Saints fight to avoid disclosing emails in Catholic abuse crisis (MERGED) (2 Viewers)

[Super44]

If there was a situation where I wanted to get all the facts before speculating, this would probably be it.

The "advice" could have been anything from "stonewall the story" to "you have to come clean on everything, here's how you do that effectively without demeaning the victims any further."

And I would have no problem with donations that were being used to provide restitution to victims. I would have an intergalactic problem with a donation to maintain a coverup.

No one disagrees that horrible crimes were committed, and the church protected the guilty and failed to protect the innocent. Now that these matters have been dragged into the sunlight and it appears that some in the church are trying to make things right as best they can, I'm just going to wait for more information.

My suspicion is that Ramon Vargas will do his usual fantastic work, and then we can start with the pitchforks and bouquets, as applicable.

Great post!

 

[Super44]

everyone can have their own opinion. doesnt make either one of us wrong.

i 100% KNOW about the BS with jehovahs witnesses and their rules and the pedophilia in that business (not religion). its no secret that other churches have this going on. just do google searches. i know its not EVERY church in EVERY city, and i never said it was EVERY church. thats a broad/general/blanket statement. what i said, is a fact.

The fact you did not say, SOME CHURCHES, implies ALL! Just saying. And for sure, there is ZERO deniability that it had happened and probably still continues today, within not only in SOME Catholic churches, but also occurs in SOME other religions (cults), as well. I would not even begin to say I know anything relative to the JW cult.

 

[Super44]

One point everyone here seems to be missing is that the saints turned over the emails in discovery to the plaintiff lawyers. This dispute seems to be over those plaintiff lawyers wanting to make the emails public to help their case. The saints aren’t hiding anything. They’re just asking the court not to allow public dissemination of the emails until the court determines that it is appropriate to do so.

The plaintiff lawyers just want to publish the emails to help their case. In other words, they’re strategizing to get the most money they can. Like just about every other public “scandal,” you’ll find the real answer if you follow the money.

That being said, I think it would be totally irresponsible, for those emails (relative evidence), to be publicly released at this point, before a trial was held and a verdict was rendered. Releasing evidence to the public, before a trial is had, is a bad precedent! That is a no-no in my opinion.

 

[ASaintFerLife]

Wow. Catholism just keeps taking hits.

This is what you get when you don't allow these men to marry according to the bible

 

[FootballLady]

This is what you get when you don't allow these men to marry according to the bible

You really think that pedophilia is the result of the celibacy requirement? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

 

[Doug B]

Could probably find this with enough Googling ... but maybe someone here knows:

Is the underlying trial a civil trial, with Brignac's victims suing the Archdiocese of New Orleans for damages?

Or is the underlying trial George Brignac's actual criminal trial?

My understanding is that it is the former. It matters because it should establish that the Saints were doing absolutely nothing to help Brignac beat the charges. A lot of people on other message boards were initially thinking that the Saints were directly obstructing justice and helping pedophiles go free. Most people walked that back, but as to be expected ... there are a few holdouts.

 

[Saint Jack]

You really think that pedophilia is the result of the celibacy requirement? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

It’s not that celibacy results in celibacy. It’s that the same organization that requires celibacy also has hidden priests, killed stories related to scandals of the Church, and has shown time and time again that they’re concerned with their PR and image. They’ve also cultivated this cult of silence to protect the Church from scandal. That silence does attract pedophiles.

 

[FootballLady]

It’s not that celibacy results in celibacy. It’s that the same organization that requires celibacy also has hidden priests, killed stories related to scandals of the Church, and has shown time and time again that they’re concerned with their PR and image. They’ve also cultivated this cult of silence to protect the Church from scandal. That silence does attract pedophiles.

Well, yeah. Predators go where the prey is. But the post I replied to made the charge that the pedophilia was a direct result of the requirement for priestly celibacy.

 

[Saint Jack]

Well, yeah. Predators go where the prey is. But the post I replied to made the charge that the pedophilia was a direct result of the requirement for priestly celibacy.

The post you were referring to wasn’t about celibacy. It said “married according to the Bible.” That could mean suppressing homosexuality.

 

[FootballLady]

The post you were referring to wasn’t about celibacy. It said “married according to the Bible.” That could mean suppressing homosexuality.

I'm pretty sure it didn't, though.

 

[silverbullet]

Greg bensel is a pretty savvy person guy. I know Sarah the archdioceses pr person.

She is also an excellent pr person.

Anyone trained in pr knows that with any scandal, transparency is the only way out. There are countless case studies everyone is taught on what to do (Tylenol case) vs what not to do (BP).

I have no inside knowledge of this but my best guess is that Sarah, who’s job is to manage the reputation of the archdiocese, sought counsel with other professionals as a sounding board. Not to cover anything up but on how to manage the situation so that the archdiocese is seen as transparent, compassionate and not engaged in a coverup.

I don’t know for sure but I really doubt there was any coverup proposed by the pr people. It runs counter to everything they’re taught as being effective.

It’s a bad look for the saints though because even though they may have had decent intentions, it just looks shady.

 

[Doug B]

This might be worthy of its own thread ... but see below from this FanSided blog:

What also makes this story interesting is that there were rumors that Saints team ownership may be going to the Archdiocese of New Orleans after the owner passes. If that were to be true, the cover by the Saints executive would align with why this was done.

That's pretty far fetched, isn't it?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

This might be worthy of its own thread ... but see below from this FanSided blog:



That's pretty far fetched, isn't it?

Is it though?

I mean, i really hope it isnt true... but who are Gayle’s heirs exactly? We know who Tom’s heirs were, and how spectacularly that failed.. But does Gayle have children who predate her marriage to Mr. Benson? Or would Mr Benson have designated the archdiocese as owners of the team after Gayle passes, similar to how the city of Green Bay owns the Packers? So many questions.

 

[Doug B]

Is it though?

It is, for two reasons:

1) the NFL bylaws dictate that teams must be owned by individuals, not by incorporated entities or non-profit organizations. If owned by a group of individuals, one must have greater than a 50% interest in the team.

2) NFL owners are not free to bequeath their franchise to whoever they please. The league must approve any succession plan. Without such approval, the league can revoke a franchise, temporarily place it into trust, and seek new ownership without input from the previous owner's heirs.

 

[sfidc3]

This might be worthy of its own thread ... but see below from this FanSided blog:



That's pretty far fetched, isn't it?

I hope it is far fetched and farther from the truth than is possible. If this were to happen I would no longer be a Saints fan.....