Opinion: Congrats to the Trib on their Pulitzer Prize


Recommended Posts

I like to remind people in conversations like this, about Alexander Hamilton.  Commander at the battle of Yorktown, which defeated the British, and gave birth to our nation.  Wrote most of the federalist papers.  Created the national banking system, the coast guard, the post office, and other lesser-known treasures.  

He was also a slime ball who gave America it's first public sex scandal from a major politician.  He chose to protect his legacy at the cost of his wife, when he published the Reynolds Pamphlet.  He gave his son advice on how to conduct the duel that resulted in his son's death.  

You want to measure greatness in the eyes of humans, go pull out a ten dollar bill and look at the face.    If you want to discuss child abusers specifically, let's pull up a list of Michael Jackson's accomplishments/awards/etc.  

 

See, here's something people miss - "Greatness" is not an endorsement of morality.  It says nothing about goodness, or rightness.  Lucifer and some of his works are occasionally labeled "great".   Great men can be incredibly flawed, evil, good, or a mixture.   The word "Great" only deals with the measure of impact someone's actions have on others. 

Yeah, people tend to use "great" as a compliment.  And when thinking about the judge's comments regarding the man who abused children while holding a position of trust, the judge was thinking of the man's positive contributions.  Are his positive contributions tainted, with his evil actions?  Well, go ask people who like the federalist papers or the birth of our nation.  Go ask Eliza Hamilton if you're still allowed to appreciate all the things the US is, because of her husband.  

 

I resolve the matter in this way: I don't do heroes.  I value the positive impact people have had in my life, and appreciate the people who made them.  But if they turn out to be child abusers too, I can still benefit from the positive impact without any taint of the bad stuff.   I do not invalidate or cheapen a victim's traumatic experience, just by having a different experience. Your mileage may differ.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2017 at 10:10 AM, MormonGator said:


I think the reaction that LDS feel towards the article could be like how Catholics thought about the priest scandals in New England and the coverage they received. I noticed two reactions from Catholics: One was to bury your head in the sand and pretend like nothing happened, blame a giant "conspiracy", and live in denial while the other was to leave the church over it and lose all faith in God and humanity. 

There's a whole lot in between those two bookends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We tend to forget, given our short memories.  A decade or two before the Catholics had their sex scandals hitting the news, we Mormons had ours.  They had numerous instances of priests reassigned, protected, even 'promoted' (or whatever they call it).  We had numerous similar instances regarding scout masters and priesthood leaders.  And yeah, there were no shortage of people ignoring the news stories, or claiming it was all an antimormon plot to make us look bad.  The '80's saw the creation of the 1-800 number bishops must call, and the permanent annotation ability for membership records.  That means from the 1830's to the 1979's, those things did not exist.  

God leaves it up to His children to mature in some situations. 

Human understanding of such things basically stank to high heaven until the '70's or later.  It took 2-3 decades for various notions to even be accepted as things by people.  Even today, you can find people who don't believe a husband can rape their wife, for example.  They're a shrinking fraction of a minority - but back 3-4 decades ago, you probably couldn't swing a dead cat in a sacrament meeting without hitting a dozen people who believe it, to the extent they even thought about it, which was never. 

Yeah, the hesitation to think about things still plagues humanity.  Here's an example: BYU students who report being the victim of sexual assault, occasionally get referred to the honor code office, where they're occasionally investigated to see if they violated the honor code.

BYU claimed it simply doesn't happen.

The SLTrib documented numerous cases where yes, indeed, it did happen.  And made a big huge international stink about it, until BYU (and a crapton of other universities in Utah) finally were forced, kicking and screaming against their will, to take action, and revise policies to more accurately reflect the realities of abuse.

This is not the time to circle the wagon around poor BYU and attack the Tribume.  This is the time to follow the wisdom of Star Trek's Captain Picard: "The seeds of evil are present in all of us".   We don't need to celebrate that BYU had to be intentionally embarrassed into taking action, but we should celebrate that better policies and procedures are now in place to both preserve the honor code, and protect victims of abuse.  

(I know people see things differently, and think I'm off base.  I'm ok with that.  This is just my opinion here.)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I resolve the matter in this way: I don't do heroes.  I value the positive impact people have had in my life, and appreciate the people who made them.  But if they turn out to be child abusers too, I can still benefit from the positive impact without any taint of the bad stuff.   I do not invalidate or cheapen a victim's traumatic experience, just by having a different experience. Your mileage may differ.  

I'm with you NT.  I really don't understand the rules of castigation in the arena of public opinion. 

So, if you do 99.9% of your life in greatness then molested a child, the 99.9% is wiped out?  Or is it this idea that someone who can molest a child cannot have possibly spent 99.9% of his life in greatness?  Is there a list of offenses that one does that wipes out greatness?  You stole some guy's car... still great.  You cheated on your wife... still great.  You beat up your wife... still great.  You molest a kid.  That's it.  You're done.

It's like Joseph Smith, isn't it?  The gospel as restored by Joseph Smith is all well and good and true.  Until somebody mentions he married a 14-year-old... that's pedophilia!  Nah, gospel can't be true anymore.  Nobody who marries a 14-year-old is capable of great Godly works!

Anyway, I don't really know what to think of it.  I kinda see how the idea that nobody great can possibly think of molesting children as valid.  But then we have here a bishop with 50 glowing references who molested a child.  So.... I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 I saw with the Catholic priest scandal in New England, and I'm seeing it now. 

You mentioned this several times in several threads so I'm just going to make a correction here.

The Catholic priest scandal is not about circling the wagons.  The Catholic priest scandal is about the conflict between Canon Law and the United States Law.  Catholics fought to get the Catholic Priests through the process of Canon Law as much as they could possibly do so before US Law intervened and made it impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Even today, you can find people who don't believe a husband can rape their wife, for example.  They're a shrinking fraction of a minority - but back 3-4 decades ago, you probably couldn't swing a dead cat in a sacrament meeting without hitting a dozen people who believe it, to the extent they even thought about it, which was never.

That's because 3-4 decades ago, you couldn't rape your wife. The marital state was a de facto consent to sexual congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You mentioned this several times in several threads so I'm just going to make a correction here.

The Catholic priest scandal is not about circling the wagons.  The Catholic priest scandal is about the conflict between Canon Law and the United States Law.  Catholics fought to get the Catholic Priests through the process of Canon Law as much as they could possibly do so before US Law intervened and made it impossible.

 

Canon Law does not protect criminals and the abuse was church wide, not only in the US. In Ireland there were religious orders circling the wagons. In Africa there was a group of priests working together, as a band of predator rapists. Around the world, there were Bishops protecting criminal priests over the welfare of children. And there were some Bishops who were dealing the best they could, including getting outside help in the form of psychological counseling. Those who had good intent, but they erred in giving abusers the benefit of the doubt, allowing the predators to continue their crimes. Child abusers are the best liars and manipulators. And there are priests and bishops who have been wrongly accused.

It's devastating, all around. But to NT's point, the secrecy has, and is still, being laid bare. Massive changes have been made in the US, all having the goal to protect children and prevent criminal predators from being ordained in the first place.

We are healing yes, but we are not yet whole. The search for Justice, is the heartache. No matter how many are imprisoned, or how many victims are paid, Justice isn't satisfied. I think it impossible, to provide any restitution that would satisfy our need for Justice. But it doesn't mean we should stop trying. An article I read several years ago, put it best: "Let us return, wounded, to Christ." It is only in Him, where complete Justice is found, and where we can be made whole. The suffering of the victims and the sins of the abusers, are not hidden from God.

 

Edited by Blueskye2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

but they erred in giving abusers the benefit of the doubt

So you do not believe that the accused should be given the benefit of any doubt and be assumed innocent until proven guilty? Or is there some other way to refuse abusers the benefit of the doubt while not allowing non-abusers to be wrongly punished?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

Canon Law does not protect criminals and the abuse was church wide, not only in the US. In Ireland there were religious orders circling the wagons. In Africa there was a group of priests working together, as a band of predator rapists. Around the world, there were Bishops protecting criminal priests over the welfare of children. And there were some Bishops who were dealing the best they could, including getting outside help in the form of psychological counseling. Those who had good intent, but they erred in giving abusers the benefit of the doubt, allowing the predators to continue their crimes. Child abusers are the best liars and manipulators. And there are priests and bishops who have been wrongly accused.

It's devastating, all around. But to NT's point, the secrecy has, and is still, being laid bare. Massive changes have been made in the US, all having the goal to protect children and prevent criminal predators from being ordained in the first place.

We are healing yes, but we are not yet whole. The search for Justice, is the heartache. No matter how many are imprisoned, or how many victims are paid, Justice isn't satisfied. I think it impossible, to provide any restitution that would satisfy our need for Justice. But it doesn't mean we should stop trying. An article I read several years ago, put it best: "Let us return, wounded, to Christ." It is only in Him, where complete Justice is found, and where we can be made whole. The suffering of the victims and the sins of the abusers, are not hidden from God.

 

Canon Law has a different process for priests who commit crimes.  Canon Law and Philippine Law are closer to each other than Canon Law and US Law, and of course, the Vatican's laws is Canon Law to which all Roman Catholic priests have automatic citizenship.  The Vatican tried to bring the criminal Priest into conformance with Canon Law procedures as much as they could before state laws stepped in to take the Priests out of conformance with it.  People saw this as "Bishops protecting criminals over the welfare of children."  This is, of course, erroneous unless you are going to make the claim that Canon Law protects Priests over the welfare of children or that you don't trust/believe the Catholic Church's Canon Law is divinely inspired and instituted.

You keep on saying Justice like it's something that a secular institution can provide.  If you really think about it - it is not Justice that the people desire but Vengeance.  This is a non-Catholic view.  The Catholic view is, of course, to provide every soul with infinite chances for repentance no matter the crime.  Hence, capital punishment is discouraged.  The objective of Catholic justice is to bring souls back to Christ, not hurry them there through death.  Unlike LDS belief, repentance is only possible before death and all one can do after death is seek the mercy of Christ.  A priest committing mortal sin is even in more danger of eternal damnation than an ordinary Catholic due to the vows they make, therefore, Priests are even more desperately succored to save them from the fires of hell, something that is limited, if not impossible, in a secular jail cell.  Priests committing crimes against the flock in Canon law are sequestered and secluded away from the flock where the long and arduous process of repentance is embarked upon.  This protects both the flock and the priest, not only in a secular sense but, more especially, in an eternal sense.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 or that you don't trust/believe the Catholic Church's Canon Law is divinely inspired and instituted.

 

Canon Law is not scripture. Most of Canon Law is ecclesiastical, ie, human law, with the intent of applying divine law to a society...that society, being the RCC.

And no, my point was exactly, that Justice is not something that secular institutions can fully provide. 

Recognizing the difference between justice and vengeance, is a Catholic thing. Jail, in the majority of countries, does not limit anyone, including clergy, from receiving the Sacraments. That is what Catholic prison ministries are for.

The problem that has been revealed in some of the abuse cases, is that the Priests who committed crimes were not sequestered and secluded away but moved by their Bishops from parish to parish. Some of the Priests abused children in every parish that they were assigned to. These are the worst of the cases, with hundreds of victims of a single criminal.

Other cases, the criminal was removed from ministerial service, but the crime was not reported. In these instances, yes, I agree with you. The Bishops then were following Canon Law, until 1997 when it was made mandatory by US law to report child abuse. It's in these cases, where there are instances of a Bishop giving the criminal priest the benefit of a doubt. That after having received psychotherapy, and having been declared "cured" (a 1970's thing apparently, that pedophilia could be cured with therapy) the priest would say, in effect, "Oh yeah, I'm cured.", all the while continuing on with their predations and leaving a trail of victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Canon Law is not scripture. Most of Canon Law is ecclesiastical, ie, human law, with the intent of applying divine law to a society...that society, being the RCC.

And no, my point was exactly, that Justice is not something that secular institutions can fully provide. 

Recognizing the difference between justice and vengeance, is a Catholic thing. Jail, in the majority of countries, does not limit anyone, including clergy, from receiving the Sacraments. That is what Catholic prison ministries are for.

The problem that has been revealed in some of the abuse cases, is that the Priests who committed crimes were not sequestered and secluded away but moved by their Bishops from parish to parish. Some of the Priests abused children in every parish that they were assigned to. These are the worst of the cases, with hundreds of victims of a single criminal.

Other cases, the criminal was removed from ministerial service, but the crime was not reported. In these instances, yes, I agree with you. The Bishops then were following Canon Law, until 1997 when it was made mandatory by US law to report child abuse. It's in these cases, where there are instances of a Bishop giving the criminal priest the benefit of a doubt. That after having received psychotherapy, and having been declared "cured" (a 1970's thing apparently, that pedophilia could be cured with therapy) the priest would say, in effect, "Oh yeah, I'm cured.", all the while continuing on with their predations and leaving a trail of victims.

No, Canon Law is not scripture.  Catholic doctrine is not limited to scripture, as you well know.

This is really irrelevant to my point.  What I'm trying to refute is that Catholics "circled the wagons" for the criminal Priests.  Regardless of the error of the Bishops as they applied (or tried to apply) Canon Law, the fact still remains... they did not circle the wagons.  They tried to save the soul of the Priest that, in their belief, is in extreme danger of an eternity of damnation by following what they know is the way to save his soul - to apply Canon Law.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
14 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

Canon Law does not protect criminals and the abuse was church wide, not only in the US. In Ireland there were religious orders circling the wagons. In Africa there was a group of priests working together, as a band of predator rapists. Around the world, there were Bishops protecting criminal priests over the welfare of children. And there were some Bishops who were dealing the best they could, including getting outside help in the form of psychological counseling. Those who had good intent, but they erred in giving abusers the benefit of the doubt, allowing the predators to continue their crimes. Child abusers are the best liars and manipulators. And there are priests and bishops who have been wrongly accused.

It's devastating, all around. But to NT's point, the secrecy has, and is still, being laid bare. Massive changes have been made in the US, all having the goal to protect children and prevent criminal predators from being ordained in the first place.

We are healing yes, but we are not yet whole. The search for Justice, is the heartache. No matter how many are imprisoned, or how many victims are paid, Justice isn't satisfied. I think it impossible, to provide any restitution that would satisfy our need for Justice. But it doesn't mean we should stop trying. An article I read several years ago, put it best: "Let us return, wounded, to Christ." It is only in Him, where complete Justice is found, and where we can be made whole. The suffering of the victims and the sins of the abusers, are not hidden from God.

 

Exactly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2017 at 0:03 PM, anatess2 said:

No, Canon Law is not scripture.  Catholic doctrine is not limited to scripture, as you well know.

This is really irrelevant to my point.  What I'm trying to refute is that Catholics "circled the wagons" for the criminal Priests.  Regardless of the error of the Bishops as they applied (or tried to apply) Canon Law, the fact still remains... they did not circle the wagons.  They tried to save the soul of the Priest that, in their belief, is in extreme danger of an eternity of damnation by following what they know is the way to save his soul - to apply Canon Law.

 

Canon Law is not even a doctrine or dogma of the RCC, it sets forth the laws by which the RCC runs. It does apply Doctrines and Dogmas to the Laws that run the Church.

And as I said, in some cases, yes, I agree with you. But not every abuse case is exactly the same.

Canon Law doesn't save anyone's soul. Bishops absolutely did not want to remove Priests from receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as without it, their soul would be lost. This is why abuser Priests are not excommunicated. As an excommunicated person is cut off from the Sacraments. 

Edited by Blueskye2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Canon Law is not even a doctrine or dogma of the RCC, it sets forth the laws by which the RCC runs. It does apply Doctrines and Dogmas to the Laws that run the Church.

And as I said, in some cases, yes, I agree with you. But not every abuse case is exactly the same.

Canon Law doesn't save anyone's soul. Bishops absolutely did not want to remove Priests from receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as without it, their soul would be lost. This is why abuser Priests are not excommunicated. As an excommunicated person is cut off from the Sacraments. 

And once again, that's not the point.  Regardless of whether Canon Law is the right thing for the soul of the Priest or not, the fact is, the Church/Bishops/Cardinals/whoever hid those priests did not do so to circle the wagons.  Circling the wagons indicate that the people circling the wagons believe their guy innocent of wrongdoing, or they don't care if their guy is wrong or not, they're going to pretend they are innocent.

Rather, they simply have a deep seated belief (call it faith) that the way to administer worldly justice for an ordained man of God who committed a mortal sin against God is not through the secular Justice System but through Canon Law.

Personally, thinking as a Catholic, I do believe that Canon Law is a better route than the secular Justice System as is evident by the Priest who ended up dead in jail after his inmates ganged up on him, and the Priest who ended up dead in jail after he killed himself.  Yes, the Vatican needs more stringent oversight for Priests under the sequester.  This process can be improved upon.  But that is not possible anymore because of secular law stomping on Canon Law on the matter.  In the Philippines, Canon Law can still be followed by criminal priests because the Philippine government makes the Church the jail.  All secular laws still apply, except the jail is not in the secular jail but the monastery.  The government provides oversight on the sequestered priest in the same manner as a house arrest to make sure he doesn't get put in contact with unauthorized individuals.  This saves the government money.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/14/2017 at 3:45 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But I am also aware that BYU subsidizes its students' tuitions to the tune of $20-$30K per year; and it's galling when students like Madi Barney suggests that BYU must keep doing that, no questions asked, while she breaks out the contraception and invites men into her bedroom for what was initially planned as a voluntary sexual encounter.

Where did you hear this ? Did she admit to this behavior, or is this the findings of the Honor Code office? I don't really trust the Honor Code office at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eddified said:

Where did you hear this ? Did she admit to this behavior, or is this the findings of the Honor Code office? I don't really trust the Honor Code office at this point. 

It was in the court documents filed at the time her rapist was charged, based to Barney's own statement to the investigating police officer.  (I am a lawyer in Utah, and I went and looked it up a few months back.  It's technically public information; but to my knowledge no press outlet has chosen to report on that aspect of the case.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Here’s one reason the Trib might (arguably) actually deserve that Pulitzer:

They seem to be the only local news outlet reporting that Barney’s alleged rapist was found “not guilty” at his trial yesterday.  

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/19/utah-man-acquitted-of-raping-byu-student/

Yes, they misstate some key details of the situation; and yes, they don’t name Barney; and yes, they studiously avoid presenting the defense’s argument or the incongruities of Barney’s testimony in any detail.  

But at least they reported it, which no one else seems to be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here’s one reason the Trib might (arguably) actually deserve that Pulitzer:

They seem to be the only local news outlet reporting that Barney’s alleged rapist was found “not guilty” at his trial yesterday.  

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/19/utah-man-acquitted-of-raping-byu-student/

Yes, they misstate some key details of the situation; and yes, they don’t name Barney; and yes, they studiously avoid presenting the defense’s argument or the incongruities of Barney’s testimony in any detail.  

But at least they reported it, which no one else seems to be doing.

Well, if Pulitzers were 5 cent candy that would be deserving it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2017 at 1:02 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Here’s one reason the Trib might (arguably) actually deserve that Pulitzer:

They seem to be the only local news outlet reporting that Barney’s alleged rapist was found “not guilty” at his trial yesterday.  

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/19/utah-man-acquitted-of-raping-byu-student/

Yes, they misstate some key details of the situation; and yes, they don’t name Barney; and yes, they studiously avoid presenting the defense’s argument or the incongruities of Barney’s testimony in any detail.  

But at least they reported it, which no one else seems to be doing.

I think the only reason they wrote the article was to get "BYU" in the same headline as "Rape".  The article itself didn't really say much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share