Catholic parishioners urged to help defeat SOL reform; one parishioner walks out of Mass

[trotsky]

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/06/catholic_child_sex_crimes_law.html

At 72, Nancy O'Brien has been a devout Catholic all her life.

On Sunday, O'Brien walked out of Mass in disgust. She did so after her priest at St. Anthony of Padua in Ambler, just outside Philadelphia, read a letter from the head of the archdiocese encouraging parishioners to help defeat a proposed legislation that would reform the state's child sex crimes.

St. Anthony's wasn't the only parish to receive the letter. All 219 parishes across Philadelphia were read the letter from Archbishop Charles Chaput urging them to contact their lawmakers by mail or telephone and encourage them to vote against House Bill 1947, which would reform the statute of limitations.

"It was bull (expletive)," O'Brien said on Monday. "I don't have to listen to this bull (expletive) anymore. I've been a practicing Catholic all my life. I'm not going to be anything else. I thought it was an insult. I know what's been going on."

Nancy gets it. Maybe some defender of the RCC will come along to explain how she's an anti-Catholic bigot too.

[skepticscott]

1. There is no shortage

of child rape enablers, defenders and apologists out there. One of them is probably alert trolling this thread.

Of course, as far as Nancy O'Brien, you have to wonder why it took her 72 years to feel any moral outrage.

[trotsky]

2. Indeed on both counts.

Better late than never with Nancy I suppose. If only all Catholics could be as principled and courageous.

[rug]

8. If only all antitheists could be as demure and disingenuous.

[rug]

7. You must have been alert trolled 11 times.

[cleanhippie]

19. Is that what happened when you got all your hides and time-outs?

[rug]

23. Not as many as yours.

[struggle4progress]

3. ... “Most people could understand if they were charged with committing a crime on a certain day

30 years ago, it would probably be very difficult for them to even begin to figure out where they were or what they were doing on that particular day” ...

Eliminating statute of limitations on child sex crimes problematic, defense lawyers say
DAN PETRELLA
Apr 28, 2016

[Cartoonist]

4. I bet the victim would remember

What a pathetic apology

[struggle4progress]

6. Perhaps not everyone can understand what most people could

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. "being able to move on"? What a scumbag William Schroeder is

“It is very, very dangerous,” said William Schroeder, a criminal law professor at Southern Illinois University. “There are reasons for the statute of limitations.”
...
“You have to have some kind of rational balance between society’s interest in prosecuting malefactors and people’s interest in, one, not being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, but in being able to move on,” he said.

No. Not being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit is the only interest to be balanced against prosecuting malefactors. There is no excuse for saying "move on".

[Dorian Gray]

33. All of this is well and good.

They can argue that in court.

But the church reading this letter during mass is essentially lobbying for something that would financially (bc it's all about payouts to victims of abuse) benefit them. And it's unconscionable.

I am a practicing Catholic. If this was read during mass, I would also walk out.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. So... we're not going into Catholic churches in Philadelphia now?

Or will someone be along shortly to Cathosplain that the church is only motivated to fight SOL reform by the purest of selfless intentions?

[rug]

10. She is.

"It was bull (expletive)," O'Brien said on Monday. "I don't have to listen to this bull (expletive) anymore. I've been a practicing Catholic all my life. I'm not going to be anything else. I thought it was an insult. I know what's been going on."

- snip -

"O'Brien, a member of Voice of the Faithful, a reform advocacy group, anticipates the church is not going to let up trying to defeat the bill. She said she would continue going to Mass - noting that attendance at her parish is on the decline.

"'They say we are so afraid we won't be able to help the poor," she said. "Give me a break. They could care less about the poor. I've seen so many people get hurt by their refusal to do anything.'"

It must be tough living in a binary world.

This may help: http://www.votf.org/

[trotsky]

11. I can see three responses on this thread.

I would guess the Cathosplainin' has already happened. Or a lame attempt to somehow suggest that those who criticize the church's (in)action on child rape, and its continued efforts to deny justice to the victims, are the real bad people. Anti-Catholic bigots, most likely. How dare they point out the hypocrisy and immorality of the church?

[skepticscott]

12. As predicted

The defenders and apologists for child rape and covering up child rape have reared their ugly heads again. Always the same ones, too..I'm sure you can guess.

Wondering how many alerts they've already tried in this thread. They seem to think that if they can just get all the posts pointing it out hidden, that will somehow mean that none of the catholic church's child-raping ever happened. Whatever makes them feel holy, I guess.

[rug]

14. Lol, you sound spooked.

Not to mention paranoid.

[trotsky]

15. No surprises there.

Ah, the poor church and its child rapists and their enablers/protectors. How dare people continue to shine light on their crimes. I have no problem being despised by the horrible individuals who defend that bullshit. It confirms I'm on the right side.

[rug]

13. Now, trotsky, when you deliberately blind yourself, you see only what you want to be there.

[Angry Dragon]

16. It seems that some just want to sweep it under the rug...............

[rug]

17. A particularly clever and original bon mot.

Stupid nonetheless.

[Angry Dragon]

20. Are you suggesting there are not many christians out there protecting child rapists

so their church is protected??

Or are you just suggesting that I am stupid??

[rug]

22. I'm stating that in your attempt to appear clever you succedded in appearing stupid.

Or maybe you were not ragging on a username.

[Angry Dragon]

24. I do not believe in a church that hides behind their god

I am not the one with a name that suggests something that is thrown on the floor and walked on

[rug]

25. Who gives a shit?

But you are the one with the name of an anthropomorphized mythical creature.

[Angry Dragon]

27. Dragons exist just as much as your god

Perhaps Dragons are gods.................maybe

[rug]

28. If you had an elementary understanding of philosophy you'd realize what an inane comment that is.

Anything finite can presumably be proven to be true or false eventually.

Figure out the rest on your own.

[Angry Dragon]

29. I have figured out that you run and hide behind your beliefs

You may believe but you do not know

[rug]

30. I have figured out that you haven't the slightest idea of what you talk about.

And that you don't know what my beliefs are but react according to what you think they are.

There's a very misused word for that which is more than apt to be used here.

[trotsky]

18. There will always be those who value their church over people.

They're generally a lost cause.

[skepticscott]

21. One of the many ugly things

that religion does to people. We see the hate and the bigotry that would not exist but for religion every day. There would be no fight over LGBT rights if not for the imagined dictates of people's god concepts. None.

And yet it is still tolerated, sadly, on DU.

[rug]

26. You've repeatedly disproved your own post.

We see the hate and the bigotry that would not exist but for religion every day.

[skepticscott]

34. The alerter was right

[Eugene]

35. Catholic Legislators Feel Church's Ire Over Abuse Bill Votes

Source: Associated Press

Catholic Legislators Feel Church's Ire Over Abuse Bill Votes

By KRISTEN DE GROOT, ASSOCIATED PRESS PHILADELPHIA — Jun 9, 2016, 4:13 PM ET

Roman Catholic legislators say they have been publicly shamed during Mass, called out in church bulletins and disinvited to parish events as the Philadelphia Archdiocese campaigns against a bill that would give victims of child sexual abuse more time to sue the church.

Rep. Nick Miccarelli, a Delaware County Republican, said he was shocked to learn that the weekly bulletin at his church mentioned that he had voted for the bill.

"I've been to Iraq and back and there's very little that makes my jaw drop, but seeing that in parish bulletin, my jaw hit the floor," said Miccarelli, who served two tours in Iraq in the Army National Guard. "I was in disbelief."

Under the headline "JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE" the announcement reads, "State Representative Miccarelli voted in favor of House Bill 1947, which states that private institutions can be sued as far as 40 years ago for millions of dollars, while public institutions may not be sued for any crimes."

Last weekend, a letter by Archbishop Charles Chaput was given to all 219 archdiocese parishes urging parishioners to ask their senators to vote against it.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/catholic-legislators-feel-churchs-ire-abuse-law-votes-39735145

[trotsky]

36. Wow.

That's vicious.

[Brettongarcia]

37. Chaput is of course the ringleader.

The church thinks that Charles Chaput is conservative, in the sense that he defends traditional church ideas. But actually, he's one if the radical New Conservatives. Who are actually inventing radical new right-wing, bad ideas, all the time. While passing them off as traditional, conservative.

Chaput unfortunately, moreover, is now the Vatican synod leader who gatekeepers or controls Vatican discussions in some major social issues. Especially sexual issues, like abortion.

Like most members of the Religious Right, where he excels is in conflating religion, and politics, ideology. Always making sure that Catholicism serves the Republican Party.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Even Catholic schools are lobbying parents to shield sexual predators

So this waiting for parents, aunts and uncles, on every seat of a local Catholic-school, eighth-grade graduation ceremony this week:



...
So what we have here is a school — an elementary school — assuring every parent of every child there that school officials actively support shorter statutes of limitations for sexual crimes against children. “We want to make it harder for the state to prosecute those who prey on children sexually,” school officials are telling the parents of the children in their care. “And we’d like you to help us do it.”
...
I understand why these school officials, along with the entire Catholic Diocese of Philadelphia, are doing this. To be clear, they’re not fighting to make it harder to prosecute criminals who prey on children because they like criminals who prey on children. They’re not fighting to create a context in which more children will be sexually assaulted and abused because they want that to happen. But they’re still working to make that happen. They’re still taking sides with sexual predators and taking sides against the protection of Pennsylvania’s children.
...
“No other institution has worked harder to right the wrongs of the past or protect the children in its care today,” the diocese says. That is an astonishingly bold-faced, brazen lie. That lie is stated in the context of a terse, three-paragraph postcard that exists for the sole purpose of disproving every word in that sentence. This postcard is designed — explicitly and deliberately and exclusively — to make it more difficult for anyone to right the wrongs of the past. This postcard represents an active, aggressive form of opposition to efforts to “protect the children in its care” today and tomorrow.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/06/09/maybe-schools-shouldnt-be-lobbying-to-defend-sexual-predators/

[trotsky]

39. Thanks for that link.

This sentence really sums it up:

They’re still taking sides with sexual predators and taking sides against the protection of Pennsylvania’s children.