BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)

Subject: BS: Suffer The Little Children....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 01:34 PM

The events in Ireland over the last few days seem to have passed the rest of the world by (or maybe they hasve been filed under the category 'The love that dare not speak its name').
Following on from the Ryan report on child abuse, the Govenment has just released the results of the Murphy Enquiry into abuse in the Diocease of Dublin.
The report states that not only have clerics been raping and sexually and physically abusing children placed in their care routinely and on a huge scale for over thirty years, but their crimes have been systematically and deliberately covered up by the heirarchy of the church over the periods of office of 4 archbishops.
Priests observed to be a risk to children have been moved on to other parishes to 'carry on the work of god' and their crimes have been spiritually excused from being a sin by the inventing of the state of 'mental reservations' for the perpetrators.   
Complaints of abuse have been ignored by government authorities and by the the police, who quite often reported them back to the diocese.
Reports of abuse sent to The Vatican were ignored under the excuse that they should have been submitted "via the correct diplomatic channels".
Surely it's about time that these criminals and their accomplices were prosecuted for their crimes.
And isn't it about time that the church - any church - be barred from holding any position of authority other than that of giving religious guidance to those who wish to receive it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Alice
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:15 PM

We've been hearing about the Irish news over here, Jim. CNN, MSNBC, all the networks covering it as international news.

There is also a case here getting news coverage about a young man, Nathan Halbach, age 22, with brain cancer. He was fathered by a priest. The priest's order made the mother promise to go away and keep quiet. While her son was dying of brain cancer, she finally spoke out. The Franciscan's just announced they will pay the funeral costs since the mother went public about the priest.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Alice
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:18 PM

"Now her son -- the youngest of four children -- may have just weeks to live. And when the Franciscans balked at paying for his care, she decided she was no longer bound by her pledge of confidentiality."
"I never asked for extraordinary amounts. I asked for the basic needs and care of my son," Bond told CNN's "AC 360." But she said the church told her, "No, we are not Nathan's biological father, we have no legal obligation to your son."


Secret Father

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:29 PM

This affair is indeed a disgrace Jim and must have been a horrific experience for the poor children involved, but trying to link this sort of abuse to any particular religious order seems to go against reason.....why do we not see this volume of abuse in other religions or even in other branches of Christianity?

I fear we must look elsewhere for the reasons why this evil seems so relatively common among the priesthood.

There have been no statistics released yet for the Irish child abuse, but a study of a similar case in the US in 2004 came up with the following interesting findings
• "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:46 PM

Akenaton:
"but trying to link this sort of abuse to any particular religious order seems to go against reason.."
Hence my having written "And isn't it about time that the church - any church..... etc."
Can't make anything of your statistics - I do hope you're not going to give us a repeat performance of your 'gay-bashing' as on a recent thread.
This is not an example of homosexuality; it is a case of abuse of spiritual authority and of negligence of duty towards children in care by church and state on a massive scale.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:57 PM

No need to get personal Jim, but what is your opinion on the fact that this practice appears to be rife among the catholic priesthood but much less so in other sections of christianity...or other religions?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: kendall
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:11 PM

Organized religion. BAH!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:16 PM

The Catholic Church was of course complicit in the cover up of this affair and did indeed disgracefully fail the children and their families.....no question in that......but the actual abuse was perpetrated by individuals and these individuals should be put under the closest scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: michaelr
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:20 PM

Duh - what's to blame here is the Catholic church's unnatural mandatory celibacy oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Alice
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:24 PM

Child abuse is common in many religions where the authority figures are held above the law and obeyed without question because of fear of being expelled from the group. The Catholic Church is a large institution, so you see the abuse on a relative scale. There are other, smaller religious groups that include child abusers in their ranks, but they don't get as much world news coverage. It is hypocrisy, no matter the religion in which it occurs (FLDS child rape, Islamic mercy killings, Scientology forced labor, Christian Scientist lack of medical care, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:51 PM

Is anyone actually going to be brought to justice as a result of this latest report? The last one was little more than an insult to the victims and, I should imagine, a great relief to the perpetrators and their 'superiors' who effectively got away with it.

And isn't it about time that the church - any church - be barred from holding any position of authority other than that of giving religious guidance to those who wish to receive it.

Absolutely. They have proved themselves to be not worthy of trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:54 PM

The subject of this thread is child sexual abuse(in Dublin).

Personally I have nothing to say in favour of organised religion, but would suggest there is something more than a power trip going on in the Catholic priesthood......81% to 19%!! use your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 04:13 PM

I see what you mean, Akenaton, but those figures may reflect opportunity more than they do sexual preference. I don't claim to know, just pointing out the possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 06:01 PM

Jim, I will agree that any child abuse is horrendous, but I would like to know what "on a huge scale" means. Were thousands of priests involved in these crimes? Did the victims number in the tens of thousands? What percentage of priests have never been involved in any sexual misconduct with children, and what percentage of children were NOT victimized?

When you say that four Dublin archbishops systematically covered up the offenses, that is four out of how many? And what is it that they did that you consider a "coverup"? Did they fail to address the problem altogether, or did they actively support abuse, or did they perform less than totally admirably in some situations, or what?

The sexual abuse of children in churches (and in other institutions) has been a horrible scandal for a long, long time. Heck, songs have been written about the problem, long before the scandals of the last forty years. I would contend, however, that a relatively small percentage of Catholic priests (well under ten percent) committed crimes of child sexual abuse, and a relatively small percentage of Catholic children were victimized (I have no way to guess a number). I do not mean to downplay the problem, but I think it is important to be realistic and to recognize that the wrongdoers are a relatively small number. In the priesthood, as in every walk of life, most people are pretty good people.

Still, I have serious questions about the bishops. There definitely appears to have been widespread coverups, but it is unclear why this happened and what exactly happened. In my diocese of Sacramento, the policy was to give victims a settlement of $25,000 to $50,000, which was considered generous at the time (now the going rate is $1 million); and to offer counseling. Several priests were prosecuted, and some went to prison. In other situations where it was not clear that the conduct was criminal, the priest was reassigned to a job that did not involve contact with children; and some were removed from the priesthood. My diocese had a notoriously liberal bishop who wanted to make sure things were done right, so it may be that the situation was better in Sacramento than it was in other places. Many people received million-dollar settlements in Sacramento in the last few years, but most had already been paid many years ago - and most of the priests involved had already been removed from the priesthood, and some were prosecuted. In my diocese, there were no priests who were simply reassigned after a sexual abuse complaint. In every instance, the action taken was much more severe.

But still, the coverups happened - and in many dioceses. And there are still many unanswered questions. Were the bishops forced into silence by attorneys and insurance companies? We're often told not to apologize or admit guilt in a traffic accident, because otherwise we'll be "taken to the cleaners" by the other party. Did fear of unreasonable settlements lead to a Code of Silence among bishops? It may seem callous, but what would you do if you were faced with the prospect of paying a hundred million dollars for the misdeeds of ten people? The victims certainly deserved compensation - but the people who paid the compensation were not the criminals, and they had no knowledge of the crimes. And how much money is just compensation for a crime, especially when the people paying the compensation are not the criminals - an infinite amount?

Could it be that bishops believed too strongly that criminal priests could be cured by extensive psychiatric treatment? It you will recall, the concept of "rehabilitation" of criminals was in fashion in the 1960s and 1970s. Since the rebirth of conservatism in the 1980s, vengeance and retribution and punishment have become far more important in criminal justice, but the guiding lights of the 1970s believed that criminals could be reformed if exposed to the wisdom of psychiatry. Well, the American bishops believed that, and they spent tens of millions on programs meant to rehabilitate wayward priests. And when the priests were released with a "clean bill of health" after 6 months to two years of residential treatment, they were assigned to parishes with the belief that they would no longer be a risk.

We can go on forever with these blanket condemnations of priests and bishops and celibacy and all Catholics and churches in general - but if we use that approach, we'll never solve the problem. It's time to stop screaming and explore the problem with hard facts and brutal honesty. I've seen a whole lot of rhetoric and very little honesty in the reaction to this scandal. It's time to stop our obsession with blame. Many of those responsible for these crimes are dead or long retired. Our emphasis should be on healing the damage that was caused, exploring the reasons for child molestation, and developing methods of prevention and response that will effectively deal with this problem.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 06:15 PM

With respect, there's a big difference between wanting equal justice for all and being obsessed with blame. Society needs to be protected from these people, not the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 06:19 PM

I agree with much of what you say joe, but the "brutal honesty" is unlikely to be forthcoming, given the current atmosphere of "liberal", offend no one, political correctness.

Smokey.....I also understand your point about a certain amount of opportunism being involved, but hetero paedophiles do not abuse teenage boys, that has historically been a large part of homosexual practice.....also the issue of opportunity is more than cancelled out by the fact that homosexual abuse is very often under reported,

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 06:31 PM

"but hetero paedophiles do not abuse teenage boys"

A generalisation, but fair comment - I see what you mean. Those who molest small children are less fussy about gender, but most of the kids referred to were older.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 07:05 PM

All of which, of course, is ignoring female child abusers who, although fewer, should not be forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Fergie
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 10:21 PM

I really don't want to get involved in this debate, but I feel compelled to add some comments.
I was reared in the Ireland of the fifties and sixties. I witnessed the phenomenon that was the Irish Catholic Church at that time. The clergy were almost exclusively the sons of the middle classes and wealthy farmers. The victims were almost exclusively the sons and daughters of the working and rural poor. The RC church was extremely powerful, they controlled the education system and the health system and many institutions that were properly the responsibility of the Social Welfare system. The Church and the clergy was fascist in nature, antidemocratic, paternalistic, misogynistic, sectarian and believed that the Irish State should be a Catholic State for a Catholic people.
Many of the politicians of the time (including Eamon DeValera the prime-minister and later president of the state, and many members of his cabinet and government) held similar views, and took a diffident stance when it came to questions regarding "moral authority" and they actively colluded with the RC church when it came to questions regarding the rights of citizens of the state.
The Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland were not answerable to the authority of the state, on the contrary the state was answerable to the Catholic Church, (for those who are sceptical of the truth of this assertion, let them Google Noel Browne and the Mother and Child Act or just go HERE).
The clergy had immense power and position (for instance it was almost impossible for a person to get any meaningful employment without the imprimatur of the local parish priest or curate), and they abused that power over and over. They infiltrated every aspect of civil life and ensured that they themselves or some self-serving and obsequious lackey was appointed to every civil committee and organisation in the land, everything from local football clubs, youth club, cultural festival etc, etc, etc. many of the men (and some women) that were attracted to "religious life" were drawn by the obvious power and prestige that came with the collar or the veil. Many evil people were aware that they could perpetrate their "deviances" without fear of exposure if they could operate behind the collar or veil and they joined the ministry in their hundreds, where they had access to children in many institutions, schools, orphanages, hospitals, industrial schools, choirs, sports clubs, etc. etc.
To be a child, especially a Catholic child from a working class or from a poor background in the Irish Republic in the fifties and sixties was a dangerous thing to be, for you were at the mercy of these predators.
To be beaten in school by some sadistic bastard of a brother, priest or nun was the daily experience of tens of thousands of Irish children, (I was one of those children), to be subjected to daily criticism and humiliation for the quality of your home or your clothes or your father occupation was your daily experience (I was one of those children) to be branded a fool, ignorant, worthless, dirty, sinful, unworthy and shameful (I was one of those children).
But I was one of the "lucky" ones for I never suffered the pain, degradation and anguish of sexual abuse. Yet I know many, many children that were groomed for and sexually abused and raped by these predators that covered their crimes behind a collar, because they knew that the authorities (both clerical and civil) would never take the word of some working class brat over the word of a respectable middleclass ordained man of the cloth.

The abuse was widespread within the church. As children we knew what was going on and some of us knew which priests and brothers to avoid. The vast majority of clerics also knew what was going on but they choose to ignore it and to do absolutly nothing, the arch bishops, the bishops, the canons, the parish priest and the clergy, along with some police officers, politicians, social workers and medical staff, lied, covered up, and protected the perpetrators and branded the innoccent victims and their parents who dared to speak out as liars and guilty sinners.
Please read the report, you can find it in all its harrowing details here
Murphy Report part 1

Part 2 Here

Joe, did you ever hear of the concept of "mental reservation"? Well I never did until I read this report, It seems it's an RC doctrine which allows you to tell "untruths" without being guilty of telling lies. Below is Cardinal Connell's explanation of how this piece of bullshit works and how he justified his cover-up and protection of the clerical filth (ten percent of priests in the Dublin dioceses) that spent half a century defiling the children that they were entrusted to protect.

Read it and weep for the Catholic Church

"Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be - permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying . . . So mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying." Cardinal Connell

Personally I divorced myself from all this RC hypocracy a long time ago and I hope that I will be followed by droves of the congegation as they begin to realise how they and their children have been utterly betrayed by their church and their clergy over decades.

Fergus Russell

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:38 AM

Jim Carroll:"...This is not an example of homosexuality; it is a case of abuse of spiritual authority and of negligence of duty towards children in care by church and state on a massive scale."

Two points:
#1 "...This is not an example of homosexuality.."??
You mean the Catholic Church has Women priests????

#2 "...it is a case of abuse of spiritual authority..."
Nothing spiritual about it at all...it's just homosexuality!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 05:37 AM

Is it a factor that the priesthood was/is granted such deference in Ireland?
It seems that children were not believed when they accused priests, and the police and authorities were also so deferential that they colluded in the cover up.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 06:01 AM

"Nothing spiritual about it at all...it's just homosexuality!"
If the blame for this is it be laid at the door of homosexulality, then hetrosexual rape, prostitution, sex-trafficking, snuff.... is caused by hetrosexuality.
We are all answerable for our behaviour, no matter what our sexual orientation and shame on those who who would manipulate what happened to these children into a homophobic campaign.
Similar events not covered by the reports took place in the Magdalene Laundries against young women.
Keith:
"Is it a factor that the priesthood was/is granted such deference in Ireland"
It certainly was the case - hopefully it no longer is.
Charlie;
Fergie puts what I believe in a nutshell - read the Ryan Report for a full background.
"liberal", offend no one, political correctness."
All of these were named as the cause of the downturn of society by the same church and at the same time as their priests were raping children.
The mystification and denigration of sex by the church and by 'moralists' like yourself did far more damage to our society than did openness and permissiveness; take these events as an example (you don't even have to go back as far as the corrupt Victorian 'moralists' ).
And before you lay this at the door of Catholicism take a look at the behaviour of other religions and cults, Christian or otherwise.
When I was young you were always warned to look out for the scoutmaster!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 06:27 AM

Jim:"..If the blame for this is it be laid at the door of homosexulality, then hetrosexual rape, prostitution, sex-trafficking, snuff.... is caused by hetrosexuality."

What are you doing? First you bring this up, about priests and children, now you're trying to dismiss it, by saying whatever you're trying to say(?)!!. This is homosexual pedophilia..clearly. It is what it is!! As so far as the state, not pursuing it, that has more to do with money, power and influence of the church, and a mutual dependency they have on each other. In other words, corruption!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 06:59 AM

There is no indication in any of the reports that any of the perpetrators of these crimes were homosexuals any more than there is evidence that men incarcerated in prison who indulge in homosexual practices are homosexuals - it is purely a case of what was available to the people concerned - unless you have evidence otherwise
Magdalene Laundries???
As far as the State's role, it is purely the power weilded by the church, anything else is a diversion.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 08:16 AM

When I was young (and I believe things haven't changed much) molestation of children happened in the Southern Baptist church I grew up in. I don't think these predators attach themselves to any particular religion. They simply look for places where they may be placed in a position which facilitates access to their prey.

In the last decade, the culture of silence by the victims is breaking. As more come forward in every place whether it be church, school, scout group, etc., then the culture of silence and cover up that protects the predators will also weaken.

It is perhaps that children/adults abused by catholic priests are more inclined to come forward because there have been a number of previous public revelations. I am also inclined to think that southern baptists are more controlled by fear of being rejected by their group. It was almost cultish / slavish dedication to the church in my experience. We are probably more brain washed at the young adult age than Catholic children. Couple that with the lesson that God only puts on a person as much as s/he can cope with and you get the feeling that this is part of God's plan and you just have to take it and God will help you through.

It is also my opinion for what it is worth that if you do the crime you must suffer the penalties of state and no organisation should be able to protect you. How the Catholic church is allowed to deal with such abuses in house is beyond me.

The offending priest must be given over to the courts immediately. There is nothing stopping the church from ministering to their fallen while they are under state correction.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 09:38 AM

"It is also my opinion for what it is worth that if you do the crime you must suffer the penalties of state"
Couldn't agree more Virginia.
There have been calls for those involved in abuse to be prosecuted, but the situation at the present time is unresolved.
One bishop who was singled out in the report for having persistantly covered up abuse is still in office; he has apologised for his behaviour but has refused to resign.
Despite all the revelations, the church still weilds considerable power here - it remains to be seen whether that will continue to be the case. The role of the Vatican in all this hasn't even begun to be debated as far as I can see.
I suggest that logging in to the Irish Times site should keep people in touch with what's happening; they seem to have given the most comprehensive coverage so far. Some of the letters they have received from abuse victims have been extremely moving.
Jim Carroll
Am I right in believing that there have been cases of clerical abouse in Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:19 PM

Jim:"There is no indication in any of the reports that any of the perpetrators of these crimes were homosexuals any more than there..."

Grown MEN molesting young BOYS ,indicates exactly what it is! Don't let your 'political views' be 'over generous' and blind your eyes. It is, what it is.

Homosexuality: Same gender sex
Pedophilia: Sex with minors
No editorializing about it!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:33 PM

You are determined to make the suffering of these children a platform for your homophobia.
It takes all kinds I suppose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:35 PM

Yes, I for one find it pretty offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 04:26 PM

Jim and Crow Sister, if you were really serious about finding out why these children were abused, you would not find the views expressed on this thread "pretty offensive".
You are a pair of frauds.....Jim started the thread quite clearly to take a kick at the Catholic Church, and Sister is more offended that homosexuals "denigrated" than in trying to find why this abuse occurred.

As I stated earlier the Church behaved in a self serving manner by conducting a cover up of the abuse and should be condemned unequivocally for that.....but the fact remains, that the abuse was carried out by individual priests who must answer for their personal crimes.

If the American figures are replicated in Ireland(if they are ever published) the smoking gun points fairly and squarely at homosexual abuse of teenage boys being the biggest factor.

In my opinion, Michealr is correct and the celibacy rule has attracted large numbers of homosexuals into the priesthood, thisa fact being admitted by a high ranking official of the Catholic Church a few months ago
If this practice is to be stamped out, the Church must abandon the Celibacy rule, allow priests to marry and live a natural life, which would mean procreation and the nurturing of their own children.

Perhaps then, children would be viewed as something other than sex objects.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM

Apologies to Jim, I meant to say..."to take a kick at religion", rather than just the Catholic Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 04:59 PM

Joe

When you say that four Dublin archbishops systematically covered up the offenses, that is four out of how many?

Four, I'm afraid. This was a relatively restricted investigation of the Dublin archdiocese over that period. That said, there is little to suggest that things were any better elsewhere - rather to the contrary. The Dublin archdiocese, with a huge population, had a considerable number of auxiliary bishops, many of whom were involved in the day-to-day handling of these matters. Quite a few of them were then promoted (and no - I'm not implying this was why) to bishoprics elsewhere in Ireland. Reports from several dioceses suggest that their attitudes did not change.

The key turning point will come, if at all, when bishops start apologising not, as at present, "for any failures" on their part, but for the simple immorality of what they did in protecting abusers. It now seems likely that there will be resignations in the near future. Again, any mealy-mouthedness in how these are announced will only prolong the agony of those who still believe.

Regards

p.s. As it happens, though long since an unbeliever, I spent several years in a sort of youth "praetorian guard" of the late Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, the first in the run of four investigated. He drove (or, more correctly, was driven in) a very distinctive Citroen car (?? model - sort of shark-fronted!). His priests were under instruction to wear a hat all times in public. One of them told me, years later, that the few who had cars at the time (late 50's?), used to keep a hat on the passenger seat - and watch out for John Charles's car! Otherwise you, or your parish priest, were likely to receive a stern warning from archbishops palace in Clonliffe!

p.p.s
One of the aspects which has yet received little if any comment is that a map of parishes where known paedophile priests operated is heavily biassed towards working class areas in the city - and relatively remote rural areas in the Wicklow mountains. There are a number of possible explanations/interpretations of this - but it is surely worth analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: ard mhacha
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 05:12 PM

Smashed below the waterline, the "good" ship RC is going down fast, and the Catholic religion is not alone in this,all institutions and religious bodies throughout the world are guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 05:27 PM

I hadn't read Fergie's post when I posted above. I know whereof he speaks.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 05:59 PM

It seems pretty obvious that some proportion of these priests were gay, but it should also be noted that not all of the abuse was sexual. That said, I don't think anyone is actually claiming either that all priests are gay, or that all gays are child molesters, or that all child molesters are Catholic.

Fergie - Thanks very much indeed for your post and the links.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 06:11 PM

Correction:

The Dublin report is specifically about sexual abuse - I was assuming it covered all abuse, like the Ryan report.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 06:37 PM

Jim:"You are determined to make the suffering of these children a platform for your homophobia.
It takes all kinds I suppose!!"

Okay, you win!...Now what do YOU call grown men having sex with young boys???????

P.S. I only defined the terms as definitions. You spouting the 'homophobes' line, is your ASSUMPTION!...based on YOUR bias, IS IT NOT?

Perhaps if you're having a hard time reconciling the facts with your spin, maybe you should address YOUR thinking!

I'm Clear!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 06:55 PM

Fergie, it's interesting that you say that the clergy in Ireland "were almost exclusively the sons of the middle classes and wealthy farmers." For a hundred years, my diocese of Sacramento, California, had predominantly Irish-born priests. Most came from lower-class families, and my experience with them has been generally wonderful. I wonder if that was the practice, to export the lower-class priests.

During my tour of Ireland several years ago, I was struck by the severity of Irish Catholicism. We American Catholics are generally a pretty happy bunch (and not prone to blind obedience), but the Catholic Church seemed dour and dreary and rigid in Ireland. I have to admit that it did not seem like a healthy or joyful atmosphere. "Authority" and "obedience" were terms that seemed to fit well into the Irish Catholic Church.

There are some American Catholics who long for that haughty piety and misplaced respect for authority. I've never experienced that side of the Catholic Church. It was around me much of the time, but I've always had somewhere else I could choose.

The Catholic schools I attended, and the parishes I belonged to, were wonderful, warm, healthy places. My parents wouldn't tolerate anything less, and neither do I. There are many priests in this diocese who have received a piece of my mind. Even some good priests have ended up in my line of fire. As an ex-seminarian, I consider it my duty to speak out when things aren't right. And generally, I've been respected for doing that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 07:05 PM

ake, you are twisting my words. My point was that celibacy is at the root of tyhe problem, NOT homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 07:33 PM

Joe, I too, was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, till the eighth grade, and went to public school after that. Since then, and through different experiences in my life, I left the Catholic Church, and am no longer a Catholic, in fact so far, on here, I have not described myself, as belonging to any religion, though I am well read on several.

I too, have found, that when I look back, to the present, that Catholics were indeed, a warm, family oriented group of people, and I am thankful for the great, disciplined education I received in their school. For that alone, I am grateful to my parents who afforded me that privilege! When, in school there, it was severe in the discipline, and I can't say there was any 'vibe' of clergy, 'hitting' on the kids.

When my brother graduated, he went on to the seminary, to become a priest. After a couple of years, he left and gave us stories of things that were going on there, between several of the seminarians.
Later, we found out, when he told us, it was homosexual in nature..and that bothered him. To hear this was beyond belief, for most the Catholics, in our Parrish, so he kept it under wraps..because it was just 'too weird'. This was in 1964-65.

As a rule, the Catholic clergy is not about homosexuality, but there ARE some bad apples in the bunch. When. in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where I grew up, the lists of clergy were released, three of the priests, that were at our Parrish were on the list, and the fourth was the Monseigneur, who was there for over 30 years!

Nonetheless, the Families were good people, close knit and extremely supportive of each other, through the years, for a great many things. I have no regrets going to that school, or knowing the clergy that I knew.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 07:38 PM

I think Fergie's analysis of the class structure of mid-20th c. Irish clergy is perhaps a little oversimplified. For example, as I'm sure he knows only too well, the infamous "Christian Brothers" were frequently sons of small farmers and relatively low income families. Not surprisingly, there was an underlying class structure within the religious orders/diocesan clergy which impacted on their distribution through both schools and parishes.

As for exporting priests, I can remember being struck at the extent to which in the '60's and '70's, priests with any initiative (and threfore regarded as troublesome) ended up on the "foreign missions". As for America, it is clear from the report that a number of offenders were moved to parishes there - without anyone being told of their history. You seem to have been lucky, Joe!

Joe comments on the "severity" he observed in Irish catholicism when he visited here. That was very recently - five years ago or so? Believe me (and Fergie) those days were a shining beacon of enlightenment compared with our schooldays!

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 09:56 PM

Every time I look at this thread title it makes me sad.

It makes me sad for all the children who have been abused, whether in a church environment or not. It makes me sad for my own childhood that was lived in terror because of the way we were treated by the priests and nuns at the Catholic schools I went to in the 50's and 60's.

I'm glad you had a different experience, Joe. I'm sad that so many others had a painful experience. I tell people I'm still recovering from my Catholic school childhood, because even knowing why it triggers things for me, it doesn't stop the anxiety that comes up and the fear in situations that remind me of the all-powerful authority figures who held eternal damnation (or the belt or ruler) over our heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Goose Gander (not amused for once)
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:13 PM

I was going to avoid this one, but it turns out I do have something to say. Here goes: I attended Catholic School in the 1970s in the US. My classmates were a diverse bunch, and I learned that we were all equal in the eyes of God. Outside of school, it was a different story. I frequently heard racist comments from adults, usually about 'mexicans' (anyone of hispanic origin) and how they were 'ruining' America. It never resonated with me because I learned and experienced the exact opposite at school. My teachers were Maryknoll Sisters, many of whom had served in Latin America, siding with the poorest of the poor against the (for all intents and purposes) fascist governments that ruled those nations in those years (with the support of the US government, I might add). That was my experience of the Catholic Church, and it was both formative and positive for me.

I offer no excuses and I have no sympathy for the guilty parties referenced by Jim in his opening post. But to equate a few criminals with the whole of the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) is, I'm afraid, no different than blaming all Muslims for 9-11.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:24 PM

"to equate a few criminals with the whole of the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) is, I'm afraid, no different than blaming all Muslims for 9-11."

Very true, but no-one has done that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:41 AM

From the above posts, including 'Smokey's', I think the blame can be squarely leveled at those individuals who actually committed the crimes, rather than the whole of the Catholic Church, in general, though there are elements in their teachings that could permeate such behavior, but it certainly is NOT a primary cause for individual homosexual pedophile rapists, to act out their fantasies, at such a devastating cost, to the victims!

Nor does it completely discredit the many good works that the Catholic Church has done, insofar, as hospitals, schools, orphanages, and charitable works in various communities.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 01:05 AM

I'd like someone in this discussion to address the point I made a while ago:

celibacy is at the root of the problem, NOT homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 01:20 AM

The Church provided the opportunity for these people to carry out this abuse though, and in many cases helped the perpetrators to evade justice, so assisting further offences. 'Aiding and abetting' is, I think, the legal term. They would appear to have knowingly let this stuff happen for a very long time without doing much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 01:23 AM

Just my opinion, but I can't see how celibacy OR homosexuality could turn someone into a child abuser.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 01:38 AM

michaelr:"I'd like someone in this discussion to address the point I made a while ago:
celibacy is at the root of the problem, NOT homosexuality."

Okay, I'll address it.

1. If you're horney you can always jerk off!

2. If you find a cute nun, you can do it discreetly,, which some do.

3. If you can't find a cute nun, and want to keep it discrete, and in the church, find an ugly one.

4. If you go without the clergy garb, you can find someone in a bar.

5. You can commit adultery with a parishioner.

6. All of the above, are a cure for celibacy.

7. You can find another priest or young boy, and do homosexual things with them.

8.All of the above are still 'cures' for celibacy, but number 7, is now a matter of homosexuality, and those who do that, either are, or become homosexuals, due merely to what they are doing, with others of the same sex. When you do it with a young boy you are a homosexual pedophile.

Now that wasn't too complicated, was it???

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:20 AM

Can you guys stop the homosexual thing for a while? To begin with it it doesn't do justice to the suffering of the women who were also abused by priests covered in the Murphy report.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:21 AM

'Were abused as a child' I should have said there.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:33 AM

Peter, I thought my last post, covered more than homosexuality. It dealt with celibacy, and the different ways that priests could deal with it, which was a direct, but simple answer, to michaelr's question.
To a priest, who took the vow of celibacy, all the ways I mentioned are a break of that vow, and therefor 'immoral' to him. The one with children is the cruelest of them all, but even in an adult affair, damage is done to both sides, consensual or not....wouldn't you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:52 AM

Michael.... I think Sanity has answered your point very well...if rather bluntly.

Being sexually frustrated does not in general terms cause heterosexuals to rape or abuse youths.
As Sanity has pointed out there should be plenty of sexual outlets for a Catholic priest who wishes to avail himself of them.

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning, and I do agree that abandoning the celibacy rule would help to stop this disgusting practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: MartinRyan
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:16 AM

It has to be repeatedly stressed that this report is not primarily about the abuse of children by priests. It is about the response of the institutional Irish church to its own detailed knowledge of that abuse. It is what the latter tells us about the nature of the Catholic church in Ireland that matters, ultimately. There is little doubt that the Irish church can survive the existence of child abusers in its ranks. The real question is whether it can survive the existence of POWER-abusers at its highest levels.


Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:52 AM

When the day arrives and we have our Priest`s sons playing mid-field for our local GAA team and their mother screaming blue-murder at the referee, then the Catholic church will have arrived in the real world.
The name McTaggart means son of the priest, so some time ago this would have been possible.

Please don`t forget the many other scandals regarding children and not connected with the Catholic church.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 08:27 AM

it doesn't do justice to the suffering of the women......"
Peter Laban is right; to take it even further, making this a 'homosexual' issue is an insult to every abused child, not just the females.
It is about the abuse of influence and the blatent neglect of children by church officers, from the highest the lowest.
If it does have 'homosexuality' implications, as the pepetrators were all Christians, Catholics and clergymen, it follows logically that all Christians, Catholics and clergymen must be rearded with suspicion in future.
It is to the credit of particiators of this thread (with the notable exception of our resident homophobes, who, to their credit, have not denied the description) it has not become a platform for homohobia.
Joe asked how widespread the practice was. I don't know the numbers, but it has been announced in todays Irish Times that in the 6 Northern counties, which didn't fall under the remit of the Ryan Report, there are around 1,000 potential cases of abuse not investigated.
How powerful the church has been was underlined here by a letter this morning in the I. T. which points out that when the Irish Constiution was drafted it was first submitted to the Vatican for approval before it was released to the people of Ireland - how powerful is that?
"Jim started the thread quite clearly to take a kick at the Catholic Church (changed later to 'religion')"
Have I lied about these events? Have I exaggerated them? Are they not fit topics for discussion?
I raised them because they are outrageous; because they have filled our newspapers (front page and inside) since the Murphy report was released and because they were apparently not being discussed outside Ireland. SHOULD I NOT HAVE STARTED THIS THREAD?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:43 AM

An excellent post from Martin, there is no doubt that the cover-up was a very serious abuse of power.

Each case of child abuse is personal to the priest who carried it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:48 AM

"Each case of child abuse is personal to the priest who carried it out."
No it isn't; it is the responsibility of the church, as is the cover-up carried out throughout the church from the Vatican down - this was made plain by the Murphy report.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Alice
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:57 AM

Whether it happens in the Catholic church or some other institution that has power over its members, the point is that people use their position of power to get away with abusive and illegal behavior. Some organizations hold abusers accountable and turn them in to law enforcement. Some do not, which is what we are seeing in the investigations of the Catholic church. (Find "a nun" to seduce as the answer - are YOU KIDDING??? Seducing or raping someone who is not a child is not a solution to the problem! Adults can be victims of sex abuse, too! I'm shocked anyone would even suggest that as a solution.)

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:20 PM

Why has tis thread been edited?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:28 PM

Seems to have returned back to normal - I withdraw my question and apologise to whoever concerned
Jim Carroll

---

Hi, Jim- as far as I can see, there was nothing edited except a request for correction, which was deleted when the correction was made.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:56 PM

There was a radio programme on the BBC recently about the Catholic Church in Ireland, and the physical abuse, the industrial schools and the laundries, and a point made by a Catholic commentator was the extent to which the church there had been affected by the ideas of Calvinism (OK, Augustine of Hippoism) and saw people of certain backgrounds as not of the Elect, and therefore deserving of punishment. I think I've got that right.

If people are not valued, that presumably makes them more likely to be victims of other abuse, as well.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:10 PM

Alice, I generally find that Guest from Sanity drives me up the wall. But in this case, you're reacting to something that was never said. GfS wasn't "recommending" that a priest break his vows in any of the listed ways, let alone "recommending" that a priest rape a nun or pressure her into sex. There have to be plenty of nuns who didn't realize that they would find the celibacy rule unbearable. I certainly won't argue with the observation that "elicit" sex between consenting adults is less harmful, and less reprehensible, than molestation of children.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:15 PM

And I don't consider breaking an untenable man-made rule to be a sin in the eyes of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:09 PM

Cynical heretic that I am, I find it very hard to believe that any, or many, of the male Catholic hierarchy are literally celibate.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:43 PM

Alice, First of all, ease up. The question was put to me, on 'priests dealing with celibacy'...now of course, if a priest is going to break his vow, these are the readily available alternatives. Personally, I don't anyone should break any vow they take, including marriage vows!

Being as, according to what has been reported, many of the breaking of celibacy, has involved children...and the majority, are male children, which of course adds another twist....and, I was also, pointing that out.

Personally, if a priest, or musician playing music, or anyone, who is fighting breaking any form of concentrated discipline, their mind already isn't where its supposed to be! That is certainly the case of a priest, who may make a vow, younger in life, without fully knowing what he is affirming.

Actually, I could really get into a depthy post on that, and why they pick the victims they pick, but again, I would only do so, if somebody really wanted to know, because they care. I'm not into getting into a debate with someone, who knows nothing about the subject, and just wants to fight for fight's sake.

I re-read Jim Carroll's first post again, just to make sure, we were going in the right direction, and I can see his frustration, as to where the thread was going...and it did appear to go more in a direction, that I don't think he was intending for it to go. That being said, there is a similarity in the make-up, of a young idealistic man, who focuses in on putting his natural instincts on hold, while he focuses on his idealisms(read:religious 'calling'), only to find, one day he grows up, and with these newly blossoming urges, he is somewhat at a loss, of having to deal with them.

When later, he is a grown man, and now having to deal with these suppressed feelings, because he removed himself, in his youth, to pursue a life of celibacy, the disadvantage for him now, is that he 'missed' a lot of the 'normal' social skills and activities, that one 'normally' develops, when going through puberty, and into post adolescent maturity. Where did he 'leave off'?...when he was 'still a child'. Who does he target? Someone younger, who does not challenge him, or his 'prowess'...most likely, a child.

Where does he talk to the child?...He appeals to his naivete, that often the older, projects into the child, as himself...when he, himself was a young idealistic child. The priest may 'appeal and exploit', the child, to his 'sense of being holy' or just use the 'fear of God', to keep his victim silent.

The child now suppresses the acts, and/or the feelings he has about the acts, and continues to grow, into both puberty, and post adolescence...just like the perpetrator did. As the younger, now begins to deal with his guilt, conflicting with his own 'blossoming urges', he is now confronted with a 'new' conflict/tension which can become 'unbearable'. If he feels the conflict strong enough, he may open up, and that often evolves into going 'public' with it, which is 'why' so many wait for so long, and a great many of these cases, are made known, YEARS later.

The fact that many have gone public with it, also has created an atmosphere, that many feel is 'safer' to expose this behavior sooner. Why young boys? Because that is the 'easiest familiarity' that the priest can appeal to, and manipulate.

This is not altogether different, than what happens to young children who have a resentment(which becomes an 'emotional focus') toward one or the other parent of the same gender. When they spend years with that 'unforgiving resentment'...it becomes much akin to our young 'idealistic' candidate for the priesthood. (Use the model above).

If I go on much further, all the 'wacksters' will come out of the woodwork with their 'genetic' rap, with is a bunch of hooey, anyway. So I'll leave it at that.

Going back to our pedophile priest, being able to understand this, does not in anyway constitute rationalizing it away.,,or lessen the offense. It's just where it comes from.

Is it the concept of celibacy? Not necessarily, if the one who takes the vow, is truly dedicated to that kind of work, that celibacy now becomes a tool of freedom, to perform it.

Likewise, it can become a burden, for someone who really wasn't that 'ready' to make that kind of commitment, but rather may have been compelled by outside influences.

Hope it made sense to you...but I think in fairness to Jim, an explanation may have been in order.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:38 AM

frogprince:"....Alice, I generally find that Guest from Sanity drives me up the wall...."

Why drive up a wall....it's dangerous! Frogs have suction thingies that make hanging out on walls a snap!

Thanks frogprince.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:16 AM

Is it homosexuality that causes grown men to gratify themselves with young boys or is it merely predatory sexual desire for innocent children?

Why the proclivity for boys over girls? Maybe because it was done to them, they need to avenge it. Males tend to externalise the horrible things that happen to them while women internalise. Do these men also prefer sexual experience with grown men? If not, then they are not homosexual. They are simply sexual predators fixated on a specific prey. A prey which is like they once were. Innocent and trusting young boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:25 AM

"and it did appear to go more in a direction, that I don't think he was intending for it to go."
I didn't 'intend it to go' in any direction; I was passing on information that apparently, judging from the silence on the subject, wasn't genarally available and being discussed elsewhere. I fully expected the homophobes to crawl out of the woodwork, and true to form, you obliged, but thankfully you haven't been able to hi-jack the thread for your own particular brand of bigotry.
One of the biggest questions hanging over the affair is, what happens next?
We have a situation where a large number of people have been exposed as having committed serious crimes - paedophilia, rape and physical and sexual abuse - on a massive scale and over a long period. What will the law do about this - prosecute - declare an amnesty - what (bearing in mind that one priest alone has been revealed to have raped 100 boys and 1 girl)?
How does the heirarchy of the church stand in this matter? They have not only covered up serious crimes, but they have facilitated them by passing on the perpetrators to other parishes and, if the situation got out of hand, on to foreign missions where, apparently, it didn't matter tooo much how the clergy behaved. Surely these are serious crimes in themselves. The Bishop of Limerick was singled out in the Murphy report in particular for his behaviour in this respect, but so far, despite calls for his resignation from office, has decided (to date) that he can 'better serve by remaining bishop'.
The enquiries were hampered on several occasions by the church's refusal to pass on relevant documents, claiming it to be a breach of privacy.
Serial rape and abuse, collusion, obstructing the course of justice; these are not minor crimes.
And the role of the state departments, the police, the politicians... What happens to the many officials and state reperesentatives who knew what was happening and did nothing?
And then, the victims themselves , how are they to be recompensed, if at all?
And the church's continuing role in education......?
I don't belive the issues arising from this affair have even been addressed so far, let alone resolved.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:46 PM

Jim Carroll:"..I fully expected the homophobes to crawl out of the woodwork, and true to form, you obliged, but thankfully you haven't been able to hi-jack the thread for your own particular brand of bigotry."

Sounds like 'trolling' to me...nonetheless, if you read my post carefully, you will find NOTHING in there remotely resembling 'bigotry', matter of fact, a rather clear understanding, and explanation of the make-up of why, and how pedophile priests, arrive at that, and who, and how they choose their victims. I did not bash the Catholic Church, the priests, or homosexuals.

And if I recall, that's what you asked for.

May I suggest, growing up?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:54 PM

I was in the seminary in Milwaukee for eight years, and I'm part of an e-mail group of classmates. Milwaukee's archbishop, Timothy Dolan, was promoted to New York, so Milwaukee got a new guy - and my priest-classmates aren't thrilled. I get the distinct impression that most priests don't like most bishops. Priests are supposed to be spiritual leaders, and most of them put their hearts into their work and do the best they can. Bishops are a different breed. If you look at the resumes of bishops, you'll find that most of them went to Rome for training after college, while most parish priests went to local seminaries. Many bishops had almost no experience in parish work, and many have spent their entire lives in some sort of administrative position. They view the Catholic Church through organizational and financial and authoritarian perspectives, and the spiritual/pastoral concerns are secondary. The level of cluelessness among bishops is very high - although I must admit that there are some good ones.

In confronting a case of child molestation, what would you expect from a bishop whose priorities are business and organizational? What would you expect from the chief executive of a health care organization that employed a doctor who was molesting patients?

I'm not defending the four archbishops of Dublin. What they did was wrong, terribly wrong - but I AM trying to understand why they did it. I was employed in a parish under a priest who is a wonderful, compassionate pastor - but he is a horrible administrator and a terrible supervisor. The Catholic Church needs people with pastoral skills, which is a function I have filled in a couple of parishes as an employee and as a volunteer. BUT it also needs administrative people, in a pastoral organization where pastoral and organizational priorities often do not coincide. And though it's supposed to be a pastoral organization, it's the organizational interests that win out much of the time, since the bosses are the ones with the organizational priorities.

So, it's a mess.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 03:49 AM

"you will find NOTHING in there remotely resembling 'bigotry',"
"As a rule, the Catholic clergy is not about homosexuality, but there ARE some bad apples in the bunch"
Homosexual = not like me = bad; sounds like bigotry to me bro; if it waddles and quacks it's probably a duck.
"and those who do that, either are, or become homosexuals,..."
How does one 'become' a homosexual, do they have to fill in a form?
I've always taken the view that homophobia is a sign of deep-seated insecurity in an individual's own sexuality - but there you go!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:46 AM

Huh????

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:03 PM

"I've always taken the view that homophobia is a sign of deep-seated insecurity in an individual's own sexuality"

As is groundlessly imagining others to be homophobic.

The 'bad apples' are child abusers first and foremost and that is what they should be punished for, particularly taking into consideration the abuse of their position of trust. They do not deserve a place in society, nor do the people who assisted and helped to cover their crimes. Were they not 'men of the cloth', they'd be rotting behind bars by now, and likely as not be receiving the punishment which they so richly deserve, while the screws turn a blind eye - just like the Bishops did.

Rape is more about power than it is about sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:52 PM

Hats off to Smokey!! He's done his homework, and can, without bias comprehend what he reads!..You got it!!!

I really could not figure how in the world Jim Carroll could arrive at the conclusion he came to, unless...........

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM

Let's try to avoid WW3... So far this has been an interesting and peaceful thread, it'd be nice if it remained so..

One factor so far overlooked is that a significant percentage of the abusers will be former victims of abuse, and a significant percentage of their victims will go on to be abusers. That cycle will have been going on for generations and will continue to do so unless it is somehow stopped. The cycle has to be broken; it's downright madness to provide the opportunity for one priest to abuse a hundred children, and knowingly doing that is about as evil as it gets. Pretending to be representing 'God' whilst committing these crimes doesn't even bear thinking about, and believing it is insane.

Perhaps now more of it is being brought to light than ever before, we stand a chance of bringing about the demise of this social disease, or at least reducing it to a minimum. I certainly hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:54 AM

Just in case it be thought that the church has in any way been chastened by the events brought to light by the Ryan and Murphy Reports and might have actually learnd any lesson; it is claimed in today's Irish Times that "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, directing them to report, solely and exclusively all matters pertaining to child abuse by their clergy, to the Vatican alone, and not to the civil authority. A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:17 AM

That really is a stinker indeed, Jim. It is not universal that there is no shame — I have mentioned before on another thread our surprise in visting LA's beautiful new RC Cathedral 5 or so years ago, on finding a special prayer chapel dedicated to the victims of clerical child abuse. But this papal call for confidentiality is a real chiller.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:51 PM

"the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, etc."

That seems to imply that he knows or assumes there is a lot that hasn't come to light yet. This is a case of too much power in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Building chapels and praying for the victims is an insult - in fact in effect it's little more than investing money in property (U.S.=real estate?) which should have been given to the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:06 PM

Jim, is that recent? That brings out my buried Lewesian anti-potpourriishness. Rooted in the suspicion that the Papacy regarded itself as over-riding the sovereignty of local governments. That members of the church should be instructed to be complicit in covering up a crime, and such a crime, beggars belief.

Now if he were instructing church members not to collaborate with local laws of the sort established in Nazi Germany, or possibly about to be enacted in Uganda, that would be one thing. But to propose that crimes which the founder of the church clearly denounced should come under that sort of protection is incredible.

Joe, your account of the separate tracks for bishops and priests explains much I have read here. In the Anglicans, the bishops arise from the priests. The admin is separate, as far as I can make out, with characters called Deans, and Archdeans, who have also risen from the parish levels, but are more to do with the fabric and finance, while the bishops do the pastoral stuff.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM

"....too much power in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons."
In the light of what has happened it would appear that 'the wrong people' are all to be found in the ranks of the church. This is a criminal matter, not a church one.
All of this has to be regarded in the light of what is happening here at present. The Vatican has been aware of the situation for a long time and has hampered enquiries by ignoring correspondence. There are calls for a boycott of mass throughout Ireland, the dismissing of every church official who took part in the cover-up, the expulsion of the papal nuncio from Ireland and even a break from Rome altogether.
The family of some of the victims of abuse have called for the dismissal of the Bishop there for his part in the affair as well as an enquiry into the diocese of Limerick similar to that just reported on in Dublin.
I wonder why the phrase "stop digging" keep coming into my mind!   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:24 PM

Quite right Jim - it is 'criminal', in every sense of the word, and should be treated as such. I'm glad the Irish people are taking the blinkers off at last. They deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:34 PM

"Jim, is that recent?"
Sorry Penny - missed yor queston.
It came u in today's paper and was, as far as I know, referring to 2 recent letters.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MartinRyan
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM

it is claimed in today's Irish Times that "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, directing them to report, solely and exclusively all matters pertaining to child abuse by their clergy, to the Vatican alone, and not to the civil authority. A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin."


FWIW
Depends what you mean by "recent" - and what you mean by "Pope". It was 2001 and he (the current Pope) wasn't Pope!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:11 PM

Jim never lets accuracy get in the way of a good line...:0)

The church should be caned for the cover up...an attempted damage limitation excercise which went wrong.

The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys
Get your fuckin' heads straight!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM

The ironic thing is that the ancient Christian Church , in Ireland, to around the time of Norman invasion ,had clergy who had wives and families [Therefore a family name "MacanT'aggart" (spelling ?) as someone pointed out.] The earliest Christians also allowed a normal relationship between priests and women.
The later pronouncement of the"celibacy"law probably gave rise to various illicit modes of satisfaction.If this rule became one that , in true Irish tradition, was honoured more in the breach than in the observance , one can see the roots of the Irish church's corruption.
I know that this abuse is not exclusive to Irish Clergy but, the missionary zeal of Irish priests (and religious organisations) did help to spread catholicism did it not ?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:49 PM

"A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin."

What evuidence did the Irish Times provide to support this allegation?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MartinRyan
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:21 PM

lox

My understanding is that the existence of the letters from Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the defence of the Faith ( as I think it's called) is not disputed. I suspect their use of Latin is quite routine.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM

A lack of dispute does not constitute the same thing as an admission.

If you make an accusation against somebody they are under no obligation to acknowledge you in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:46 PM

Sorry Martin, I missed your post concerning the timeframe etc.

Though i would still be curious to know if this "common knowledge" were ever substantiated.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MartinRyan
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:01 PM

lox

A lack of dispute does not constitute the same thing as an admission.

I never suggested otherwise. I simply stated the current reported position in Ireland, given that some of the comments in this thread display some ignorance of that position. If and when there is confirmation or otherwise of the claim, I will let you know.

More generally, can I reiterate that the core of the PRESENT controversy is the response of the bishops to their own knowledge, over the years, of clerical abuse of children, homosexual and otherwise? To divert that focus to the indisputable horrors of the abuse itself only encourages the tendency of the hierarchy to deplore the abuse and apologise for their own "failure to deal with it". It was not a "failure" but a very successful, as far as it went, strategy to protect the church from "scandal". Until individual bishops face up to this, they - and a dwindling number of conservative Catholics - can wring their hands in anguish - and continue to protect a church which has seriously lost its moral way.


Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:38 PM

"The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys. Get your fuckin' heads straight!"

Why is that relevant, Akenaton? Priests get put in charge of boys and nuns get the girls (generally). Ironically they do that (partly) to lessen the opportunity for heterosexual abuse (or 'temptation'). That strategy worked, to some degree, but ultimately backfired in the form of a disproportionate amount of homosexual abuse.

To the best of my knowledge, homosexuals don't abuse children any more than anyone else, and I don't see any moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual child abuse. Either way, most of the victims will end up screwed up and about a third of them will go on to be abusers themselves. Some will commit suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:53 AM

"Jim never lets accuracy get in the way of a good line...:"
I passed on the information word for word as I read it - if you know different, please explain, and please trying to score points on this horrendously sordid and tragic affair.
"The church should be caned for the cover up"
The church has been involved in a cover-up of major crimes and those involved should be treated as criminals. As a correspondent put it in the letters page of the I.T. yesterday, how would it be if a school was found to have paedophile teachers whose behaviour had been covered up by the senior staff; and then it was later discovered that these practices were common to the whole of the education system; would a 'caning' suffice for ALL the perpetrators, abusers and their accomplices?
"The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys."
Once again; if it is a 'homosexual' affair, it is also a clerical/Catholic/Christian/religious one. Do we treat clerics, Catholics, Christians, and the religiously inclined with the same suspicion and ascertain that they are never entrusted with the care of children again?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:56 AM

Should read 'please stop trying to score points'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 04:08 AM

Okay, since I was spending more time in the studio, instead of on here, I gather that some of you want to:
1. Beat up the church,
2. Overthrow the government for it
3. Deny homosexuality was a factor
4. Hang all priests
5. Argue stupid non-issues, instead of doing anything...
....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!

When you get the truth about it, ignore it, and bitch about, for the sake of bitching, how can an impartial observer come to any conclusion...except jeez there's a lot of bitching in here. Hope they play their guitars better than they make sense...betcha they can't even play with other musicians, because they argue and bitch about everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 05:00 AM

"....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!"
You can add this to the list of examples of your homophobia.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM

"Hang all priests"
As far as I can see, nobody has proposed any of the things on your list on this thread, though there is a letter in todays Irish Times, from an American, proposing that the death penalty be brought back in Ireland and applied to those who rape children - which is not far from what Akenaton declared his support for on the 'Death penalty for homosexuality' thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:48 PM

"....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!"

Now that does sound homophobic, though I haven't noticed any sign of 'gayness' here so far. Perhaps because I wasn't looking for it. It's nonsensical to blame homosexuality for what has happened. If it was common practice to put girls in the care of priests the overall level of abuse would be far higher.

The problem is that the Catholic church knowingly supports mass child abuse and the Irish government colludes with the church to hide and perpetuate it. Some of those poor kids would have been grateful for a nice cosy gas-chamber.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM

One to follow up is something I heard in the last day or so, that 170.000.000 is to be paid out by the catholic church to victims of this abuse from I think a nuns fund.
If this be the case to me it's an admission of guilt, and the lot of them should be sorted out.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:39 PM

I think Smokey might like to reassess the propriety of his 'nice cosy gas-chamber' formulation, tho I agree that the children's situation was indeed pitiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:17 PM

Propriety: the condition of being right, appropriate, or fitting.

Nope, I'll stick with what I said.
It's a matter of opinion, and agreement is not compulsory.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 03:46 AM

I would defend Smokey, although we don't agree over this, he is one of the few here who can discuss issues like this in a reasonable fashion and attempts to see things from a different perspective.

He also has a nice ascerbic sense of humour.
and I will expect more support from him in future!!   :0).....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 03:54 AM

"....that 170.000.000 is to be paid"
The question of reparation is confused at the present time.
Following the initial Ryan Report a settlement was agreed upon between the Government and the Church, the victims having no say in the matter. It has since been claimed that the settlement was a blanket amnesty for the clergy involved in abuse and that the figure settled on would not even cover the legal costs necessary for making a claim.
Early last week (I think) a list was published of religious organisations who have offered settlement, what they have offered, alongside their present financial assets (which makes fascinating reading in itself).
I am not sure whether the Government's original settlement still stands; many here believe it to have been done in the spirit of 'damage limitation' on behalf of the church.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:09 AM

Facebook group, membership now up to nearly 2000:

Justice For Those Abused

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM

===I would defend Smokey, although we don't agree over this, he is one of the few here who can discuss issues like this in a reasonable fashion and attempts to see things from a different perspective.
He also has a nice ascerbic sense of humour.===

Oh yes, ake: very acerbic ; very humorous; very reasonable — like his hilarious reasonable acerbic humorous ref'ce to the cosiness of gas chambers. ha·fucking·ha·fuckin·ha·fucking·ha — in acerbic reasonableness & Glorious Technicolor & ♠♠♠ & the key of F#minor!

FUCK OFF!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:32 AM

MtGM, it was not meant to be funny. I'm sorry you didn't understand or didn't agree with the comparison I was making, but there is no need to be childish. This is a very serious subject, and I would suggest that if all you can contribute to the discussion is irrelevant confrontation for your own personal satisfaction, that you follow your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:33 AM

?????

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:49 AM

===. I'm sorry you didn't understand or didn't agree with the comparison I was making===

Sorry Smokey, but the very concept of 'cosiness' in such a context is altogether beyond irony & in the filthiest of taste; & if you can't see that & apologise for it then I am genuinely sorry for you — & my advice still holds...

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:00 PM

Tell you what, MtGM, if enough people misunderstand my observation as wildly as you have, I'll make an apology. Until then, keep your sympathy. Meanwhile I suggest you read some of the accounts of the abuse we are discussing and try to put yourself in the place of some of those children.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:19 PM

Well I dont understand anything about this spat!

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:24 PM

There isn't one Ake, it's just a silly misunderstanding.
I appreciate your support, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:31 PM

& I suggest in return, Smokey, that you try putting yourself in the position of some of those who found themselves in the milieux where gaschambers were located & see how you would have appreciated oh such a delicate comparison. Could you perhaps please indicate in what way I have 'misunderstood' your observation. If you can convince me it was an appropriate one, I will in my own turn gladly climb down from the position io have taken with regard to it.

I put it to all — here's what he wrote again - 'Some of those poor kids would have been grateful for a nice cosy gas-chamber.' Can the concept of 'nice cosy', however ironic, ever be appropriate in relation to 'gas-chamber' in any circumstances? I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM

Sorry Michael
I'm afraid I see nothing but irony in Smokey's comment.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:46 PM

MtGM - I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views on the subject under discussion, but I refuse to be baited in this manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:59 PM

What do you mean, 'baited', you poor sensitive little flower! I mean, Smokey [& you listen too, Jim], whatever sympathy & empathy we must all feel for those poor horribly abused children & there's my view on the subject under discussion as I told you before], how do you imagine it helps their cause to belittle and nullify the enormities of AuschwitzBirkenau Matthausen Treblinka Sobibor in such a fashion, for any sort of rhetorical purpose!

How DARE you? How COULD you?

If you don't apologise you are really an obnoxious insensitive little ... Words do literally fail me ··· & that doesn't happen very often.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:13 PM

I wasn't belittling or nullifying anything - therein lies the misunderstanding. I apologise for giving you that impression but I assure you it wasn't intentional.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:14 PM

ARE YOU REALLY SO INSENSITIVE THAT YOU DON'T EVEN REALISE HOW ABSOLUTELY UNFORGIVABLE A THING THAT WAS TO SAY? I AM LITERALLY WEEPING AS I TYPE - TEARS ARE BLINDING MY EYES. EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL? LIKE I SHOULD GIVE A FLYING FUCK

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM

OK - CROSSPOSTED AS YOU WILL APPRECIATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LAST POST.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:27 PM

I must admit I'm rather mystified by this, MtGM, but please try to calm down. My opinion counts for nothing, mate - I'm just some geezer on the internet.

---

OK, this has gotten out of hand. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please post in the new thread (click).
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-