BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 12:41 AM

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-philly-priest-trial-closing-arguments-20120531,0,1759654.story?page=2&track=rss

When you think it can't get any creepier..a priest wrote a letter..fortunately never sent..to a 7th grade boy, fantasizing about not just oral sex, but sadistic acts. Priest was reassigned to parishes. What does it take? Sadistic acts? There is sadism and masochism running through the church, and when it gets combined with sex, which probably it almost always does...how can you keep it in a religion? mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: ChrisJBrady
Date: 31 May 12 - 06:13 AM

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/246/859/640/petition-calling-for-the-resignation-of-cardinal-sean-brady/#'

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 May 12 - 07:03 PM

There is a petition online for the removal of Cardinal I was just a Notary Brady. I am sorry..but he is just too apparently stupid to run an organization that involves the health of children.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/246/859/640/petition-calling-for-the-resignation-of-cardinal-sean-brady/#'

Oops..can't make a click on this computer...mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: eddie1
Date: 28 May 12 - 10:47 AM

As someone who is non-catholic and indeed non-religious, I am trying deparately to follow the arguments here and really failing although I do have every sympathy for the victims.

ollaimh - please can you remember that your keyboard has a "Shift" button which lets you use capitals. This alone would make your contributions a bit more comprehensible.

If you have, as appears to be the case, difficulty with spelling in the English language or perhaps only in typing it, you can type your contributions into Word or any other word processing programme, use the spellchecker then copy and paste into the Mudcat reply box.

I am trying to understand your contributions and arguments but usually give up after a few lines because they are too much work to take in.

I am not being flippant here, I just find your contributions impossible to understand although I would like to.

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: ollaimh
Date: 27 May 12 - 08:06 PM

yjr problems in the catholic church are way beyond a lack of transparency. for you to think that joe is monstorous. the church issues passports for some of the most prominent war criminals in the nazi regime, it hid the leading french nazi, paul touvier, for decades after he was charged with war crimes in france. and they are major participoants in the gasnocid against nastives in north america--now legally recognized as genocide in canada.if you need proof of present charges and on going child rape send me a private e mail with you e mail address and i'll put you in contact with the survivors of the catholiv church organizations i know people in. they are mosty native so you won't believe them, but they have irish contacts.

friends of mine in the catholic church have told me this is the first generation the church has not passed on its beleifs. they have just done too many evil things and everybody knows now.

joe your denial is akin to your denial of the vancouver folk nazi helmut ruebsaat. same thinking, your pals are good so what ever they do must be good no matter wehast the evidence to the contrary. you posted norbert ruebsaats bio of his father helmut with no thought as to its subtle twists and lies. norbdrts full story can be found on his blog on geist(i think). google norbert ruebsaat and you will find it. there he says they were deutchland party and stahlhelm, not nazis, ignoring that the deutchland party was an openly jew hating, racist and fascist party. they were only distinct from the nazi party by their aristocratic leadership and their wanting the kaiser as furher or a memeber of his family. and ignoring that they joined the nazi coalition in 1932/33 and were instrumental in hitler getting his majority in the last german elected parliament and in passing the enabling legislation which put all power in hitler's hands. and then the deutchland party joined the nazi party when helmut ruebsaat was 13. sweeping away a decade! waldheimers disease--you forget what you did during the war. so whn helmut stated, as he often did that he was in the stahlhelm, the street marc\hing goons of the deutchland party, he was really saying he was in the ss wing of the sa. who cares, who knows any history? the stalhelm were rewarded for joining the nazi led coalition by being allowed to staff the early ss. hitler wanted a respectable aristocratic group to replace the ernst reohm's sa whom he soon pruged.

your deep in denial joe

in remain amazed you haven't kicked me off mudcat.

however those childen yolu listened to being abused--and did nothing--there's where you start--make atonement.

the native children , half of whom died in the church schools, you give their remains back to their tribes, that's where the castholic church starts to make atonement. the organization is so corrupt i doubt there id any hope==personally i am jst glad i was pulleed away from the curse of christianity. i was baptisized catholic but my agnostic father put a stop to grand parent meddling(they were worried about limbo)

it monstrous to be suing the support groups for their private testimony, its monstrous to withhold native childrens remains, its monstrous to criminals like stengl and bernard law sanctuary. they really need house cleaning, and thisn is a golden opportunity, with the eyes of the world to be witness!

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 May 12 - 12:46 PM

Do we know how many priests themselves were abused? I am guessing a fair number. How many bishops? Why does it seem normal to them to rape a child or young teen? mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: ollaimh
Date: 23 May 12 - 12:39 PM

i think there is a valid comparison to the "good germans" knowing noting about genocidal atrocities. most catholics "know nothing, see nothing". however the artocities are so wide spread , horrible, and on going and the continous church attacks on the justice system and the abused compells the belief that the catholicn church is corrupt to the top. especially when you consider they ignore the genocidal residential schools where tens of thousands of native children died from neglect or health care nutrition and open pyhsical attacks.

this church is beyond feform and its defenders are just as culpible as the "ghood germans" were for the nazi holocoust.

again i repeat that all the major christian denominations participated in the native schools genocide and have the same child abuse problems. some are much better at internal discipline than the catholic church. the result is here in eastern canada they are losing the flock. a lot of people who were devote and unquestioning catholics are leaving--and in droves. so they are committing suicide here.

french canada like ireland and poland used to export priests. those were the main areas for new priests. french canada has dried up, ireland is drying up, soon they will not be able to get enough priests to staff the churches. maybe they will refill the ranks from africa? maybe not. untill they have outside review with lkegally binding access to all internal documents and witnesses and out side manditory reforms after there is no good in the catholic church.

i was especially horrified by the american law suits against self help groups of the survivors of preistly sex rape. that shows no decency, no morals and no ethics. just destroy your critics by any means possible, especially if those critics are vunerable. the catholoc church has preyed on the vunerable way too long.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 May 12 - 01:23 AM

trial going on in Pennsylvania right now...same scenarios..files kept locked up with alarms..gee we had no idea it was wrong or harmful. One witness said you can't say no to Cardinal Bevilacqua..Oh..I think you can..or find some old biddy in the parish to do it for you. Or find someone who is not fond of the Catholic church.; Any number of surrogates could have been found...a paster raped a boy all through high school..

why are we , incoluding me, so complacent? Because it is boys most often but not always?

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Ed T
Date: 22 May 12 - 09:06 PM

As to the RC Church and large compensation amounts to those abused by priests. This occured over years, while those in authority the organiztion knew it and tried to covered it up.

Good try at "twisting it around" to make the victims the villians - not those in authority. No, I submit they were not covering up to save money for the poor parishoners. They were indeed not "honest", caring, responsible nor, IMO, acting in a "Christian manner".

The legal system does not take such actions lightly and issued large judgements to send a clear message to this church and others - allow the abuse of innocent children under your authority, and you will pay dearly. Unfortunately, those in Authority (as these type folks often do) passed the costs down to others, with some of the guilt.

Punitive damages (do any of the noted misbehavours ring a bell in this situation?):

""The purposes of punitive damages are to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the defendant and others from similar misbehavior in the future.... The usual terms that characterize conduct justifying these damages include bad faith, fraud, malice, oppression, outrageous, violent, wanton, wicked, and reckless. These aggravating circumstances typically refer to situations in which the defendant acted intentionally, maliciously, or with utter disregard for the rights and interests of the plaintiff....

....Proponents of punitive damages believe that this type of award serves a number of important societal functions, including retribution, deterrence, compensation, and law enforcement.

Supporters of punitive damages contend that one function for such an award is to provide retribution to the victim of the defendant's reckless or wanton conduct. When a person is injured by the wanton misconduct of another, the plaintiff has the right to express her outrage by extracting a judicial fine from the wrongdoer. Seeking retribution allows the plaintiff to punish an intentional lawbreaker in much the same way as the criminal justice system punishes him.

Proponents believe that the most important function that punitive damages serve is that of deterrence. As in Criminal Law, the predominant purpose of punitive damages is to prevent similar misconduct in the future. Because the law does not catch and punish all persons who wantonly violate the rights of others, supporters argue that punitive damages help deter misconduct by publicizing, and at times sensationalizing, the punishment of those persons found guilty of egregious misconduct.""

punitive damages

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Ed T
Date: 22 May 12 - 06:15 PM

Pick the most likey reason for the braod cover up: Let's not forget it was not the rank and file followers who instituted the cover up-though they pay the financial costs associated (Get over it RC folks, you were "thrown under the bus" for the mistakes and cover up attempts by those at the top of your organization - and punished for their bad deeds by the legal system). Logic says knowledge of the situation and strategy reached to the very top of an organization that was controlled from the top.

1) "Fear of being found out" - is there a logical reason not to believe that a few, possibly more, in positions of authority either committed the same acts, or knowingly let it occur. Do we really know how imbedded this behaviour was inside the organization -that is likely now controlled only mainly because of financial concerns and lessons learned.

2) "Blame the Victims" There has been a lot of that, published and otherwise from rank and file RCs and from those in positions of power (remember Bishop Colin Campbell's comments blaming the victims for luring in the offending priests).

3) "Fear of the impact of the scandal on the RC Empire. There is ample evidence of the dominant (almost ruler-like) role played by RC priests -well beyond matters of the "soul" Priests played a significant role in maintaining this position, which was being eroded by education and enlightened reasoning. Admiting the scale of the problem could have a domino effect in eroding the role of the RC church in many societies.

4) "The Historic internal belief that RC priets could do no wrong". No need to explain this, beyond the concept of the order of Melchisedek."

5) "The Homosexual issue inside the RC church and entrenched theology ". Admitting the scale of the issue among those in a position of authority could have a serious impact on entrenched theology. We see haw far those at the top of the RC organization will go to defend entrenched theological positions - for example abortion, birth control and ordaining women into the priesthood (even though many RC members are increasing enlightened on many of these issues).

6) Belief that this type of behavour could be controlled,was small scale "and the priests could be fixed through prayer and intervention" in a big cumbersome, global organization.

7) You add some more if you like-I don't buy the financial theory put forward frequently by Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: MartinRyan
Date: 22 May 12 - 05:28 PM

Joe

Of course it doesn't make sense - that's the whole point! At this remove, it is very difficult to imagine what the power of the institutional church was in post-independence Ireland - and indeed, in a different way, before independence. That power was predicated on the church mediating God to the people, essentially, and was exercised in, no doubt, the sincere belief that the church needed to protect itself from its bad apples. The thought of protecting innocent children never entered their heads! The consequent secrecy became an enabling factor for abusers - in sexual and other fields.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: ollaimh
Date: 22 May 12 - 04:51 PM

joe, there hasn't been adequeate transparensy"? the vatican has given refuge from prosecutuion to an americaqn cardinal charged with obstruction of justice. saying there hasn't been adequeate transparency is a kin to saying hitler had bad moods.

they have done everything and anything to prevent prosecution and to protect its pedophiles. this is to the point that a group of local catholics i know firmly believe that they are helping the pedophiles move around so they can find new victums(er fun).the catholci church has done everything and anything it can to attack those who were victums--untill they are stopped by the courts. right now they are suing a chicago self help group to force them to reveal their records of people victumized by priests. all the other major denominations have major problems but the catholic chirch is a criminal organozation to the highest levels. ratzinger is being investigated for obstruction of justice in germany right now(although i doubt the german government has the guts to actually charge him.

there are thousands of on going criminal prosecutions and you say "there hasn 't
been adequeate transparancy"/ what there has been is total stone walling and criminal obstruction to protect the child rapists. this could be a golden opportunity to clean house and establish decent levels of oversight and discipline but they have done nothing towards that end.

it's probably jst as well i don't have the time to read mudcatregularly. the kooks rule here

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 May 12 - 04:30 PM

It does not make sense at this point. Unless they are trying to protect themselves somehow. Some bishops and cardinals and popes must have the pathology we are talking about. BUt we were always told to stand up and be counted and how few are....we have to look on it as institutional pathology and go from there. Twisted monstrous thinking. Cut out the cancer and see what we are left with. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 May 12 - 04:14 PM

I dunno, Martin. "To protect the Church from scandal" just isn't an answer that makes sense to me. I want to hear a couple of bishops tell their story with blunt honesty - and I haven't heard that yet.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 May 12 - 03:07 PM

I think I have cracked the code on this. Please everyone with a sociobiological background (hopefully there are some..I studied it in graduate school but am no expert)...read up on narcissistic behavior and see how it applies to the whole institution...they can not at this point think they can get away with it..if they are normal..but Cardinal Brady and others still think they can...mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: MartinRyan
Date: 22 May 12 - 01:03 PM

Come on, Joe - it was done "to protect the Church from scandal". All it did, of course, was store up the "scandal" for generations and magnify its ultimate impact.

What depresses me most about Cardinal Brady is that I am quite sure he KNEW that this was the function of the enquiries in which he took part as a young canon lawyer - he was essentially in training. His apparent continuing self-deception is an indication of how well he was trained, I'm afraid.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 May 12 - 12:55 PM

You're right, Frank. There hasn't been adequate transparency on the part of Catholic bishops. I have read everything that I could find about this child molestation travesty. I've picked up a lot of information, but there is one piece of the puzzle that is missing - why was there such a widespread coverup? I've seen apologies, I've seen extensive (and pretty good) plans for preventing the chance of this happening again, I've seen detailed descriptions of offense after offense.

But I have yet to see one bishop speak up and explain why priests were simply transferred instead of being suspended from the priesthood and referred to the police for prosecution.

As the risk of incurring the wrath of some here, let me say it seems to me that compensation has been excessive - the going rate of compensation is over $1 million, and that has forced several dioceses into bankruptcy - even some where there were no coverups. I suppose that in speaking to the press with honesty, a bishop (even one with the best of intentions) could expose himself to more financial loss and even possible criminal prosecution. So, I suppose, survival trumps the need for honesty.

That may be an insight into our society. Maybe people can't afford to be honest any more, because the consequences of honesty can be devastating, far in excess of what the consequences should be. The trouble is, without transparency and honesty, the root problem of child molestation can continue.

Still, as a lifelong active Catholic, I think I should have a right to know why this all happened, and what has been said by the bishops doesn't satisfy me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: mg
Date: 22 May 12 - 11:27 AM

I have put a name to it and googled it and I think others are thinking these same thoughts..religious narcissism. It is a term I came up with for my mother who could pass for the most saintly person ever but was a monster at home. They think they are above the law, the ten commandments, that whatever they do is right because they do it, that everyone else is wrong and deserves eternal punishment, and they will take whatever is unhealthy about a religion, enforce it on others, and cling to it for dear life. Read harpy mom on google, read up on religious narcissism and see if it applies. We need to label good and bad correcdtly, and not how it suits narcissistic personalities...mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 May 12 - 11:32 AM

Joe, one way to solve this problem is for the Church to have more transparency and less
hiding. As a Catholic, I know you personally, don't support child molestation but you have to admit that the senior officials in t,he Church have been less candid in investigating or coming forth on this issue. Sweeping this problem under the rug will not solve it.

I don't believe in Catholicism but I won't paint all Catholics with the same brush. I'm sure that many are appalled at this behavior. This is a dysfunctional aberration that could be curtailed if there was more honesty about it in the hierarchy of the RC.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 May 12 - 01:06 PM

I wonder if something could be made of the order of annulment about being ordained to the order of Melchisadek. A marriage can be annulled, can it not, if it can be shown that at the time of the wedding, there was some fault in the process, if one of the participants did not fully understand, or commit themself or intend to commit themself to the sacrament?

Surely, if a man, after ordination, then goes on to behave in the manner of the abusing priests, he has not fully grasped or committed himself to what that ordination meant. Surely he has, at a very deep level, not become a priest.

(As an aside, I've just read one of Andrew Greeley's novels, which did mention this issue in passing, while making some interesting comments about what priesthood entails, and I am wondering just how he manages to be kept persona grata in his Church. His Catholic Church is so much more attractive than the one we are discussing.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 12 - 12:06 PM

Of course, if they allowed women priests, would the incidence of child rape be similar?

Who knows..

There is a serious side to that flippant observation though. If religious organisations point to work in the community as a sign of their relevance, then putting men AND women in such positions of trust can only serve to lower the risk of such abuse.

But buggering men are, in the eyes of God, of a higher order than trustworthy women. Bit of a bugger for the many many trustworthy men then.

If a priest means being someone in a position of trust and they abuse that trust, then they are no longer priests. Melchisedek is irrelevant. If you cannot be trusted to do the work, you are not the worker. Regarding UK abuse, as opposed to Irish, if it were any charity other than a church, they would have their charitable status removed unless and until they can prove they have removed such people from their ranks.

Sadly, our government are spineless, as the many people who make excuses for such criminals also get a vote, and as we have found, the Catholic church are not beyond asking children to sign petitions to change government policy when it interferes with convenient bigotry.

Despite the strong links historically in Ireland between priests and politicians, not to mention the law.. Ireland is beginning to get it, and the bubble is beginning to burst. it is a long way from freedom from repression and influence of disgusting old men, but it does take time for superstition to lower enough to ask yourself why you trusted them in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 12 - 10:20 AM

""As long as an offending priest is removed from ministry and criminally prosecuted and punished "to the full extent of the law," what difference does it make whether or not he is "defrocked"?""

You still don't get it Joe. I have come to the conclusion that maybe you never will and posters repeating the same - "the problem with the RC church's approach in addressing the sexual abuse priests stuff" - is no more than "blowing smoke" (no pun intended).

It indeed makes very much difference to many as to the credibility of the organization. In IMO, the RC church has an obligation, beyond civil matters, to right a wrong committed "on it's watch and by its agents" to the innocent people wronged. Ask some of those vulnerable victims how they feel when abusing priests are allowed to remain in the priesthood by the organization they totally trusted. For many who trusted in this church, righting that wrong goes far beyond civil punishment.

""When priests are ordained, the statement is made: "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedek'   ""

Well, I suspect that is the crux of the problem faced by the RC church. Until they shake itself from this archaic approache to the priesthood, historically common to monarchies and Kings, from their "holy orders." I suspect that this church will never be free of this philospophy that seems to be at the bottom of some of problems it faces now.

One thing I give you Joe, you always have an answer, whether it involves ignoring inconvenient aspects of the church that you don't like, or strongly adhering to other aspects that don't seem to make much sense to many here. It is an approach that seems very inconsistant to me. Personally, I would find the it very troublsome to maintain.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 May 12 - 02:37 AM

We have to really think about this...what are they protecting? It can not be at this point the reputation of the church..that is sullied for a good long time. Nor the physical assets..they are targeted. Is it, could it be, that they ars e protecting the very culture of that activity? I mean, something does not compute and something goes to the very top. Why was this pope elected? Why are dissenting priests thrown out on their ears and molesting ones kept around? It does not make sense. I do not know what will be left when the rot is excised and I don't know who I trust to excise it but it had better be done.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 20 May 12 - 01:21 AM

"what difference does it make whether or not he is "defrocked"?"

It'd would show that the institution takes the matter seriously and totally condemns a person for what is a grievous crime against innocents. The priest for life thing is a surely a red herring? You admit yourself that priests are defrocked for other non-criminal reasons. I think many people would find the idea that holding a different opinion over some doctrine warrants defrocking whilst abusing children within your care doesn't quite bizarre!

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 May 12 - 11:00 PM

Well, Ed -
When priests are ordained, the statement is made: "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedek." Ordinarily, ordination is removed only if there is some doctrinal impediment to the validity of the ordination. If an ordained priest is removed from ministry, he is no longer able to function as a priest (he no longer has "faculties"/license to function as a priest), even though his ordination is still considered valid. There is no question that a priest who molests children must be removed from ministry immediately and permanently.
Same goes for a Doctor of Medicine who abuses or molests patients - his/her license to practice medicine should be revoked immediately and permanently. But is it appropriate to revoke his/her doctorate? I think not.

Apples and oranges? I think not. I think the appropriate action is removal from ministry and referral to criminal prosecution by civil authorities, not "defrocking." The problem is, that many priest-molesters were NOT removed from ministry and were NOT referred to civil authorities.

There was a time when the Catholic Church thought it was its duty and responsibility to punish errant priests. We can see in this current scandal, that was a mistake. Far better for the church to take administrative action against such priests and remove them from ministry, and to assist civil authorities who should be the ones to handle the investigation and punishment of the crime.

And yes, I acknowledge that some priests convicted of crimes against children, have been "defrocked." There is a provision for "defrocking" priests who have been found guilty of notorious conduct. Still, I think that criminal investigation and punishment by civil authorities is far more appropriate - child molesters should be sent to prison, even if they're ordained. A priest-molester should be punished like any other child molester. In a way, "defrocking" could be seen as a way for the Catholic Church to disassociate itself from the molester, thereby denying that the church is partially responsible for the misconduct of its priests. Is that what you want? As long as an offending priest is removed from ministry and criminally prosecuted and punished "to the full extent of the law," what difference does it make whether or not he is "defrocked"?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Ed T
Date: 19 May 12 - 02:18 PM

""If a person commits murder, you don't take away his driver's licence and his high school diploma - those things remain, even though he has committed a horrible crime. "Defrocking" is done rarely, and generally for theological reasons and not for punishment.""

That's an apples and oranges argument, and a red herring indeed. Those in positions of authority, especially over children, should be held responsible and removed from those positions if found guilty of a crime. If a police chief, a police officer a teacher or a school principal commits a crime against a child, such as rape, they would be punished by the law and would likely loose their jobs. A neigbour of mine recently was stripped of his teaching license for slapping a mentally challenged child in class, after being found guilty in a legal proceeding of assault.

a
It seems that the RC Church is finally "geeting it" (especially in regards to this fellow, and it's about time, regardless of the likely reason why.



A recent case

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 May 12 - 12:05 PM

if it is up to the state to do the punishing, then material must be provided to them and not hidden in vaults with alarms etc. as in Pennsylvania. A rational honest normal pope needs to issue a fatwah clearly stating this out of both sides of his or her mouth. We need to admit that despite very good people and very good priests and nuns and most bishops and cardinals, there is something rotten in the administrative at least core. None of us should ever assist in enabling coverups and we should not make apologies for those who do. Get rid of the coveruppers and the problem is half solved. Prosecute them. We need to understand why they still do it and it can not be ..if they think rationally..that they are protecting the church. Every eye practically around the world is on them and the jig/gig is up. Catholics arise. Put a note in the collection plate along with your money..especially if you are in the jurisdiction of a coverupper. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 May 12 - 09:12 AM

ollaimh says: you would have to catch a preist raping a child on mudcat to satisfy joe offer.

I think those proven to have committed crimes should be punished. In situations where there is reasonable doubt, the persons should be removed from contact with children - but punishment should be given only if there is solid evidence. Also, it's up to the State to do the punishing, not the church. People scream because the Catholic Church doesn't usually defrock priests for child molestation. Well, defrocking isn't what's done in such cases. If a person commits murder, you don't take away his driver's licence and his high school diploma - those things remain, even though he has committed a horrible crime. "Defrocking" is done rarely, and generally for theological reasons and not for punishment.

The job of the church should be to remove the person from ministry if the accusations are reasonable, and at the very least to remove the person from contact with children until the accusations are resolved beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the accusations are reasonable or not, all information should be turned over to civil authorities for criminal investigation and prosecution and punishment - and it's clear to me that church officials are criminally responsible for failing to do this on many occasions.

I don't think it's fair to paint the problem with such a wide brush, and to accuse all priests and bishops of misdeeds simply because they're priests. Where there's evidence, investigate and prosecute. If no crime can be proved but there is still reasonable cause for suspicion, then the person should be removed from contact with children.

...and that's what Joe Offer really thinks.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 12 - 05:19 AM

A sad story from this morning's Irish Times
Jim Carroll

SPURNED PRIEST WHOSE TRUTH COULD HAVE CHANGED HISTORY
The Norbertines cast out Bruno Mulvihill as resolutely as they shielded Brendan Smyth – If Sean Brady, like Mulvihill, had taken moral responsibility, nobody would know who Brady is today.

In last week's Anglo-Celt report on past teachers of St Patrick's College in Cavan, the former priest, Sean Brady, received little attention. Some former students, however, recalled a contentious, dedicated teacher before he was laicised (and ostracised) in 1977, for challenging his bishop's authority over an affair now as forgotten as he is.
Little is known about his life today. Some claimed he survived by selling encyclopaedias, but all agreed his suicidal breach of discipline ended a career that once promised high office. One interviewee said he reminded him of the MUTV pundit Bertie Ahern, who likewise seemed destined for high office before destroying his career in 1986 -expelled from Fianna Fail for questioning his taoiseach about blank cheques.
The above paragraphs are what historians call counterfactuals: exploring alternative outcomes of past events. Today Sean Brady is a cardinal, and I hope he enjoys a long retirement when his superiors deem it expedient to remove him from his untenable position.
The Norbertines removed the title "Reverend" from Brendan Smyth's gravestone, but they should erect a memorial to the priest they ostracised with the same resoluteness as they shielded Smyth: Fr Bruno Mulvihill, who fought his superiors, here and abroad, to maintain the integrity of a once great order.
A devoted priest and brilliant scholar, Mulvihill should have soared in the ecclesiastic firmament. Instead, ostracised by his order, he wound up - like my factional Sean Brady - in London selling encyclopaedias to survive.
Norbertines were encouraged to write to Brendan Smyth in jail, but forbidden to contact Mulvihill who, his superiors-felt, had committed the greater sin. Child molester is a new term in our psyche.
We have many terms for what made Mulvihill more despised than Smyth within his order: grass, informer, whistleblower. As a 19-year-old novice in 1964, Mulvihill realised Smyth was abusing children. His superiors told him to stop imagining things. Repeatedly he confronted them with the reality of Smyth's abuse, becoming such a nuisance for telling in truth that by 1985 he was disciplined and eventually left with no option but to resign. He was an honest priest sacrificed to protect a monster and the order's reputation.
Mulvihill's fate awaited anyone who told the truth. As portrayed by Spencer Tracy in Boys Town, Ballymoe's Fr Flanagan was feted when he arrived home in 1946, famous for establishing an institution that treated destitute boys with dignity.
He returned to America reviled as a stool pigeon for making a speech exposing Irish industrial schools as "big factory-like places ... where little children become a great army of child slavery in workshops, making money for the institutions which give them a little food, a little clothing".
He unified Irish politics, with Fianna Fail's Gerry Boland and Fine Gael's James Dillon condemning his "offensive and intemperate language" as "a grave injustice ... to the decent, respectable, honest... Irish Christian Brothers."
The young Jesuit, Kenneth McCabe, got a truthful report about Irish industrial schools to Donough O'Malley in 1967. The minister was sufficiently shocked to establish a committee that abolished these lucrative sweatshops, but at the last minute McCabe was excluded from the committee. Tainted as a whistleblower, he resigned from the Jesuits and went to work as a priest with deprived London children.
I don't know how many priests were shunned for trying to do what people feel Cardinal Brady should have done in 1975, when, as a minion apparatchik, he was ordered to ask a traumatised child invasive questions and bind him to silence.
But if he had taken moral responsibility by contacting parents and authorities - and not placed blind trust in his untrustworthy line manager, Dr Francis McKiernan - he would never have been allowed hold any senior church position.
Today nobody would know who Brady is. He made the devil's bargain made by junior figures who realise that, only by not questioning their superiors' failings, will they reach positions of authority where they can effect change, even if compromised along the way.
Gary O'Toole, a swimmer of huge moral courage, did what Sean Brady didn't do: he went to parents of children trained by an abusing coach. Most parents listened politely, but confronted by the truth preferred to ignore it. It is easy to say that Sean Brady negated his moral duty in 1975 by not bypassing his superiors. Not everyone is cut out to be a Bruno Mulvihill and sacrifice everything for the truth.
I'd like to think I'd have Mulvihill's courage, but I can't say. Priests lead lonely, difficult lives. Maybe I'd have been a moral coward like the other Norbertines or hoped the matter was dealt with by someone else, like Sean Brady did. He needs to stand aside. But I cannot say what choice I'd have made between being a coward or a total outcast, because like most of us I've never had to make that stark choice.
Dermot Bolger.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 May 12 - 02:32 PM

THere is such psychopathology in these bishops and cardinals and undoubtedly the pope. People who do not have a dog in this hunt, either to protect the good parts of the church they respect, or who have an anti-Catholic bias in general, need to figure this out..or maybe they have and I have not found it. But what makes someone who puts him or herself as some moral leader not be able to deal with some of the most serious abuse of all..why do they protect it? We can go back to having Mass on the rocks or under the hedges..we don't need fancy churches..we need more priests undoubtedly, but they should be married, gay, women..everyone who is qualified and does not cause harm. There is nothing sacred about the male anatomy (any more than female)that needs to be the cornerstone of a religion...no offense gentlemen. We need to have psychobiologists weigh in here and we need to figure this out..not why people abuse but why others protect them, break the laws of the land and perpetuate this sickness. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: ollaimh
Date: 18 May 12 - 12:53 PM

you would have to catch a preist raping a child on mudcat to satisfy joe offer. however for those in the real world there was just a few days ago former bishop leahy from nova scotia defrocked for his child porn possession--just a couple of years ago, and his long history of rapes. all interfered with by the higher ups in the catholic church.

in addition there is cardinal bernard law who onastructed the investigations into child rape in boston and was charged with obstruction . he fled the jusridiction and lammed it to vatican city where he has politica asylum. if you want any further proof that the highest levels of the catholic church condone and protect their multiple child rapists there it is. if you obstruct dozens of investigations then you will get political asylum at the vatican. ghere are manu many many more.

i dom wich to pint oput the other major christian denominations have the same probl;ems. especially in regard to native children, in the canadian genocide(and the chair of the truth and reconcilliation commission--a suprem court judge--called it genocide) our lovong churches raped beat and killed thousands of native children. over the course of a hundred plus years half the children taken into the residential schools died there. form neglect of health care and nutrition mostly. the medical supivisor , dr brye , wrote a report calling the actions "criminal" back in 1097 and nothing was done, except to drive him from the cuvil service and then from the medicl profession. so they all have much blood on their hands. more than any other segment of society.
finally, joe offer you are a despicable coward! you watched children being beaten and did nothing? you despicable coward. several times in my life i saw violence against sdmaller and weaker people and went over and offered a real fight. i never had to land a blow. bullyies are not that brave. i had a dodge a couple , but again with cowardly bullyies that's nit hard. when i was young i worked with miners driller sand blasters. they were fucking tough as rocks guys. they cols hurt anyone. hey only did wityh other tough guys.its weak guys who beat children and small women and they back down quickly. once when a couple of us guys went into an bullyies house he did call the cops. i supose it was a home invasion but when the cops arived they had dealt with hin dozens of times and we all were clean of criminazl records. he stopped beating my friend however, and soon left.most of my confrontations were about small women. again i never had to actually land a blow i just had to show up and let it be known there was someone willing to go a few rounds. then a couple of times a drunk will swing but after a few misses those kind of drunk cowards get winded and i just pushed them over. now i'm sixty and would take a hardy young guy now--then i was under fifty(the last time). zs i said the really tough guys i knew never behaved like that.

what the goddamn hell is wrong with you joe, you just had to call the cops, yopu should have confronted the guy but you didn't even call the cops. that's despicable cowardly and repulsive. i see now why you defend nazis and class bigots among your folk cronies. you'd fit right in with the hierrarchy of the catholic church wringing their hads and signing with grief. when a lot of abuse ends immediately with direct cinfrontation

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 May 12 - 06:59 PM

more going on today about this Monsignor Lynn, on trial in Pennsylvania I believe.
------------------------------------
thought it might be wise to offer you a summary of these difficulties," Monsignor John Graf wrote to Krol in 1987.

"I do not want to burden you, ... " Graf wrote two years later to Bevilacqua, who had succeeded Krol. He reminded the cardinal that one active priest was a diagnosed pedophile who'd been labeled "a powder keg" by a church therapist.

Lynn's list detailed whether the abuse occurred within the past five years - or if it was beyond the statute of limitations for the accusers to file civil suits.

Bevilacqua ordered a top aide to shred Lynn's 1994 list of 35 problem priests, although a copy surfaced at the archdiocese this year, days after Bevilacqua died.

Other documents recovered from locked safes at the archdiocese contain
---------------

Doesn't that make you furious? The Monsignor Graf does not want to burden the cardinal. Now, if you can not burden a cardinal about a child abuse situation, and one was called a "powder keg" by a therapist, what can you burden him or her about? What is the point of having these religious leeches? How dare they pass moral judgement on the rest of us, who are not burdened with canon law that allows us to wash our hands of the most horrible crimes...Again, I am sympathetic to the priests and bishops and cardinals if they are the abusers, but if they do not have those sick tendencies, they will have to answer to GOd of course, but they had better start answering to the rest of us. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 19 Jan 11 - 12:26 PM

Guest JB,

The link is valid and live but apparently the programme is not available to all countries outside Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 11 - 11:11 AM

There's a copy of the letter here; it may be in one of the links above, but I didn't see it.

Maybe it was clear to the bishops who received it, but it is pretty opaque to me. "For these reasons and because the abovementioned text is not an official document ... the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchical recourse against his Bishop" is hardly an example of clear English. It *seems* to be saying that the Bishop must follow Canon Law meticulously otherwise any punishments imposed the priests may be overturned *by the Church heirarchy*. That's not the same thing at all as whether the priest is punished via the State Law, or whether it permissible to report offences to them. Of course, following Canon Law would make it extremely difficult for the Bishop concerned to reveal anything given in the confidentiality of the rite of Penance, and the Law (in most cases) accepts that. But it is not a blanket ban on such reporting. Or so it seems to me. As I say, the author could have been much clearer about what the letter actually means. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it is deliberately obscure ...

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 19 Jan 11 - 10:36 AM

Tried connecting to link provided by guest Peter Laban, but it doesn`t seem to work. The message reads:

"Not currently availabe for viewing as it has either expired, been removed or restricted to another territory".

Did anybody else have any luck in connecting up?

BTW have also tried You Tube.

Any tips appreciated.

Thanks

JB

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 08:16 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html

Not sure what you are saying. I meant she had experience in a Magdalene laundry or something similar and it turns out it was a Magdalene laundry. There were nice nuns mixed in with mean nuns everywhere..I knew both, but I will say the ones I had in grade school were almost uniformly nice..could throw chalk with the best of them and teach 50 to maybe even 60 kids at a time..mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 04:43 PM

O Connor said about her time in Reform School:

"While it was very traumatic, it was the best thing that ever happened to me actually,"

"They were good to me. They were nice people. The nun that ran the place was the person that bought me my first guitar."

Which makes the 'Magdalene survivor' sound utterly misplaced. She has no personal experience of clerical abuse as far as I can see. She is very vocal about it though.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 03:19 PM

What part is not true

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/to-sinead-oconnor-pope-benedicts-apology-for-church-sex-abuse-rings-hollow/

From Anderson Cooper website...I presume he checks stuff..not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 02:11 PM

Better leave that one out of it.

O Connor is none of those things. Her mother was 'a violent abuser' but it was a nun, who ran the   reform school SoC ended up in, that recognised an interest in music and got her guitar lessons.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 01:59 PM

Wasn't Sinead O'Connor a Magdelene survivor, or perhaps something similar. Anyway, she had personal experience with this sort of thing. And speaks out. And writes well-published open letters to the pope, plus is an ordained priest by supposedly a bishop with the ability to make her so, but I could be wrong. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 01:18 PM

Nah, they'll just die of old age

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 12:27 PM

Chris:
"the Irish church seems to have been trying to move towards more accountability"
I suggest that the 'move towards accountability" is more of a fight for survival than a change of heart.
The abuse disclosures haven't by any means run their course yet - Northern Ireland stands to be examined next, and one of these days the Magdalene girls will get a hearing (unless the church and government succeed in their efforts to wash their hands of them).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 06:19 AM

The Would you believe programme mentioned in the Irish Times article Jim posted above can be seen here for another twenty days. Highly recommended viewing for the insight it provides in the background of the cover-up of clerical child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 05:16 AM

Mg, yes, I agree.

Jim, I take your point but the interesting thing here seems to me that the Irish church seems to have been trying to move towards more accountability only to be prevented from doing so by the Vatican. That doesn't let the Irish church off the hook by any means but it suggests that in this particular instance perhaps they weren't the bad guys.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: mg
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 09:01 AM

Much as I liked the man, I hope this derails the canonization of Pope John Paul II. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 06:50 AM

From this morning's Irish Times - is there any reason the church should ever be trusted again?
Jim Carroll

VATICAN EDICT IN 1997 REJECTED CALLS TO REPORT PRIESTS WHO ABUSED.
PATSY McGARRY
Religious Affairs Correspondent
A 1997 VATICAN directive rejected a recommendation by the Irish Catholic Church that priests who abused children should be reported to the civil authorities, it has emerged.
The disclosure is made in an RTE documentary to be broadcast tonight, which also reports that an Irish bishop described the Vatican directive as "a mandate ... to conceal the reported crimes of a priest".
The Would You Believe documentary, Unspeakable Crimes, is broadcast on RTE One television at 10.35pm.
In a January 1997 letter to each Irish bishop, marked "strictly confidential", the Vatican said it would support the appeal of any priest defrocked by the Irish church in connection with child sex abuse. It did so in a number of cases, leading to a threat of resigation by one Irish archbishop.
At a 1999 meeting in Rome the Irish hierarchy was reminded collectively by a top Vatican official that they were "bishops first, not policemen".
The programme claims the Vatican and Pope Benedict himself failed to apply the norms of canon law to the issue of child abuse, one of the pope's major criticisms of Ireland's bishops. The Vatican failed to do so where two US priests were concerned and the pope did so in 2005 where Fr Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, was concerned.
In his letter to the Catholics of Ireland last March, Pope Benedict said to his "brother bishops" that "you and your predecessors failed; at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse".
The Vatican opposed a recommendation in the Irish Bishops' "Green Book" guidelines on child protection, published in January 1996, which said all allegations of clerical child sex abuse should be reported to the civil authorities.
The programme, by reporter Mick Peelo, also shows a "strictly confidential" letter sent to Irish bishops by the Vatican a year later, in January 1997, which expressed "serious reservations of a canonical and moral nature" about the mandatory reporting of such crimes to civil authorities.
An Irish bishop confirmed to the programme, on condition of anonymity, that he made a note at the time describing this letter as "a mandate to conceal the crimes of a priest".
The programme also reports that at a 1998 meeting with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy (1996 until 2006), then archbishop of Dublin Desmond Connell thumped a table in frustration as the cardinal insisted it was Vatican policy to defend the rights of an accused priest above all.
Last month, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said that, in the past "most of the Irish bishops felt that dealing with the Congregation for Clergy was disastrous".

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Dec 10 - 07:33 AM

A sad story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-priest-who-abused-deaf-boys-for-24-years-1928743.html

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Dec 10 - 07:19 AM

""Also, the secrecy of it all speaks volumes.""

What bothers me is that this is an indication that the Church was aware of this problem 48 years ago, and was even then pursuing a deliberate policy of internal investigation and coverup.

I don't like to imagine the number of victims sworn to secrecy, on pain of excommunication, who have never come forward and whose abusers have avoided the proper consequences of their crimes.

This needs more than a few glib words of reassurance from one of those who knew what was happening and did nothing to prevent it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 06:23 PM

Exactly Don, and with great precision. I can't find any evidence yet that those instructions were ever rescinded. Also, the secrecy of it all speaks volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: And yet more abusing priests (Ireland)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 06:11 PM

That's an eye opener Smokey.

It places the good of the Roman Catholic Church above secular law, and above the interests of the whole of humanity.

That, IMHO, should be tested in court, ....and soon!!

Don T.