Originally posted by Hawk:
There's really no need to try and paint everyone who stands up for the victims of false allegations as sexist. I don't think that was called for at all.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:It would seem that this misrepresents what happened.
Originally posted by Hart:
O'Brien -- definitely, yes. The day after he makes some controversial remarks about relaxing clerical celibacy some people come out of the woodwork with accusation of impropiety on the part of the Cardinal (with no suggestion of sexual molestation of minors) from 30 years ago. Do the media not see how they're being played?
quote:
The four complained in the week before 11 February, when Pope Benedict announced his resignation. The complainants have now called for the cardinal's immediate resignation.
quote:Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
quote:The answer is Yes. I have worked in enough elections, and observed them closely enough at times when I could not, to assume that any information about a candidate (or in the papal electoral process) an elector, is simply informational or neutral in intent. I would go so far as to assume that any release of information -- or institution of a process -- should be examined carefully to ensure that it is not intentional and oriented toward influencing the process, or an agenda.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
quote:Thanks, A the Aleut. It goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about other people here, whose experience is often quite remarkable and deeply specialized. A veteran of papal elections, familiar with the patterns of allegations against cardinals - you never know who's behind the avatar, do you?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:The answer is Yes. I have worked in enough elections, and observed them closely enough at times when I could not, to assume that any information about a candidate (or in the papal electoral process) an elector, is simply informational or neutral in intent. I would go so far as to assume that any release of information -- or institution of a process -- should be examined carefully to ensure that it is not intentional and oriented toward influencing the process, or an agenda.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
I did make it clear that I was speaking generally and not about the O'Brien accusations, of which I know little.
quote:Now if only Mahoney would do the same. His transgressions are a matter of public record, made public very recently as proof.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
O'Brien has resigned.
quote:Sure, there are questions about Cardinal Mahony mishandling sexual abuse cases. Just as there were questions about O.J. Simpson murdering his wife. Throw enough lawyers and money at solid facts and they turn into "questions".
Originally posted by Hart:
Mahoney -- different story, but still yes. There are questions over his handling of priests guilty of sexual abuse in his diocese. But, they are questions. His letter on this subject repays careful reading. Did he make mistakes? Yes. But, they were the same mistakes everyone in any child-service leadership are was making (and many fewer than certain others).
quote:Hatless-- I am sorry that you misunderstood my post. I was referring to elections generally-- perhaps I should have specified that this meant the federal elections of 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1993; provincial elections of 1985, 1986, 1990, 1993 and 2001; municipal of 1998, 2001, and 2004, and two party leadership contests, but I did not think that such a lengthy list would have interested anybody-- indeed, I got bored typing out the list. I would say that makes me capable of commenting on elections. Papal elections are different, of course, in that they are as much about the electors as the candidates.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Thanks, A the Aleut. It goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about other people here, whose experience is often quite remarkable and deeply specialized. A veteran of papal elections, familiar with the patterns of allegations against cardinals - you never know who's behind the avatar, do you?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:The answer is Yes. I have worked in enough elections, and observed them closely enough at times when I could not, to assume that any information about a candidate (or in the papal electoral process) an elector, is simply informational or neutral in intent. I would go so far as to assume that any release of information -- or institution of a process -- should be examined carefully to ensure that it is not intentional and oriented toward influencing the process, or an agenda.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Always? I know these sort of accusations are made all too frequently, but have you really had such a great experience of them that you can formulate a general policy? In cases where accusations are made about a cardinal in the early stages of a papal election it pays, on balance, to be a tad concerned? Experience has taught you this?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While I lean toward Trisagion's pretty clear position on this-- zero tolerance for senior levels of responsibility is not a bad approach -- I would always be a tad concerned over charges at a cardinal which appear just after the papal election machine comes into motion
(Although the post above yours points out that the accusations were made in the week before the pope announced his resignation.)
I did make it clear that I was speaking generally and not about the O'Brien accusations, of which I know little.
quote:I find it odd that you put the question thus given what I have already said. My post was general about elections (I hope that I don't have to repeat this a 3d and 4th time) and I can give you a few examples about allegations at election time-- I think I even have in my files a handout from the 1980 campaign accusing Pierre Trudeau of masterminding all-male orgies at 24 Sussex Drive in order to dominate media coverage by blackmailing journalists. I recall being part of a provincial campaign committee which expelled one member for circulating private information about (non-criminal) real estate dealings by an opposing candidate-- for the record, we then privately told that candidate's campaign team and were thanked for doing so-- things were different in those more polite days.
Originally posted by hatless:
So no special experience of charges against cardinals during elections?
quote:Given the solid evidence, not just "questions" or accusations against 2 cardinals that I know of who totally mishandled the pedophile priest scandal and who knowingly sent pedophile priests to minister to children in other churches without so much as a warning to them and who actively covered up the activity of these same priests and the fact that I have not seen the Vatican take any action against them, though Mahony's church did remove him from any service, I don't have much hope of a clean conclave voting for the next pope. Saddens me greatly as one is desperately needed at this time.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Catholic Church sets its own rules about these sorts of things (and rightly so). If they didn't want accused cardinal-malefactors voting for Pope, they'd have rules against it. Expecting wrongdoers to "do the right thing" voluntarily seems a fairly contradictory expectation.
quote:Vincent Nichols and (very remotely) Diarmuid Martin could be theoretically appointed in a consistory right up to the last minute on Thursday, but I would be very surprised if that did happen. Compare and contrast the speed of acceptance of Card. O'Brien's resignation to that of Card. Brady.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:Given the solid evidence, not just "questions" or accusations against 2 cardinals that I know of who totally mishandled the pedophile priest scandal and who knowingly sent pedophile priests to minister to children in other churches without so much as a warning to them and who actively covered up the activity of these same priests and the fact that I have not seen the Vatican take any action against them, though Mahony's church did remove him from any service, I don't have much hope of a clean concave voting for the next pope. Saddens me greatly as one is desperately needed at this time.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Catholic Church sets its own rules about these sorts of things (and rightly so). If they didn't want accused cardinal-malefactors voting for Pope, they'd have rules against it. Expecting wrongdoers to "do the right thing" voluntarily seems a fairly contradictory expectation.
quote:The media will totally assume it, but I hope that whoever it is O'Brien cares about, perhaps his peers in the hierarchy, doesn't assume it. Considering that he'd resigned a week ago, before half of this exploded, the man totally deserves not to be assumed guilty, I think. In fact, I'd say that if he's innocent or mostly innocent, he's a very very good man--stepped down knowing what people would assume because he wanted to avoid bringing scandal to the church.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
That's it, O'Brien has resigned.
I just hope that this will not be construed by the greedy media as an automatic admission of fault.
But of course it will be...
quote:According to the BBC article,
Originally posted by Gwai:
According to NPR, he tended his resignation on the 18th, so while it may have been up to the Pope, Cardinal O'Brien intentionally made the Pope's decision; he was determined to do whatever was best for the church.
quote:So it sounds like O'Brien planned to retire after the Conclave, and it was indeed Pope Benedict who moved up the date.
Cardinal O'Brien said in his statement he had already tendered his resignation as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, due to take effect when he turned 75 next month, but Pope Benedict "has now decided that my resignation will take effect today".
quote:It says more about the difficulty of finding even a half suitable replacement among the Irish clergy than it does anything else.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Compare and contrast the speed of acceptance of Card. O'Brien's resignation to that of Card. Brady.
quote:Fair enough. You are right then.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the BBC article,
quote:So it sounds like O'Brien planned to retire after the Conclave, and it was indeed Pope Benedict who moved up the date.
Cardinal O'Brien said in his statement he had already tendered his resignation as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, due to take effect when he turned 75 next month, but Pope Benedict "has now decided that my resignation will take effect today".
quote:Not pure speculation. Just a metric shit-tonne of speculation wrapped around the tiny nugget of his media-intensive announcement. He could have just quietly not shown up, or sent a private note to the conclave expressing his regrets, or whatever. So it's more like 99.9% speculation rather than the completely pure stuff.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I am right in this, then whatever may turn out to be true about the allegations against Cardinal O'Brien, this was a honourable decision. He may have been leaned on to come to this decision, of course, but that is pure speculation.
quote:I think you have 0.1% of a point there.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not pure speculation. Just a metric shit-tonne of speculation wrapped around the tiny nugget of his media-intensive announcement. He could have just quietly not shown up, or sent a private note to the conclave expressing his regrets, or whatever. So it's more like 99.9% speculation rather than the completely pure stuff.
quote:He tendered that resignation last November. The Pope accepted it under the formula nunc pro tunc, in other words, hang on in post until I've found your replacement. The four accusers, it is reported, wrote to the Nuncio a month or so ago. The Nuncio forwarded the letters to the Pope, who alone has competence in matters of discipline regarding Cardinals. Last Tuesday, the Pope, without appointing a successor confirmed the resignation with immediate effect. Looks pretty much like Cardinal O'Brien was resigned.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Please note that Cardinal O'Brien has tendered his resignation as Archbishop, and that it was this resignation which got accepted with potentially telling speed.
quote:No, because "cardinal" is not a position which has to be filled when one leaves or dies. For want of a better word, it's a clerical 'rank' that is not attached to any particular office, they are appointed as cardinals by the pope.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What is done if a cardinal can't go? Can some sort of acting cardinal be appointed?
quote:I am sick to death of guilt by accusation.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
That's it, O'Brien has resigned.
I just hope that this will not be construed by the greedy media as an automatic admission of fault.
But of course it will be...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:The power imbalance and use of sex to increase this use of power would be extremely serious if it were true.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And in any case he's being accused of 'inappropriate behaviour'. Sounds to me, if true, that he made a pass at a couple of young priests - hardly serial pedophilia is it!
To bring it all up now just seems spiteful to me.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I find this quite wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal O'Brien is a homosexual by some convenient definition. Why would it be hypocrisy for him to speak out against homosexual marriage? Why indeed would it be hypocrisy for him to condemn homosexual activity and consider homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered? Even if he indeed was celebrating gay sex orgies every day of his life, which he most assuredly was not, the charge of hypocrisy would not necessarily stick. Hypocrisy consists in promoting standards one does not in fact hold, it does not consist in failing to adhere oneself to the standards one promotes. Wikipedia makes this point with a nice quote from Samuel Johnson:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off. (bold changed to italics)
quote:In addition, I would say that there is no general requirement to reveal one's moral failings to the public. To God, certainly, to victims and proper authority, probably, but the Jerry Springer Show is not a must.
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.
quote:That article was praising "ordinary Catholics"; a sentiment I want to endorse. By contrast, a spokesman for the Vatican appeared on Channel 4 News last night. He was educated, intelligent and deeply patronising (he basically told Jon Snow, "Go off and play with your technology, and leave the serious thinking to us") and I've seen other such figures over the years, when similar accusations are made. People like that, it seems to me, do the RCC real damage. Why can't you have someone saying, "We don't yet know if these accusations are true or not but, if they are, deep harm has been caused, which we weep over"? Why can't the official spokesmen show compassion, rather than slick talking?
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
an intelligent comment on this issue in today's blogpost of iBenedictines here .
quote:Let's leave Cardinal O'Brien out of this for a moment as we don't know the truth or falsity of the allegations against him.
quote:I find this quite wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal O'Brien is a homosexual by some convenient definition. Why would it be hypocrisy for him to speak out against homosexual marriage? Why indeed would it be hypocrisy for him to condemn homosexual activity and consider homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered? Even if he indeed was celebrating gay sex orgies every day of his life, which he most assuredly was not, the charge of hypocrisy would not necessarily stick. Hypocrisy consists in promoting standards one does not in fact hold, it does not consist in failing to adhere oneself to the standards one promotes. Wikipedia makes this point with a nice quote from Samuel Johnson:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off. (bold changed to italics)
quote:Like
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Innocent until proven (!) guilty. What's going on here is a disgraceful witch-hunt -and oh, how delicious that the "witch" is a Catholic cardinal... This is libel, pure and simple.
quote:As far as I can tell, these news are currently still available here, the interview starts at 3:07. At no point anything resembling the remark that you put in quotation marks was made! Furthermore, while one may regret that not more was said concerning the potential victims, this simply was not the focus of the interview. Both men focused clearly on the current state of the Church, and the consequences of this event for it. Finally, the performance of Msgr Figueiredo was indeed slick. As appropriate when dealing with the secular press, which has been utterly merciless in exploiting any weakness shown by RC spokespersons.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
By contrast, a spokesman for the Vatican appeared on Channel 4 News last night. He was educated, intelligent and deeply patronising (he basically told Jon Snow, "Go off and play with your technology, and leave the serious thinking to us") and I've seen other such figures over the years, when similar accusations are made. People like that, it seems to me, do the RCC real damage. Why can't you have someone saying, "We don't yet know if these accusations are true or not but, if they are, deep harm has been caused, which we weep over"? Why can't the official spokesmen show compassion, rather than slick talking?
quote:To borrow from A Man For All Seasons, "the public may reason according to its wits, but [a] court must reason according to the law". There's no reason why the opinions of private individuals must be bound by legal conventions.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Innocent until proven (!) guilty.
quote:I am coming to agree with the above.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I find this quite wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal O'Brien is a homosexual by some convenient definition. Why would it be hypocrisy for him to speak out against homosexual marriage? Why indeed would it be hypocrisy for him to condemn homosexual activity and consider homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered? Even if he indeed was celebrating gay sex orgies every day of his life, which he most assuredly was not, the charge of hypocrisy would not necessarily stick. Hypocrisy consists in promoting standards one does not in fact hold, it does not consist in failing to adhere oneself to the standards one promotes. Wikipedia makes this point with a nice quote from Samuel Johnson:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off. (bold changed to italics)
quote:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.
quote:He goes on to say that the whole system of celibacy and how those who vowed it were often teenage boys when they entered seminaries results in an immaturity when it comes to Church teaching about sex. And the Cardinal recently questioned the celibacy rule.
Journalists and Guardian readers who never get drunk and have regrettable sexual episodes are entitled to completely unalloyed joy at the spectacle of a moralist revealed as a hypocrite. The rest of us should temper our delight.
quote:Depends who the snogger might be. If in a position of responsbility and authority with respect to the snoggee, it could be an abuse of power and, in certain circumstances, an offense under the Criminal Code in Canada. Mileage in other jurisdictions may vary.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The claims may or may not be true, but they are effectively claims of sexual harassment. That is really not the same thing snogging someone at a disco and then regretting it.
quote:If you would never want to, then why do you? That may sound snarky, but I'm genuinely curious. Why the reflexive victim-blaming?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry for your experience and I would never want to belittle or trivialise a case where great pain has been caused.
quote:It's interesting that you don't consider testimony by the alleged victims to be "evidence". And given how hard folks like Cardinal Mahony worked to make sure that multiple accusations resulted in as few convictions as possible, what is your basis for claiming that every accused abuser gets convicted?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
quote:Again, what are the conviction stats on accused abusers? Well below 100%, I should think. The number is probably even lower for accused abusers who wear clerical collars.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe there were similar cases in the seventeenth century where simply to call a woman a witch was evidence enough and conviction and execution were inevitable.
quote:If you think you're just neutrally showing that some things are unprovable with that insulting scenario, then you don't know how your words come across. I hope you don't speak like that in real life, and I re-iterate - if you do you're likely leaving an invisible trail of hurt behind you, despite your intentions.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry for your experience and I would never want to belittle or trivialise a case where great pain has been caused.
My little scenario at the photocopier was merely written to illustrate the fact that sometimes accusations are made that are unprovable, have no evidence to support them and therefore are impossible for the defendant to refute. And that, I fear, is the problem with some cases and maybe with this particular one with the cardinal.
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
The obvious result of this belief, of never doubting what the victim says, is that without question we must believe the perpetrator to be entirely guilty and worthy of condemnation. To treat him as innocent until proven guilty means that we cannot, will not, believe that the accuser might not be telling the truth.
I believe there were similar cases in the seventeenth century where simply to call a woman a witch was evidence enough and conviction and execution were inevitable.
quote:Unfortunately, there was never any doubt about that. The only way that person would have staid home is if BXVI had kicked him out of the College of Cardinals, in spite of (as I understand it) no chance of criminal conviction now. And while one can say many good things about Benedict XVI, that's just not his style. Hence I put down Pope Leo XIV as my wishful guess for the next pope. We do need a lion in charge.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To the OP, there is little doubt Mahony mucked it up big time. If he had any honour, he would stay home. Alas, he will go to Rome.
quote:How can an allegation be 'evidence'?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It's interesting that you don't consider testimony by the alleged victims to be "evidence".
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Innocent until proven (!) guilty. What's going on here is a disgraceful witch-hunt -and oh, how delicious that the "witch" is a Catholic cardinal... This is libel, pure and simple.
quote:What seems odd to me is that Desert Daughter and Mudfrog seem unaware that they are just as guilty of judging others without evidence. We don't know if the Cardinal is guilty, and we don't know whether his accusers are telling the truth or not. But surely they deserve the same 'innocent until proven guilty' as the Cardinal.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The poor Cardinal in question had only a few weeks left to go until he retired. He is refuting the spiteful allegations and yet still has to go.
(snip)
To bring it all up now just seems spiteful to me.
quote:Unfortunately it is also true that the police will ignore complaints of abuse and the investigation will never begin.
Unfortunately it is true that often the police will persue a sexual abuse case with special fervour to bring it to court, based solely on one person's word and no other evidence.
quote:Therefore, evidence is required in order to prove an allegation. The allegation is not evidence. it requires evidence.
An allegation is a statement or claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
Evidence is anything that serves towards showing any statement about reality to be true or false.
quote:
Direct or Indirect Evidence
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly without the need for inference. i.e. when an event is seen.
Indirect (or circumstantial) evidence is where the available pieces of evidence must be brought together sufficient to infer a fact.
In law the term "sufficient" may mean "beyond reasonable doubt" or "on the balance of probabilities" dependent on the circumstances of the case. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
In science the term "sufficient" may mean when things are observed to be a particular way many times without exeption.
quote:So if A testifies he witnessed B committing robbery that's evidence, but if B testifies that he didn't then A's testimony isn't evidence anymore? That seems very convoluted.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
quote:At least for St. Paul the relevant definition seems to be judging people for something which one does oneself, not judging people for something one secretly doesn't think is that bad.
You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?
quote:Bloody Hell, of course this is a bad thing! It does not follow that allegations should not be treated seriously.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Hmmm, so no comment on the poor teacher who lost everything because the accusation was treated as evidence that abuse actually happened even though there was no proof.
quote:I would imagine Mudfrog means that if I say you did something and you deny it, then our contradicting statements should cancel each other out since everyone is equal before the law and my testimony should carry equal weight to yours. Therefore further corroboration is needed from other sources.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So if A testifies he witnessed B committing robbery that's evidence, but if B testifies that he didn't then A's testimony isn't evidence anymore? That seems very convoluted.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
quote:No. Just my personal opinion based on what I've read and heard from others.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Lots of assertions and surmises there, Hawk. Is there evidence to back them up?
quote:So you're suggesting that a branch of the police be allowed to operate in secret, its activities hidden from the public? What could possibly go wrong?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
quote:An order of a judge to restrict the media from publishing the name of an accused person (commonly called a suppression order in Australia) does not create a secret police or restrict the media from publishing all other facts related to the case. Indeed, if the media are playing the ball and not the woman/man, i.e. making balanced reports based on the progression of the case rather than stirring up moral panic and newspaper sales with it, it shouldn't make a difference other than writing "the unnamed defendant" or "the defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons" instead of "Jill/Joe Bloggs."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So you're suggesting that a branch of the police be allowed to operate in secret, its activities hidden from the public? What could possibly go wrong?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
quote:The problem is not one of secrecy, it's about not reporting those allegations to the competent authorities - the police.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Creepy ideas about anonymous detention and secret police aside, isn't keeping abuse allegations secret and concealing the identities of alleged abusers how Cardinal Mahony got in trouble in the first place? Maintaining a code of omertà and forbidding accusers from speaking publicly doesn't have a very good track record in this area.
quote:I can't be alone in doubting whether Cardinal O'Brien can now receive any sort of "due process". I suppose he can plead autrefois convict, citing the decisions of the Head of a certain autocratic State, though.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All I'm really arguing is don't rush to judgment, either about accusers or accused. Let due process take its course.
quote:I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD? IIRC, we used to have anonymity for both victims and accused in rape trials in the UK without HM Constabulary assuming Stasi-like qualities.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So you're suggesting that a branch of the police be allowed to operate in secret, its activities hidden from the public? What could possibly go wrong?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
quote:There is also the effect of publicity on the reputation of the falsely-accused, especially in the days of Google. Many employers google job applicants, and if they see that someone has been accused of rape, they automatically cross that applicant off their list. They don't bother to look into the facts of the case.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
An order of a judge to restrict the media from publishing the name of an accused person (commonly called a suppression order in Australia) does not create a secret police or restrict the media from publishing all other facts related to the case. Indeed, if the media are playing the ball and not the woman/man, i.e. making balanced reports based on the progression of the case rather than stirring up moral panic and newspaper sales with it, it shouldn't make a difference other than writing "the unnamed defendant" or "the defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons" instead of "Jill/Joe Bloggs."
A suppression order is about keeping the trial process clean of media influence, and unfortunately it is necessary for the judiciary to enforce them because the 'old' system of trusting the media to report fairly didn't work. They also exist for other reasons, for example when a defendant or witness is under the age of 18 or also a party in other ongoing investigations/trials.
There's also an element of fairness in it when there's a case where the alleged victim's identity is suppressed. Without the accuser's name being public, there's no chance of anybody coming forward with information which disproves the allegation, for example if the accuser was in a completely different city at the time of the alleged offence. The defendant should have the same protection from people coming forward with information (which may or may not have any truth to it) based on their name being published in the press.
quote:Indeed. In a court of law, if accuser A stands before a judge and says, 'B hit me', the judge cannot take that accusation as evidence (it's only an allegation) he must say to A 'can you prove it?' If A can produce witness C who saw it all happen, then that is evidence and it's up to the judge (and maybe a jury) to decide if the evidence can convict defendant B beyond reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:I would imagine Mudfrog means that if I say you did something and you deny it, then our contradicting statements should cancel each other out since everyone is equal before the law and my testimony should carry equal weight to yours. Therefore further corroboration is needed from other sources.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So if A testifies he witnessed B committing robbery that's evidence, but if B testifies that he didn't then A's testimony isn't evidence anymore? That seems very convoluted.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In a court of law, if accuser A stands before a judge and says, 'B hit me', the judge cannot take that accusation as evidence (it's only an allegation) he must say to A 'can you prove it?'
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Using the law to silence victims seems even less helpful.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
People speaking out in public against others who have not been proven guilty of a crime doesn't help anybody.
quote:If police are allowed to detain alleged criminals without bail (say they're considered a flight risk or a danger to the public or any of the other reasons defendants are denied bail) and the police are barred from publicly disclosing any information about the case prior to trial, doesn't that effectively give police the power to "disappear" people? After all, wouldn't the proposed system of anonymity prevent the police from disclosing that they're holding the suspect?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD?
quote:Some thing like 89% - about nine tenths of rapes go unreported - and that's just for rape. It's a massively under-reported crime. Under-reporting for men who are raped or sexually abused may be even greater.
The British Crime Survey is a study carried out each year based on interviews with 46,000 people over16 years of age. Over 23,000 people were asked questions on intimate violence. The results from this survey suggest that 11 per cent of those who have been raped tell the police about it.
quote:She notes in a box the Court of Appeals statement on one of those rare cases
It is not possible to establish an exact figure and the research that is available gives a wide range of suggested percentages. Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports.33
However, those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few. A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)lawyer told us,‘They are extremely rare. I have been prosecuting for 20 years, and have prosecuted for a false allegation once.’ The judges we talked to said these cases occur very infrequently. An experienced police officer had come across two such cases in15 years.
quote:which makes clear that such cases are treated with severity - and quite rightly so.
Prison ‘inevitable’ for false rape claims
(30 October 2009)
quote:Department of Education PDF Allegations of abuse against teachers and non-teaching staff
The Education Act 2011 contains measures to
introduce reporting restrictions preventing the publication of a teacher’s identity when accused by, or on behalf of, a pupil until the point that they are charged with an offence or
until the Secretary of State or the General Teaching Council for Wales publishes information about an investigation or decision in a disciplinary case arising from the allegation. Restrictions would also lift if the individual to whom the restrictions apply publicly put forward their side ofthe story or gave their written consent for another to do so.
quote:I don't think that's exactly true, B62. The law of evidence is one of the big differences between the Scottish and the English legal systems. In the Scottish system, uncorroborated statements on essential points in criminal trials will get disallowed as evidence by the judge. Though I think what you say holds true for England, and in any event it is not a point to concern a witness. I've no idea what the position is in other judicial environments.
Judges in the UK system do not question the witness as to whether statements made under oath and presented as evidence can be corroborated. Corroborative evidence is a matter for the prosecution, and any cross examination about it is a matter for the defence. The judge rules on the admissibility and presentation of evidence under the laws governing the rules of evidence. The jury weigh the evidence. That's the way it works.
This is jurisprudence 101, Mudfrog, not rocket science.
quote:Like I said, we had anonymity for those accused of rape before, and it didn't result in your fears coming to fruition; there was nothing to stop the accused persons waiving their anonymity and they were still entitled to full legal protection eg: access to a lawyer, so I still don't see what your problem is.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If police are allowed to detain alleged criminals without bail (say they're considered a flight risk or a danger to the public or any of the other reasons defendants are denied bail) and the police are barred from publicly disclosing any information about the case prior to trial, doesn't that effectively give police the power to "disappear" people? After all, wouldn't the proposed system of anonymity prevent the police from disclosing that they're holding the suspect?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD?
quote:True. If an alleged suspect gets successfully "disappeared" from under the nose of their own lawyer and the judiciary, do you really think the media could possibly do any good?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Like I said, we had anonymity for those accused of rape before, and it didn't result in your fears coming to fruition; there was nothing to stop the accused persons waiving their anonymity and they were still entitled to full legal protection eg: access to a lawyer, so I still don't see what your problem is.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If police are allowed to detain alleged criminals without bail (say they're considered a flight risk or a danger to the public or any of the other reasons defendants are denied bail) and the police are barred from publicly disclosing any information about the case prior to trial, doesn't that effectively give police the power to "disappear" people? After all, wouldn't the proposed system of anonymity prevent the police from disclosing that they're holding the suspect?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD?
quote:bold mine
We are in a position where probably 89% of rape survivors don't even seek justice, because it's so difficult, shaming and traumatic for people to come forward (and it's likely much harder for men and certainly much harder for children to come forward), but apparently that's not enough for some people, they'd like to claim the real problem here is false accusations and not enough is being done about that, because obviously abuse and rape survivors are too easily believed already!
This thread has cost me a lot of effort to stay visible and stay posting and to keep to my normal standards. I do so because every time a discussion of abuse is taken over by people who want only to talk about false accusation, people who have genuinely been abused can become more reticent and reluctant to speak up, to seek help, to seek justice. Those who have suffered the worst abuse often will do anything rather than talk about it because it's so costly in mental health to them. It's easy to stay invisible and let others create an even more hostile public arena where people are even more scared to come forward.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
and ((( ))). And for all victims of abuse; whether they decide to report it or not.
quote:Yes. Another (non-clergy) childhood sexual abuse survivor here. I haven't said much, this time around, because getting personal would tear open a bunch of stuff--and right now, I'd rather not.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This. The difficulty, the trauma, faced on an anonymous website and some of you cannot imagine what it is to face all this in person. It is exponentially more difficult and does not go away with the closing of a thread.
quote:I don't know about others, but I only raised false allegations here because I am aware of it as a serious problem for many people. I do not think that this means that sexual abuse and under-reporting and under-conviction of it is not a problem either. I think it is a massive and terrible problem and I certainly don't wish to give any impression otherwise.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re false allegations:
Would those of you who doubt the reality or extent of childhood sexual abuse (whether religious or otherwise) please consider this: if there were a group of people who were accused of theft and claimed innocence, would you assume they were all innocent?
For you, and Louise, and for all victims of abuse and all victims of false allegations.quote:Even when the charges have been disproved, the falsely-accused are still at a disadvantage. As I mentioned earlier, many potential employers google all job applicants, and the fact that someone has been accused of rape automatically disqualifies them. The employer does not take the time and effort to research the matter.
Originally posted by Hawk:
I don't know about others, but I only raised false allegations here because I am aware of it as a serious problem for many people. I do not think that this means that sexual abuse and under-reporting and under-conviction of it is not a problem either. I think it is a massive and terrible problem and I certainly don't wish to give any impression otherwise.
I am only saying that the size of the abuse problem, vast and terrifying as it is, should not blind us to the smaller, but no less real problem beside it.
The low statistics from the courts for those convicted of false allegations are not the whole story by any means. There are innocent people whose cases were thrown out of court before trial who still suffered and still suffer under the stigma of the accusation. There are innocent people in prison today, who have lost everything because a jury did not believe their denials.
Under-reporting and under-conviction of abuse is too high, and there needs to be serious discussion and fervent action about how this can be improved. I agree that everyone should know about this and work hard to raise awareness, and I have great respect for you and Louise for your posts on this subject.
However, I do not think that raising awareness and combating this issue should involve ignoring, or delegitimising the victims of false allegations. Or even claiming that the numbers of such innocent victims are too small and not worth worrying about, or implying that they are a necessary collatoral damage in order to get more convictions.
quote:Whereas they'll just shrug it off if an applicant has been accused of embezzlement? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Moo:
Even when the charges have been disproved, the falsely-accused are still at a disadvantage. As I mentioned earlier, many potential employers google all job applicants, and the fact that someone has been accused of rape automatically disqualifies them. The employer does not take the time and effort to research the matter.
quote:No, its because being accused of sexual abuse is far more stigmatising in society than being accused of embezzlement.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Whereas they'll just shrug it off if an applicant has been accused of embezzlement? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Moo:
Even when the charges have been disproved, the falsely-accused are still at a disadvantage. As I mentioned earlier, many potential employers google all job applicants, and the fact that someone has been accused of rape automatically disqualifies them. The employer does not take the time and effort to research the matter.
I can't help but notice that although it's possible for false accusation to occur for any crime certain people only get upset about it in cases of rape or sexual abuse, where the accused are predominantly men and the accusers are predominantly women. To what extent does requiring an extra level of scrutiny for this particular class of offense feed off the stereotype of women as dishonest connivers?
quote:I can respect that.
The statement issued through the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland read: "In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me to contest them.
"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.
"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise.
"I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."
quote:
The Vatican knew of allegations against Cardinal Keith O’Brien five months ago, it was claimed today.
Reports said a priest lodged a complaint in October about “inappropriate behaviour” by the former Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh in 2001.
quote:
One source was quoted saying: “Lots of people are pillorying the four priests whose cases came out at the weekend, but this is the context.
“It gave them the confidence that they would be heard. It started people talking and it gave them the confidence. It took someone to put his head above the parapet.”
quote:That's not at all obvious in a job application situation, which was moo's stipulated example. If the various recent child abuse scandals have taught us anything it's that employers are a lot more forgiving of child rape than they are towards someone caught with their hand in the till.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:No, its because being accused of sexual abuse is far more stigmatising in society than being accused of embezzlement.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Whereas they'll just shrug it off if an applicant has been accused of embezzlement? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Moo:
Even when the charges have been disproved, the falsely-accused are still at a disadvantage. As I mentioned earlier, many potential employers google all job applicants, and the fact that someone has been accused of rape automatically disqualifies them. The employer does not take the time and effort to research the matter.
I'd have thought that was obvious.
quote:Except you're not standing up "for the victims of false allegations", your standing up "for a very specific subset of the victims of a particular type of false accusation", that a special level of scrutiny should be applied to certain accusers that isn't applied to those reporting accusations of theft or attempted murder (for example). This only really makes sense if you believe accusations are significantly more likely to be false when coming from the kinds of people most likely to report sexual abuse.
Originally posted by Hawk:
There's really no need to try and paint everyone who stands up for the victims of false allegations as sexist. I don't think that was called for at all.
quote:So do all the people on this thread who have been complaining about false accusations think that anything should be done to said members of the church hierarchy for tyring to intimidate the "true" accusers?
In a fresh interview with the Observer, the former priest, who made his complaint to the nuncio in early February, said that after his disclosures he sensed "the cold disapproval of the church hierarchy for daring to break ranks. I feel [that] if they could crush me, they would."
quote:Reading the article, I wonder how much the homosexuality played in the Church's reaction.
Originally posted by argona:
O'brien's admission http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/cardinal-keith-obrien-admits-sexual-misconduct
quote:Why? Because the Guardian speculates that the quick reaction is due to Cardinal O'Brien's comments about celibacy? That's just the Guardian trying very hard to find some extra negative spin, and in an odd place. The real question is whether we would have had quite the current outcome (which leaves both the hierarchy and Cardinal O'Brien in the plus for handling this IMHO), without the Observer publishing the complaints and without a conclave looming. As it is, hell is currently freezing over, as I agree for once with Catherine Pepinster, editor of the Bitter Pill, who in the Guardian article is quoted as follows:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Reading the article, I wonder how much the homosexuality played in the Church's reaction.
Originally posted by argona:
O'brien's admission http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/cardinal-keith-obrien-admits-sexual-misconduct
quote:
This is a shocking admission, but one that is in many ways welcome, not least because it seems Cardinal O'Brien must have been leading a double life, and that is now at an end. That must surely be a relief to him and a burden lifted. But it must also be a relief to Catholics in Scotland. The boil has been lanced, and it's time to move on. Too many scandals in the Catholic church drag on and on, but this one has been dealt with speedily, and a line can be drawn.
quote:And the tragedy is that the former, which involved abuse of power on his part, has been until recently easier for him to live with politically than a stable loving relationship would have been.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well afawk so does he, he just feels he gives into temptation too often. (And the issue basically seems to have been sexual harassment, rather than a secret partner.)
quote:[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Why? Because the Guardian speculates that the quick reaction is due to Cardinal O'Brien's comments about celibacy?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Reading the article, I wonder how much the homosexuality played in the Church's reaction.
Originally posted by argona:
O'brien's admission http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/cardinal-keith-obrien-admits-sexual-misconduct
quote:You are talking about how employers treat child rape accusations against those who are already in their employment. I am talking about employers who are evaluating job applicants. It is frequently in an employer's self-interest to cover up malfeasance by one of his employees.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's not at all obvious in a job application situation, which was moo's stipulated example. If the various recent child abuse scandals have taught us anything it's that employers are a lot more forgiving of child rape than they are towards someone caught with their hand in the till.
quote:If you were responsible for hiring and you saw that an applicant had been accused of a sex crime, would you bother to find out how the charges turned out, or would you just go on to the next applicant?
quote:Except you're not standing up "for the victims of false allegations", your standing up "for a very specific subset of the victims of a particular type of false accusation", that a special level of scrutiny should be applied to certain accusers that isn't applied to those reporting accusations of theft or attempted murder (for example). This only really makes sense if you believe accusations are significantly more likely to be false when coming from the kinds of people most likely to report sexual abuse.
Originally posted by Hawk:
There's really no need to try and paint everyone who stands up for the victims of false allegations as sexist. I don't think that was called for at all.
quote:This describes the ostensibly celibate Cardinal O'Brien's sexual involvements perfectly. It also describes the double standards Roman Catholic officialdom so often uses to protect themselves and their friends, while indulging in the demonization of others.
"double life."
quote:Before his exposure, he was somewhat sharper in his condemnation of homosexuality in others. According to the Times:
that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.
quote:The contrast is striking. One standard for oneself and for the institution for whom you are a spokesperson; another standard for everyone else. The greatest sin seems to be, as it often is, embarrassing the church. The proposed resolution, as it often is, becomes a pious "pray for me."
Abandoning the relatively tolerant approach to the issue he had adopted in the years before he donned a cardinal's hat, he condemned homosexuality as immoral, and as a "grotesque subversion" ...
quote:I'm shocked, shocked to discover the Vatican knew, and left him in place until the press found out.
Originally posted by Louise:
Just to add to information - this link in The Scotsman adds some relevant details. There was apparently a fifth complaint (which was actually the first one) made in October.
quote:
The Vatican knew of allegations against Cardinal Keith O’Brien five months ago, it was claimed today.
quote:Moo, yes I would check and I don't know any professional in a hiring process who wouldn't because of the pitfalls of using online information. I'm surprised by the way general problems - (false accusations, people too stupid to evaluate what they find on google) are being made to apply only to people reporting sexual abuse. What you say applies to all revolting crimes - murder, mugging pensioners, animal and child cruelty, vandalising war memorials and desecrating cemeteries, crimes against especially vulnerable victims.
If you were responsible for hiring and you saw that an applicant had been accused of a sex crime, would you bother to find out how the charges turned out, or would you just go on to the next applicant?
quote:Before his exposure, he was somewhat sharper in his condemnation of homosexuality in others. According to the Times:
Originally posted by roybart:
Earlier in this thread, someone denied that this pattern constitutes "hypocrisy" in a literal sense. Technically, this may or may not be correct. However, one doesn't need a dictionary to detect the smell of double standards and fraud.
For example: in today's NY Times the Cardinal (ex-cardinal?) is quoted as admitting "that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal."
quote:Yes.
Abandoning the relatively tolerant approach to the issue he had adopted in the years before he donned a cardinal's hat, he condemned homosexuality as immoral, and as a "grotesque subversion" ...
quote:When you speak of professionals in the hiring process, you are not considering the scenario that I am. I was thinking about the falsely-accused in the Hofstra case, and I said that it was likely that their educational level was below average and their English might be imperfect. The kind of jobs people like that most frequently get are low-paying jobs in small businesses, such as dry cleaners or small retail stores. Places of this type do not have professionals assessing the job applicants. The business owners interview the candidates and then collect whatever other information they can, including Google. The problem that the falsely-accused Hofstra men will have is that the story was widely reported as a genuine rape in the media. The media frequently do not report on other revolting crimes until they come to trial.
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Moo, yes I would check and I don't know any professional in a hiring process who wouldn't because of the pitfalls of using online information. I'm surprised by the way general problems - (false accusations, people too stupid to evaluate what they find on google) are being made to apply only to people reporting sexual abuse. What you say applies to all revolting crimes - murder, mugging pensioners, animal and child cruelty, vandalising war memorials and desecrating cemeteries, crimes against especially vulnerable victims.
If you were responsible for hiring and you saw that an applicant had been accused of a sex crime, would you bother to find out how the charges turned out, or would you just go on to the next applicant?
quote:I am strongly in favor of not reporting accusations before conviction.
Either people want a general change that no accusation is reported before conviction or they don't, but they should kindly knock off targetting sexual abuse as the one and only type of crime where the first thing we must say is 'what about the false accusations!"
quote:Unfortunately our laws are not so strict.
... (and we have very strict libel laws here which govern what is printed - such stories are usually carefully 'legalled' by news outlets.
quote:If I knew of a case like the Hofstra one that involved some crime other than rape, I would be equally disturbed by it. What really bothers me is that these young men may never be able to get good jobs because of the publicity.
It's also stigma when people incessantly harp on about false accusation in this context - stigma for anyone who reports abuse. It's the disproportion and the singling out of sexual abuse for this discussion which bother me.
quote:I'm not sure what standard you're using for "good jobs" here. I also think you're overestimating the level of scrutiny applied to the typical convenience store clerk during the hiring process.
Originally posted by Moo:
When you speak of professionals in the hiring process, you are not considering the scenario that I am. I was thinking about the falsely-accused in the Hofstra case, and I said that it was likely that their educational level was below average and their English might be imperfect. The kind of jobs people like that most frequently get are low-paying jobs in small businesses, such as dry cleaners or small retail stores. Places of this type do not have professionals assessing the job applicants.
<snip>
What really bothers me is that these young men may never be able to get good jobs because of the publicity.
quote:From my perspective, the problems associated with a legal system that operates in secrecy are greater than the social problems associated with false accusation.
Originally posted by Moo:
I am strongly in favor of not reporting accusations before conviction.
quote:It may be because the cases are fairly high profile but I suspect that murder is disproportionate because there is an awful lot of pressure on police to clear things up and the evidence is often somewhat ambiguous (I suspect, for example, that if the standards of proof Mudfrog was insisting on was followed in murder trials Rose West might have escaped a life sentence). It's not difficult to imagine how an officer investigating the death of Rachel Nickell (not strictly speaking a miscarriage because the judge threw the case out but bloody awful for the chap who was wrongly accused) or the pub bombings of the 70s would have got the bit between their teeth and homed in on the wrong person. In most other crimes that temptation doesn't exist.
The worst cases of false accusation and trial-by-media I can think of recently happened in murder cases - yet they hardly get mentioned - and never mind employment, when the wrong person is convicted of murder they go away for life. What I object to here is going beyond the correct 'we simply don't know - presumed innocent' (until the point where the cardinal admitted things) to focus disproportionately on 'false accusation'. It's also stigma when people incessantly harp on about false accusation in this context - stigma for anyone who reports abuse. It's the disproportion and the singling out of sexual abuse for this discussion which bother me.
quote:There are varying levels of secrecy. You are quickly leaping to the extreme to prove your point that full disclosure is the only way. But can't you see that a middle way is better than either extreme.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From my perspective, the problems associated with a legal system that operates in secrecy are greater than the social problems associated with false accusation.
quote:Not at all. I'm simply proceeding from the premise that the state should conduct its business openly and that use of secrecy should be the well-justified exception rather than the expected rule.
Originally posted by Hawk:
There are varying levels of secrecy. You are quickly leaping to the extreme to prove your point that full disclosure is the only way. But can't you see that a middle way is better than either extreme.
quote:That doesn't seem an easy line to draw. For example, suppose an accuser or family member talks to a reporter. Is that reporter then bound by some kind of prior restraint? That's problematic in a lot of jurisdictions. What if an accuser or family member speaks publicly or prints up flyers or posts something on the internet? Does that mean they've become "the media" and should have their actions restricted? What about cases where the accused (or supporters of the accused) conduct a campaign of harassment against accusers, as was the case in many parishes where parishioners first came forward with accusations of abuse? Wouldn't being able to use the legal system to suppress all accusations if charges are withdrawn be an even greater motivator to use such tactics?
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if it was just the media that was barred from reporting the names and details of accused, while family members and anyone actually involved in the case were not covered by such measures.
quote:Bear in mind that "a week or so ago" (the article was written March 2) "the highest folks in the Vatican" would have included still-Pope Benedict XVI, though Mahony probably didn't intend to make that implication.
Without my even having to inquire, the nuncio in Washington phoned me a week or so ago and said, 'I have had word from the highest folks in the Vatican: You are to come to Rome and you are to participate in the conclave.'
quote:It would be more accurate to say that anonymity is a form of secrecy. It's also hard to work it out the practical implications of Hawk's suggestion barring only "the media" from reporting allegations, since we live in an age where anyone can be "the media". Given the way the clergy abuse scandal has very effectively highlighted the way "malefactors of great [influence]" can evade or obstruct justice, why grant them the additional power to use the legal system to publicly silence their accusers?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
'Anonymity'=/='secrecy'.
quote:ISTM, if everyone who muffed it during the scandal were excluded, it would be a very short guest list.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Cardinal William Levada shouldn't be there, either. Also read the "Prefect" section, just after that.
quote:Because the victim/s deserve the confidence that the case won't be derailed by media meddling. Having the case thrown out of court because the media was more interested in selling papers than detached reporting would be devastating for the victim/s.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... why grant them the additional power to use the legal system to publicly silence their accusers?
quote:But wouldn't the proposed "no reporting" standard provide a perverse incentive to defendants to go to the press? After all, if press coverage of accusations is supposed to lead to automatic acquittal, wouldn't this be seen as an attractive strategy for defendants with otherwise long odds of acquittal?
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Because the victim/s deserve the confidence that the case won't be derailed by media meddling. Having the case thrown out of court because the media was more interested in selling papers than detached reporting would be devastating for the victim/s.
quote:...which says a lot, don't you think?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, if everyone who muffed it during the scandal were excluded, it would be a very short guest list.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Cardinal William Levada shouldn't be there, either. Also read the "Prefect" section, just after that.
ETA: Alright, hyperbole aside, a much shorter guest list.
quote:Indeed. And your point is?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:ISTM, if everyone who muffed it during the scandal were excluded, it would be a very short guest list.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Cardinal William Levada shouldn't be there, either. Also read the "Prefect" section, just after that.
ETA: Alright, hyperbole aside, a much shorter guest list.
quote:I said it does not have to be hypocrisy, which is technically correct. Hypocrisy is about lying, not about failing. It could be hypocrisy, but we do not know that.
Originally posted by roybart:
Earlier in this thread, someone denied that this pattern constitutes "hypocrisy" in a literal sense. Technically, this may or may not be correct.
quote:What a weird comment that is. First, obviously the RCC has a different standard for her clerics than for her lay people: they are supposed to be celibate and continent, we can marry and then have as much sex as we want (with our spouses). Second, beyond that it is reasonable (or at a minimum charitable) to assume that the Cardinal believes that clerics ought to display higher standards than lay people for shared sexual norms. As far as his apparent homosexual tendencies goes, acting them out is forbidden both for him and for all lay Catholics, but he is in an exemplary and inspiring role. You may scoff at that, but I'm reasonably sure (and charitably inclined to believe) that he thinks so. Third, I bet that the statement that so upsets you neither derives from your "double standards" nor from my "other/higher standards", but simply from legal standards. Cardinal O'Brien has so far not admitted any wrongdoing that could land him in the secular courts. You can hold any number of sexual standards, and fail them, without being in conflict with the law of the land. What you see in that statement is almost certainly the hand of a legal adviser establishing plausible deniability. For example, he could still contend a charge of sexual harassment, because making homosexual advances would be against what a RC cleric should do, but do not automatically establish sexual harassment by secular law. You may not like it that the Cardinal does not publicly incriminate himself, but that is not as such an immoral move.
Originally posted by roybart:
However, one doesn't need a dictionary to detect the smell of double standards and fraud. For example: in today's NY Times the Cardinal (ex-cardinal?) is quoted as admittingquote:Before his exposure, he was somewhat sharper in his condemnation of homosexuality in others. According to the Times:
that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.quote:The contrast is striking. One standard for oneself and for the institution for whom you are a spokesperson; another standard for everyone else. The greatest sin seems to be, as it often is, embarrassing the church. The proposed resolution, as it often is, becomes a pious "pray for me."
Abandoning the relatively tolerant approach to the issue he had adopted in the years before he donned a cardinal's hat, he condemned homosexuality as immoral, and as a "grotesque subversion" ...
quote:And I maintain that that is nonsense. Whatever moral standards one may preach, they stand for themselves. They can be good, bad or ugly - but they are so irrespective of the person preaching them, unless the "preacher" explicitly motivates them by their own moral conduct. But that a Cardinal of the RCC would not do. He will say that moral standards come from God, or perhaps that they can be derived from nature, but not that they are good because he personally upholds them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would say it's pretty immoral to cause very likely psychological damage by preaching (from a very high and respected platform) a set of standards which you don't adhere to yourself.
quote:I rather doubt that, but if so: Good! They should, of course, according to RC moral teaching.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I imagine many gay men both believed his preaching and tried to repress their sexuality.
quote:Indeed, nobody knows. So why pretend that we do? From my own experience with trying to uphold RC teaching on sexuality in my own life, I would put my money on "unhappily". (When going on about how terrible it is for the RCC to target homosexuals people tend to forget that actual RC teaching isn't precisely a walk in the park for heterosexuals either.)
Originally posted by Boogie:
At the same time he was happily indulging his from a position of power (or unhappily, nobody knows - nobody ever will know)
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Boogie, preaching should go beyond the person of the preacher. In a way it is de-personalised. The point is the message, not the person conveying it.
So there is no reason why a preacher should talk about his own situation.
Personally, I am not very interested in other peoples' private lives, anyway.
quote:I understand your logic but you do state above that a Cardinal is called to a higher moral standard precisely because he is supposed to act as an inspirational exemplar. Whereas this higher moral standard would be unnecessary if the Cardinal's personal life was irrelevant to the message he preaches.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whatever moral standards one may preach, they stand for themselves. They can be good, bad or ugly - but they are so irrespective of the person preaching them, unless the "preacher" explicitly motivates them by their own moral conduct. But that a Cardinal of the RCC would not do.
quote:So using homosexual sex in power plays (which cause at least one person to quit) isn't a matter for resignation?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
following Desert Daughter
I don't agree with O'Brien's views on homosexuality, but I don't see how he's a hypocrite. He would be if he was living the life of Riley with a gay boy-friend.
quote:It depends a bit on the rigour involved. One can licitly propose to others a walk that one is straying from. I agree though that it can be (not: must be) an additional moral fault to withhold the difficulties one is experiencing oneself with that. However, that very much depends on circumstances.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But at what stage would you expect someone who is acting out their own 'failings' to stop rigorously preaching against them?
quote:That can send a powerful message. But note that the typical rhetoric this leads to requires a "because": you should do better than me, because ... (something negative). This may bring the law of unintended consequences into play, i.e., there may follow some condemnation of homosexuality that is in fact "harsher than necessary", just because the rhetorical structure sort of demands painting a grim picture against following in the speakers path. If you have a drug addict talking to students about avoiding drugs, you expect him to talk about how terrible doing drugs is. You don't want to hear something along the lines of "well, it's the best thing ever to shoot up, really, but overall the health risks are just a bit too high, so overall I would recommend against it".
Originally posted by Boogie:
Or at least to admit, whilst preaching against them, that they themselves also 'suffer' such 'failings'.
quote:Would you expect a drug addict to keep his teaching job?
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you have a drug addict talking to students about avoiding drugs, you expect him to talk about how terrible doing drugs is.
quote:I too have to go to confession regularly, I too am utterly flawed - I don't love enough, I don't pray enough, I don't work hard enough, I don't serve others enough. So I might as well give up really. And yet people tell me they like my preaching. Perhaps that's because I always target myself when preaching, knowing that I need converting. I am not speaking from the vantage of perfection but from the vantage of a supplicant sinner.
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach.
quote:The allegations go back to the 1980s, but I understand there are allegations from the 1990s, too. The media here in Scotland are suggesting that more allegations are likely to surface.
As far as I have followed the story it's not something that has been an ongoing, current situation but goes back to events in the 1980s. Have I missed some recent revelations which say he has been at it all along?
quote:Yes - he said it himself. "there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal"."
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Is Cardinal O'Brien guilty of using homosexual sex in power plays? And that he was "happily indulging his (sexual desires) from a position of power"? As far as I have followed the story it's not something that has been an ongoing, current situation but goes back to events in the 1980s. Have I missed some recent revelations which say he has been at it all along?
quote:A drug addict may lose his teaching job because he's unable to perform it, be it that he's stoned or that he has been thrown into prison. He certainly would lose his teaching job if he advocate drug use. But it is simply not the case that Cardinal O'Brien was unable to perform his job, or that he advocated for the misdeeds he is now accused of. And in fact he has lost his job now, sort of.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would you expect a drug addict to keep his teaching job?
quote:I disagree on all counts. It is perfectly rational and logical for you to avoid a person who wronged you. It is also perfectly rational and logical to prefer a preacher whose personal morals one assumes to be less questionable - after all, the intention of preaching is to inspire you. This is also not a matter of forgiveness: neither was forgiveness sought by this man nor does forgiveness require you to unilaterally act against your own (rational, logical and spiritual) interests. Arguably, if this man's misdeeds dropped from your mind then you have forgiven him in a sense. Finally though, it is not generally immoral to preach against what one does. "Talk the talk, walk the walk" is an ideal, and it is a good ideal. But not every falling short of an ideal is an immoral deed.
Originally posted by Boogie:
When I was a young woman a local preacher (and headeacher) felt my bum on more than one occasion when I was alone in the kitchen. I never went to another service he preached at and I didn't go to his funeral. Irrational? Illogical? Unforgiving? Yes. But he was morally wrong to continue preaching against adultery imo. If you have a failing then that's human. But shut up about it at the very least.
quote:Sermons should all be silent, if preachers follow that logic.
Originally posted by Boogie:
If you have a failing then that's human. But shut up about it at the very least.
quote:Hypocrisy used to be understood as a mismatch between one's words and one's deeds. "Screw as I say, not as I screw" in this particular instance. Now it's proposed that hypocrisy is really a mismatch between stated beliefs and real, secret beliefs. "Screw as I say, not as I secretly believe you should" I guess, though that doesn't have the same panache. I'm not sure this re-definition has any advantage other than defining hypocrisy out of existence, at least as a practical matter.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As far as hypocrisy and preaching go, which of us is ever able to live up to the standards we proclaim?
quote:Exactly. There's an old saying that we all talk better than we act; well, I suppose we should all be silent then.
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:Sermons should all be silent, if preachers follow that logic.
Originally posted by Boogie:
If you have a failing then that's human. But shut up about it at the very least.
Thurible
quote:This is hardly some kind of novel difficulty, unless you consider Samuel Johnson as a recent writer... I think there simply is a difference between the "proper" meaning of the word and a "common" usage that arises.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hypocrisy used to be understood as a mismatch between one's words and one's deeds. "Screw as I say, not as I screw" in this particular instance. Now it's proposed that hypocrisy is really a mismatch between stated beliefs and real, secret beliefs. "Screw as I say, not as I secretly believe you should" I guess, though that doesn't have the same panache. I'm not sure this re-definition has any advantage other than defining hypocrisy out of existence, at least as a practical matter.
quote:Does restricting our understanding of hypocrisy only to things which can be demonstrated using formal logic serve any practical purpose other than to define hypocrisy out of existence?
Originally posted by IngoB:
But while the former is a reasonable assumption, and the latter may be a common motivation, neither formally follows from "I say X is good".
quote:Hypocrisy is not being defined out of existence by its "proper" definition, and it is properly hypocritical of you to pretend that you believe this to be the case.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does restricting our understanding of hypocrisy only to things which can be demonstrated using formal logic serve any practical purpose other than to define hypocrisy out of existence?
quote:There clearly is a difference between word and deed, but not necessarily a hypocritical one (properly speaking). As far as secrecy goes we must here at least consider the shame to admit one's failings, the general reluctance to reveal intimate details, and severe consequences for one's status and livelihood.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bringing it back to the current case, if someone argues for years that "no one should do X", and over that same timeframe not only repeatedly does X but also takes proactive steps (secrecy, etc.) that will allow him to keep on doing X, why is it such an unjustifiable leap to say there's a hypocritical difference between word and deed?
quote:In practical terms it does. By having an "out" defined by "maybe in his unknown heart-of-hearts he really believes what he's saying", there's no act that could really be called hypocritical.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Hypocrisy is not being defined out of existence by its "proper" definition, and it is properly hypocritical of you to pretend that you believe this to be the case.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does restricting our understanding of hypocrisy only to things which can be demonstrated using formal logic serve any practical purpose other than to define hypocrisy out of existence?
quote:"It's not hypocrisy if there's a lot of money and power on the line" is a new one on me. Seems a bit of a non sequitur though. The individual motivations for hypocrisy don't seem on point as to whether something is hypocritical.
Originally posted by IngoB:
There clearly is a difference between word and deed, but not necessarily a hypocritical one (properly speaking). As far as secrecy goes we must here at least consider the shame to admit one's failings, the general reluctance to reveal intimate details, and severe consequences for one's status and livelihood.
quote:Actually, it is merely the case that for a proper charge of hypocrisy an estimate of the person's state and intention is needed. And that's clearly very good, in particular if it reduces the number of easy condemnations that attack the person rather than the deed! You can still say that someone talked the talk but did not walk the walk, and condemn that. But if you shout "hypocrite" then properly speaking on top of that you claim that they were lying when talking rather than failing when walking, which is worse. It is an additional condemnation, and it makes sense to require a separate consideration for it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In practical terms it does. By having an "out" defined by "maybe in his unknown heart-of-hearts he really believes what he's saying", there's no act that could really be called hypocritical.
quote:Indeed, hypocrisy remain hypocrisy. However, the likelihood of secrecy increases if there is a lot at stake. Hence the more is at stake, the less secrecy can serve as a prime indicator of hypocrisy. If Cardinal O'Brien had something to hide, then he may have hid it not because it would have revealed that he made false claims about his beliefs or himself, but simply because revealing it would have destroyed his career. That may be considered less than ideal as well, or even immoral, but it is not as such (proper) hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"It's not hypocrisy if there's a lot of money and power on the line" is a new one on me. Seems a bit of a non sequitur though. The individual motivations for hypocrisy don't seem on point as to whether something is hypocritical.
quote:This is an unutterable pile of Betty Swallocks. It is simply not tenable to claim that "X says that Y is immoral but nonetheless practices Y and keeps it quiet because practicing Y as a leader of an organisation which is implacably opposed to Y is apt to lead X to be sent to a job in a leper colony in the arse end of nowhere" isn't hypocrisy. It's what most people think of as hypocrisy.
Indeed, hypocrisy remain hypocrisy. However, the likelihood of secrecy increases if there is a lot at stake. Hence the more is at stake, the less secrecy can serve as a prime indicator of hypocrisy. If Cardinal O'Brien had something to hide, then he may have hid it not because it would have revealed that he made false claims about his beliefs or himself, but simply because revealing it would have destroyed his career. That may be considered less than ideal as well, or even immoral, but it is not as such (proper) hypocrisy.
quote:Reversing the direction of hypocrisy doesn't make it "not hypocrisy", just hypocrisy about something different.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, it is merely the case that for a proper charge of hypocrisy an estimate of the person's state and intention is needed. And that's clearly very good, in particular if it reduces the number of easy condemnations that attack the person rather than the deed! You can still say that someone talked the talk but did not walk the walk, and condemn that. But if you shout "hypocrite" then properly speaking on top of that you claim that they were lying when talking rather than failing when walking, which is worse. It is an additional condemnation, and it makes sense to require a separate consideration for it.
So, assuming that Cardinal O'Brien is indeed guilty of homosexual harassment, then you have to think whether you believe that the Cardinal was spouting lies when he condemned homosexuality, or not.
quote:The real argument isn't about the label you put on human inconsistency and double-mindedness, but about how good and evil are seen.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
quote:Well, that's nice for most people. And typically they would be right, because X does not in fact believe that Y is immoral, which makes him an hypocrite. But if X does believe that Y is immoral, then he is not a hypocrite but a failure. There is a difference, and if most people do not appreciate it, then most people need to be educated about it. Because it really is a morally important difference. And that's presumably why all the proper dictionary definitions I've seen so far, as well as Wikipedia, maintain that difference - over and against most people, perhaps.
Originally posted by Gildas:
It is simply not tenable to claim that "X says that Y is immoral but nonetheless practices Y and keeps it quiet because practicing Y as a leader of an organisation which is implacably opposed to Y is apt to lead X to be sent to a job in a leper colony in the arse end of nowhere" isn't hypocrisy. It's what most people think of as hypocrisy.
quote:So? We are not discussing whether Cardinal O'Brien failed. It appears that he did. We are not discussing whether his failures were immoral. It appears that they were. We are not discussing whether this trashes the trust of the faithful. It sure will for some. We are discussing whether he is or was a hypocrite. And that's far from clear.
Originally posted by Gildas:
When Cardinal O'Brien stood up and said that gay people are objectively disordered and that homosexuality is an intrinsic moral evil he did so as an ostensively celibate bishop who was above that kind of shit.
quote:And? I mean, seriously, come on. You are a grown man and hardly a newbie to the faith. This is not the Church Triumphant, and SNAFU has always been the condition of this world, including the Church Militant. And are you seriously claiming that one cannot be convinced of one thing and do another, in particular when drunk? Try reading Romans 7:14-25. Is St Paul holy enough for you? Or for that matter, try living up to some challenging standards yourself. I think you may just find that the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matt 26:41).
Originally posted by Gildas:
As a Cardinal he stood before us as a representative of the Kingdom of God in which men and women are neither married nor given in marriage. So, when it turns out that he was making alcohol fuelled passes at the local talent it clearly meant that the existential truth of his condition was that whilst he personally disapproved of homosexuality he nonetheless was up for some serious nookie with his troops.
quote:Ah, you are a Donatist. Well, here's a bit of good news for you: you are a heretic. And if one day you fail against some Christian standard, you will remain a Christian who can be forgiven.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The only way we can say we believe in something is to act it out. Only the people who took risks, for example, in standing up to the Nazis can say they did that. Everyone else can say they hoped to do that.
quote:Nope, still a hypocrite. It's just as hypocritical to believe Y is immoral and pretend that it's not as it is to believe Y is moral and pretend that it isn't.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, that's nice for most people. And typically they would be right, because X does not in fact believe that Y is immoral, which makes him an hypocrite. But if X does believe that Y is immoral, then he is not a hypocrite but a failure.
quote:First, sexual harassment is an evaluation of the type of sexual advances the Cardinal is supposed to have made, it is highly unlikely to have been the topic of these advances themselves. That is, the Cardinal would not have argued to anyone at any time that sexual harassment is perfectly fine, contrary to Church teaching. Rather, the way in which he is supposed to have propositioned (coercive or by promising inappropriate reward) is judged to be a kind of sexual harassment (at least by the accusers).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As you suggest, the Cardinal truly does believe the stated positions of the Catholic Church on gay sex and sexual harassment, but has hypocritically worked to convince a select group of his underlings he believes differently by harassing and having sex with them.
Either way, there's hypocrisy involved. Just because you've got a preferred direction for it to flow doesn't mean it's not there.
quote:Sure, but since your second case is not a description of what I was saying, you have no point. Doing X is not in itself a statement that one thinks that doing X is right. It just isn't. It can be an indication that this is the case, but it is not proof. People simply do things that they themselves consider wrong. And this happens with great frequency particularly in sexual matters and when people are drunk.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Nope, still a hypocrite. It's just as hypocritical to believe Y is immoral and pretend that it's not as it is to believe Y is moral and pretend that it isn't.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, that's nice for most people. And typically they would be right, because X does not in fact believe that Y is immoral, which makes him an hypocrite. But if X does believe that Y is immoral, then he is not a hypocrite but a failure.
quote:I'm not really defending Cardinal O'Brien personally. Pretty much the first time I've heard of him was this mess. I'm defending against a judgement that ultimately only allows the purest of saints to speak on morals. I'm defending against the attitude that one has to publicly confess one's sin, no matter how intimate, shameful or threatening to one's livelihood, if one wants to speak about such sin. At a more abstract level, I'm defending morals as a matter of objective debate, where arguments rather than persons matter.
Originally posted by Boogie:
IngoB, you argue your points very well and extremely cleverly, but I don't think cardinal OB deserves your defence.
quote:We do not know to what extent he took advantage of his position. We do not know what the state of play is concerning the Vatican (or do we?). And I was under the impression that he preached vehemently against gay marriage, which presumably is not something he attempted to have himself.
Originally posted by Boogie:
He took advantage of his powerful position, preached vehemently against the very thing he was doing himself and is thus facing investigations by the vatican.
quote:Arguably, practically all (Latin) RC priests "deny their sexuality". It is a sacrifice they willingly accept from the outset. And none of them can stop doing so (at least continuously) and keep their "job". I certainly feel for everybody who struggles with the demands of their vocation, and hope the find support (and where needed forgiveness). But I do not consider these particular demand as unjust per se, and I do not think that they can serve as a ready-made excuse.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I do think he deserves our pity, it must be terrible to have to deny your sexuality in order to remain in your job and church.
quote:Had to look at the avatar and name on this one.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm defending against a judgement that ultimately only allows the purest of saints to speak on morals. I'm defending against the attitude that one has to publicly confess one's sin, no matter how intimate, shameful or threatening to one's livelihood, if one wants to speak about such sin.
quote:That is not what celibates say. They don't 'deny' their sexuality but 'channel' it into a particular relationship with Christ and with their flock as an anticipation of the world to come where we shall 'neither marry nor be given in marriage.'
Originally posted by IngoB:
Arguably, practically all (Latin) RC priests "deny their sexuality". It is a sacrifice they willingly accept from the outset.
quote:First, note the quotes? They serves both to indicate a verbatim quote from Boogie, and as scare quotes to indicate that care is needed in interpreting the words. Second, I don't particularly care for your interpretation. Frankly, it sounds somewhat creepy.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That is not what celibates say. They don't 'deny' their sexuality but 'channel' it into a particular relationship with Christ and with their flock as an anticipation of the world to come where we shall 'neither marry nor be given in marriage.'
Originally posted by IngoB:
Arguably, practically all (Latin) RC priests "deny their sexuality". It is a sacrifice they willingly accept from the outset.
quote:I'm guessing his advances included the information "I'm in favor of gay sex, at least in my immediate future". That's kind of the minimal content necessary for something to count as a sexual advance towards a same-gendered individual. I suppose you could speculate that the Cardinal might have been in favor of gay sex for himself (and whoever he was soliciting at the time) and opposed to it for anyone else, but that's also a form of hypocrisy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, you do not know what the Cardinal may have said in making his sexual advances, hence you cannot know whether that was hypocritical under the assumption that he believes in the Church teachings on homosexuality.
quote:That's not the same thing as believing it to be moral. One can want, and desperately and passionate want, something which one believes to be bad. Don't you know any smokers?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm guessing his advances included the information "I'm in favor of gay sex, at least in my immediate future".
quote:No. It might be, indeed probably is, indicative of a failure to amend one's life. However, if one sincerely purposes that amendment when one confesses, it is too much to doubt the sincerity of the repentance.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A frequent kneeler discount at the confessional is indicative of a lack of true repentance.
quote:Failing to live up to one's standards is not hypocrisy. It is failure. And whether the RCC is the repository of Christian faith, or not, saying so is only hypocritical if one does not actually believe it. It does not become hypocritical according to whether that statement is true or false, but according to whether one means what one says. Failure at standards that one believes to be the standards remains a failure. It does not magically become hypocrisy just because one fails at standards one thinks highly of. To be honest, I can't make much sense of what you are saying there.
Originally posted by RuthW:
On the charges of hypocrisy: it's the Catholic Church's claim to be THE repository of the Christian faith that makes me scoff and call its representatives hypocrites when they inevitably fail to live up to the standards they set for themselves. If the Catholic Church didn't make such a huge claim of authority, I'd cut the men in the hierarchy more slack in this regard.
quote:This is getting a bit silly. Following one's (sexual) impulses is not commonly considered as a comprehensive statement of one's moral convictions. Otherwise nobody ever could feel conflicted, and nobody ever could end up doing what they themselves consider as immoral. But that's manifestly false. Human beings are just a bit more complicated than that. There are "lower" motivations, impulses, urges, etc. and there are "higher" convictions, thoughts, morals, etc. and they are neither the same thing nor always in harmony with each other. The charge of hypocrisy is aimed at the "higher" level, not at the "lower" level. I'm not sure what hypocrisy at the "lower" level even could amount to, perhaps faking an orgasm or something like that. (Obviously one can be hypocritical about the urges that one experiences. But the "higher" level then comes through this "aboutness".)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm guessing his advances included the information "I'm in favor of gay sex, at least in my immediate future". That's kind of the minimal content necessary for something to count as a sexual advance towards a same-gendered individual.
quote:That may be so, but as I have pointed out, the official dictionary / encyclopaedia definitions - as well as the "educated" opinions of people like Samuel Johnson - tend to stick with what you call sense 1, i.e., with what I've called "proper" hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But sense 2 is pretty strongly entrenched as the common meaning.
quote:What I'm trying to get at is something akin to your sense 1 definition of hypocrisy. Setting up as a moral authority, in a very public and assertive voice, and then of course failing to live up to that, seems to me to be as much of a pretense as professing beliefs one does not actually hold. It's not the failure that is the problem. We all fail, we all sin, we all fall short. It's the over-large claim of moral authority. It's not that members of the Catholic hierarchy are sinners that bugs me. It's that members of the Catholic hierarchy in the US go beyond exhorting the Catholic faithful to live according to Catholic doctrine; they support putting laws in place that would require all Americans to live according to certain Catholic doctrines. Claiming to be the One True Church of the One True Faith is too big a moral claim to make.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Failing to live up to one's standards is not hypocrisy. It is failure. And whether the RCC is the repository of Christian faith, or not, saying so is only hypocritical if one does not actually believe it. It does not become hypocritical according to whether that statement is true or false, but according to whether one means what one says. Failure at standards that one believes to be the standards remains a failure. It does not magically become hypocrisy just because one fails at standards one thinks highly of. To be honest, I can't make much sense of what you are saying there.
Originally posted by RuthW:
On the charges of hypocrisy: it's the Catholic Church's claim to be THE repository of the Christian faith that makes me scoff and call its representatives hypocrites when they inevitably fail to live up to the standards they set for themselves. If the Catholic Church didn't make such a huge claim of authority, I'd cut the men in the hierarchy more slack in this regard.
quote:But the sadness, for me, is a church which makes a sin of sex. So much so that its followers are even forbidden masturbation.
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:No. It might be, indeed probably is, indicative of a failure to amend one's life. However, if one sincerely purposes that amendment when one confesses, it is too much to doubt the sincerity of the repentance.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A frequent kneeler discount at the confessional is indicative of a lack of true repentance.
quote:This statement gives us an insight into the way one of the key players things about things, or at least wants us to think about them. It ups the ante in this discussion. We have moved far beyond nit-picking about what or what does not constitute "hypocrisy."
Mahony has been blogging about the public disparagement he has received, and he compares it to what Christ withstood, urging the faithful to join him in exploring what it is to "take up our cross daily and to follow Jesus -- in rejection, in humiliation, and in personal attack."
quote:I understand the mental process of regretting an action and subsequently repeating that action. I've no doubt of the possibility of sincere repentance at the moment of the action. However, if one wishes to stop, but finds it too great an effort, one removes oneself from temptation. Early on in the initial scandal, I remember an interview of a priest who felt too much temptation. He removed himself to a remote wilderness location. This was commendable, this was proper.
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:No. It might be, indeed probably is, indicative of a failure to amend one's life. However, if one sincerely purposes that amendment when one confesses, it is too much to doubt the sincerity of the repentance.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A frequent kneeler discount at the confessional is indicative of a lack of true repentance.
Thurible
quote:All a bit knife edged. From the outside, what we experience is "vaulting ambition o'erleaping itself". From the inside, understandably, things look different. The authorisation legitimises the call and the assurance.
I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . . .
quote:I take your first point.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:First, note the quotes? They serves both to indicate a verbatim quote from Boogie, and as scare quotes to indicate that care is needed in interpreting the words. Second, I don't particularly care for your interpretation. Frankly, it sounds somewhat creepy.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That is not what celibates say. They don't 'deny' their sexuality but 'channel' it into a particular relationship with Christ and with their flock as an anticipation of the world to come where we shall 'neither marry nor be given in marriage.'
Originally posted by IngoB:
Arguably, practically all (Latin) RC priests "deny their sexuality". It is a sacrifice they willingly accept from the outset.
quote:Luckily, I don't have to appreciate every thing ever written by a RC, much less your paraphrase of an entire book in a sentence.
Originally posted by leo:
However, re-interpretion, it's fairly standard RC - what I wrote above is a one sentence summary of a book published in 1979 called The Sexual Celibate by Fr. Donald Goergen, OP
quote:Wonder if he knows the millstone verse...
Originally posted by RuthW:
Suffering personal attack because he covered up child abuse is comparable to Jesus' suffering? Wow.
quote:So do you really think that enforced celibacy, including a ban on masturbation will not add to the burdens of those charged to care for their flock?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
I accept that the church has been authorised to be the body of Christ in the world. It is a commission. So it is not wrong to act and pronounce both in the confidence that we have been authorised and are also expected to speak authoritatively about what is true. But how is that to be combined with gentleness and humbleness of heart towards the burdened and the weary?
Like all the paradoxes of the Christian faith, we live with the tension of that. And that seems to me to be particularly true for the Catholic Church because of the belief about how this authority has been handed down, and continues to be handed down.
Such authority is hard to live by and hard to live with. The yoke often seems far from easy! Personally, I think the yoke is easier if the hands are open and the finger is not pointed. And continuing frailty, continuing vulnerability, are acknowledged. There is a meekness in that which is powerful.
The challenges of availability and vulnerability can teach us a lot about how to love.
quote:My post addresses the relationship between being confident that we have been given authority and the way we exercise it; particularly when speaking to people who do not recognise that authority over themselves. That was also a point RuthW made.
Setting up as a moral authority, in a very public and assertive voice, and then of course failing to live up to that, seems to me to be as much of a pretense as professing beliefs one does not actually hold.
quote:Does that help you to see the primary purpose of my post? Maybe you did see it but were just interested in what I thought about your question?
It's not that members of the Catholic hierarchy are sinners that bugs me. It's that members of the Catholic hierarchy in the US go beyond exhorting the Catholic faithful to live according to Catholic doctrine; they support putting laws in place that would require all Americans to live according to certain Catholic doctrines. Claiming to be the One True Church of the One True Faith is too big a moral claim to make.
quote:But you are prepared to call mainstream RC thinking 'creepy.'
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Luckily, I don't have to appreciate every thing ever written by a RC, much less your paraphrase of an entire book in a sentence.
Originally posted by leo:
However, re-interpretion, it's fairly standard RC - what I wrote above is a one sentence summary of a book published in 1979 called The Sexual Celibate by Fr. Donald Goergen, OP
quote:Sure, why not? As it is, however, I simply found what you said somewhat creepy, whatever it may actually represent.
Originally posted by leo:
But you are prepared to call mainstream RC thinking 'creepy.'
quote:Yes I did, and yes I was.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Does that help you to see the primary purpose of my post? Maybe you did see it but were just interested in what I thought about your question?
quote:Howe about if, instead of saying 'channeling sexuality' i said 'channeling affectivity?'
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sure, why not? As it is, however, I simply found what you said somewhat creepy, whatever it may actually represent.
Originally posted by leo:
But you are prepared to call mainstream RC thinking 'creepy.'
quote:The Commitment to Celibacy - Fr. Kevin Doran
Celibacy must be seen as a way of living one's sexuality and not as a denial of it. A priest relates to other people, both men and women, as a man. This pastoral love is not just a vague love for people in general, but a real concrete love for real men and women. A priest may be living on his own, but his living is very clearly directed towards others. ....... To love someone truly as a celibate demands, not that we repress our love, but that we deepen our capacity for expressing our love in other ways. To respond appropriately to our feelings and to control our desires doesn't mean to deny them. Purity based on sexual denial is a fraud. Again Wilkie Au expresses this very well:
Sexual denial hardens the heart and makes it arrogant. It closes the heart to mercy, renders it incapable of understanding the weak, and powerless to pronounce the words of Jesus to the woman caught in adultery. Such a purity is too glacial to be compassionate. (By Way of the Heart, p.145)
