I do not know why membership in the Catholic Church isn’t down to zero. Then again, I’m assuming people are rational and will act in their self interests. The Catholic Church brain washes children from birth and they are masters at using guilt to shape behavior. Unfortunately far too many are left shackled with behavior patterns they cannot break.
There's also the matter that religion in general is STILL considered to be a positive influence on society, and there is an enormous amount of social inertia behind that misapprehension.
The Church should have been doing what Trahant did starting 20 centuries ago. If SCOTUS upholds the fine, and I suspect they will given the number of justices connected to the RCC, is there a gofundme set up so we can help Trahant clear the unjust debt?
I can't see the Supremes taking this one up, both because of their religious bias and because AIUI SCOTUS is not intended to be a "do over" court where you introduce new facts. Even if they think that the newly revealed facts should be considered, AIUI that would just mean they send it back to a lower court with an order to consider the new material.
But they won't even do that. Because Alito, Barrett, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas are the 5 needed to simply deny cert.
I'm curious as to why the Mandatory Reporter issue didn't get more legal play. Seems to me that since that's a requirement for licensing and an NDA is a local, single-case thing, the Mandatory Reporter should trump the NDA. I.e. all NDA's are entered into with the tacit understanding that the lawyer must continue to abide by licensing requirements. But it doesn't sound like that was something the courts cared much about. [EDIT] Ahhh...maybe because with the age of consent laws of the 90s, the priest did nothing technically criminal??? So whistleblower and reporting rules that protect people who report illegal activities wouldn't trigger here?? Dunno, that's just a guess.
The fact that churches have any legal procedure under the seal of confidentiality is an indictment on churches themselves. If they were indeed the mouthpiece of God then why not throw open the doors of ANY litigation to show the public that they are on the right side? It's almost like God is an excuse.
In the final analysis, the "seal of the confessional" winds up being little more than a dodge which attempts to frustrate secular justice. The fact that the RCC resists the idea of priests becoming mandated reporters only further verifies this idea. The Church continues to think of itself as "of it but not IN it," apart from and above secular authority.
They need to be disabused of this specious notion.
All religious institutions believe that they are above ANY and ALL secular laws and authorities. That truly needs to change, no one, no institution should be above the law. Otherwise, how can a secular democracy claim that ALL ARE EQUEL BEFORE THE LAW, when Christian churches/institutions do not need to follow the law or are not punished for breaking the Law!
Eh that's completely standard. Any time a charity, for-profit company or government office brings in external experts to review their documents or provide advice, they're going to make them sign an NDA.
We apparently have an attorney who has been punished for violating a confidentiality agreement THAT WASN'T VIOLATED because the pertinent information was already in the wind! And yet Richard Trahant still gets fined $400,000?!? I have to ask: is the judge who levied this fine a Catholic, and if so, why hasn't HE been investigated and perhaps called before a judicial review panel?
This isn't just a miscarriage of justice. This is corrupt justice run amok, and it deserves some very damned serious attention.
Meredith Grabill, the judge who levied the fine, appears to be Episcopalian. Since she did approve $230M for the survivors, she got something right. Perhaps she was angry that information left her control, and she punished the only person the rules let her punish? (The benefit of the doubt is doing a lot of jeave lifting here, I will admit.)
That Grabill levied an undue, unjust, and potentially seriously damaging fine on Trahant is grounds enough for a judicial review. She would do well to watch her ass, because I'll guarantee you that others ARE.
It makes perfect sense to me for the courts to fine someone for violating an NDA. It's a contract, you violated it, your violation caused the group you disclosed about some problem.
However I'm guessing the judge had a lot of discretion about the amount of the fine. It sounds like she went maximally punitive here, which says to me she didn't consider any factor but the harm to the church.
I just going to put this here: HEY, JESUSFUCKERS! YOU KEEP ASKING WHERE ALL THE PEDOPHILES ARE? TRY LOOKING IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCHES/INSTITUTIONS, THAT’S WHERE THEY ARE TO BE FOUND!
As for the article, the judge should have excuse themselves from the case, and the if the lawyer should punish so should the church officials. Unfortunately, Christian privilege is what will protect the church officials from getting punished!
Let those without sin cast the first stone. Protect a Predator Inc. is a very large tent these days. You don't have to identify as Catholic or scientist, or a legal professional. You just have to behave based on an anti-Catholic/pseudoscientific/unjust "I think, therefore I am right" philosophy. You want me to name atheists? Richard Dawkins (just the philosophy ... not the predator ... but bad is bad).
I do not know why membership in the Catholic Church isn’t down to zero. Then again, I’m assuming people are rational and will act in their self interests. The Catholic Church brain washes children from birth and they are masters at using guilt to shape behavior. Unfortunately far too many are left shackled with behavior patterns they cannot break.
Another reason is that indoctrinated people have a great deal of difficulty accepting things until those things happen to them.
There's also the matter that religion in general is STILL considered to be a positive influence on society, and there is an enormous amount of social inertia behind that misapprehension.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑’𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑜. 𝐻𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚. 𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑐𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠, ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒.
The Church should have been doing what Trahant did starting 20 centuries ago. If SCOTUS upholds the fine, and I suspect they will given the number of justices connected to the RCC, is there a gofundme set up so we can help Trahant clear the unjust debt?
And can we encourage Catholics to send money to the go fund me instead of their church?
I can't see the Supremes taking this one up, both because of their religious bias and because AIUI SCOTUS is not intended to be a "do over" court where you introduce new facts. Even if they think that the newly revealed facts should be considered, AIUI that would just mean they send it back to a lower court with an order to consider the new material.
But they won't even do that. Because Alito, Barrett, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas are the 5 needed to simply deny cert.
I'm curious as to why the Mandatory Reporter issue didn't get more legal play. Seems to me that since that's a requirement for licensing and an NDA is a local, single-case thing, the Mandatory Reporter should trump the NDA. I.e. all NDA's are entered into with the tacit understanding that the lawyer must continue to abide by licensing requirements. But it doesn't sound like that was something the courts cared much about. [EDIT] Ahhh...maybe because with the age of consent laws of the 90s, the priest did nothing technically criminal??? So whistleblower and reporting rules that protect people who report illegal activities wouldn't trigger here?? Dunno, that's just a guess.
The fact that churches have any legal procedure under the seal of confidentiality is an indictment on churches themselves. If they were indeed the mouthpiece of God then why not throw open the doors of ANY litigation to show the public that they are on the right side? It's almost like God is an excuse.
In the final analysis, the "seal of the confessional" winds up being little more than a dodge which attempts to frustrate secular justice. The fact that the RCC resists the idea of priests becoming mandated reporters only further verifies this idea. The Church continues to think of itself as "of it but not IN it," apart from and above secular authority.
They need to be disabused of this specious notion.
All religious institutions believe that they are above ANY and ALL secular laws and authorities. That truly needs to change, no one, no institution should be above the law. Otherwise, how can a secular democracy claim that ALL ARE EQUEL BEFORE THE LAW, when Christian churches/institutions do not need to follow the law or are not punished for breaking the Law!
Pre-CISE-ly!
Eh that's completely standard. Any time a charity, for-profit company or government office brings in external experts to review their documents or provide advice, they're going to make them sign an NDA.
Time to tax all churches, starting with the RCC. Hit them all where it hurts.
This is what happens when the law becomes an ass.
We apparently have an attorney who has been punished for violating a confidentiality agreement THAT WASN'T VIOLATED because the pertinent information was already in the wind! And yet Richard Trahant still gets fined $400,000?!? I have to ask: is the judge who levied this fine a Catholic, and if so, why hasn't HE been investigated and perhaps called before a judicial review panel?
This isn't just a miscarriage of justice. This is corrupt justice run amok, and it deserves some very damned serious attention.
Meredith Grabill, the judge who levied the fine, appears to be Episcopalian. Since she did approve $230M for the survivors, she got something right. Perhaps she was angry that information left her control, and she punished the only person the rules let her punish? (The benefit of the doubt is doing a lot of jeave lifting here, I will admit.)
That Grabill levied an undue, unjust, and potentially seriously damaging fine on Trahant is grounds enough for a judicial review. She would do well to watch her ass, because I'll guarantee you that others ARE.
It makes perfect sense to me for the courts to fine someone for violating an NDA. It's a contract, you violated it, your violation caused the group you disclosed about some problem.
However I'm guessing the judge had a lot of discretion about the amount of the fine. It sounds like she went maximally punitive here, which says to me she didn't consider any factor but the harm to the church.
If Trahant had done everything within the confessional, I wonder how long the RCC would've still considered the seal of the confessional inviolable?
I have the strange feeling Holy Mother Church would have declared "special dispensation" to break that seal in Trahant's case.
I just going to put this here: HEY, JESUSFUCKERS! YOU KEEP ASKING WHERE ALL THE PEDOPHILES ARE? TRY LOOKING IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCHES/INSTITUTIONS, THAT’S WHERE THEY ARE TO BE FOUND!
As for the article, the judge should have excuse themselves from the case, and the if the lawyer should punish so should the church officials. Unfortunately, Christian privilege is what will protect the church officials from getting punished!
Let those without sin cast the first stone. Protect a Predator Inc. is a very large tent these days. You don't have to identify as Catholic or scientist, or a legal professional. You just have to behave based on an anti-Catholic/pseudoscientific/unjust "I think, therefore I am right" philosophy. You want me to name atheists? Richard Dawkins (just the philosophy ... not the predator ... but bad is bad).
In what way was this anti-Catholic/anti -Christian?
Is there anything we can do to support Trahant such as contribute to a legal fund for his appeal?