Okay, so let's flip EVERYTHING upside-down and sideways, shall we? This goes past victim-blaming and into a whole new territory: that because the priest isn't SUPPOSED to have sex that any sexual relationship MUST have been initiated by the other party! Uh-huh, SUUUUUUUURE they did.
Does that mean that all the boys molested by priests initiated that action as well? [Man, this shit makes me DIZZY, it is SO FUCKED UP!]
So maybe priests and Preachers should have the courage of their convictions... I found this online and have seen these verses in Matthew:
Jesus references eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. He says, “There are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus distinguishes three kinds of “eunuchs” in that verse: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).
There were ardent believers in the early church who had themselves castrated. Maybe they should bring this back.
No, I don’t suppose so. Still, one wonders what became of the souls of those priests from the first few centuries of the RCC who were allowed to marry? Are they in the same part of the afterlife as the later celibate priests. And can another priest grant absolution to one who has raped? So many questions and not a shred of a real world answer.
How about chemical castration (hormone therapy)? I’m not sure of the long term effects or what would happen if terminated. But given the current regime’s stance on changing sex/genders or modifying the naughty bits, I’m sure you’re right.
That's what the Brits did to Alan Turing ... and I'm not certain I'd wish that on my worst enemy. Try 'em, convict 'em, and throw 'em in the pokey is good enough for me.
Just to be clear - Turing was gay, that was the limit of his "transgression"; i.e., he was not a pedophile, he was victim of the era when being gay itself was unthinkable and deviant. That's the appalling tragedy, that one of the most brilliant scientists of his time was victimized/criminalized just because of being gay.
Oh, I know what came down with Turing. I have to wonder if the British government ever did a proper mea culpa about that, because I have to strain to think of a more despicable action ever taken by a government on an individual.
"Naughty bits" lol. Are you saying that erotic charge depends on a sense of transgression? ("Who was that lady I saw you with last night?" "That was no lady, that was my [cis-gender common-law partner]!")
Sorry, it's obvious I've been at the cooking sherry again.
There doesn't seem to be much of anything that cannot be justified in the name of religious freedom. Not to blame the victims here, but taking advice from the clergy is almost always a bad idea.
Sexual assault is a crime in every state of this country. No one's 'religious freedom' allows them to skirt criminal law. That's the first thing. The second is that catholic priests take a vow of celibacy, so sex of any kind is supposed to be off the table IF the priest is upholding his vows. Third, if, as it appears, these priests were abusing their positions of religious and moral authority to sexually assault female parishioners, they were not only breaking their priestly vows but committing crimes in the process.
Ain't it amazing how the catholic church wants to pass moral judgment on everyone else, but they refuse to hold themselves to account. EVER.
I totally agree - theological rules & laws are unhinged from reality●hey folks were damaged■ NOT hypothetical⚠️ this is predetoral license💰,with big power pushing it!
Violates... Religious... Sweet Judy, mother of Liza, it's not the religion that's the problem - well, it is but - it's the position of trust that Father Doofus has violated.
A woman who repeatedly begs an abuser to stop without success is a victim of sexual assault. Period. And a religious freedom defense feels like mockery it's so absurd. I presume we only hear about the bad priests, or will we eventually hear that it's all of them?
I keep coming back to this (the regulars here will so testify): "Six percent is 90." That's a quote from the movie, Spotlight, and as it turned out, six percent was an understatement. I have yet to hear a more exact quantification as to just how many priests in the Boston archdiocese were revealed to be sexual abusers, but I do know that the number was considerable.
And made worse by the fact that the Catholic Church has yet to take anything resembling positive action to abate that ignominy. We have multiple bad apples here, and insofar as I'm concerned, yeah, it does the entire barrel no good.
Coercion is still rape. An uneven power differential gave the priest additional responsibility not less. Religious freedom? No, freedom from religion yes!
Are these jesusfuckers joking, the right of religious freedom doesn’t include VIOLATING someone else bodily autonomy (such as rape). This is what all religious institutions actually believe, but normally won’t say outright that the clergy is above secular authority and that they (they alone) should determine the social norms for EVERYONE ELSE!
Religions ARE NOT above the law, and should be treated the same as everyone else! The religious had centuries to get away with Crimes Against Humanity, and that is got to stop!
RELIGIONS ARE A THREAT TO HUMANITY, AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS A THREAT!
“ wrong to assume that a priest who gave someone spiritual advice in some capacity is always on the clock as a priest.”
Once a priest, always a priest. I’ve been told that that is essential to the nature of the priesthood— by priests themselves. Becoming a priest and catholic dogma is a charisma— a literal gift from God.
“ The complainant had been a predator of the sexually unavailable.” Well, that’s a lie. Apparently they were quite available.
The absurdity of the priestly arguments is obvious when it comes to the priest molesting children, rather than adults. The only difference between the two situations is that the priest would be in trouble for molesting kids if he were not a priest.
"Priest" is a superimposed title, layered over the fact that we're talking about MEN here, men with hormones and desires linked to that chemistry to one degree or another. That presupposed title doesn't change the chemistry, much as there are those who would like to pretend that it does.
This amounts to more fooling of oneself, which is never wise and can result in untoward consequences.
I sort of feel like I should remind you that in Christian eyes, men are never responsible for intercourse. Women are. It's why "Teh Gayes" upset them so much, it's intercourse they can't blame on the woman.
The judge should throw the "off the clock" argument out immediately as irrelevant. The legal question is if 'priest' is in the group with 'boss', 'teacher,' etc.
If yes, then the law does not allow "off the clock" dating, for obvious reasons that the authority can retaliate against an off-the-clock "no" when they are back on the clock...and the victim knows this. Thus the 'off the clock' argument is irrelevant in this case.
But if 'priest' is not in that group, then they're doing nothing illegal whether they went on dates on or off the the priest's clock - so again, it's irrelevant.
However they want to twist it, these priests are saying that because they represent their god and are supposed to be chaste that they are somehow blameless in all of this. They want to claim to be "sanctified" by something that shows no sign of existence, and that by itself is a problem. The further problem is that assertion doesn't hold up against the facts on the ground, never mind the enormous history of priests exercising undue influence on individuals.
The whole existence of the Church and indeed ALL CHURCHES is based in something which cannot be demonstrated. At some point or other, that needs a wider acknowledgement. Problem is, with such an admission, there are a whole lot of people out there wearing odd collars who will be out of work.
I think it's much more legal/technical: because the U.S. constitution calls out freedom of expression for religiousness but not for bossness or teacherness, then legally you shouldn't put priests in the same higher-restriction legal category as bosses and teachers. You should put them in the lower-restriction category with 'like coworkers', 'like students', and other 'similarly situated peers.'
Will the courts buy that? Well like what seems like 90% of conservative cases these days, I expect the majority of lower courts won't buy it. But Alito and Thomas and probably Barrett will. So the question is whether they can get one more justice to grant cert and a second additional justice to overrule.
Funnily, I see ACB as a possible no vote on this, as her brand of Catholicism is perhaps more “pure”. Neil Gorsuch is a slam dunk for this kind of argument, and Justices Beer Me, All-Me-to and “Crazy Uncle” Thomas will vote for reversal of any laws protecting people from victimization by the powerful.
Gosh, it sounds like the priests think sexual abuse is a sacrament. I mean, I know that priests have been abusing women and children since Catholicism began. So it goes to show that sex abuse is a foundation of the religion. That and all the dogma surrounding sex that makes men the ones in control of everything. I guess the draw to the priesthood, despite it being celibate, is the opportunity for sex abuse without consequences.
Someone remind me where it says in the Christian Bible that authority figures are entitled to abuse those under their care?
Oh, wait, that's right, it never comes out and actually says that, it just constantly values men and places them in authority over women because the Christian god says so, and therefore nobody can question it. And now the RCC wants to claim their priests effectively have the right to rape because of it.
In an effort to remain relatively family friendly, I will respond with this: NO. No, you cannot claim the right to sexually abuse others because 'religious freedom,' especially when you're trying to pretend you're the 'good' guys and have moral superiority. No. Choose to be good or choose to be a religious monster and deal with whatever consequences that might entail, and shut up. You cannot have it both ways, and I really don't care what you think your Jesus did or didn't have to say about it. No.
I said something similar lower down on the thread, but it does need to be repeated over and over until these jesusfuckers get it through their bone thick skulls. Goddamm fucking boneheads!
I can see SCOTUS ruling against the state here. We can't possibly hold Priests to the same conduct we hold a boss, professor, or coach! Free exercise includes badunkadunk exercise, don'cha know!
Oh and all the college sports students etc. were rallying around him. I remember this clearly. I felt terrible for the victims. Sad reflection on our society.
Correction: rallying around Paterno. Same difference
Yeah, we may never know. Regardless, it doesn’t matter to the victims that had to experience people rally around him in a sort of automatic defense. It’s callous behavior. Kind of like our politics that often feel like sports teams to me.
Yeah I've not heard of many being prosecuted in court for it. Though I think you do get cases of teachers dating 18 year old students still getting in trouble with the law.
I think in most cases the person gets fired or punished by their employing organization, and that's it. These priests are getting prosecuted because obviously the RCC never even does that.
Nope. Not even then. 𝘈𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 in a position of authority over another cannot truly gain consent from that other.
Is he being prosecuted because he's a priest? Yes. Would the same prosecution have happened if he were his victim's manager at a McDonald's? Yes. If it were about religious freedom, the coercion by the McDonald's manager wouldn't be a crime because of fast food freedom.
I think the wedge SCOTUS will use to overrule is the many professional relationships *not* on MN's list. Why not see a priest-parishoner as one of those? After all, there isn't much tangible a priest can do to a parishoner - can't fire them. Can't dock their pay. Can't cut them from the team or put a disciplinary letter in their file. Can't give them an F on their report card. So legally, why is this more like boss-employee or teacher-student and not coworker-coworker or student-student?
So the obvious comeback is that the priest has authority over the congregational community, and can use that to socially punish a parishoner through denial of religious rites, denial of social positions within the church, even exile from it. Moreover there's the psychological aspect - your psychologist can't do any of those things above either, but obviously has a position of power and a legal responsibility to not use their trusted positino to sleep with you.
However. this being Alito's SCOTUS, I could see him ignoring the psychologist analogy in favor of the boss analogy, and saying since a priest doesn't have that sort of power, priests can't be included in the state's list.
If I go to doctor,dentist,car repair they are licensed. I have "reasonable assumption" they are trained/qualified● ok- Celibate=sex off the table! Hence NOT QUALIFIED-fraud,masked while a PREDATOR- deception, intentional.How is that not illegal? If I believe you have the path to heaven/ he'll, even more so.Make SCOTUS defend the "teapot circling the earth"- turn the tables on belief🤡⚠️😑💠🗽🫡
On the way home thank god ... I get homesick after about a week. Was going to fly back from Christchurch tomorrow after spending a night in a motel, but looks like a storm coming in tomorrow so changed to a flight tonight, Arrived at the motel and explained to the lady in charge we' only be in the unit for 5 hours and she took 25% off the price, which we'd written off. Also gave us the usual bottle of milk for tea. Saintly!
My southern aunts were flabbergasted that their northern nieces and nephews didn’t want sugar in their iced tea. “Whah, what does it taste like if y’all dohn’t put shugah in youhr tea?”
That defense is a joke albeit a pretty fucking tasteless one. There’s no viable defense for sexual abuse ever. That collar is not the equivalent of garlic against a vampire.
Regardless, they are men in a position of assumed but not earned authority, taking blatantly undue advantage of those who assume that they are trustworthy.
Every last one of them deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Shaking the idea of faith being a virtue and those who promote faith being better / holier / more advanced / whatever than the average Joe is going to take a LOT of time, but more than that. It's going to take people like us pointing out things like this article and others like it, as well as the utter absurdities that the bible promotes, and doing so repeatedly.
And even with all of that, we have a long slog ahead of us.
Okay, so let's flip EVERYTHING upside-down and sideways, shall we? This goes past victim-blaming and into a whole new territory: that because the priest isn't SUPPOSED to have sex that any sexual relationship MUST have been initiated by the other party! Uh-huh, SUUUUUUUURE they did.
Does that mean that all the boys molested by priests initiated that action as well? [Man, this shit makes me DIZZY, it is SO FUCKED UP!]
So maybe priests and Preachers should have the courage of their convictions... I found this online and have seen these verses in Matthew:
Jesus references eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. He says, “There are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus distinguishes three kinds of “eunuchs” in that verse: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).
There were ardent believers in the early church who had themselves castrated. Maybe they should bring this back.
Ya knoooooow ... somehow ... in the 21st century, I just DON'T see that going over very well. Knowwhatimean?!? 😁
No, I don’t suppose so. Still, one wonders what became of the souls of those priests from the first few centuries of the RCC who were allowed to marry? Are they in the same part of the afterlife as the later celibate priests. And can another priest grant absolution to one who has raped? So many questions and not a shred of a real world answer.
How about chemical castration (hormone therapy)? I’m not sure of the long term effects or what would happen if terminated. But given the current regime’s stance on changing sex/genders or modifying the naughty bits, I’m sure you’re right.
That's what the Brits did to Alan Turing ... and I'm not certain I'd wish that on my worst enemy. Try 'em, convict 'em, and throw 'em in the pokey is good enough for me.
Just to be clear - Turing was gay, that was the limit of his "transgression"; i.e., he was not a pedophile, he was victim of the era when being gay itself was unthinkable and deviant. That's the appalling tragedy, that one of the most brilliant scientists of his time was victimized/criminalized just because of being gay.
Oh, I know what came down with Turing. I have to wonder if the British government ever did a proper mea culpa about that, because I have to strain to think of a more despicable action ever taken by a government on an individual.
"Naughty bits" lol. Are you saying that erotic charge depends on a sense of transgression? ("Who was that lady I saw you with last night?" "That was no lady, that was my [cis-gender common-law partner]!")
Sorry, it's obvious I've been at the cooking sherry again.
Castration doesn’t prevent SA. And in response to the original comment, it is common for abusers to blame child victims for initiating actions.
They do realize that by making this claim, they’re admitting that priests are WEAK-WILLED!!
They couldn't give a damn about the "will" of the male parishioners, let alone their priests.
Only the spirit is weak, though — the flesh is more willing than a cardinal with a choirboy...
Precisely the absurdity of the legal argument.
There doesn't seem to be much of anything that cannot be justified in the name of religious freedom. Not to blame the victims here, but taking advice from the clergy is almost always a bad idea.
Sexual assault is a crime in every state of this country. No one's 'religious freedom' allows them to skirt criminal law. That's the first thing. The second is that catholic priests take a vow of celibacy, so sex of any kind is supposed to be off the table IF the priest is upholding his vows. Third, if, as it appears, these priests were abusing their positions of religious and moral authority to sexually assault female parishioners, they were not only breaking their priestly vows but committing crimes in the process.
Ain't it amazing how the catholic church wants to pass moral judgment on everyone else, but they refuse to hold themselves to account. EVER.
THIS! Sing it, sister!
👩🎤🎶
I totally agree - theological rules & laws are unhinged from reality●hey folks were damaged■ NOT hypothetical⚠️ this is predetoral license💰,with big power pushing it!
Violates... Religious... Sweet Judy, mother of Liza, it's not the religion that's the problem - well, it is but - it's the position of trust that Father Doofus has violated.
A woman who repeatedly begs an abuser to stop without success is a victim of sexual assault. Period. And a religious freedom defense feels like mockery it's so absurd. I presume we only hear about the bad priests, or will we eventually hear that it's all of them?
I keep coming back to this (the regulars here will so testify): "Six percent is 90." That's a quote from the movie, Spotlight, and as it turned out, six percent was an understatement. I have yet to hear a more exact quantification as to just how many priests in the Boston archdiocese were revealed to be sexual abusers, but I do know that the number was considerable.
And made worse by the fact that the Catholic Church has yet to take anything resembling positive action to abate that ignominy. We have multiple bad apples here, and insofar as I'm concerned, yeah, it does the entire barrel no good.
Not just the barrel. The evidence so far shows that the entire orchard is rotten.
Considering both the offenders and those who continue to attempt to hide them? Yeah, it sure looks that way.
"Sweet Judy, mother of Liza." I am SO stealing that line! 😂😂😂
Occasionally I like to gay it up a smidgen. You may steal it with abandon! 😊
That line made my day! Thank you, David!
Coercion is still rape. An uneven power differential gave the priest additional responsibility not less. Religious freedom? No, freedom from religion yes!
Are these jesusfuckers joking, the right of religious freedom doesn’t include VIOLATING someone else bodily autonomy (such as rape). This is what all religious institutions actually believe, but normally won’t say outright that the clergy is above secular authority and that they (they alone) should determine the social norms for EVERYONE ELSE!
Religions ARE NOT above the law, and should be treated the same as everyone else! The religious had centuries to get away with Crimes Against Humanity, and that is got to stop!
RELIGIONS ARE A THREAT TO HUMANITY, AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS A THREAT!
“ wrong to assume that a priest who gave someone spiritual advice in some capacity is always on the clock as a priest.”
Once a priest, always a priest. I’ve been told that that is essential to the nature of the priesthood— by priests themselves. Becoming a priest and catholic dogma is a charisma— a literal gift from God.
“ The complainant had been a predator of the sexually unavailable.” Well, that’s a lie. Apparently they were quite available.
The absurdity of the priestly arguments is obvious when it comes to the priest molesting children, rather than adults. The only difference between the two situations is that the priest would be in trouble for molesting kids if he were not a priest.
"Priest" is a superimposed title, layered over the fact that we're talking about MEN here, men with hormones and desires linked to that chemistry to one degree or another. That presupposed title doesn't change the chemistry, much as there are those who would like to pretend that it does.
This amounts to more fooling of oneself, which is never wise and can result in untoward consequences.
Absolutely.
I sort of feel like I should remind you that in Christian eyes, men are never responsible for intercourse. Women are. It's why "Teh Gayes" upset them so much, it's intercourse they can't blame on the woman.
Here's your airsickness bag, I brought extra.
The judge should throw the "off the clock" argument out immediately as irrelevant. The legal question is if 'priest' is in the group with 'boss', 'teacher,' etc.
If yes, then the law does not allow "off the clock" dating, for obvious reasons that the authority can retaliate against an off-the-clock "no" when they are back on the clock...and the victim knows this. Thus the 'off the clock' argument is irrelevant in this case.
But if 'priest' is not in that group, then they're doing nothing illegal whether they went on dates on or off the the priest's clock - so again, it's irrelevant.
So either way, irrelevant.
I know I've posted this a few times but still:
𝑆𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝 𝑢𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑠.
-- me
However they want to twist it, these priests are saying that because they represent their god and are supposed to be chaste that they are somehow blameless in all of this. They want to claim to be "sanctified" by something that shows no sign of existence, and that by itself is a problem. The further problem is that assertion doesn't hold up against the facts on the ground, never mind the enormous history of priests exercising undue influence on individuals.
The whole existence of the Church and indeed ALL CHURCHES is based in something which cannot be demonstrated. At some point or other, that needs a wider acknowledgement. Problem is, with such an admission, there are a whole lot of people out there wearing odd collars who will be out of work.
To which I say, so much the better.
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑔𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠.
I think it's much more legal/technical: because the U.S. constitution calls out freedom of expression for religiousness but not for bossness or teacherness, then legally you shouldn't put priests in the same higher-restriction legal category as bosses and teachers. You should put them in the lower-restriction category with 'like coworkers', 'like students', and other 'similarly situated peers.'
Will the courts buy that? Well like what seems like 90% of conservative cases these days, I expect the majority of lower courts won't buy it. But Alito and Thomas and probably Barrett will. So the question is whether they can get one more justice to grant cert and a second additional justice to overrule.
Funnily, I see ACB as a possible no vote on this, as her brand of Catholicism is perhaps more “pure”. Neil Gorsuch is a slam dunk for this kind of argument, and Justices Beer Me, All-Me-to and “Crazy Uncle” Thomas will vote for reversal of any laws protecting people from victimization by the powerful.
Gosh, it sounds like the priests think sexual abuse is a sacrament. I mean, I know that priests have been abusing women and children since Catholicism began. So it goes to show that sex abuse is a foundation of the religion. That and all the dogma surrounding sex that makes men the ones in control of everything. I guess the draw to the priesthood, despite it being celibate, is the opportunity for sex abuse without consequences.
Someone remind me where it says in the Christian Bible that authority figures are entitled to abuse those under their care?
Oh, wait, that's right, it never comes out and actually says that, it just constantly values men and places them in authority over women because the Christian god says so, and therefore nobody can question it. And now the RCC wants to claim their priests effectively have the right to rape because of it.
In an effort to remain relatively family friendly, I will respond with this: NO. No, you cannot claim the right to sexually abuse others because 'religious freedom,' especially when you're trying to pretend you're the 'good' guys and have moral superiority. No. Choose to be good or choose to be a religious monster and deal with whatever consequences that might entail, and shut up. You cannot have it both ways, and I really don't care what you think your Jesus did or didn't have to say about it. No.
The god of the bible, an authority figure for sure, abused pretty much everyone under his care. God is the Christian template for abuse.
I said something similar lower down on the thread, but it does need to be repeated over and over until these jesusfuckers get it through their bone thick skulls. Goddamm fucking boneheads!
Why isn't the biblical god smiting his agents on Earth for so poorly representing his son and himself? It's as if neither of them even exist.
I can see SCOTUS ruling against the state here. We can't possibly hold Priests to the same conduct we hold a boss, professor, or coach! Free exercise includes badunkadunk exercise, don'cha know!
One would have thought that Jerry Sandusky would have become an example to avoid, but apparently not.
Oh and all the college sports students etc. were rallying around him. I remember this clearly. I felt terrible for the victims. Sad reflection on our society.
Correction: rallying around Paterno. Same difference
It's rather hard to believe that JoePa was THAT clueless ... but apparently, either he was, or he thought nothing of what was going on.
Yeah, we may never know. Regardless, it doesn’t matter to the victims that had to experience people rally around him in a sort of automatic defense. It’s callous behavior. Kind of like our politics that often feel like sports teams to me.
It's also knee-jerk. "Oh, JoePa wouldn't tolerate THAT!!!" 🤦♂️
My government wouldn’t do that! Oh yes they would ;)
And we clearly don’t even hold bosses, professors, or coaches etc. accountable very often either, so there’s that.
Yeah I've not heard of many being prosecuted in court for it. Though I think you do get cases of teachers dating 18 year old students still getting in trouble with the law.
I think in most cases the person gets fired or punished by their employing organization, and that's it. These priests are getting prosecuted because obviously the RCC never even does that.
Do you remember in the 80’s/90’s when a woman teacher was caught doing it it became national news? Otherwise, business as usual.
𝑃𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑠 𝐹𝑟. 𝐾𝑢ℎ𝑛’𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑦 𝑖𝑓 ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑡.
Nope. Not even then. 𝘈𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 in a position of authority over another cannot truly gain consent from that other.
Is he being prosecuted because he's a priest? Yes. Would the same prosecution have happened if he were his victim's manager at a McDonald's? Yes. If it were about religious freedom, the coercion by the McDonald's manager wouldn't be a crime because of fast food freedom.
I think the wedge SCOTUS will use to overrule is the many professional relationships *not* on MN's list. Why not see a priest-parishoner as one of those? After all, there isn't much tangible a priest can do to a parishoner - can't fire them. Can't dock their pay. Can't cut them from the team or put a disciplinary letter in their file. Can't give them an F on their report card. So legally, why is this more like boss-employee or teacher-student and not coworker-coworker or student-student?
So the obvious comeback is that the priest has authority over the congregational community, and can use that to socially punish a parishoner through denial of religious rites, denial of social positions within the church, even exile from it. Moreover there's the psychological aspect - your psychologist can't do any of those things above either, but obviously has a position of power and a legal responsibility to not use their trusted positino to sleep with you.
However. this being Alito's SCOTUS, I could see him ignoring the psychologist analogy in favor of the boss analogy, and saying since a priest doesn't have that sort of power, priests can't be included in the state's list.
If I go to doctor,dentist,car repair they are licensed. I have "reasonable assumption" they are trained/qualified● ok- Celibate=sex off the table! Hence NOT QUALIFIED-fraud,masked while a PREDATOR- deception, intentional.How is that not illegal? If I believe you have the path to heaven/ he'll, even more so.Make SCOTUS defend the "teapot circling the earth"- turn the tables on belief🤡⚠️😑💠🗽🫡
OT
On the way home thank god ... I get homesick after about a week. Was going to fly back from Christchurch tomorrow after spending a night in a motel, but looks like a storm coming in tomorrow so changed to a flight tonight, Arrived at the motel and explained to the lady in charge we' only be in the unit for 5 hours and she took 25% off the price, which we'd written off. Also gave us the usual bottle of milk for tea. Saintly!
Why on Earth would you adulterate your tea with cow lactation? My God man, have you no sense of decency?
🤢😵💫
It's also an English thing. Since I'm part English, I put milk and sugar in my tea. :)
My grandmother (Brit) told us we had to put milk in black teas. It also reduces the bitterness from the tannins.
My southern aunts were flabbergasted that their northern nieces and nephews didn’t want sugar in their iced tea. “Whah, what does it taste like if y’all dohn’t put shugah in youhr tea?”
Me at about age 12: “Tea. It tastes like tea.”
You drink cold tea????????????????????????????
And you think summer happens in the winter??????
I’m pretty sure my aunts regarded me as a smartass and would have slapped my mouth if they thought they could get away with it.
Weeeeellll...................
I put tea in my sugar.
"Since I'm part English..."
you should use half-and-half. *smiles*
It ain't tea without milk. Goes back to the old days when posh cups couldn't take boiling water directly without cracking, so I'm told.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e64bed29f5b7f5c9ace07ece1c35dc421f0f6320d854a21d0669c01d8e0592e.jpg
Can I get a set to gift to the Orange Turd? He likes gifts.
That defense is a joke albeit a pretty fucking tasteless one. There’s no viable defense for sexual abuse ever. That collar is not the equivalent of garlic against a vampire.
I guess I'm shocked they are just rapists and not pedophiles.
Regardless, they are men in a position of assumed but not earned authority, taking blatantly undue advantage of those who assume that they are trustworthy.
Every last one of them deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'd like harsher punishment for them than that but prosecution would be a start.
Shaking the idea of faith being a virtue and those who promote faith being better / holier / more advanced / whatever than the average Joe is going to take a LOT of time, but more than that. It's going to take people like us pointing out things like this article and others like it, as well as the utter absurdities that the bible promotes, and doing so repeatedly.
And even with all of that, we have a long slog ahead of us.
It gives us something to do. And I enjoy pointing and laffing.
Not that this article had anything to laugh about.