Catholic Church Opposes Removing Statute of Limitations for Child Rape

[Minimalist]

It allows them to maintain the illusion that a billion people give a flying fuck what these old perverts have to say.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...sexuality/

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

Views on abortion are more mixed, with combined surveys from 2011 through 2013 showing opinion is split among U.S. Catholics. About half (53%) of white Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 41% say it should be illegal in all or most cases; among Hispanic Catholics, 43% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 52% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Fuck the church!

[vorlon13]

I've noted of late a disquieting sensation when I'm around my catholic neighbors now. Knowing they are financially supporting an organized pedophile ring is affecting my prior consideration of them as 'good neighbors'.

An in-law to the family, an otherwise super nice 'senior' lady was married to man who was deeply disturbed at the pedo allegations back in the 80s and 90s. Had his health not suddenly declined, I'd like to think he would have progressed to the stereotypical 'crisis of faith' as the scandal worsened. That she remains content in the church to this day is disappointing. She dotes on her grandkids, but doesn't seem to make the connection the pedo victims are grandkids to others too.

[robvalue]

I understand. What else are we to think now? The big nobs couldn't have made it any clearer.

What would they think of us, if we were donating to an atheist organisation that explicitly lobbied to protect child molesters? They'd think there was something seriously wrong with us.

I wouldn't necessarily expect people to stop being Catholic (although I don't know why the hell they'd want to be anything to do with it) but I would expect them to stop financially supporting it.

[Catholic_Lady]

So, if nothing else would influence you to leave an institution behind, wouldn't this be it?

http://www.wisconsincatholic.org/Repeal%...ations.pdf

http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/04/24/c...ims-in-ny/

"Such a law in New York would cause the Church “catastrophic financial harm,” according to a statement of opposition from The New York State Catholic Conference,..."

Wow. It's hard to imagine being more cut off from reality...

My question for the Catholics:

How can you continue to write a check to this institution? Wouldn't it be sound ethically to convince your diocese to make changes by withholding your money from them?

Hi, sorry I had not commented on this thread, as I have only been on AF to play mafia and didn't know it was here.

Someone sent me a message on facebook to make me aware of it and asked for my 2 cents, so here I am. 

First of all, I won't pretend to understand much about politics or these sorts of laws. I don't know whether or not it is justifiable to remove the statute of limitations for certain cases only, or whether it at least makes a valid point. But what I do know is that the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church (which consists of all of us active, practicing Catholics), consists of much more than American laws. I believe in the Catholic faith, and I am a member that makes up the Catholic Church. I certainly don't agree with everything every Catholic person does, even the higher ups, and I even disagree with the Pope on a few of his personal opinions on things. But I do believe in the teaching of the Catholic faith, and I remain a Catholic for this reason - because I believe in it. 

As for giving money to the Church, yes, I do that as well. When we go to a church and put some of our money in the basket, most of that money will go to the Church itself. We don't get charged to be there every week, even though they still have to pay the priest as well as any other expenses that comes with running a property. It is only fair that I contribute my share for being there and using their services. While most of the money goes for upkeep of the parish itself and payment for the people who make a living working there, some of it also goes to help the local people who are needy. We run a lot of charity projects, one of which consists of building houses every spring for some families in need. Everything gets paid for by our parish and we rely on parishioners to come out and volunteer to help build the houses. Some of the money also goes to the Vatican, and from there they use it for the same things - upkeep, salaries, and charity. 

Am I always going to agree with everything they do with the money all the time? I'm sure not. Am I always going to agree with everything every Catholic person does? Obviously, no. But I am a member of the Church and it is something I believe in. I am there every week and will continue to contribute my part.

[Minimalist]

And thus, you will continue to subsidize child molesters, C/L.  As long as you are clear on what you are doing.

[Cyberman]

I know you were invited to give your opinion in this discussion, C_L, so I don't want to appear like I'm having a dig at you personally. I'd just like to address this part if you'll indulge me:

As for giving money to the Church, yes, I do that as well. When we go to a church and put some of our money in the basket, most of that money will go to the Church itself. We don't get charged to be there every week, even though they still have to pay the priest as well as any other expenses that comes with running a property. It is only fair that I contribute my share for being there and using their services.

Forgive me, but what services are you using? Their heating? Lighting? I'm guessing they don't have wi-fi, as the old joke has it that churches don't like to compete with an invisible force that actually does something ( )

As I type this, I'm sitting in a particular high street restaurant which I won't name for advertising reasons, eating one of their Big Mac meals. I'm making use of their lighting, their heating - it's fecking freezing outside, not to mention raining - and of course their food (they actually do supply wi-fi as a service, but I'm not using it now). Soon I might avail myself of their toilets, if the fancy takes me. The staff here also work bloody hard to earn their crust, and the costs of all of the above are reflected in the price of the food they provide.

Basically what I'm asking is what does this church provide, that you feel obliged to pay for? It's laudable that a proportion of the money goes to charitable causes, at least what remains after filtering through the command chain (that last part is why I don't give to certain charities, secular or otherwise, that operate in a similar way). Wouldn't it be better, perhaps, for this cash to reach those who would benefit, as directly as possible, without lining the pockets of people who actually possess clothes with pockets and who never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from?

[Pat Mustard]

I know you were invited to give your opinion in this discussion, C_L, so I don't want to appear like I'm having a dig at you personally. I'd just like to address this part if you'll indulge me:

As for giving money to the Church, yes, I do that as well. When we go to a church and put some of our money in the basket, most of that money will go to the Church itself. We don't get charged to be there every week, even though they still have to pay the priest as well as any other expenses that comes with running a property. It is only fair that I contribute my share for being there and using their services.

Forgive me, but what services are you using? Their heating? Lighting? I'm guessing they don't have wi-fi, as the old joke has it that churches don't like to compete with an invisible force that actually does something (;) )

As I type this, I'm sitting in a particular high street restaurant which I won't name for advertising reasons, eating one of their Big Mac meals. I'm making use of their lighting, their heating - it's fecking freezing outside, not to mention raining - and of course their food  (they actually do supply wi-fi as a service, but I'm not using it now). Soon I might avail myself of their toilets, if the fancy takes me. The staff here also work bloody hard to earn their crust, and the costs of all of the above are reflected in the price of the food they provide.

Basically what I'm asking is what does this church provide, that you feel obliged to pay for? It's laudable that a proportion of the money goes to charitable causes, at least what remains after filtering through the command chain (that last part is why I don't give to certain charities, secular or otherwise, that operate in a similar way). Wouldn't it be better, perhaps, for this cash to reach those who would benefit, as directly as possible, without lining the pockets of people who actually possess clothes with pockets and who never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from?

All too often, what is meant by charitable when talking about church tithing is maintenance and renovation to church property in the parish. In Ireland you occasionally get charitable collections outside the church gate (but even the majority of these are conducted by cults like opus dei which have fuck all to do with charity) but all the money collected in church stay in the church. If you want to donate to charity through the church you have to go through charities like trocaire, though even with those you're as likely to be funding the child support for children of priests and bishops as doing good.

[SteelCurtain]

First of all, I won't pretend to understand much about politics or these sorts of laws. I don't know whether or not it is justifiable to remove the statute of limitations for certain cases only, or whether it at least makes a valid point. But what I do know is that the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church (which consists of all of us active, practicing Catholics), consists of much more than American laws. I believe in the Catholic faith, and I am a member that makes up the Catholic Church. I certainly don't agree with everything every Catholic person does, even the higher ups, and I even disagree with the Pope on a few of his personal opinions on things. But I do believe in the teaching of the Catholic faith, and I remain a Catholic for this reason - because I believe in it. 

I'm sorry, CL, but this is a major cop out. You can't discern whether or not there should be a time limit on when a person who raped a child should be free from being held accountable for their rape?

My question doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Catholic faith is real or it's doctrines are true or not. My question is how can you continue to support an organization that would put money and protecting pedophile priests over the wellbeing of victims of rape? No longer is the excuse of "fallible men" applicable. This is an organizational doctrine to oppose changing these laws.

As for giving money to the Church, yes, I do that as well. When we go to a church and put some of our money in the basket, most of that money will go to the Church itself. We don't get charged to be there every week, even though they still have to pay the priest as well as any other expenses that comes with running a property. It is only fair that I contribute my share for being there and using their services. While most of the money goes for upkeep of the parish itself and payment for the people who make a living working there, some of it also goes to help the local people who are needy. We run a lot of charity projects, one of which consists of building houses every spring for some families in need. Everything gets paid for by our parish and we rely on parishioners to come out and volunteer to help build the houses. Some of the money also goes to the Vatican, and from there they use it for the same things - upkeep, salaries, and charity. 

Am I always going to agree with everything they do with the money all the time? I'm sure not. Am I always going to agree with everything every Catholic person does? Obviously, no. But I am a member of the Church and it is something I believe in. I am there every week and will continue to contribute my part.

Do you not feel a duty to pressure the organization to do the right thing? Your money can go to Habitat for Humanity, to the local soup kitchen, to a shelter for women, or even offset the RCC's efforts to keep these laws from changing by donating to victim advocacy groups.

For me, I would feel sick donating even a dollar to an organization that went out of its way to keep victims of child rape from seeing justice. I guess my follow up question is how do you rectify this?

[robvalue]

Another question for Catholics:

Would you ever give one single penny to any other organisation that explicitly lobbies to protect (child) rapists from facing justic? No matter what other "good" they also do?

Would you?

I wouldn't. I'd find non-child-rapist-protecting organisations that do similar "good" things, and give to them instead.

This statement from them is an admission that they are aware of significant numbers of catholic priests who have committed crimes and haven't been brought to justice.

Some fucking morality.

[Catholic_Lady]

First of all, I won't pretend to understand much about politics or these sorts of laws. I don't know whether or not it is justifiable to remove the statute of limitations for certain cases only, or whether it at least makes a valid point. But what I do know is that the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church (which consists of all of us active, practicing Catholics), consists of much more than American laws. I believe in the Catholic faith, and I am a member that makes up the Catholic Church. I certainly don't agree with everything every Catholic person does, even the higher ups, and I even disagree with the Pope on a few of his personal opinions on things. But I do believe in the teaching of the Catholic faith, and I remain a Catholic for this reason - because I believe in it. 

I'm sorry, CL, but this is a major cop out. You can't discern whether or not there should be a time limit on when a person who raped a child should be free from being held accountable for their rape?

The way you're wording it is very leading though. Obviously I think people guilty of raping children shouldn't be free. My understanding is that the statute of limitations are in place to ensure that not enough time has passed to where sufficient evidence to convict someone has deteriorated with time. Some states in the US have those limitations on rape, others do not. Is it justifiable or reasonable for those states to have those limitations? What exactly are the conditions? Are they reasonable? Again, I don't know. How many innocent people have had their lives ruined due to being falsely accused of an alleged rape that happened decades ago in a state that does not have those limits, verses how many guilty people have walked free with plenty of evidence because of it in the states that do? What are the pros and cons and risks involved? Why do those statutes exist in the first place? I don't know the answer to these questions and so cannot make a strong comment on something I hardly know anything about.

But my whole point was that that's beyond the point. Even if I did do some research and came to the conclusion that those limitations do more harm than good and thus disagreed with the bishops in Wisconsin, I'd still be Catholic because I believe in it and I am not required as a Catholic to agree with everything every Catholic person does, including bishops, cardinals, and even popes. They don't make up the Church on their own. We all do, myself included.

And I'd still go to mass and contribute my share for being there. For that, I've already thoroughly explained why in my previous post. If you wanna take everything I said about that and have the take away be that I'm a supporter of child rapists for putting money in my parish's basket, fine. By your own logic though, I don't know why you would either like or think well of someone who you would classify as a supporter of child rape.