General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNY Bishop Rape Shames Abuse Victims: Boys Are ‘Culpable’ For Their Actions At 7 Years Old
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/09/ny-bishop-rape-shames-abuse-victims/The shocking statement came during testimony that was recently released from a deposition for a federal lawsuit. Charles Bailey, a survivor of a priests abuse, asked then-Bishop James Moynihan whether the church held children victims partly responsible for sexual abuse from priests . (Bishop) Moynihan said that right to my face The age of reason is 7, so if youre at least 7 youre culpable for your actions. That kind of floored me, said Bailey.
Obviously, the sentiment isnt something one Bishop believes, but a broader excuse used to cover for the guilt of sexual predators.
The age of reason may be seven years old, but that in no way makes it the age its the kids fault he was raped. According to church doctrine, seven is the age a child should understand the difference between right and wrong. Its also the age a child is eligible for communion.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)infamous act during her SNL performance back in the 90's.
That is, maybe now we kind of know what she was trying to say.
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)The 7 year old was seducing me meme. Tax the churches. Now.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html
longship
(40,416 posts)The only thing left is, "The complainant turned me into a newt! ... I got better."
No satire or agreement here. Just an appropriate response from just about any perspective. However, the extent that somebody would take such a position is the extent that the person HAS NO SOUL!
Just saying.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I just think it's very telling how the HRC fan base is strangely silent on this bit of history. If they say anything at all it's usually something along the lines of how she was just doing her job as a lawyer, which doesn't seem like much of an excuse for such morally reprehensible victim blaming, but even if it were the same would seem to apply to an agent of the RCC defending the RCC.
If nothing else it's a good case study on how the double standard works.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)just inflicted. It's time you got banned.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)who recklessly flings insults to damage people's reputations. That's the nasty kind of socialist.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I have a red phone directly to the almighty and He isn't convinced of your flagrantly laughable allegations of libel either.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and he thinks you are entitled to your opinion.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's like a big party line.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Claiming that the child seduced the adult is not OK in any context.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)but this is what defense lawyers do in our legal system. They muddle, confuse, and obstruct the prosecution if they have a guilty client. If their client is accused of rape, they attack the credibility ogf the main prosecution witness which is usually the victim.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The question is whether or not it's ethical. Contributory negligence is a defense often used in tort cases, but the use of it in criminal cases is actually pretty controversial even among lawyers and was so even back in in the 70's. This is not what all defense lawyers who represent alleged rapists do in our legal system, even with adult victims, much less children. There is simply no reality I can imagine where contributory negligence is any sort of an ethical defense when a 12 yr old has been raped. Furthermore if the "I was just doing my job" excuse were actually valid, then it would also have to apply to an agent of the church defending the church. Either both of those things are wrong, or they are both right. I'm of the opinion that they are both wrong.
Solly Mack
(90,779 posts)No doubt he would see it as the child seducing him into sin.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)all male clergy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Namely, that critics of the church's (in)action won't acknowledge pedophilia in other groups of people. But the dishonest part is, I'm not aware of anyone who denies that pedophilia exists in all segments of the population. The thing that's being criticized when it comes to the RCC are aspects such as the one in the OP. That's fucking unique - BLAMING the child? What's also unique is setting up a system that covers up the crimes, shuffles the criminals to new locations with fresh victims, and not doing a damn thing to protect children.
Thankfully one of the most tireless defenders of the RCC here is on a 5-hide vacation for several more weeks.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)BlueSpot
(856 posts)Orrex
(63,219 posts)kairos12
(12,866 posts)Monk06
(7,675 posts)Reminds me of the judge that called a three year old girl a seductress
Just saying that shit should put you in jail
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Technically, whoever is responsible for a child under seven commits whatever crime the child commits (although I've never seen anyone prosecuted for it).
(Not defending pedophiles and their enablers, just making small talk)
xenoturkey
(68 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Initech
(100,097 posts)I mean seriously. This is almost the Catholic equivalent of a "let them eat cake moment".