Its a wonder God hasn't levelled the place with an asteroid, but I guess that would be too obvious. That said I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to deflect any incoming - nope, let God's will be done.

Who knows though perhaps God is a pedophile. I recall seeing various religious paintings of naked kids and adults all tangled up together in bedsheets. What's that all about anyway do they depict some sort of heavenly Neverland Ranch?

That is extremely well written and very very funny --- ever considered running for Pope? This supified and spoiled institution is like a corrupt law firm...As I and my kids were watching the former Pope - John speak and druel on the Bible...as if he was drugged for doing the right thing --- we could not help but notice a group of sten men (high priests) standing behind me....truth from the mouths of babes....one of the kids said ==== who is that dad - those guys? Are they lawyers?

These twits that run the Vatican have forgotten how to use language and what words mean ----Pope = papa which literally means PROTECTOR.....of the flock including children - so where are the child protection people when we need them? And as far as diplomatic immunity...a building that sits on a pile of bones of the man who said ==== "Jesus - what Jesus? - I don't know the guy" Is not an institution that got of to a good start not to mention dealing in good faith - cash in a few golden goblets and pay the offended for God's sake... You cheap little men!

[Oleg Bach]

That is extremely well written and very very funny --- ever considered running for Pope? This supified and spoiled institution is like a corrupt law firm...As I and my kids were watching the former Pope - John speak and druel on the Bible...as if he was drugged for doing the right thing --- we could not help but notice a group of sten men (high priests) standing behind me....truth from the mouths of babes....one of the kids said ==== who is that dad - those guys? Are they lawyers?

These twits that run the Vatican have forgotten how to use language and what words mean ----Pope = papa which literally means PROTECTOR.....of the flock including children - so where are the child protection people when we need them? And as far as diplomatic immunity...a building that sits on a pile of bones of the man who said ==== "Jesus - what Jesus? - I don't know the guy" Is not an institution that got of to a good start not to mention dealing in good faith - cash in a few golden goblets and pay the offended for God's sake... You cheap little men!

Correction - standing behind HIM - better read my own posts..

[guyser]

The only connection that the church has to the crime is it employed the criminal.

I would not agree. As can be seen in this thread , directives from the Vatican on how/what to do in cases like this proves otherwise. The messages coming from on high did not materialize out of nowhere.There was an issue , a serious one at that, and the Vatican decided to bury it, or attempt to w threats of excommunication, or by shuffling the offenders to new diocese'.

Thus as I see it, they knew, or in the parlance of the court, they "ought to have known", and therefore they have some culpability.

"An employee, operating in his everyday job, acting and performing on behalf of the employer,is considered to have been acting on behalf of the employer"- paraphrased from insurance liability documents.

Thus, the pedo priest, acting in his job,(supervising and teaching kids) is in fact liably contracting the employer . (the diocese and up to the vatican)

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'.

And likely stemmed from the lawyers being witness to numerous lawsuits whereby the offending party dissolved itself of any assets via transfer of title but not use or control, therby denying any worthy judgement against the offender.

I will agree with you that in some cases it isnt perfect. But, and this assumes I understand your position, if we are too adopt your stance instead, then justice and penalties against the perpetrators will have no meaning and no penalty.

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.

It has always been and always will be about the money since the best way to hurt or penalize anyone is to take away the money.

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.

It seems in that statement of yours (above) that the person who is primarily responsible is being let off the hook in favour of others who had duty of care.

That is not true, nor even close.

See the 3 young men killed at Lake Muskoka this past summer, and the subsequent charges against the operators of Clublink.

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.

"...an active participate in the intent to commit a crime"

Ah, but allowing one to leave your house while under the influence of alcohol is in fact being active in the intent to commit a crime.

Drunk driving is a criminal offence. The law is to some degree , thankfully, not willing to prosecute the thrid party when the limits are very narrow. (sort of negligence vs gross negligence-although their are different implications for "gross negligence" in law)

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.

Who owns the car? If the Diocese' name is on it, then yes , they most certainly have to defend their liability should a suit be carried forward. However, the criminal charges stemming from the drunk driving will be the driver's burden to satisfy.

Was the driver acting within his scope of duty (say driving to administer last rites at a hospital) when he was driving impaired? It makes a difference.

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

Likely all of three or four hours time involvement. The insurance on the house covers the lawyers and most of it is done without the homeowners involvement , apart from the intitial interview, affadavit and so forth. When, and if , a trial is proceeded with (unlikely) then homeowner will have to avail himself of the court. But no homeowner will 'spend years defending himself".

If I understand your ultimate position, that the person who directly commited the act, are the only ones responsible, then I urge you to look further afield to see just what your idea will realize.

Company ABC Explosives- verbally advises employees to dis regard safety concerns. In the event of a death/disfigurement/property damage scenario, should the employee who decided to 'listen' to management be the sole liability holder?

Company X-Ontario based (and owned) distributor of childrens teething rings-mfg'd in China.-lead poisoning is found leeching from product into babies resulting in deaths down the road-Should they be held liable for not "knowing when they should have known", or are you okay in allowing them not to be sued because they did not manufacture the item in question?

House Party- As the party giver and owner of the residence he is rather persistent on plying his guests with strong drinks (maybe double shots). He also knows that a good portion of his guests are well beyond legally drunk but does not care that any of them are, nor that they drove to his party. Should that person be exonerated from liability? (note- I used 'well beyond legally drunk' since courts recognize to some degree the diffulculty in knowing borderline drunk cases)

Edit to add- On an empty road/lake , One is driving/operating a car/boat and sees a single vehicle/accident and the person looks to be seriously injured but the bypasser wants nothing to do with it and proceeds on? The person dies.

Liable ? Why or why not?

We all have a duty to one another, imposed by law or not. One could spend a million dollars to have an exclusive private residence on a lake, but is he aware he cannot by law refuse to allow a boater to use his dock in an emergency? If he refuses he will be charged, and if the emergency escalates to a death scenario, he will be sued in all liklihood.

Edited February 16, 2009 by guyser

[Oleg Bach]

There is a connection between Mafia (crime) and the church - both seem to have the same right of passage as the other ---- To become head of the mafia you have to find the best most good and innocent person and kill them -by doing so you supposedly suck up their power..and be the "God Father" _ The killing of the good and innocent King Jesus of Judea was the Vaticans (Romes) version - do you get my drift...occultism is secrecy..and power is conducted in secrecy...most of the time - There is no conencidence here with my comparrison...they all are crimminals and horders of wealth and power.

[guyser]

do you get my drift...

No I dont.