 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:46 PM Rest assured, Joe, I'm not accusing you of homophobia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM Smokey, I don't get the point you're trying to make about my statement about being uncomfortable with the "sexually-charged atmosphere in the seminary." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:07 PM 10 years ago is "today's abuse"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:03 PM From the past abuse to today's abuse....taken from the Orlando Sentinel Blog "The parents of a young man who said he was abused by a Catholic priest will tell their story this Sunday at 2 p.m. at the Ormond Beach Public Library. Toni and Joe McMorrow will tell how they grew frustrated with what they describe as the church's reluctance to act in the case of the priest who molested their son, Brandon Rains, who is now in his early 20s, in 2001 and 2002 when the family lived in Maryland. The Rev. Aaron Cotes was convicted and sentenced in 2009 in Maryland to 10 years of probation on charges of abusing Rains. He is restricted from having unsupervised contact with minors". Background provided by: Aline Frybarger | Friday, April 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM Several questions surround this case of Cote. First of all, although convicted he still maintains his innocence and defames Brandon Rains. He plea was " no contest," which he interprets as license to continue to claim innocence. He was given a shamelessly light sentence with no jail time. The Dominicamns protected this man for over 2 decades: hiding him in Peru where he allegedly abused a number of young men. Many families protested with the superior in that country and were accused of calumny. Letters recounting his behavior in Peru written to the NY Dominican superior were ignored. As recently as 2005 a teacher in Ohio wrote to the Dominican provincial in NY to complain of alleged abuse in the late 1980's, confided to her by a former student, now a grown man. The Dominicans sent Cote for evaluation but never informed the therapists of that recent letter. He was sent to a Providence parish where one of his first acts was to set up a youth sleep over retreat. Cote has a record of evidence of abusing youth going back to the mid 1980's in his seminary years. All of these facts are included in the court record of the original civil suit brought by Mr Rains. That was settled out of court, but not before very significant and copious testimony was taken. Go to NPR.org and click on the archive for " All Things Considered" Dec 31, 2008 for Barbara Bradley Haggerty's report that includes depositions from the Dominican superiors and succinctly lays out the facts and timeline..... http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features-the-religion-world/2010/04/23/catholic-sex-abuse-crisis-victims-parents-to-speak-sunda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM This site may have been posted before...but, I find it interesting> http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:45 PM Finally, from this article, I see some hope that the RC church may recognize the wisdom and healing of "Involving abuse survivors in efforts to help change the way the church responds to abuse allegations". "The victims of these crimes have never really been heard correctly or had their day or voice," McDaid said. "It's always been overdubbed or behind the church, the lawsuits, the lawyers, talk of Catholic reform, etc., etc., etc. "They are doing some work, but what they are blindly missing is that they need to do some work for survivors," he said. "They've given us a check (as compensation for wrongdoing), but nothing else." A novel and healing concept..."involving the survivor's viewpoint on the 13-member National Review Board, which advises the bishops' Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People on matters of child and youth protection" . http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2010/04/abuse-survivors-who-met-pope-ask-victims-meet-st-peters-square |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:21 PM "there was a sexually-charged atmosphere in the seminary, where guys were "hitting on" each other. I found this sexual atmosphere to be unhealthy, and at times I thought I might be the only straight person in the place." And Ake's being accused of homophobia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:06 PM Ake says: Joe talked of a "gay culture" in the priesthood, which made him "uncomfortable", perhaps this culture is what allowed the abuse to become endemic? I don't believe I would have said anything like that. What I DO recall saying, was that there was a sexually-charged atmosphere in the seminary, where guys were "hitting on" each other. I found this sexual atmosphere to be unhealthy, and at times I thought I might be the only straight person in the place. That's quite different from describing a "gay culture." Jim Carroll, I realize that you want me to silence Akenaton, but that's not going to happen. I disagree with him, but he has a right to say what he thinks - as long as it is not a personal attack on a specific individual. So, Jim, quit your snide remarks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM Here is another one..Laveda. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/07/cardinal-levada-point-man-in-risky-vatican-strategy-against-the/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:31 PM "Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality" Why would there be any need (or danger, for that matter), real or perceived, to promote any of the multitude of type of sexuality...I suspect it evolves naturally without any type of promotion....kinda like shooting blanks...as often occurs in posts:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM "Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality" Right from the start you have failed to show how gays 'promote' their sexuality any more than any other group in our society does. This is a further example of hate fuled stereotyping which, I am quite sure now, will go unchecked. I am really losing a great deal of respect for this forum. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 08:27 AM Ake posted "I'm afraid, where you are wrong, is in your supposition that I have any fear, loathing, or hatred of homosexuals. Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality as a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. my stance has not really been against homosexuals at all, but against the promotion by supposedly liberal govts of behavioural minorities, regardless of the consequences of their behaviour". Well that sure seems like fear ro me...not personal fear,of course, as you may have misinterpreted, but clearly a broader fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:47 AM Why was there not a massive RC faithful outcry when priests were moved from parish to parish, country to country...and allowed to abuse others (transfers, that may...or likely are still be happening) Snap, the Support network for victims of clerical abuse just published a statement that at least 65 catholic priests under suspicion of abuse were transferred to Mexico, where there is at present no law against paedophilia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:10 AM I really am not interested in your attitude to me, as I am sure the opposite to be the case. It does concern me that you use child abuse threads for your homophobic rantings - no change I see, as you appear to have official blessing to do so. Anyway, I'm sure you have enough hate for all of us. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM Question "But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. - WHY" Joe's response "Because they did not realized the extent and seriousness of the problem" Well maybe at first. But, there is a problem with this one answer to a complex issue, spanning many years. Why was there no christian outreaching to comfort and heal the victims by the faithful (after all, these victims were a part of the RC family)? Why were the bishops not taken on, when they spoke out against the victims (for example Colin Campbell)? Why was there not a massive RC faithful outcry when priests were moved from parish to parish, country to country...and allowed to abuse others (transfers, that may...or likely are still be happening)? This was known externally...especially in more recent years....so there is no logic that it was not evident internally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:51 AM Ake posted ......"isn't the most important thing to get the abuse stopped"? Yes, some seem to feel it has, others are not convinced that the church has really come to grips with the problems within the organization that allowed it to thrive and grow...some feel the root problem is in high parts of the organization" Yes, but not only in the USA and Europe...many suspect that it is a bigger problem then we now know for sure. As most of the abuse is between post pubescent boys/youths and adult males, then would it not be sensible to look see if there is a link between the very high numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood and the high numers of homosexual assaults taking place. There is another major issue...identifying the victims, seeking help for them to ensure their health and those thay come in contact with. Ake posted "Joe talked of a "gay culture" in the priesthood, which made him "uncomfortable", perhaps this culture is what allowed the abuse to become endemic" This seems reasonable, and is indeed something that should be looked at very closely, independantly and professionally...and the relatioinship of added stresses, such as lonliness and celebacy, on priests. Unfortunately, the RC church and many of those actually in charge (outside local stuff) let its dogma (anti homosexuality and pro celebacy) get in the way of meaningful investigation. I suspect the protection of the church organization and folks at high levels (for a number of reasons) are added factors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:48 AM No vitriol intended Jim, just stating the facts as I see them as usual. I dont think you can point to any aggression from me towards you on this or any thread. If i have done so I apologise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 05:39 AM Rather comforting to find you've added me to your vitriol list Ake - at least I'll have plenty of company Jim carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:12 AM Apologist for child abuse, persecuter of religion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:05 AM Joe; "And Jim Carroll, I answered your hypothetical question about schools long ago. My answer was: Of course, action should be taken against people who commit crimes, no matter what institution they belong to." And my reply was that this wasn't my question. You are defending the part that the church (not the individual abusive priests) played in the abuse scandal. My question was, would you defend the school authorities and the heads of education similarly if they covered up the abuses on and passed the abusers on to other schools to continue abusing? Would you describe a scandal that was widespread through the school system as "a few bad apples". If you are going to avoid answering these questions, I would be grateful if you would say so and save my having to ask them again and again. In the same way, you have accused me and others of being unfair to the church: "But day after day, over and over again, Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and others use the misdeeds of a few to condemn the entire Catholic Church" and I have asked you to specify where. Can I assume that you are not going to respond to this one either? It is beginning to dawn on me that none of you appear to have fully grasped what is happening here in Catholic Ireland, the 'Land of Saints and Scholars'. We are being met three or four times a week, with articles questioning the role and the future of the church in the press - not the gutter press, but in the broadsheets, and not a few columns but pages-worth. The letter pages are carrying a running debate daily; not snide attacks but detailed and informed debate, criticising the former behavior of the church towards the children and deeply questioning the handling of the crisis - that really is what it is - a crisis. These are, in the main, not anti-church people, but devout Catholics whose faith has been shaken, and in some cases, totally dislodged. On elderly lifelong churchgoer wrote recently that she can no longer look at a priest without thinking "I wonder was he at it". Yes, some priests did bad things to children and others didn't, yes, fellow clerics did know about it and didn't report it but let it continue (there is no record of anybody within the church reporting abusive priests, or even criticising them seriously within the church, prior to the Ryan and Murphy enquiries). From the top to the bottom, the hierarchy is handling this affair so badly that, as far as I can see, there is a very large question-mark hanging over the church and its future in Irish society. Any damage to the church, in this matter, past and present, is entirely self-inflicted, and this will continue to be the case until decent Catholics come to terms with the situation and get a grip. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM Thanks for your stated opinion of me Ed, and I am as you imagine, a reasonable person. (Smokey...I think you and I understand one another fairly well without any need for words) I'm afraid, where you are wrong, is in your supposition that I have any fear, loathing, or hatred of homosexuals. Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality as a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. my stance has not really been against homosexuals at all, but against the promotion by supposedly liberal govts of behavioural minorities, regardless of the consequences of their behaviour. Ihere have been several threads, in which the health issues associated with male homosexuality have been discussed. Before participating in these threads I had no idea that the health statistics were so bad......this information had never been made widely available to the public, but for the last thirty years homosexuality has been portrayed positively in almost all of the media. It is absolutely certain that if the homosexual health, life expectancy, and HIV figures had been available forty years ago,homosexuality would never have been de-criminalised.....on health grounds. Regarding clerical sexual abuse......isn't the most important thing to get the abuse stopped? As most of the abuse is between post pubescent boys/youths and adult males, then would it not be sensible to look see if there is a link between the very high numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood and the high numers of homosexual assaults taking place.....isn't that common sense for fuck sake! not "bigotry" It is completely wrong to bring the reasoning against paedophilia into this case....the vast majority of these assualts are not paedophilia. There is another word, which properly describes sexual abuse of teenage boys and youths, but that word escapes me at the moment and I have no time to look it up. Joe talked of a "gay culture" in the priesthood, which made him "uncomfortable", perhaps this culture is what allowed the abuse to become endemic? Whatever, as Mary says, this behaviour needs to be irradicated,and all abuse cases should be prosecuted. Would our resident religiphobes agree that all priests found guilty of sexual abuse of minors, be forced as part of their punishment, to take a sexual orientation test? Only then would we start to get somewhere near the truth, and be in a possition to protect the children of the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:54 AM http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_l0HtfJc-Jw9Q-CWAxTBrUGLaYwD9F8DMH00 AP calls Sodano #2 in Vatican. That is as of today. The Vatican's lawyer has called the lawsuit discussed in this article a publicity stunt...add that to words they are going to try to take back within the next couple of days. There is a role for each of us to play in this great drama...some of us must keep trying to excise the cancer which can not be denied exists..no, not even cancer, but gangrene, pustulance. And some can keep reminding people of the good work the church does and the wonderful people it produces. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM http://www.zenit.org/article-28993?l=english This says he is dean of the College of Cardinals and spoke at the recent luncheon for the pope. Sometimes I think he is described as #2 but I think officially Bertone is. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:42 AM Sodano was he not the one who interrupted the Easter Mass the pope was presiding at to talk about the petty gossip? Was he the one presiding at the funeral of the Polish president? I think he was but I will have to check. There seem to be suggestions that Sodano has el Papa in some sort of stranglehold and el Papa would like to get rid of him but seems to not be able to. THat is what it seems like. I do not know for sure. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:30 AM And Maciel died in 2008. You won't find Sodano doing much currently, but the papers are digging up all sorts of stuff Maciel and Sodano did in the past. Maciel was particularly dangerous, because he had such a large and militant following. But Sodano and Maciel should have been taken care of 30 years ago. And Maciel's religious order, the Legionaries of Christ, still take in seminarians at the age of 12. You'd think they would have learned. Still, it's too late to do much about them now. It really bothers me that so many Catholics want their church to go back to the authoritarian days of the past, when the Church pretended it had all the answers. Most priests and nuns don't want that sort of rigid atmosphere to come back, but I sure know a lot of lay people who want it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 22 Apr 10 - 11:12 PM Sodano is not acting as a retired person. Google him. He is all over the place and deeply implicated in the Marciel sickness. Watch that name folks. I do not think he is a good apple. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:44 PM We all think we're being rational, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:10 PM Cardinal Sodano is 82 years old and is retired. No use chasing after him, mg. And that's part of the problem - much of this stuff happened 30, 40, 50 or more years ago, and people are screaming bloody murder about it now. There's no perspective on this, no realism in the view. As a result, there's a lot of screaming - and nothing gets accomplished, nothing is done to prevent the problem from happening again because all the energy and money is spent lamenting the past. All I'm asking for is a rational approach. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:01 PM No, I do not condemn the whole Catholic church. Although I do think it has very serious intrinsic problems. I do want the pope to resign, but first I want him to thoroughly have Cardinal Sodano independently investigated. And please do not use my whole name as I hate to be googled. mg
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM Sorry Joe, my mistake, I thought you were criticizing them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:44 PM But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. - WHY??? Because they did not realized the extent and seriousness of the problem, Smokey. I think many bishops didn't realize it, either. From 1950 to the present (60 years), my Sacramento diocese has had six presiding bishops, and 16 priests suspected of child abuse (some of those priests were exonerated). Child molestation was known to happen, but it was relatively rare. So, people (and many bishops) figured it was an unusual occurrence, and were unaware that there were thousands of cases. The situation was quite different in Boston and in Ireland, but those places had bishops who covered up the crimes, allowing the problem to fester in secret. If you want data, look at bishop-accountability.org. They try to keep track of every accused priest in the U.S. And Smokey, why didn't you alert the media or the police? Why didn't you speak out for justice? Because you didn't know the extent of the problem, right? Same thing goes for Catholic lay people, and for many priests and bishops. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:41 PM Smokey's suspicion that all priests should be suspected of child molestation, is equally clearly stated. What I actually said was that I wouldn't risk my kid on a one in twenty chance. There is a difference. And yes, I am prejudiced, but I have never accused all priests or all Catholics or condemned the whole church, whatever that means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM There's an interesting piece published today in the online version of the National Catholic Reporter. Here's an excerpt: Words matterBy Kate Childs GrahamCreated Apr 22, 2010 The sex abuse scandal within the Catholic church has been reported on in every way, shape and form. However, many journalists neglect to make the distinction between the Catholic church and the culprits of the sex abuse scandal. Instead, they write sensationalist headlines about how the Catholic church is plagued with pedophilia or how the church is a hide-out for sex abusers. My reaction to this has been: No, this is wrong. It isn't the Catholic church that has a problem with abuses of sex or power, it is members of the hierarchy. After all, we, the faithful, the church, do not condone the actions of the perpetrators of sexual abuse or those who have sought to cover up these crimes. We are as shocked and appalled as the rest of the world. I still stand by that reaction and would urge journalists to be as specific as possible when it comes to the grave problem of sex abuse within the Catholic church. At the same time, though, I am starting to think that maybe the faithful has a bigger role in the perpetuation of this scandal than I've been willing to admit. When I was child, a priest was removed from a local parish after being accused of sexual abuse. People talked in hushed tones about the cause of the removal and shook their heads in disgrace. But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. I believe that the faithful have as much responsibility as the hierarchy to instill and ensure justice within our church. And, yes, it would be much easier to fight against injustices if there were clear, more democratic avenues to do so. But a long history of reformation is the church tells us that while creating positive and essential change is sometimes mucky, it is always worth it.... And Jim Carroll, I answered your hypothetical question about schools long ago. My answer was: Of course, action should be taken against people who commit crimes, no matter what institution they belong to. HOWEVER, when accusing people of crime, it is important to accuse only those who have committed the crimes. Akenaton makes it clear that he suspects all homosexuals of child molestation. Smokey's suspicion that all priests should be suspected of child molestation, is equally clearly stated. And both Smokey and Akenaton are highly prejudiced in their suspicions. Smokey, you accuse me a putting words in Akenaton's mouth - with all the diatribes against homosexuals that he's posted in these threads on child molestation, what else could he be referring to? It's crystal clear that Akenaton suspects homosexuals of being child molesters. If that's the case, then it's clear that he would not want homosexuals to have contact with children - is it not? OK, so you don't like the term bigotry. Let's just say that Akenaton and Smokey and Jim Carroll are guilty of broad overgeneralization.... Try logic sometime. It's very effective. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:13 PM I recall one of Johnny Cash's last interviews. When asked about his former alcahol problems he said something like "I don't drink, but I am in a constant lifelong battle with demons inside me, and the main one is alcohol" Because of social prejudices when and the society I grew up in, I have subconcious demons inside me that I fight each day...one is prejudice against gays I learned as a child. And, I suspect many of us fight this same demon...and some better than others. My logical side tells me that there is no rational for such subconcious beliefs. But, at times I catch them coming out.I work real hard to extend the same friendship, fellowship and benefit of the doubt to gays that I automatically give to others...but, I have to work at it. No matter how much logic I use or articles that I read, gay people that I meet...I have to be on guard not to let this subconcious belief, that was locked into my subconsciouis at childhood...( I suspect like prejudices with other minorities, that I do not seem to have) that's real hard to erase....But, like with Johnny Cash, that demon can be kept at bay. So can I say I act in a non prejudice way in life...yes, I can. But, unfortunately I cannot say I am without prejudice...though I go out of my way to get to know gays in my community and let them know they are welcome. So, I try real hard to take in what I read, and what people say to learn, to be logical, to be reasonable and fair and even harder to carefully balance what may be true about some and even amany gays with logic and keeping that prejudice demon at Bay. And, I know it is not logical, as I have nothing to fear from gays...or even the worst case scenario related to any aspect related to homosexuals. So, when it comes to Ake (and, I have not read many of his posts outside this thread topic)...I suspect he also has nothing to fear...but, it may just be that old subconcious childhood demon that raises its ugly head now and then...It can get the best of anuone. Anyway...sorry to so off on a thread drift...but, I personally needed to say that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM I dont know Ake...I dont know his purpose or conviction. He seems well read...though often mixes up apples and oranges and cherry picks research/opinion...in my view. But, that's ok with me.I suspect he is a nice reasonable fellow in real life, and someone that anyone...even a gay fellow could have a beer with. I doubt that he is a demon, nor the borg. To me he has stimulated debate..made it a bit more interesting and unlikely the thread will die. His posts have stimulated me to look up more stuff and learn new stuff, and even change my views on some things...because of the research and viewpoints I read , not his posted stuff. After all, someone has to take the right or oposing position, if for no other purpose but to move the center forward a bit and make it interesting:) I suspect some gays would be more offended if Ake stated he agreed with them, rather than being on an opposing position. I dont't recall that he was disrespectful to other posters...though his posted material may be challenging to some. Personally< I don't see the fuss. I may differ in that view if I were gay...but, I am not...and no gay person has come forward to express concern (that I know of). This is not a testimonial nor an endorsement, but just my reflection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:09 PM Well said, Ed, and thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:00 PM "But day after day, over and over again, Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and others use the misdeeds of a few to condemn the entire Catholic Church" Joe O sometimes goes to great posting lengths to emotionally (and I firmly believe sincerely) express the differences betwen the Vatican and the RC organization (Bishops, Cardinals, Yada Yada) and the rank and file RCs who are innocent of sexual wrong doing and do nothing but good in the world. I suspect most of those he condems here have similar, though not as intense feelings. However, when one challenges or debates in any way the actions and sincerity (yesterday, today and likely tomorrow) he goies into his RC defensive mode (I suspect possibly because of his earlier RC inner programing) brands those folks as being unreasonable, anti-RC folks whose only purpose is to bring an end to the RC church....WRONG. I have seen little of the condemation of the rank and file RCs who have been cheated more than some of the posters...if they copuld only see through the RC induced fog....I suspect that has been reinforced by what they see (to me falsely) as Christian Faith. In more recent posts, he has entered another stage of denial. He has condemed others who lumped all homosexuals as sexual abusers and those who question...and sometimes agressively, the RC role and actions (past and present) as anti-Catholic. So, what's the difference from this position and those that you seem to condem...for example, Ake and the Mudcat anti-Catholic hordes (Joe's term) and ....+ a number of foilks and (aka) "the others". Think about it Joe. Debate is debate. Put facts deductions and opinion forward for discussion....right or wrong. Show respect. Separate opinion from research, research from junk research and separate biased and non peer reviewed stuff from opinion disguised as research. Question the logic and bias of others. Do your best to promote your cause. Learn from others. Forgive when it gets heated. Appoligise when you get carried away. Its all fair and good stuff in a debate. It likely wont change the evolution of the issue. But, there may be a small chance one may get closer to the truth, a good way forward....and maybe some folks will understand a different perspective on the same issue from another? It's just words. Why should we get up tight because someone else has a different perspective, experience, viewpoint or bias? We are not going to move many stars with our views...but we can learn from others...and contribute to the discussion. And, we all have our blind spots prejudices we have gathered through life, and warts....some just wear them better. Put it in perspective folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:10 PM I think it was Smokey who said no priest should be allowed to have contact with children, and I'm sure Akenaton would say that no homosexual should have contact with children. Where's the difference? Can you really not see the difference, Joe? Priests are doing the abusing. Putting words in Ake's mouth isn't all that productive either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:06 PM Joe, More and more I am left with the impression that those outside Ireland have yet to grasp the enormity of what happened here. Sure, it wasn't the whole clergy who indulged in abuse - a considerable amount, but still a small minority. But it was a large proportion of the heirarchy who knew what was going on, didn't report it and allowed it to continue. Many of the people who acted in this way are now in prominent positions. some have owned up and resigned, while others are being found out and are refusing to resign. This is shaking the whole foundations of the church here, and the longer mit goes on the more fragile the church will become. I have no desire whatever to destroy the church - if I have indicated that I have, please point out where. But even if I did, I couldn't hope to do as good a job as the church is doing itself at the moment. If there is anything here I have said that is incorrect or unfair please point it out. And please don't you dare equate my attitude toward the church with Akenaton's torrent of hate toward gays. I asked you earlier what whether you would adopt the same stance if it was the education department who had behaved as the church has - I still haven't received a straight answer. More recently I asked you where I have given a distorted view of Catholicism - again I have received no answer - specifics please. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM Is Akenaton a bigot? Certainly. It's very hard to define a sexual act between an adult male and a boy as anything other than a homosexual act. And it follows that a sexual act between an adult male and a girl is a heterosexual act. Akenaton uses that information to condem all homosexuals (and one wonders why he doesn't use the same information to condemn all heterosexuals). That's the nature of prejudice - to use the misdeeds of the few as evidence to condemn the whole. Tens of thousands of men (maybe more) molest hundreds of thousands of boys, and it is indeed a serious and a horrible crime. And Akenaton uses that information to condemn all homosexuals. Akenaton is very self-righteous and sincere about it, but Akenaton is deeply prejudiced against homosexuals. So, we have Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and a whole sheaf of others who condemn the actions of Catholic priests who have molested and abused children, and of bishops who have covered up these crimes. And these condemnations are correct - these priests and bishops did horrible wrongs, and they deserve to be punished severely. But day after day, over and over again, Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and others use the misdeeds of a few to condemn the entire Catholic Church. I think it was Smokey who said no priest should be allowed to have contact with children, and I'm sure Akenaton would say that no homosexual should have contact with children. Where's the difference? In the "Catholic Come-All-Ye" thread, Amos posted an excerpt from a very interesting New York Times article that speaks of two Catholic churches. One is the chauvinistic, male-dominated, power-hungry organization that is responsible for this horrible scandal and coverup. The other is obsessed with feeding the hungry and comforting the afflicted. As the article says:
The article describes the Catholic Church that I have experienced all my life, a place that is usually full of joy and compassion and wisdom - but also an organization that has serious flaws that need to be healed. The truth can be a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a bigot, because the bigot makes use of only those parts of the truth that support his point of view. Akenaton is correct in saying that sex between an adult male and a boy is a homosexual act - and it is a horrible thing. Nonetheless, it is not a valid reason for condemning or restricting all homosexuals. The Mudcat anti-Catholic hordes are right in saying that it is a horrible thing for priests to molest children, and for bishops to cover up such crimes. Nonetheless, it is not a valid reason for condemning or restricting the Catholic Church. Certainly, there is a need to explore this entire scandal and to come to an understanding why it happened and what can be done to heal the harm that has ben done prevent such a thing from happening again. But the Mudcat hordes want nothing to do with understanding and healing - all they want to do is condemn and destroy. Is that bigotry? I'll let you decide for yourself. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:30 PM Actions change perspectives...words less so. Is this really new? Didn't the pope and a legion of others in positions of RC authority and in other world locals say they were sorry in the past and repeated it more recently? Based on that, and some of what followed up, or was revealed after some of the appologies, is it reasonable to expect that it would actually change perspectives significantly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:32 PM Does this change anything in anybody's mind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM Could we agree that a few clerics and their bosses (I won't speculate on the number, as some so, or whether they are still active in living out their distortions) share a distorted view of Catholicism? On the bright side, at least they don't post here:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 02:05 PM A distorted view of Catholicism? Hmm.. that's constructive debate for you.. I wonder where that puts my view of Catholicism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 09:46 AM "The two of you have said many things that I believe are a distorted view of Catholicism - would it be right for me to seek to silence you?" Meant to challenge you on this Joe - where - and I would like a reply to this? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 22 Apr 10 - 09:12 AM [Akenaton's] remarks do border on prejudice against homosexuals They don't border on it, they are way over the border and heading for the horizon. In just about any other medium, that sort of of stuff would fall under British criminal law against incitement to hate crime. I don't suppose he/she/it is ever going to tell us what the personal motivation for this hate campaign is, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:09 AM "No, Jim, that's too speculative..." Sorry Joe, have to think about that one - it seems clear enough to me as it has been a contstant mantra at all gays. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:41 AM No, Jim, that's too speculative... |