Author Topic: Is the Church Above The Law? Church Double Standards (Read 51689 times)

Panmunjom · « **Reply #60 on:** Sep 09, 2011 at 09:33 PM »

I hope we can properly differentiate the "church" or "Catholic Church" from the priest who is being accused in this case, or those that have already been convicted of similar crimes.

The priests, bishops, faithfuls of the Catholic Church, as is the case with the other religions, sects, groups, associations, clubs, or what have you, are not perfect. As mere human beings, necessarily, a few will stray away. Even given this, the fault of one or even a few "member/s" is not the fault of the whole group, in this case the "church". Whatever these priests have done should not be made to reflect on the whole church, as they are but a very insignificant percentage of the millions of Catholics in the world, or of the whole priests population, for that matter. I'd like to believe that the good far outweigh those who are otherwise.

By taking the respondent priest into his custody and in calling for a committee to investigate the accusations against the same, the Bishop of Butuan (not the church) can't be justly accused of harboring the priest, or much more, being above the law. As stated by one who earlier posted, there is no, as of yet, obligation on the part of the priest or the Bishop of Butuan (not the church) to turn-in the priest. The investigation that the Bishop wants to be conducted, I'm certain, is not in lieu of the fiscal's preliminary investigation or the court's trial proceedings (shall it be necessary), but merely for the Bishop's purpose.

I believe that the crimes perpetrated in this case, and many other similar ones, are horrible to say the least. Whoever are responsible therefor, even if they turn out to be priests, should be made to pay. Whoever will meddle with the legal processes in connection therewith, even if he is a bishop, should also be made to suffer the consequences.

I am a Catholic. I am not the "church", though. Please note that the opinion above is mine alone, and not that of the church.

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #61 on:** Sep 09, 2011 at 11:04 PM »

I sincerely hope that the Catholic Church here is not covering up rape and child molestation incidents among their priests like they did in U.S. and Europe.

rusty · « **Reply #62 on:** Sep 09, 2011 at 11:08 PM »

Limits drawn on heritage law’s coverage of Church’s cultural properties

The Philippine Roman Catholic Church’s cultural patrimony is shielded from the controversial National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 (Republic Act 10066) because of the constitutional principle of separation of Church and state; the Church’s own canon law; and the Concordat between the Holy See and the Philippine government on Church cultural heritage.

“While the Church unites with the state in the national policy to protect, preserve and promote the nation’s cultural heritage, the law should not prohibit and penalize necessary works on churches,” said Jo Imbong, a lawyer of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

Examples of “necessary works” are the construction of chapels and additions to the church rectory or other facilities that are inherently necessary to worship and liturgy.

Imbong was speaking in a forum on the National Cultural Heritage Law at the Angelicum College in Quezon City, with National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) Commissioner Regalado Trota Jose and former NCCA commissioner Fr. Harold Rentoria, OSA.

Theme was “Kaban ng Nakaraan, Yaman ng Kasaysayan: RA 10066: National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009.” It was held on Aug. 8, feast day of St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominicans, which own and run the Angelicum.

The lawyer said the Church was an autonomous institution, whose physical works and maintenance of properties were guided by canon law, or Church law.

The autonomy of the Church in administering its properties “is in keeping with the free exercise clause [of religion]:” “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed (Art. III, Sec. 5, Constitution).”

The autonomous status of the Church, with its system of law and legal rights, is acknowledged in the Constitution with the provision “The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable (Art. II, Sec. 6)."

http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/12511/limits-drawn-on-heritage-law%E2%80%99s-coverage-of-church%E2%80%99s-cultural-properties

Wow! I didn't know that the Catholic Church recognized the separation between church and state

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #63 on:** Sep 09, 2011 at 11:54 PM »

The CBCP recognizes the separation of Church and State when it suits them. Like tax exemptions and such.

RU9 · « **Reply #64 on:** Sep 09, 2011 at 11:55 PM »

Quote from: rusty on Sep 09, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Wow! I didn't know that the Catholic Church recognized the separation between church and state

From my HS classmate:

Lumabas din ang katotohanan - pati ang Vatican ay nakialam para pigilan ang pagpapatalsik kay GMA. May kinalaman kaya dito si Obispo Montero Sport? Cashswerte naman ng Vatican kung sila rin ay mapalad na
nabiyayaan!

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/11681/vatican-pressured-filipino-bishops-to-stay-clear-of-moves-to-oust-gma%E2%80%94wikileaks

MANILA, Philippines—The Vatican did pressure Filipino bishops to remain neutral and not support widespread calls for the ouster or resignation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at the height of the “Hello Garci” scandal in 2005, according to US Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.

A confidential cable
(http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05VATICAN500.html) dated July 15, 2005 stated that Msgr. Luis Montemayor, country director for the Philippines under the Vatican Secretariat of State, confirmed to Brent Hardt, deputy chief of mission and charge d’affaires of the US Embassy to the Holy See, that the Vatican, through papal nuncio Archbishop Antonio Franco, “pressured the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to remain neutral in the controversy surrounding Arroyo.”

“[Montemayor] told us that although the Vatican’s preferences on the matter had never been a secret, Franco had for the first time on July 9, 2005 explained in no uncertain terms to the CBCP that the Vatican did not support popular uprisings as a method to remove a government,” Hardt said.

RU9 · « **Reply #65 on:** Sep 09, 2011 at 11:59 PM »

Before - PRIEST; After - RAPRIEST.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/09/05/11/doj-orders-filing-rape-charges-vs-parish-priest#.TmRRaKo6crs.facebook

DOJ orders filing of rape charges vs parish priest
By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 09/05/2011 8:53 AM | Updated as of 09/05/2011 2:17 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice(DOJ), on review resolution, has recommended the filing of charges of rape against a parish priest in Nabunturan, Compostela Valley.

In a 5-page resolution signed by Justice Undersecretary Leah Armamento, the DOJ ordered the Provincial Prosecutor of Compostela Valley to file an information before the trial court against Fr. Melvin dela Cuesta for allegedly raping a 21-year-old college student.

Dan · « **Reply #66 on:** Sep 10, 2011 at 12:04 AM »

Quote from: jomgray on Sep 09, 2011 at 09:33 PM

I hope we can properly differentiate the "church" or "Catholic Church" from the priest who is being accused in this case, or those that have already been convicted of similar crimes.

The priests, bishops, faithfuls of the Catholic Church, as is the case with the other religions, sects, groups, associations, clubs, or what have you, are not perfect. As mere human beings, necessarily, a few will stray away. Even given this, the fault of one or even a few "member/s" is not the fault of the whole group, in this case the "church". Whatever these priests have done should not be made to reflect on the whole church, as they are but a very insignificant percentage of the millions of Catholics in the world, or of the whole priests population, for that matter. I'd like to believe that the good far outweigh those who are otherwise.

By taking the respondent priest into his custody and in calling for a committee to investigate the accusations against the same, the Bishop of Butuan (not the church) can't be justly accused of harboring the priest, or much more, being above the law. As stated by one who earlier posted, there is no, as of yet, obligation on the part of the priest or the Bishop of Butuan (not the church) to turn-in the priest. The investigation that the Bishop wants to be conducted, I'm certain, is not in lieu of the fiscal's preliminary investigation or the court's trial proceedings (shall it be necessary), but merely for the Bishop's purpose.

I believe that the crimes perpetrated in this case, and many other similar ones, are horrible to say the least. Whoever are responsible therefor, even if they turn out to be priests, should be made to pay. Whoever will meddle with the legal processes in connection therewith, even if he is a bishop, should also be made to suffer the consequences.

I am a Catholic. I am not the "church", though. Please note that the opinion above is mine alone, and not that of the church.

It's great you are able to say that. However, I think a lot of the anger is directed not just at individuals who, understandably, do not represent the values of the "Church" since they went against their vows, but at other members of the cloth who may actually condone such actions by covering up such incidents.

The sin of one should not reflect on all, true. But if that "all" turn a blind eye to the crimes of that "one" doesn't that make the "all" guilty of something? Like when the Vatican chose to remain silent to the crimes against humanity during the Holocaust. Where does it all begin and end?

Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty. But this situation just exacerbates the fact that the Church regularly circulates proven "bad" priests around instead of submitting them to the law. There's a lot of anger out there and the Church doesn't do itself any favors by appearing hypocratic.

rusty · « **Reply #67 on:** Sep 10, 2011 at 12:07 AM »

Eto pa:

RH bill was killed by Pres. Gloria Arroyo in exchange for Church political support

A month after then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of National Emergency, following the arrest of Brig. Gen. Danny Lim and other army officers, her political adviser Gabriel Claudio met with American diplomat Joseph Novak.

In a cable dated March 22, 2006, US Ambassador to Manila Kristie Kenney filed this summary about Kovak’s meeting:

Quote from: Kenney

In light of recent political turbulence,President Arroyo has been reaching out to high-level members of the Catholic clergy in an effort to shore up support. Arroyo has also taken care not to cross the Church on two key issues: mining and population policy.

Full Article:
http://raissarobles.com/2011/09/07/rh-bill-was-killed-by-pres-gloria-arroyo-in-exchange-for-church-political-support/

RU9 · « **Reply #68 on:** Sep 10, 2011 at 12:23 AM »

The goal of priesthood is a lofty one: a man placed on a pedestal for his community to revere, an alter Christus – "another Christ" – who can literally channel the power of Jesus and help create the perfect society intended by God. To model that perfection and elevate themselves above the sinful laity, clergy adopt a vow of celibacy, which has served as a centerpiece of Catholic priesthood since the 12th century. It's a tall order to sculpt chaste, living incarnations of Jesus out of the sloppy clay of your average 18-year-old male. Even many of those who wind up being ordained fail to maintain their chastity: According to a 1990 study by psychologist Richard Sipe, only half of all priests adhere to their vows of celibacy. It is not just the sex-abuse epidemic the church seeks to deny, but sex itself.

The Catholic Church's Secret Sex-Crime Files
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-catholic-churchs-secret-sex-crime-files-20110906

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #69 on:** Sep 10, 2011 at 02:48 AM »

Actually, the celibacy requirement was instituted NOT because the Church wanted to "elevate" priests above the sinful laity as you said. It was because way too many priests during that time have been using Church funds to support their children and their families. The Church was running out of money and properties so they placed the celibacy requirement. That is all.

It probably also doesn't help that doctors of the Church St. Paul and St. Augustine hated human sexuality and wrote celibacy is quite preferable. The pleasures of the flesh is only a distraction by the Devil that will take man away from the glory of God. Procreation within the context of marriage is the ONLY thing that can justify sexual pleasure. Practically any sex act apart from that is a sin.

dorian_gray · « **Reply #70 on:** Sep 13, 2011 at 03:21 PM »

Here in Australia, we are also frustrated at how the Catholic church handles sex abuse and rape in their own ranks.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/government-should-sack-priest-xenophon/story-e6frea73-1226135260019
_{Adelaide-based Anglican Archbishop John Hepworth revealed on the weekend he was the victim of violent rapes at the hands of three priests beginning in 1960.

At the time Archbishop Hepworth was studying to be a priest and was aged 15.

Ronald Pickering and John Stockdale have since died, but the third priest still runs a parish in South Australia.}

Dilbert7 · « **Reply #71 on:** Sep 13, 2011 at 05:36 PM »

These atrocities of the Roman Catholic church were not new - they were there ever since these church leaders were elevated as prince & princess in the earth!

These officers are political beings hiding behind their religions.

Nothing was changed in them.

RU9 · « **Reply #72 on:** Sep 13, 2011 at 11:11 PM »

Quote from: Klaus Weasley on Sep 10, 2011 at 02:48 AM

Actually, the celibacy requirement was instituted NOT because the Church wanted to "elevate" priests above the sinful laity as you said. It was because way too many priests during that time have been using Church funds to support their children and their families. The Church was running out of money and properties so they placed the celibacy requirement. That is all.

Thanks. This strengthens my belief that the Church is really all business and the ultimate goal is to make money the easy way.

RU9 · « **Reply #73 on:** Sep 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM »

Quote from: Dilbert7 on Sep 13, 2011 at 05:36 PM

These atrocities of the Roman Catholic church were not new - they were there ever since these church leaders were elevated as prince & princess in the earth!

These officers are political beings hiding behind their religions.

Nothing was changed in them.

I hope this time, justice will prevail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse

Pope accused of crimes against humanity by victims of sex abuse

Victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests have accused the pope, the Vatican secretary of state and two other high-ranking Holy See officials of crimes against humanity, in a formal complaint to the international criminal court (ICC).

The submission, lodged at The Hague on Tuesday, accuses the four men not only of failing to prevent or punish perpetrators of rape and sexual violence but also of engaging in the "systematic and widespread" practice of concealing sexual crimes around the world.

dpogs · « **Reply #74 on:** Sep 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM »

as of this time...

away away muna mga religion... galit galit muna... bukas makalawa... magkakaisa lahat ng religion... tsk tsk tsk... kapag nagkaganoon ... kapuff... maglalahong parang bula ang mundo.

Panmunjom · « **Reply #75 on:** Sep 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM »

Quote from: RU9 on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse

Pope accused of crimes against humanity by victims of sex abuse

Victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests have accused the pope, the Vatican secretary of state and two other high-ranking Holy See officials of crimes against humanity, in a formal complaint to the international criminal court (ICC).

The submission, lodged at The Hague on Tuesday, accuses the four men not only of failing to prevent or punish perpetrators of rape and sexual violence but also of engaging in the "systematic and widespread" practice of concealing sexual crimes around the world.

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."
(Wikipedia)

Under the above definition and given the information in the article I read, the alleged "crime" can't be considered a crime against humanity. Given this and some other grounds, what has been filed is outside the jurisdiction of the ICC.

While I'd like to believe that whoever filed this case has their own clean intention, personally, I think this is a little reckless, if not ridiculous.

oweidah · « **Reply #76 on:** Sep 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM »

Quote from: dpogs on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM

as of this time...

away away muna mga religion... galit galit muna... bukas makalawa... magkakaisa lahat ng religion... tsk tsk tsk... kapag nagkaganoon ... kapuff... maglalahong parang bula ang mundo.

kelan ba yan prediction mo madame D?

RU9 · « **Reply #77 on:** Sep 14, 2011 at 01:03 PM »

Quote from: jomgray on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM

While I'd like to believe that whoever filed this case has their own clean intention, personally, I think this is a little reckless, if not ridiculous.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/58555/child-abuse-victims-accuse-pope-of-crimes-against-humanity

Normally, the ICC prosecutor only investigates complaints if asked to do so by the United Nations Security Council; by a state that has ratified the Rome Statute; or on his own initiative.

But the CCR said in its statement that “the jurisdiction of the ICC names rape, sexual violence assault, and torture as crimes against humanity.

“It also provides for individual criminal liability for those with command or superior responsibility over those who directly commit such crimes.”

On this basis, members from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States had travelled to The Hague to urge prosecutors to investigate the head of the Roman Catholic Church, it said.

dpogs · « **Reply #78 on:** Sep 14, 2011 at 01:12 PM »

Quote from: ojofool on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

kelan ba yan prediction mo madame D?

its Modom D.. not Madam D... (since i am a HE)

on, before or after i die... big MAYBE.

BusyChild · « **Reply #79 on:** Sep 26, 2011 at 07:52 AM »

Butuan priest charged with rape; CBCP says, "The most prudent thing to do is to wait for the decision of the court"

http://www.spot.ph/the-feed/49402/butuan-priest-charged-with-rape-cbcp-stays-mum-

Published: Sep 25, 2011 - 1:34pm
GMA News Online reports that the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has declined to comment any further on the pending court cases of rape and child abuse against Fr. Raul Cabonce, a priest assigned in the Diocese of Butuan.

The report revealed that the 18-year-old girl who had accused Cabonce of molesting her went to the CBCP office in Intramuros, Manila last week. She was accompanied by Gabriela officials.

The girl, who has been assigned the alias "Leah," and the members of the women's group presented a letter of appeal to the CBCP. In the two-page letter addressed to CBCP's vice president and incoming president Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, they sought the CBCP's "immediate action." The letter also pointed out: "It was very difficult for (Leah) to accept that Fr. Cabonce, a servant of God, and with whom her mother worked as catechist for five years, would become her sexual abuser."

Outgoing CBCP secretary general Msgr. Juanito Figura said that CBCP intervention is not possible at this time considering the pending court proceedings. "Since it was brought to court already, the most prudent thing to do is to wait for the decision of the court. The CBCP as a Church body would have to respect the forum of the civil court which is a state body," Figura said. The Butuan Diocese is also doing its own investigation.

For more on this story, log on to GMA News Online.

After 2000 years.... good luck.

sharkey360 · « **Reply #80 on:** Sep 26, 2011 at 08:19 AM »

I wonder if the church itself is linked with the recent development in Cebu.

In Cebu there is this pending anti-tabloid ordinance that seeks to ban tabloids that allegedly publish content that is considered obscene, pornographic or indecent. It's a threat to press freedom.

Nalzaro: On Magpale’s anti-tabloid ordinance

WHO are we in the media to dictate to Vice Gov. Agnes Magpale to withdraw her controversial proposed anti-tabloid ordinance? We are just voices in the wilderness.

But the media, as one of the stakeholders of her proposed ordinance, can perhaps suggest to her to re-study, re-evaluate and revise it before submitting it for a public hearing. Veteran lawyers, especially members of the Cebu Media Legal Aid, found several holes and flaws in her proposal. Even its drafters admitted the defects in several forums.

The original drafter of the ordinance, a barrister, admitted that it was not really the idea of the vice governor to come up with the ordinance. He said it was an officemate who brought up the idea after reading what they considered an obscene article and seeing a photo of a sexy woman in a Manila publication.

He said he drafted the ordinance a long time ago on installment basis. When the issue of the Cebu Anti-Indecency Board (Caib) and the two local tabloids, Superbalita and Banat News, cropped up, he presented the draft to Magpale. The vice governor then filed the ordinance without further studying the proposal and without consulting lawyers of its possible legal implications and ramifications.

The ordinance passed the first reading. Under legislative procedures, the term “first reading” is an acknowledgement of the proposed law, but it still has to be calendared and a public hearing will have to be conducted.

Magpale said she will not withdraw her proposal because the legal defects will be corrected and ironed out after the public hearing. She said she is willing to listen to the proposals of and suggestions from the media and other stakeholders. She also claimed she has the support of various Christian denominations in the province.

I have no quarrel with the vice governor, who is my kumare. We in the media are also strongly against obscenity, indecency and pornography. We support her advocacy. But we are talking here of a proposed law that might be abused by elected officials who will be tapped to implement the ordinance. They might not give due process to people responsible for the printing and to the owners of tabloids that contain allegedly obscene and indecent items.

The title of the ordinance is even defective. Why focus on tabloids only? Is a tabloid associated with obscenity? If a broadsheet newspaper publishes a photo of a beauty pageant winner, like Miss Universe third runner-up Shamcey Supsup wearing a two-piece swimsuit, is it exempted from the ordinance once the ordinance is passed? One of the legal staffers of Magpale, who is my friend, defended broadsheet newspapers that printed the photo of Miss Supsup in a bikini, saying it depends on who is featured. My friend said if it is an ordinary or unknown personality in a bikini, then it is obscene because the intention of the publisher is to sexually arouse male readers. But if it is a beauty-title holder, it is not because it has a purpose. What? If that is the case, aren’t they guilty of having double standards?

And who decides when an article is obscene? The mayors who will be tapped to implement that law in their respective local government units? I’m afraid politicians may abuse this law. I know Gov. Gwen Garcia does not like my criticisms and my commentaries against her. What if one of my write-ups is adverse to her and the newspaper that publishes my write-up also contains a questionable article about sex, would she order town mayors to confiscate the newspaper for containing an allegedly obscene article?

I appreciate Caib for filing a case against the two newspapers that printed what they perceived as obscene and indecent articles because it is only the court that can interpret what is obscene. Besides, there is already a provision in the Revised Penal Code, Article 201 as amended by Presidential Decress 960 and 969, which penalizes obscenity and indecency. Why don’t they just use these laws to go after newspapers that print obscene and indecent articles? There is also a pending bill in Congress that is “anti-obscenity and pornography.” Won’t these serve the same end? I rest my case.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/opinion/2011/09/25/nalzaro-magpale-s-anti-tabloid-ordinance-181439

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #81 on:** Sep 26, 2011 at 12:44 PM »

^Violation of freedom of speech.^

I personally dislike those sleazy tabloids. They're pornographic in a sexist sort of way. But I would never, ever call for their being banned.

Panmunjom · « **Reply #82 on:** Sep 27, 2011 at 01:27 AM »

I think that the Church is correct in supporting the Vice Governor's initiative to ban obscene tabloids. Correct -morally and legally.

This move can't be considered as a threat to press freedom as this freedom is not absolute. Obscenity, of course, is an exception and is not protected by this right.

sharkey360 · « **Reply #83 on:** Sep 27, 2011 at 08:48 AM »

My friend in Cebu feels terrible. Why? Because his local parish priest saw him reading a comic book from the New 52 comics of DC Comics. He was kind enough to show some pages to him until one image struck the priest.

Just because of that, the priest told him that he will repeat his message of censorship and banning in the name of morality on his next mass this weekend, and this time he will specifically mention DC Comics, Catwoman and the New 52. The priest, by the way, already spoke out against the alleged obscene tabloids and voiced support for the vice-governor's proposal to ban such media.

sardaukar · « **Reply #84 on:** Sep 27, 2011 at 09:11 AM »

I think these outspoken priests need to ban anything that might make them horny. Intindihin naman daw natin ang kalagayan nila. Bawal na nga ang sex bawal pa ang masturbation. Tao lang sila!

sharkey360 · « **Reply #85 on:** Sep 27, 2011 at 09:13 AM »

Quote from: sardaukar on Sep 27, 2011 at 09:11 AM

I think these outspoken priests need to ban anything that might make them horny. Intindihin naman daw natin ang kalagayan nila. Bawal na nga ang sex bawal pa ang masturbation. Tao lang sila!

How about banning pedophile priests or nuns who abused children in schools or orphanages?

Klaus Weasley · « **Reply #86 on:** Sep 27, 2011 at 09:10 PM »

Quote from: jomgray on Sep 27, 2011 at 01:27 AM

This move can't be considered as a threat to press freedom as this freedom is not absolute. Obscenity, of course, is an exception and is not protected by this right.

How does one define OBSCENITY? That's the slippery slope. A government official can define those terms on his whim and make laws accordingly, thereby limiting journalistic and artistic expression. He can call any column or article criticizing him or exposing his misdeeds as "obscene".

Dan · « **Reply #87 on:** Sep 27, 2011 at 09:16 PM »

^ Case in point, that comic book panel of Batman and Catwoman up there. I don't find it obscene, yet, a priest has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner by saying it is. Under his "moral" compass, this kind of artistic expression will never reach my eyes.

Leave Sex Alone!!!

jepps137 · « **Reply #88 on:** Sep 29, 2011 at 01:30 AM »

baka may naiimagine na di maganda si Cebu priest nung nakita niya si Catwoman at Batman.

. baka selos siya at type niya si catwoman

sharkey360 · « **Reply #89 on:** Sep 29, 2011 at 04:32 PM »

Not a new report but still relevant.

Clergy sex abuse victims turn to int'l court

Clergy sex abuse victims upset that no high-ranking Roman Catholic leaders have been prosecuted for sheltering guilty priests have turned to the International Criminal Court, seeking an investigation of the pope and top Vatican cardinals for possible crimes against humanity. The Vatican called the move a "ludicrous publicity stunt."

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based nonprofit legal group, requested the inquiry Tuesday on behalf of the U.S.-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, arguing that the global church has maintained a "long-standing and pervasive system of sexual violence" despite promises to swiftly oust predators.

The Vatican's U.S. lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, called the complaint a "ludicrous publicity stunt and a misuse of international judicial processes" in a statement to The Associated Press.

The complaint names Pope Benedict XVI, partly in his former role as leader of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in 2001 explicitly gained responsibility for overseeing abuse cases; Cardinal William Levada, who now leads that office; Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state under Pope John Paul II; and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who now holds that post.

Attorneys for the victims say rape, sexual violence and torture are considered a crime against humanity as described in the international treaty that spells out the court's mandate. The complaint also accuses Vatican officials of creating policies that perpetuated the damage, constituting an attack against a civilian population.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/13/501364/main20105805.shtml