Report sexual abuse by priests, get castrated

[MajGenl.Meade]

If the JetBlue pilot who just went ballistic had crashed that plane, JetBlue would have been responsible for and would have had to pay out huge sums in damages for the deaths of the passengers on that plane.

And so they should if it were shown that they knew or reasonably should know that a trusted long-term employee was about to go bananas and do an Atta. Otherwise they should get compensation from their insurance for the loss of a plane.

But that's not an appropriate analogy to the Roman church. Perhaps it's closer to say that Jet Blue might be a bit in trouble if it could be shown that 50+ years ago (let's just assume they were flying then) one of their pilots flew the plane into the ground because his Jet Blue training manual taught that flying wobbly was more of a sin than plunging into the turf without hesitation.

Even if they've issued an amendment now to their training manual, assuming no statute of limitations, they'd be very much on the hook for the crime that they (corporately) encouraged in their past.

But Scooter, you probably are not afraid to admit that yes you do have it in (so to speak) for the Roman church - it sort of comes across, you know?

Meade

[Crackpot]

THe catholic church by merely the amount of authority they imbue the people in their employ has caused untold amounts of damage to millions if not billions of people.

[Sue U]

If the JetBlue pilot who just went ballistic had crashed that plane, JetBlue would have been responsible for and would have had to pay out huge sums in damages for the deaths of the passengers on that plane.

And so they should if it were shown that they knew or reasonably should know that a trusted long-term employee was about to go bananas and do an Atta. Otherwise they should get compensation from their insurance for the loss of a plane.

No. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter whether the employer knew or should have known the employee was about to lose it. The employee is on the employer's business, and the employer must take responsibility regardless. It is certainly "foreseeable" that, as a statistical proposition, there is a certain pecentage of risk that an employee somewhere in the company will have a breakdown, potentially resulting in injury to person and/or property. The employer is in the best position to insure against that risk and spread the cost of that insurance over its business lines and customer base. Because losses are statistically inevitable, even though the risk is very small, they are properly borne by the employer, who is in a better position to insure and guard against such losses at minimal cost, rather than expect an innocently injured customer to bear a potentially catastrophic loss.

[dgs49]

Airlines are in a rather unique position, tort-wise. They are presumed to be in total control of the operation and thus are completely liable when a plane goes down, regardless of whether the causes of the crash were foreseeable, or negligence can be proved. I seem to recall a latin phrase, "res ipsa loquitur," or the thing speaks for itself.

In the case of the Catholic Church, the priests at issue have intentionally deceived the Church in order to first get into the seminaries, then continuously to get into and remain in situations where they can prey on kids. The Church has not recruited these perverts, and at all times took precautions that it felt were reasonable at the time to screen them out. When their behavior was reported to their superiors, the Church naively took them at their word when they said they would "sin no more."

As time goes by, the screening becomes more and more extensive and intrusive, but prior to the 1970's, the screening was probably nothing more than getting assurances from the candidates that they weren't perverts. Parenthetically, a gay acquaintance of mine was turned down by the seminary in the Pittsburgh diocese (around 1968, as I recall), but managed to go to Greensburg and become a priest. He was never (as far as I know) involved in any scandals, but has recently left the priesthood and "come out." The point is that the Church has always tried to screen out those it felt were not suited to the life of a priest.

I do not dispute, and have never disputed, the fact that many supervisory priests and bishops were culpable in going to extraordinary efforts to protect pedophiles from civil authorities and to move them where they could victimize more boys. But this was done in the incorrect belief that such behavior could be stopped through the grace of God, and that there was no lasting harm to the victims. Like it or not, that is what was generally believed in the mid-1960's and prior.

The Church has not conspired to employ pedophiles or to enable them in any way. To the extent that these lowlifes became priests, the Church itself was a victim of their deception. The Church's crimes were to fail to understand the scope and breadth of the problem, and to "circle the wagons" when they were obliged to work with civil authorities to prosecute the offenders.

The asshoes who post their bile here feed their anti-Catholic bigoty by painting the entire institution with a broad brush over the acts of a couple percent of priests and brothers. They are not interested in punishing the perpetrators of these crimes, they want to punish (and eliminate) the institution of the Church, for reasons I have pointed out above. Otherwise, what is the point of bankrupting the Institution (paid for by the donations of the Faithful)? The perpetrators are not harmed at all by money judgments against the Diocese.

[Scooter]

So you haven't managed to come up with a single post that suggests I am holding the Roman Catholic Church to a standard that is any different from that I would expect from any other employer.

Not one.

Far easier to accuse me of anti-Catholic bigotry than come up with the evidence to prove it, I guess.

How does that sanctified asshole taste, Dave? Are you giving a good ricking to that santorum? Keep drilling.

[Scooter]

Otherwise, what is the point of bankrupting the Institution (paid for by the donations of the Faithful)? The perpetrators are not harmed at all by money judgments against the Diocese.

Nothing of the kind would be required. Consolidate some of the more than half empty parishes, sell off the surplus real estate, and problem solved. The Archdiocese of Boston raised more than enough money to pay all claims against it by selling off ONE piece of property, and that wasn't even being used for worship or any other church programming.

All it takes is a willingness to acknowledge culpability, and to do right by the victims. But I guess that's asking too much.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes Sue, I quite understood that. I just don't agree that it should be the case. It's just "deep pockets" - shifting the blame/risk; all quite legal and so on. Everyone who flies can buy insurance; everyone on the ground can too. People should assume their own responsibility for caring for their families. But that isn't the way it works.... I get it

Meade

[Scooter]

Very convenient, the notion that businesses should be able to shift liability emanating from their activities onto their innocent customers.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Perhaps. I think it's convenient (and an abuse of English language) to define liability as meaning "anything at all that anyone does", as if my choice to fly is forced upon me by the evil airlines whose primary business is killing passengers and laughing behind the bicycle sheds as they smoke their under-age ciggies and blow away small furry creatures with a Glock.

Put another way, if a person or entity knowingly (or should reasonably have known) that an unsafe condition existed contrary to law then indeed they should pay the cost for allowing it to happen. You know, if I allow my hedge to overgrow to the point where a driver was unable to see a STOP sign and therefore caused an accident, of course I'm liable. But if my hedge was in good order and the driver decided to gaze at its lovely leaves then the accident is his fault, not mine. Pisspoor analogy that.

People who fly in planes (or breathe at all) should have life insurance - or not - it's a choice. If the company is negligent, then they pay. If they are not negligent then there should be no liability on their part. But that's not the way it is, so.... OK

Shrugs
Meade

[Scooter]

Who is in control of the activity?
Who profits from it?
Who is in the best position to understand its risks?
Who is in the best position to avert those risks?

And therefore it is completely logical and just that those who meet absolutely none of those criteria should bear the damages that result.

Perfectly sensible.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who is in control of the activity?
Who profits from it?
Who is in the best position to understand its risks?
Who is in the best position to avert those risks?

And therefore it is completely logical and just that those who meet absolutely none of those criteria should bear the damages that result.

Perfectly sensible.

Hmm let's see....

I'm in control of getting on a big metal thing that dangerously leaves the ground
I must have profited from it in some way or I would have gone by train (oh dear - another risk!)
I've read quite often of airplanes that fall down and go boom so have a pretty good understanding of the risk I am choosing to take
and I could always not board the plane and thus avoid the risk

Actually on the Mango flight from CT to Jozi last Sunday it did occur to me to wonder what would happen if the pilot decided to see what it would be like to fly 10 feet below the ground instead of 10000 above. Well I know what would happen but I mean, could it happen? Of course it could but was I angry at Mango for their risking the possibility?

The pilot is in control of the activity
The airline profits from being an airline - but I think that's the generally accepted ideal
The company and me are about equal in understanding the risks
And er... the airline is no position at all to avert the risk (other than refusing to allow anyone to fly at all)

So since I meet all four criteria and the airline kind of shares two out of four with me but not at all on the other two it seems the burden for insuring my life and protecting my loved ones should be on er...... well, me really.

But as I said - OK - that's not the way it is. I can live with it

Well as long as the plane keeps equalling landings and take-offs.

Meade

[Scooter]

Who is in control of the activity?
I'm in control of getting on a big metal thing that dangerously leaves the ground
I must have profited from it in some way or I would have gone by train (oh dear - another risk!)
I've read quite often of airplanes that fall down and go boom so have a pretty good understanding of the risk I am choosing to take
and I could always not board the plane and thus avoid the risk

You've got me - anyone could decide to bore a hole in solid rock, get inside and never emerge from it, and if they do, they are solely responsible for whatever harm comes to them as a result.

Even if he/she is a dog whose owners decide to murder him/her so they can satisfy their own whims to go gallivanting around the globe.

[Sean]

Quick question Dave, in your opinion was the RCC being "naive" or "well-intentioned" when they moved pedophile priests from parish to parish and let them continue with their vile behaviour rather than report them to the authorities?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who is in control of the activity?
I'm in control of getting on a big metal thing that dangerously leaves the ground
I must have profited from it in some way or I would have gone by train (oh dear - another risk!)
I've read quite often of airplanes that fall down and go boom so have a pretty good understanding of the risk I am choosing to take
and I could always not board the plane and thus avoid the risk

You've got me - anyone could decide to bore a hole in solid rock, get inside and never emerge from it, and if they do, they are solely responsible for whatever harm comes to them as a result.

Even if he/she is a dog whose owners decide to murder him/her so they can satisfy their own whims to go gallivanting around the globe.

I really don't understand your first point. As to the second, I regret the inability to avoid descending to that kind of level.

Meade

[Lord Jim]

Gen'l, could it not be argued the reason that so few commercial planes fall from the sky and go boom is because the cost benefit calculation that the airlines must perform taking into account the potential for huge lawsuit payouts encourages a higher level of diligence regarding safety than would otherwise be the case?

[Scooter]

I really don't understand your first point.

Your position amounts to saying that a person who suffers any sort of damage shoudl be responsible for bearing the cost regardless of actual fault, thus relieving the party who actually caused the damage of any responsibility for making good on it. Again, neither logical nor just.

As to the second, I regret the inability to avoid descending to that kind of level.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before, you know, you actually did.

[Scooter]

Gen'l, could it not be argued the reason that so few commercial planes fall from the sky and go boom is because the cost benefit calculation that the airlines must perform taking into account the potential for huge lawsuit payouts encourages a higher level of diligence regarding safety than would otherwise be the case?

In this and every other industry. What happens to product liability law, in a scenario where the law essentially becomes buyer beware? I guess those who were killed in the Tylenol scare assumed the risk of being poisoned with cyanide by popping a pill for a headache, and should have had insurance to cover that risk, rather than making the manufacturer responsible for the quality control of their own products.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I really don't understand your first point.

Your position amounts to saying that a person who suffers any sort of damage shoudl be responsible for bearing the cost regardless of actual fault, thus relieving the party who actually caused the damage of any responsibility for making good on it. Again, neither logical nor just.

As to the second, I regret the inability to avoid descending to that kind of level.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before, you know, you actually did.

I disagree - in fact I have stated clearly (I believe three times if you count my uncut hedge example) that a person or entity which is at fault must bear the liability. "Regardless of actual fault" are at complete variance with anything I have stated. They are your words and not mine.

For example I stated: "if a person or entity knowingly (or should reasonably have known) that an unsafe condition existed contrary to law then indeed they should pay the cost for allowing it to happen". And again: "And so they should (be held responsible) if it were shown that they knew or reasonably should know that a trusted long-term employee was about to go bananas and do an Atta".

You "guess those who were killed in the Tylenol scare assumed the risk of being poisoned with cyanide by popping a pill for a headache, and should have had insurance to cover that risk, rather than making the manufacturer responsible for the quality control of their own products" with the sneering implication that I would endorse such a remark. I do not. The manufacturer left open ways for product tampering - was punished for not acting upon a reasonable knowledge of the possibility - and product safety has improved, especially with regard to packaging.

As to the second, perhaps you would show me in this thread where I have used petty, vindictive, mean-spirited and cruel personal remarks about you?

Meade

[Sue U]

Yes Sue, I quite understood that. I just don't agree that it should be the case. It's just "deep pockets" - shifting the blame/risk; all quite legal and so on. Everyone who flies can buy insurance; everyone on the ground can too. People should assume their own responsibility for caring for their families.

If nothing else, that is about the most inefficient and costly way possible to manage the risk. Requiring hundreds of millions of passengers to independently self-insure for each flight (or each train trip or each product or service bought) makes absolutely no economic sense (unless you are an insurance company executive). But having each passenger pay a penny more per fare and/or the business take a penny less in profit produces the same coverage for any loss.

Moreover, it's not "just 'deep pockets,'" it's placing the risk of loss on the commercial enterprise that profits from the business -- a business that has an inherent risk of injury, potentially catastrophic, and which has the greatest ability to control for such risk (to the extent possible) and to spread the costs of injury over those who use and profit from the business (where risk avoidance is not possible). It is a sensible result both economically and socially.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes Sue, I quite understood that.

Edited to add: I wouldn't recommend "requiring" passengers to purchase insurance. It's a free world.

Meade