Catholic League President celebrates defeat of Child Victims Act

[trotsky]

(headline cont'd)...says bill was pushed by activists 'out to rape the Catholic Church'

You know, kind of like how men running his church raped children. See what he did there? What a despicable fucknut.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/catholic-league-president-celebrates-defeat-child-victims-act-article-1.2680722

The gloating head of the Catholic League on Monday ripped into the “victims’ lobby” he says is out to “rape” the Catholic Church over the issue of child sex abuse.

In a vitriolic message emailed to his supporters, Catholic League President Bill Donohue celebrated the defeat of the Child Victims Act that would have made it easier for kid sex abuse victims to seek justice.

...

And he described bill’s sponsor Assemblywoman Margaret Markey (D-Queens) as “the principal enemy of the Church.” He gleefully pointed out that Markey was wrong when she previously told the Daily News, which he also ripped for its campaign on the issue, that the measure would come to the floor for a vote before the end of the legislative session.

...

He added that “the Catholic League is proud of its role in this victory.”

Sad thing is, there are a few DUers who share in Donohue's glee right now. Enjoy your "win" at the expense of survivors, you pathetic enablers of child rape and its coverup.

[rug]

1. "There are a few DUers who share in Donohue's glee right now." Name them.

Not to mention the "pathetic enablers of child rape and its coverup."

It's your duty. Don't be complicit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Read for yourself who the defenders of the Catholic coverup are, in these threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218226855
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218229845
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218230401

Shameful.

[rug]

9. I don't see a one.

Oh, I see. You think supporting a statute of limitations is defending the RCC and child rape.

Well, I suppose that would make sense if you see the RCC as the embodiment of evil with tentacles in the halls of government the world over.

But since that would be a shameful example of bigotry, last seen in the Know Nothing Party, it's just a iudicrous mindset.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. "if you see the RCC as the embodiment of evil with tentacles in the halls of government the world o"

"if you see the RCC as the embodiment of evil with tentacles in the halls of government the world over.
er"

Wait was this sarcasm? I can't always tell.

"But since that would be a shameful example of bigotry"

Can one be bigoted against a multi-national corporation sole/state?
I realize the term Bigot comes from hostility to religion, but the poster you are responding to was not concerned with religion, so much as the POLITICAL ties between a religious corporation, and multiple governments, and exposure to litigation for crimes by members of said corporation.

[rug]

14. "Read for yourself who the defenders of the Catholic coverup are"

That's hardly "the poster you are responding to was not concerned with religion, so much as the POLITICAL ties between a religious corporation, and multiple governments, and exposure to litigation for crimes by members of said corporation."

Particularly when there's a cowardly intimation that the posters in the DU threads he linked are defending coverups of child abuse.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Post 1 first link.

That was a clever sleight of hand. Nobody said ONLY the catholic church was defending the statute of limitations. And nobody said ONLY the church was concerned.

"Much as it may dismay you, the Statute of Limitations applies to all cases, not just priests."

Nobody but you was interested in the fact it wouldn't target just the church. You raised a non-sequitur in response to the article. How odd. Or, how calculated.

"Do you think the RCC is the sole entity opposing the extension of the Statute of Limitations?"

Another sleight of hand and non-sequitur in your second response. Yes, there are other entities that oppose the change in that state. But only the Catholic Church is spending millions of dollars doing it. That article was about the efforts in opposition, one dimension of which, is millions of dollars in lobbying efforts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/catholic-church-fights-clergy-child-sex-abuse-measures


So yes, a poster in that thread is defending something other than just modifying the statute of limitations in one state, when other states have reported good success and no false charges doing the same thing (MA, FL). And doing so on false pretences, raising objections to things that weren't raised by the OP.

Curiouser and curiouser.

It's not like you came into that thread and said 'hey guys, there are risks to extending the statute of limitations too much as defined by X or backed up by Y, etc, and here's why what Florida did is bad, and etc.'. No, you deflected and distorted.

If your tactics had been different, you would not have attracted my attention. I see right through what you did. You're not fooling anyone. Are you defending child abuse by the church? Maybe not in the sense of enabling it. But you are certainly defending it in the sense of working to limit its exposure to damages in favor of the victims.

[rug]

16. In your obsession with the RCC, you've lost sight of the facrt that the SoL applies to everyone.

Whether it disrupts your narrative or not.

I see you're now moving from the calumny of "defending child rape" to a wiser one of "deflecting and distorting". Nice of you to bold face that so I wouldn't have to sift through too much muck. Oh, and a nice use of a weasel phrase, "defending it in the sense of".

Calling him - and you - on the slant you are so eager to push, is hardly distortion and deflection.

Are your positions really that shallow and fragile that you need to dredge up imagined motives?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. No, I haven't. Teachers and Priests offend at the same rate per capita of kids they are exposed to.

I didn't see the Teachers Union, or the School Districts spending millions of dollars opposing the change in the SoL in the state of new York. The RCC has singled itself out as majority financial backer as a champion of the opposition to these changes. Changes other states have implemented without problem.

It's no harm to my 'narrative' at all. You've accidentally made my case stronger for me.

You didn't 'call' anyone on anything. You raised an inapplicable non-sequitur as a distraction. And I can see you doing it. So can everyone else.



If you're going to call me being very specific in my description of what you are doing when you deflect on this issue 'weasel words', what do you call it when you raise your non-sequitur defenses? Is there something less charitable than 'weasel word' we could be using here?

[rug]

18. You ignore the fact that the NYCLU and the NYSACDL also oppose eliminating the SoL.

Is that too a non sequitur? Are they too defending the coverup of child rape?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. It was a non-sequitur the way you raised it in that thread.

I don't care that they opposed it. The fact they opposed it doesn't mean it's not a good change. The fact that someone other than the Roman Catholic Church opposed it does not harm my position.

Incidentally, how much did those two groups tap their piggy banks in the cause of opposing it?


You've weaseled even a bridge further than before. I can see you.

"also oppose eliminating the SoL."

The proposed change didn't try to eliminate the statute of limitations. They tried to extend it by the same amount two other states I mentioned already have. You're now reduced to feebly batting at your own straw men. Let me know when you want to address the issues that are actually raised, rather than one pathetic deflection after another.

"The bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey (D-Queens) would have increased the time a sexual abuse case could be brought by five years, opened a six-month window to revive old cases, and treated public and private entities the same when it comes to sex abuse."

[rug]

20. It harms your position of claiming opposition to this law = defending coverups.

I thought you didn't like me using the word "weaseling". Good to know you don't.

So, is this now your standard for civil discussion"

You're now reduced to feebly batting at your own straw men. Let me know when you want to address the issues that are actually raised, rather than one pathetic deflection after another.

Let me know.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I'm perfectly fine with the term. I'm willing to go as far down that rabbit hole as you are.

Search for it, and my name, if you care. Foiled again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218150169#post9

"It harms your position of claiming opposition to this law = defending coverps."

Does it? How exactly?

I note you didn't come up with a dollar value for either groups investment opposing a degree of modification to the statue of limitations that none of 'my side' was advocating for.

[rug]

22. If it does, as you say, show the NYCLU is defending covering up child abuse.

Go on.

And I'm not interested in going down any rabbit hole with you. Just prove your claim.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I would apply the same adjectives to them that I did to you.

With the same provisions you called 'weasel words'. And then came back with yet another falsehood mis-describing their position.

NYCLU opposes extending the statue of limitations beyond 5 years after the age of majority.
http://www.nyclu.org/node/2300

How convenient to limit it to 5 years past.

"Shine Lawyers wrote to Ms D'Ath and shadow attorney-general Ian Walker last month saying the government should act now and adopt a bipartisan approach towards law reform.

They said the average abuse victim took 22 years to come forward and the period was even longer for men."

(Not the US)

"Two dozen others were victims of Robier, who died in 1994 and is one of 38 priests whom the diocese listed on its Web site as having “credible” allegations against them. The first scheduled trials were indefinitely suspended when the diocese filed for bankruptcy protection Feb. 27.

[font size=30]The average age of all sexual-abuse victims in the country is 12; the average age of disclosure for abuse victims is 42, said A.W. Richard Sipe. “But the overwhelming number of abuse victims never report it. A priest in Portland admitted molesting at least 300 victims; only 30 came forward.”"

[/font size]

Funny, the RCC would support extending the statute of limitations to 25 years in Queensland, but not here in the states... very odd. I guess that's what happens when you propose taking the limit off the table entirely, people come to the bargaining table toot-sweet and ready to compromise. I'm not proposing we do that here, but apparently that's what it takes to get the RCC to take a positive stand on a statute of limitations that makes sense. There's no end of victims who don't gin up the courage to come forward, or don't face the fallout and then come forward, until their thirties and forties. And there's very good reasons that happens.

[rug]

25. Your obsession with the RCC grows with your font size.

Histrionics aside, how does that show the NYCLU is defending covering up child abuse?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. The part that I highlighted was not specific to your church.

The NYCLU's effort is not specific to your church.

Is that cross you hang out on super comfortable or what? This is about more than just victims of the RCC's employees, centuries of cover ups and re-homing offenders, etc.

The pertinent piece I'm concerned about is that the RCC spends millions of dollars lobbying against extending the SoL for sexual abuse of children.

I think the NYCLU and the other group are very wrong. Their preference for a threshold of stature of limitations is laughably short of the average age victims start to find their voice and come forward. Other states have made this change and the change is working well. The RCC itself suggested 25 years in another country as a compromise when they wanted to remove the limit entirely.

But the pertinent issue here is the millions of dollars the RCC is spending to deny all victims, of even non-church offenders, more time to come forward when they were abused as children.

That's massive, material and very, very telling. The church is exposed to enormous amounts of liability here. And you know it.

They aren't spending millions of dollars opposing it because Blackstones Formulation is just so near and dear to the church's heart.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. So, how are things?

[Siwsan]

2. I've never understood why Donahue has anywhere near enough gravitas to get any air time.

I've long suspect The Catholic League is maintained in Donohue's mother's basement. I mean, isn't the membership somewhere in the tens to twenties?

I personally know TWO priests who were caught molesting young men/boys, and I can count the number of priests I've met, in my lifetime, and still have a finger, or two, to spare.

[trotsky]

3. Somewhere around 200,000 members is the last I heard.

Along with praise from the following notable Catholic leaders:

“…I appreciate Dr. Donohue and the work done by The Catholic League. I look forward to the day when the work done by the Catholic League is no longer necessary. Sadly, as recent events have proven once again, that day still seems far in the future.”
— Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York

“The Catholic League has the courage to speak up candidly and forcefully for the Church when circumstances call for fighting the good fight. The League should be on every Catholic’s short list of essential organizations to support.”
— Most Rev. Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Philadelphia

“I am privileged to support the Catholic League. The work of the Catholic League is invaluable and its accomplishments over the years are unparalleled.”
— Cardinal Edwin O’Brien, Pro-Grand Master of the Equestrian Order (Knights) of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem

“The Catholic League has done much to ensure that the Church’s positions are presented clearly and fairly. Too often those who do not understand the Church or Her teachings are the interpreters of the doctrines and events in the life of the Church. The work of the League is important in the mission of the Church which must teach the hard truths of the Gospel in season and out of season.”
— Seán Cardinal O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Boston

“We are seeing the most violent attack on the Catholic Church in the media and public life since the days of the Ku Klux Klan. Every serious and committed Catholic needs to know what is going on and what to do about it. I consider membership in the Catholic League a must.”
— Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R.

https://www.catholicleague.org/about-us/

[Siwsan]

4. Color me gob-smacked!

I seriously thought it was around the 1,000 member mark!

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. The endorsement from Chaput speaks volumes.

You've got to be an enormous asshole if that guy admires your handiwork.

[Warpy]

5. Yeah, he's an organization man and it's all about the organization to him

and to hell with any human beings who are being destroyed by that organization.

He's morally bankrupt. So is any blind fool who supports him.

[mr blur]

6. These people are beneath contempt.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. The Catholic league is pretty much a hate group run by a bigot.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Not surprising that they don't care about the victims.

Fuck them.[/font]

[hrmjustin]

11. +1

[trotsky]

12. Yep, they care more about protecting their church.

Not unlike a (thankfully) few DUers.

[floriduck]

27. I agree. That man will have to deal with his own afterlife.

[Lordquinton]

24. I read that first line way wrong

I thought the quote said "trying to out rape the Catholic Church."

[cleanhippie]

28. lol