Announcement

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 05:50 PM

I'm actually proud of how the Church handled this. They had 3 weeks to turn them over, with possibly the ability to delay, or at least try to fight it, and they just turned it over. No edits, no secrets. They just put it all out there.

There's probably information there that will hurt the Church even more, but it's a step towards transparency. In a sense, it's as if our sides in the confession booth have switched.

**gremcint** · 02-01-2013, 06:14 PM

is it too ealry to nominate the next pope?

**Andara Bledin** · 02-01-2013, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by crashhelmet View Post

I'm actually proud of how the Church handled this. They had 3 weeks to turn them over, with possibly the ability to delay, or at least try to fight it, and they just turned it over. No edits, no secrets. They just put it all out there.

While they could have delayed, they didn't have a choice about whether it was redacted or not; that was decided for them by the courts, because they had planned to black out pretty much all names and all margin comments.

^-.-^

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post

While they could have delayed, they didn't have a choice about whether it was redacted or not; that was decided for them by the courts, because they had planned to black out pretty much all names and all margin comments.

^-.-^

The article doesn't say the judge ordered them to not black it out, only that the press and the plaintiffs objected.

The archdiocese had planned to black out the names of members of the church hierarchy who were responsible for the molesting priests in the documents and to instead provide a cover sheet for each priest's file, listing the names of top officials who handled that case. The church reversed course Wednesday after The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and plaintiff attorneys objected in court.

The archdiocese had also planned to black out handwritten comments on the files inked by recently retired Cardinal Roger Mahony and to provide them in typewritten form instead.

They could've appealed the release and drew it out longer. They could've released with blacked out information and then fought that through the court system as well. Instead, they chose to just release it all.

**Andara Bledin** · 02-01-2013, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by crashhelmet View Post

The article doesn't say the judge ordered them to not black it out, only that the press and the plaintiffs objected.

Yes. It does say that. Almost precisely that, in fact.

Earlier Thursday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias ordered the diocese to turn over some 30,000 pages from the confidential files of priests accused of child molestation without blacking out the names of top church officials who were responsible for handling priests accused of abuse.

Which pretty much dismantles the second part of your post, seeing as how it's based on fantasy as opposed to reality.

^-.-^

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post

Yes. It does say that. Almost precisely that, in fact.

Which pretty much dismantles the second part of your post, seeing as how it's based on fantasy as opposed to reality.

^-.-^

OK. if you want to split hairs, it's only blacking out the names of top church officials. It doesn't say blacking out margin notes or names regarding other people involved.

They could have blacked out

...the names of members of the church hierarchy who were responsible for the molesting priests in the documents and to instead provide a cover sheet for each priest's file, listing the names of top officials who handled that case.

and fulfilled the judge's order.

But instead, they released it all.

**Nekojin** · 02-01-2013, 07:46 PM

You're making it sound as though they took some sort of principled stand here, Crash. They're taking the path of least resistance - if they tried to fight it, they run the risk of pretty severe penalties both legally and socially. If a principled stand was to be taken, it would have been taken years ago. Now? It's far too late for that.

**Andara Bledin** · 02-01-2013, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by crashhelmet View Post

OK. if you want to split hairs, it's only blacking out the names of top church officials.

I'm sorry. I thought this was a debate site where mature individuals made arguments based on merit and fact.

I'll go ahead and leave you to your cheerleading, then.

^-.-^

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post

I'm sorry. I thought this was a debate site where mature individuals made arguments based on merit and fact.

I'll go ahead and leave you to your cheerleading, then.

^-.-^

There's a difference between debating and nitpicking just to nitpick, which is what you did. You argued against me and called it

fantasy as opposed to reality.

The fact is the judge only ordered the names of the top officials to be not blacked out. He did not order that everything else be revealed. it was the press and the plaintiffs that objected to further censorship.

But instead of conceding like a mature adult in a healthy debate, you patronize and call me a cheerleader

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Nekojin View Post

You're making it sound as though they took some sort of principled stand here, Crash. They're taking the path of least resistance - if they tried to fight it, they run the risk of pretty severe penalties both legally and socially. If a principled stand was to be taken, it would have been taken years ago. Now? It's far too late for that.

When have they ever taken the path of least resistance? Why is it such a bad thing to do so?

They could've drawn it out further and battled longer in an attempt, as futile as it may be, to save face and foster public relations.

For once, they didn't. They came out and said here it is, judge what you will.

I'm not saying they need to be forgiven or any special treatment needs to be given because of it. I'm simply commending them for doing the right thing instead of further playing "the game."

**Nekojin** · 02-01-2013, 09:03 PM

Short version, Crash: You're wrong. Try looking up the case in question on other news sites, such as here. Or here.

This has already been in the courts for a long time, another judge allowed the names to be redacted, and Judge Elias has put an end to it.

Attorneys for the archdiocese said at a Dec. 10 hearing before Elias that there were about 69 files that were believed to meet the criteria for release, according to The Tidings. Attorneys for the plaintiffs suing for the release questioned the number of files and the amount of material being redacted. Elias ordered the two sides to go through the edited documents together and get back to her with a list of disputed material.

At a Dec. 27 hearing, Elias granted the request of the Los Angeles Times and AP to intervene in court to argue against redactions.

According to AP, Elias said she considered the privacy rights of priests and other personnel mentioned in the documents in balance with the public's interest in knowing details of the sexual abuse cases. She stipulated that some names could be redacted still, such as those of people who played no major role in the cases.

If you take all of the news articles, and pick out the things that aren't the exact same details being regurgitated (IE, the details that each paper dug up themselves), you can clearly see that the judge made a fairly comprehensive ruling about what could be redacted, and what must be released.

So, I take back what I said about the Catholic Church taking the path of least resistance - they fought this every step of the way.

Edit: From yet another site, the Wall Street Journal:

More than 20 accused priests have held up the release in court for five years, arguing that making their files public would violate their privacy rights.

The priests have exhausted their legal appeals, however, and the documents are expected to come out within days or weeks.

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Nekojin View Post

Short version, Crash: You're wrong. Try looking up the case in question on other news sites, such as here. Or here.

I'm not wrong.

From your first link

A US judge Monday ordered Catholic leaders in Los Angeles to identify senior church officials accused of sexually abusing children, in a move welcomed by campaigners for victims.

"Senior church officials"

From your second link

The judge and attorneys for the archdiocese and for alleged victims of abuse were to continue to work out details of release of the records, which include psychiatric reports, reports of abuse and letters to the Vatican.

Not all decisions had been made about the details of what was to be released. The Church released it all.

and, which you already quoted

At a Dec. 27 hearing, Elias granted the request of the Los Angeles Times and AP to intervene in court to argue against redactions.

The judge gave permission to the Press to argue the need for complete transparency. She did not order complete transparency. At least, had not ordered it at the time the information was released.

This has already been in the courts for a long time, another judge allowed the names to be redacted, and Judge Elias has put an end to it.

Yes, I know. It's been on-going for quite a few years. I'm a Catholic that comes from a Catholic family in the Los Angeles Diocese. This has been a topic of conversation for a long time.

If you take all of the news articles, and pick out the things that aren't the exact same details being regurgitated (IE, the details that each paper dug up themselves), you can clearly see that the judge made a fairly comprehensive ruling about what could be redacted, and what must be released.

Find me something where the judge ordered zero redactions and/or blackouts and I'll concede because everything I'm reading at this point is senior officials and those actually guilty of the crimes or covering them up.

Hell, even the link you provided says:

According to AP, Elias said she considered the privacy rights of priests and other personnel mentioned in the documents in balance with the public's interest in knowing details of the sexual abuse cases. She stipulated that some names could be redacted still, such as those of people who played no major role in the cases.

But the Church released it all.

So, I take back what I said about the Catholic Church taking the path of least resistance - they fought this every step of the way.

Edit: From yet another site, the Wall Street Journal:

I don't have a subscription to WSJ, so I can't read that link.

**Andara Bledin** · 02-01-2013, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by crashhelmet View Post

There's a difference between debating and nitpicking just to nitpick, which is what you did. You argued against me and called it

Your original statement was demonstrably wrong by the very article you were using for your source, and your updated statement (the 5% that wasn't outright contradicted already) has been proven to still be wrong.

You didn't "call" anything; you doubled down on being wrong and then tried to claim you were right, somehow.

^-.-^

**crashhelmet** · 02-01-2013, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post

Your original statement was demonstrably wrong by the very article you were using for your source, and your updated statement (the 5% that wasn't outright contradicted already) has been proven to still be wrong.

You didn't "call" anything; you doubled down on being wrong and then tried to claim you were right, somehow.

^-.-^

I know I didn't "call" anything. I said

You argued against me and called it
Quote:
fantasy as opposed to reality.

I was quoting you directly.

Announcement

LA Archdiocses ......

LA Archdiocses ......

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment