Oh, and people: don't touch the kiddoes in the course of intusive banter about personal bodily functions or hygiene! At all! That's not "rapport." It's *creepy*.
Maybe not criminal, exactly; but definitely the sort of thing you don't let a stranger do twice.
Based on *his* lawyer's account, I would never invite him to be near kids.
Oh, and people: don't touch the kiddoes in the course of intusive banter about personal bodily functions or hygiene! At all! That's not "rapport." It's *creepy*.
Maybe not criminal, exactly; but definitely the sort of thing you don't let a stranger do twice.
Based on *his* lawyer's account, I would never invite him to be near kids.
Don't judge others lest ye be judged. In our society if you can go to jail for touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time, then there are a lot of gestures that you will go to jail for, while certain self righteous individuals will call it creepy. You pat a kid on the back as a couch for scoring a goal: battery. You hold a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic theat Father Martins brought like Father Lane, the pastor of the parish where the incident occurred: battery. You poured water on a baby and made them cry during baptism: battery. If the Church cooperates with authorities in persecuting priests for anything they do, then the civil authorities will gladly destroy our Church with our stupid cooperation.
**touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time***
You donтАЩt know whether the touching was brief, or the context. While there were reportedly many people present, there is no information on how many people saw it. And there is absolutely no evidence that no one found it offensive at the time.
Whether something is offensive does not automatically make it criminal. I was at a store with my kids and there was a guy with his kids f--bombing every 2 seconds. My kids and I found it more offensive than if the guy touched my kids' hair, but I would find it wrong to call the police on him. It was offensive, but not criminal: big difference.
Your examples aren't battery, however. For baptism, it has specifically been requested, so it is not "without consent." Patting a kid on the back as a coach (it's easy to get couch and coach misspelled and mixed up) is not "offensive" within the context of a game (it is an objective AND subjective standard, usually, as to what is offensive).
Holding a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic is very context specific. Is it a priest who you are close with? Then probably done with consent. Is it the priest of the parish who you've only spoken with once or twice? Yeah, it might be a battery.
What does consent have to do with battery? If I consent to someone slapping my kid full force on the face then it is not battery because I consented to it? A behavior like touching someone's hair may be awkward if done by a stranger, but it is not a criminal act.
In almost all cases a criminal battery is a battery in all situations, whether consent is given or not (only a few exceptions like spanking a child or washing a naked toddler would be battery if not done by a parent or with direct consent from a parent). It is like a stranger touching my hair or patting me on the back so strongly it actually hurt a bit. I can say "I would prefer you not do that" or even "stop it," but if I called in the police for that, it would both be an act of injustice on my part as well as a sin against the 8th commandment because I am harming someone's reputation over something that was not meant to cause me harm.
Wait, do you really think consent doesn't have anything to do with battery? "What does consent have to do with battery?" I have to assume you typed this quickly and didn't take some time to think about it. Let's say I am in a theatrical play. During that play, I and another actor get into a "fight." I tell the other actor that, for the sake of making the scene appear as real as possible, the actor is allowed to actually slap me. This would not be battery.
So, too, it would not be battery to baptize a screaming child, if you have parental consent. Of course, there is also the issue of how the baby is supposed to testify whether he or she found it offensive or was just crying because it was hungry.
Whether it would be battery or not to slap your 1yo child if you gave me permission is an interesting question, and it is the reason states have Child Cruelty and other such laws, to cover the issue so that your consent on behalf of your child does not matter.
*Please note: every State has different battery laws. I am speaking of my state, which shares a lot of similarities with the state in question.
All I know is if a priest goes to jail for 1 year for touching a girl's hair while Chicago Children's Hospital less than an hour away routinely mutilated children through "sex change" operations then we are living in a bizarre world where people, including the Catholics throwing mud at Father Martins, simply have lost the ability to distinguish what is truly evil and what at worse is an imprudent act.
I would not trust prosecutors in a wicked state like Illinois that routinely releases violent criminals from any criminal sentence. My wife was sexually assaulted by a man at a gas station in the same Will County that Father Martins is accused in and the police did nothing to even make a good investigation, but they so quickly go after a man for touching a girl's hair. Pure insanity!
No need to trust prosecutors. Just also don't be a creeper. This guy's own lawyer's language suggests someone who should not be invited to work with children.
There is a fair amount of daylight between "belongs in prison" and "fit for ministry"--or should be, anyway. Obviously, sadly, madly, our episcopacy is full of people who are too corrupt to make such distinctions.
I did say "probably not criminal," though you seem not to have read that.
An injustice in one situation does not make void a justice in another. In addition, simply because one has committed a crime does not make it or them truly evil. In some states, speeding is a criminal act. That doesn't make them evil. It just means they have violated the law, and should be punished accordingly. The fact that within said state abortion might be legal does *not* invalidate the crime of speeding. No one is saying that Fr. Martins is the same as a doctor who mutilates children, or even a priest who sexually abuses children (no one that I have read, at least). I think you are taking people's criticism of Fr. Martins and looking at it too emotionally, instead of actually reading what is written.
I'm sorry about what your wife went through. Again, though, it does not invalidate whether what Fr. Martins did was a crime or not, nor does it invalidate whether it was very inappropriate or not.
But putting a priest in jail for touching a girl's hair is not a speeding ticket. The problem is that Americans growing up in Calvinist-Puritanical American culture do not truly understand who a priest is. A priest is not some minister or nobody important. He is called Father because he is our Father and no good son or daughter would agree with their Father going to jail for innocently touching a girl's hair. In Poland a priest is treated in his parish like royalty as he should be. In Mexico, when we traveled with a priest restaurants, museums and stores would let us in after closing because Padrecito was with us. It is simply inconceivable to any Catholic born and raised among other Catholics instead of among people who think the Constitution and democracy are god to believe that a priest could be treated with such disrespect simply because some secular prosecutors and some evil parent want to destroy an innocent priest who brings us God in the flesh and is a representative of Christ on earth.
Oh, and people: don't touch the kiddoes in the course of intusive banter about personal bodily functions or hygiene! At all! That's not "rapport." It's *creepy*.
Maybe not criminal, exactly; but definitely the sort of thing you don't let a stranger do twice.
Based on *his* lawyer's account, I would never invite him to be near kids.
*intrusive
Don't judge others lest ye be judged. In our society if you can go to jail for touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time, then there are a lot of gestures that you will go to jail for, while certain self righteous individuals will call it creepy. You pat a kid on the back as a couch for scoring a goal: battery. You hold a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic theat Father Martins brought like Father Lane, the pastor of the parish where the incident occurred: battery. You poured water on a baby and made them cry during baptism: battery. If the Church cooperates with authorities in persecuting priests for anything they do, then the civil authorities will gladly destroy our Church with our stupid cooperation.
Or just don't be a creep.
Your comment is uncharitable.
**touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time***
You donтАЩt know whether the touching was brief, or the context. While there were reportedly many people present, there is no information on how many people saw it. And there is absolutely no evidence that no one found it offensive at the time.
ItтАЩs better not to misstate or create facts.
Whether something is offensive does not automatically make it criminal. I was at a store with my kids and there was a guy with his kids f--bombing every 2 seconds. My kids and I found it more offensive than if the guy touched my kids' hair, but I would find it wrong to call the police on him. It was offensive, but not criminal: big difference.
Your examples aren't battery, however. For baptism, it has specifically been requested, so it is not "without consent." Patting a kid on the back as a coach (it's easy to get couch and coach misspelled and mixed up) is not "offensive" within the context of a game (it is an objective AND subjective standard, usually, as to what is offensive).
Holding a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic is very context specific. Is it a priest who you are close with? Then probably done with consent. Is it the priest of the parish who you've only spoken with once or twice? Yeah, it might be a battery.
What does consent have to do with battery? If I consent to someone slapping my kid full force on the face then it is not battery because I consented to it? A behavior like touching someone's hair may be awkward if done by a stranger, but it is not a criminal act.
In almost all cases a criminal battery is a battery in all situations, whether consent is given or not (only a few exceptions like spanking a child or washing a naked toddler would be battery if not done by a parent or with direct consent from a parent). It is like a stranger touching my hair or patting me on the back so strongly it actually hurt a bit. I can say "I would prefer you not do that" or even "stop it," but if I called in the police for that, it would both be an act of injustice on my part as well as a sin against the 8th commandment because I am harming someone's reputation over something that was not meant to cause me harm.
Wait, do you really think consent doesn't have anything to do with battery? "What does consent have to do with battery?" I have to assume you typed this quickly and didn't take some time to think about it. Let's say I am in a theatrical play. During that play, I and another actor get into a "fight." I tell the other actor that, for the sake of making the scene appear as real as possible, the actor is allowed to actually slap me. This would not be battery.
So, too, it would not be battery to baptize a screaming child, if you have parental consent. Of course, there is also the issue of how the baby is supposed to testify whether he or she found it offensive or was just crying because it was hungry.
Whether it would be battery or not to slap your 1yo child if you gave me permission is an interesting question, and it is the reason states have Child Cruelty and other such laws, to cover the issue so that your consent on behalf of your child does not matter.
*Please note: every State has different battery laws. I am speaking of my state, which shares a lot of similarities with the state in question.
All I know is if a priest goes to jail for 1 year for touching a girl's hair while Chicago Children's Hospital less than an hour away routinely mutilated children through "sex change" operations then we are living in a bizarre world where people, including the Catholics throwing mud at Father Martins, simply have lost the ability to distinguish what is truly evil and what at worse is an imprudent act.
I would not trust prosecutors in a wicked state like Illinois that routinely releases violent criminals from any criminal sentence. My wife was sexually assaulted by a man at a gas station in the same Will County that Father Martins is accused in and the police did nothing to even make a good investigation, but they so quickly go after a man for touching a girl's hair. Pure insanity!
No need to trust prosecutors. Just also don't be a creeper. This guy's own lawyer's language suggests someone who should not be invited to work with children.
There is a fair amount of daylight between "belongs in prison" and "fit for ministry"--or should be, anyway. Obviously, sadly, madly, our episcopacy is full of people who are too corrupt to make such distinctions.
I did say "probably not criminal," though you seem not to have read that.
An injustice in one situation does not make void a justice in another. In addition, simply because one has committed a crime does not make it or them truly evil. In some states, speeding is a criminal act. That doesn't make them evil. It just means they have violated the law, and should be punished accordingly. The fact that within said state abortion might be legal does *not* invalidate the crime of speeding. No one is saying that Fr. Martins is the same as a doctor who mutilates children, or even a priest who sexually abuses children (no one that I have read, at least). I think you are taking people's criticism of Fr. Martins and looking at it too emotionally, instead of actually reading what is written.
I'm sorry about what your wife went through. Again, though, it does not invalidate whether what Fr. Martins did was a crime or not, nor does it invalidate whether it was very inappropriate or not.
Thanks for this very sane comment.
But putting a priest in jail for touching a girl's hair is not a speeding ticket. The problem is that Americans growing up in Calvinist-Puritanical American culture do not truly understand who a priest is. A priest is not some minister or nobody important. He is called Father because he is our Father and no good son or daughter would agree with their Father going to jail for innocently touching a girl's hair. In Poland a priest is treated in his parish like royalty as he should be. In Mexico, when we traveled with a priest restaurants, museums and stores would let us in after closing because Padrecito was with us. It is simply inconceivable to any Catholic born and raised among other Catholics instead of among people who think the Constitution and democracy are god to believe that a priest could be treated with such disrespect simply because some secular prosecutors and some evil parent want to destroy an innocent priest who brings us God in the flesh and is a representative of Christ on earth.