 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM A few years back, a RC priest friend of mine (we went to university together, and were close at that time) told me that through church confessions that incest was rampant in his parish. I told him that I felt he had a moral obligation to go to authorities. He said he could not, because of his RC church obligations. I suggested he not name names, but advise the police or social workers of thealarming incidence of incest that he wa aware of, so they could reach out to those impacted. He told me that it was not church policy to do that. I can't certify that his interpretation of local RC church policy was correct, at that time. But, this always struck me as an unchristian face of the RC church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM "Makes WHAT all right?" FFS, the centre I worked in exacted high standards in its volunteers, why couldn't the freaking Priest-ery bollox. How many of us are supposed to stay 'reasonable' now? I've lost lt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:01 PM I suspect we will see beyond the tips of the icebergs all around the world. The more you seek, the more you find. Nearly 2,700 call German church abuse hot line: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNOfSa1jBGKk_KjTBCQ6rTFoqJ7AD9ETNU201 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:59 PM And the effect of absolution is? Restoration of the soul to a state of grace. That alone should encourage the penitent to do the right thing and face civil justice. My original point was that simply going to one's priest, say at his office or rectory, and confessing a crime does not in itself obligate the priest to silence. In such a situation the priest should say, "You've got to go to the police and admit what you've done. I'll get my coat and go with you." Obviously, that was not done in the instances we have been discussing here, and that is shameful, for the individuals involved and for the Church as an institution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:56 PM "Would you speak freely to a psychiatrist if you were aware the psychiatrist was obliged to report your statement to the police"? If doctors and social workers were not required by law to report any signs or expressions of child abuse to the police, many more children would suffer child abuse....some which was similar to what was seen under the protection of agents of the RC churrch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM And the effect of absolution is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:39 PM I see, is that some comedy hat, that makes it all alright or something? Makes WHAT all right? The stole is a vestment, a strip of cloth worn around the neck to indicate that a sacrament of the Church is being performed. Receiving absolution does not mean that the penitent is released from responsibility for the consequences of his/her sin. That's why the confessor might make the absolution conditional on submission to civil law and punishment. That's certainly what I would do were I a priest hearing a confession of child molestation. Under those circumstances, if the offender refused to do so, there would be no absolution. But the priest cannot reveal the details of the confession under any circumstances, period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM Jim - 'Tip of the iceberg' is exactly what I meant. We do not yet know the true extent of the cover-ups and probably never will, because where it has been truely successful it will remain covered up. Long may the process of discovery continue, but any statistics based merely on what has so far been discovered are an unreliable indicator of the extent of the abuse in terms of distribution or quantity, hence my earlier remark about Poland, and in previous threads about Africa and India. Beeliner - Yes, that is exactly what I meant by 'confession'. The priest fails to report his knowledge of a crime to the authorities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:21 PM True that confessions don't get reported. But stuff you find out because someone reports it you of course should report. Keep reading Andrew Sullivan. He is printing stories now of the abused. And now they are talking about how abusers were sent to Alaska to Native communities. Not even the tip of the iceberg. Oh, there could be real icebergs there couldn't there. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:18 PM "The priest must be wearing the stole" I see, is that some comedy hat, that makes it all alright or something? Honestly I find myself removed farther and farther away from formal Christianity. Give me Thomas a Kempis any day over this utter bollox. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:28 PM Priests do not report crimes confessed to them to the relevant authorities. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, it has to be a sacramental confession for the 'seal' to apply. The priest must be wearing the stole and the admission must be for the specific purpose of obtaining absolution, which the priest might, at his discretion, withhold or make conditional. In the latter case, the condition could be that the penitent turn him/herself in to the authorities and confess the crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM Joe, in one of those reports Budzinski and another witness described Cousins yelling in the presence of Murphy. In the other, Budzinski told people at a meeting that Cousins yelled at him when there was seemingly no other victim present. Even if Budzinski was lying through his teeth both times, your comment about Sullivan would still be out of order. Your recent comments, and your reference to the (slightly catchpenny but entirely justified) headline on Sullivan's article, more than ever convince me that you have no grasp of the damage that has been done, and is being done, to Ratzinger's "one true church" beyond your own local community and your own immediate experiences; damage that emanates not from the behaviour of individual errant priests but from attitudes and policies which Ratzinger had a direct role in entrenching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM "They "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous." The hierarchy of the church (including at least two popes) knew crimes were being committed yet they did not report them to the authorities - they moved the criminals on to commit further crimes - they forced the victims of those crimes to sign agreements not to speak about their experiences to anybody other than officers of the organisation that contrived in the committing of the abuses - not one of them has been prosecuted for collusion in those crimes. Which part of this do you deny happened Joe, and if none, what other explanation do you have other than the existance of an organisation that considers itself above and not answerable to the law? If it were employees in the education system who had acted in the above manner after having continuously and over a very long period sexually and physically abused the children in their care, would you be as understanding and ready to forgive as you apparently are of the clergy and hierarchy of the church? akenaton So far you have: Described the objectors to the rape and abuse of chidren as "religiphobes!" Suggested that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles. Described the church as providing a safe haven for "homosexuals and criminals" Perhaps you would like to go for a 'full house' and tell us how guilty you believe the victims of these abuses were for the crimes committed against them? Smokey "Regarding 'coverups' - we are only aware of the ones which failed." No; we are only aware of the ones that have been investigated so far that have failed. The brief of the investigating bodies covered a very limited time period and a tiny number of dioceses, yet it is reported that these abuses certainly went back, at the very least to the end of the Second World War, possibly throughout the twentieth century and were widespread throughout the church. The Government here has to date refused to investigate similar offences committed against young women who were sentenced by the authorities to work in the Magdelene Laundries - also run by the church. Tip of the iceberg. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:17 AM I'm not aware of anyone who can legally withhold information from the authorities about an active child abuser in this country. Obviously the priest's crime never gets discovered as long as he is silent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:51 PM Counselors for some time have had to report certain things in order to prevent murders etc. And the church did place itself above the law. Would they have voluntarily turned people over to the police if there had not been public pressure? Did they? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:47 PM Oh, yes, Smokey, I suppose the "seal of confession" is one exception. It's honored by government in the U.S. and in Ireland, but not in all nations. Such an exception is also granted to medical personnel, psychiatrists, and professional counselors. It wouldn't be quite fair to have a counselor required to reveal what is told to them in confidence in a professional counseling session. Would you speak freely to a psychiatrist if you were aware the psychiatrist was obliged to report your statement to the police? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:37 PM Regarding 'coverups' - we are only aware of the ones which failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:04 PM The "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous. Canon law covers church functions. It does not supersede or countermand civil criminal law. Canon law covers church procedures, not government procedures. Failing to report a crime is an offence in most countries. Priests do not report crimes confessed to them to the relevant authorities. Church law/policy habitually obstructs the course of justice in this manner, and in the eyes of the church, supersedes criminal law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:39 PM So, Peter (Fionn), we have two accounts of an interview of Budzinski:
Jim Carroll, in a typically dramatic overstatement, says: And a church that has placed itself above the law (in fact has invented their own law as an alternative) harboured and protected them and allowed them to carry on with their abuse. The "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous. Canon law is a system of internal rules for the Catholic Church. It does not supersede or countermand civil criminal law. Canon law covers church procedures, not government procedures. You make it sound as if it were wrong for an organization like a church to have internal rules. Nothing in Catholic canon law prohibits civil authorities from prosecuting crimes. That's just silly for you to imply otherwise. The facts of the matter are bad enough, Jim. There's no need for your exaggeration. It does appear that the coverup was far more widespread in Ireland than in other countries, because it was the highest-ranking bishops in Ireland who were doing the coverups. Yes, coverups happened in dioceses in the US and in other countries, but certainly not in the majority of dioceses - except that in Ireland, it appears that there were serious coverups in almost every diocese. And as I read the authority structure of the Catholic Church, the primary responsibility for oversight (or lack of oversight) in this matter lies in the individual dioceses, and not in Rome. For the most part, dioceses are autonomous; so 'the buck stops' in the office of the local bishop - for the most part. Rome has some oversight authority, but not as much as is implied in many posts here. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:23 PM This may help some who arev confused by the issue of homosexuality....that is not the center of the thread topic...though it ic likely related in the discussion....in some way. http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/faq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM "One thread at a time please!" You are the one who insists on turn this into a homophobic rant rather than what it is - clerical and church-sanctioned abuse. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM Joe O made this observation awhile back on another post: ".... in many dioceses there is a strong homosexual culture among a certain small (but significant) faction of priests - in certain circles of priests, you'd think you were in the Castro District of San Francisco. Conduct is overtly sexual and flirtatious. "Straight" priests feel very uncomfortable in such circles, and can often seek friendship with parishioners instead of with classmates if this sexual culture is too strong. I would guess from the overtly sexual attitude of priests in these factions, that celibacy is not important to them. As I said above, there was a time in my sophomore year of college when this sexual atmosphere was very strong, and it felt unhealthy to me until a number of people were removed by psychological screening. While I was in the seminary, I did not know of any students being sexually active. Some did go on dates with women, but I never heard of male-male dating. I never, ever heard talk of anybody even thinking about having sex with children, or professors having sex with high school or college seminary students". Joe's personal observations indicate a homosexuality community within the RC church (not surprising) , but does not indicate a link between those from the homosexua group within the RC church and the child sex abuse(I am unsure if anyone followed up on those comitting crimes, as to their sexual preference in society, after leaving the church). I suspect some are confused as to whether the male sexual child abuse was in the RC church was situational homosexuality or dispositional homosexuality (see the attached link with observations on the prison homosexuality scene for the difference). If it was mostly situational, (as within prison) then could the impact of celebacy not be a valid theory? Access to the complete document is not online. But the site does give one an idea of the observations....and possibly more rersources exist on the topic online. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/crmrev9&div=9&id=&page= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:27 AM You've already been well stuffed on the other! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:25 AM One thread at a time please! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:52 AM "What a furore from the religiphobes!" After a silence fromour resident homophobe. "I am an oft admitted atheist, who tries to understand the needs of others." As long as those 'others' sexual practices ar te same as your own - of course. Jim Caroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM Personally, I think the 'petty gossip' remark was pretty much the last straw. My faith in my Church is hovering near zero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM For immediate release: Sunday, April 4, 2010 Lofty statements from Vatican officials do not change the facts Statement by Barbara Blaine, SNAP President 312-399-4747 Lofty statements from Vatican officials do not change the facts. Deeply wounded victims and our family members need comfort and healing but instead receive reprimands and insults. When we speak up and tell how our childhood innocence was shattered by sexual assaults by priests it is not "petty gossip." Learning that church officials, including the Pope, failed to intervene to protect us as children has rubbed salt into our wounds. The track record of the Pope has been to cover up and seek silence about the sex crimes by priests. The Pope has said very little and taken no decisive action to rid the church of the sexual predators nor to offer justice to victims. While Sodano and other church officials keep claiming the Pope has done so much the victims still seek concrete action from the Pope. SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world's largest and oldest support group for victims of clergy sexual abuse. Founded in 1988, SNAP has over 9,000 members. http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/canadaworld/article/1006707 http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2010_statements/040410_lofty_statements_from_vatican_officials_do_not_change_the_fact |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:52 AM "an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal" Likely not as outraged by the victims and their families? I suspect that the scandal had a number of impacts: 1) Outrage and distrust in the RC heirachy by many members of the RC church 2) Outrage and concern about the local financial impact....and a focus on dealing with the new financial reality. 3) Embarassment and reduced sense of trust by the laity...some who have left or have looser ties with or ttust in the central RC organization....this could stimulate significant future change. 4) Attempts to save the brand, demonize those questioning the RC organization (including the media) ....much like defense lawyers attempt to convince the public that what happened , could not have happened, or was really not representative or all that bad ....read some of the defenses on the web and by the Vatican. 5) As to the priests and bishops....I suspect they either had their suspicians that this was happening or knew it was happening all along...though the magnitute may have been an eye opener. I suspect there is embarassment by priests or nbishops who were not involved or complacent (likely to varying degrees). Joe O makes reference a case of a local compassionate reaching out to those who were violated by priests. While what he describes seems like a genuine attempt to help victims...I have not seen similar actions where I live, and I suspect it is an anomoly, rather than a reflection of what occured in most other locals. As to the discussion of whether good people do good things...it's a no brainer...yes, they do....and they do so regardless of what organization they are affiliated with or bound by. Yes, there area vast number of good priests and bishops....and maybe events will separate the good from the bad....as its hard to believe that some guilty folks and those complacient are not still in power positions within the RC church heirachy. A more meaningful discussion would be did the Vatican, the RC structure and priests and bishops doing to help victims? I do not feel they have stood up to the challenge....and possibly are still far from the mark....beyond saying we are sorry....which likely rings hollow when they are still in the defensive and denial mode. I have noted that in the past few weeks a few bishops and priests have broken ranks with the Vatican and have said some good things....expressing their personal outrage and remorse....and committment to help heal those violated and rebuild a stronger church....none of the defensive bunk. That is a small sign of rebuilding trust.....versus what is happing with the Vatican. |
|
Subject: RE: BShttp://mud: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM It's pretty easy for an unscrupulous reporter to put words in the mouth of a deaf person, isn't it? On reflection you might like to retract that unfounded smear, Joe. (Wisconsin: victim speaks out) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:14 AM I would agree with that, my use of the word "need" was wrong, but I'm sure you understand my meaning. These crimes should be dealt with through the courts, although getting corroborating evidence could be difficult in most of the cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 05 Apr 10 - 07:48 AM "Isn't the important thing to cut the rates of abuse in the Church, then there would be no need for any sort of cover up." There is never any "need" for a cover-up on the contrary there is always a "need" for transparancy. Other organisations like the education system deal with abusers properly. You're never going to utterly eliminate the abuse of power by those in power either, however many checks are in place, there will always be those who will slip through. Thus it's essential that any organisation that others are expected to trust in, demonstrate they are trustworthy by dealing efficiently with such problems - rather than trying to cover their own backs by offering silence, protection and shelter to depraved and dangerous individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:01 AM What a furore from the religiphobes! Isn't the important thing to cut the rates of abuse in the Church, then there would be no need for any sort of cover up. The Church is run as any other organised religion, like a huge corporation, the people who run it will always have a corporate mindset. That said there are literally hundreds of millions who simply could not function in society without spiritual aid.....are they to be left to suffer because "liberals" do not like the conservative nature of religion. This very conservatism is what gives strength and hope to the needy, most of whom just do not understand the huge changes in society, changes which look to most of them as utter madness. As I have said, it looks like most of the abuse reported so far has not been paedophilia as we generally understand it, but homosexual abuse of teenagers.....this needs to be addressed! Having said that, there are cases of paedophilia showing up and a very good start in reducing such abuse would be to employ priests who have an understanding and empathy with children. Change the celibacy rule, vet all new entrants to the priesthood for psychiatric problems and sexual abuse history. Admit responsibility for a bad rule and tighten up the system.....then get back to doing a very necessary job Jim Carrol.....I am an oft admitted atheist, who tries to understand the needs of others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:19 AM All I ask for is a balanced perspective, an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal. You will realise that in the light of everything that went down it's very hard to balance the few 'no-hassle settlements' you mention with how the church in Ireland handled things in that respect : they sent two 'tough as nails nuns' (description from the other negotiators) who hammered out a deal that capped the financial responsibility of the church in such a way that the state and taxpayer were effectively responsible for any financial compensation of victims of abuse that took place in the church run industrial schools. Only after reports that revealed the extend of the abuse were published and the pressure of public opinion became too strong most of the orders (though not all) agreed to shoulder the financial burden. Not before some orders made sure the majority of their assets were put out of harm's way though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:16 AM "Child molesters did the molestation....." And a church that has placed itself above the law (in fact has invented their own law as an alternative) harboured and protected them and allowed them to carry on with their abuse. The Pope's epistle proved to the world that this mindset is very much in place in the Vatican, and that if the abuse carried out hadn't taken place on the scale that it did, this wouldn't have registered on their Richter Scale. The church, from top to bottom, were fully aware that these rapes and physical abuses (significant that these haven't really entered the equasion to any great degree) were taking place and their only action was to protect the abusers by moving them on to continue their 'little weaknesses' - even to the extent of forcing the victims to sign declarations of silence. ALL the crimes committed by the church should be exposed in their entirity, punished fully and the influence that it once held should never be returned to it. The disturbing backdrop to all this is that the Catholic church is fighting tooth-and-nail to retain access to the minds of Irish children through their schools. If not the minds - why not their bodies - it's happened before? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM This article and this article make it appear that Archbishop Cousins may have been yelling at the child-molesting priest, not at the deaf students. the quote: Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, two more victims of Murphy, said in an interview last week that they remember seeing Archbishop Cousins yell, and Murphy staring at the floor. It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan misquoted the interview of Budzinski. Frogprince, I think if the Milwaukee Archdiocese had its way, Fr. Murphy would not have functioned as a priest at all after he was removed from his position. There is no indication that he served as a priest anywhere near Milwaukee after his removal. But he moved to the remote area near Superior, as far away from Milwaukee as you can go and still be in Wisconsin. In the meantime, Milwaukee got a new archbishop, and I imagine Murphy was forgotten. If he had applied for permanent assignment in Superior, I would hope he would have been checked out. But since this was just fill-in service, celebrating Mass when the regular priest was absent, he went unnoticed for twenty years. And apparently he led some weekend retreats, which are often locally organized and not official functions. It wouldn't happen that way with the restrictions that were put in place after 2000, but there were no set procedures for handing child molestation cases in the 1970s. Child molestation was known to happen occasionally at the time - but until this last decade, the extent of the problem just wasn't known. And even though Murphy did continue to function on a limited basis after his removal from the Milwaukee Archdiocese, he did not get a permanent assignment in the other diocese, and there are no reports that he molested anyone after his removal. That being said, it should also be noted that it took many, many years for the deaf students to get the attention of the Archdiocese. It appears that the previous Milwaukee archbishop, who later became Albert Cardinal Meyer of Chicago, had been told of the allegations sometime between 1955 and 1963, and Meyer sent Murphy on retreat and "then put him back in the school to undo 'the harm he had done.'" Meyer had the reputation of being a man of integrity, but apparently he did not take the allegations seriously. At the time, I and most Catholics (and most Catholic priests and bishops) thought it unthinkable that priests or our grandmothers could ever commit a crime. As a result, it took a long, long time for the deaf students to get the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to take them seriously. But when they got the attention of Archbishop Cousins, Cousins removed Murphy within a matter of months. Ed T says:
I don't know what to think about Pope Benedict in this matter yet, particularly with the allegations that he failed to discipline a molester priest when he was archbishop of Munich. So far, I think Benedict's actions as pope have been appropriate. As for Pope John Paul II, I think it's clear that he did wrong, and I am completely opposed to his canonization as a saint. The right-wing religious order, the Legion of Christ, founded in Mexico in 1940 by Fr. Marcial Maciel. By the late 1990s, it was widely know that several seminarians had reported that Maciel had molested them, but John Paul continued to support Maciel. The only excuse I can think of, is that maybe John Paul was too sick to be fully able to comprehend the seriousness of the charges against Maciel. John Paul was very ill with Parkinson's disease for the last ten years of his papacy, and I don't think he was capable of doing his job. After John Paul died and Benedict was elected Pope, Maciel was almost immediately removed from public ministry, allowed only to celebrate Mass in private and to live in seclusion until his death. In recent years, more evidence about Maciel's molestation offenses have come to light, and it was learned that he fathered children by a number of women. And I can't figure out how in the world John Paul didn't see what was so evident to the rest of us. So, I think JPII was dead wrong - but I haven't made up my mind about Benedict yet. Right now, what I say about him is that he isn't as bad as I expected him to be - and I do think that Benedict "did the right thing" about Maciel, after the many years that JPII neglected that problem. -Joe- Here (click) is a YouTube video of an undated ABC report on the Maciel situation. Note that at the time, both Ratzinger and John Paul did not accept the allegations against Maciel. If they had acted against Maciel when the allegations first became public in 1997, the Catholic Church would have a lot more credibility. Do take notice of how debilitated John Paul appears in the video. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: frogprince Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM Joe, I've found almost all that you've said here to be at least measured and reasonable. But I can't quite swallow this: A priest molests deaf children for 20+ years. An effort is made to prevent him from continuing to commit more heinous acts. But the son of a bitch is allowed, in a "limited" way, to continue to appear as a spiritual leader, a representative of the church and of Christ himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM Joe, please stop assuming that none of us believe that there are "good people" in the church. When my grandmother was in a coma, her Catholic prayer group prayed for her around the clock until she came out of it. Her own Priest was with her through thick and thin during her illness and it was her Christian faith that kept her together during months of sickness and pain (with no painkillers) prior to her death. She chose to become a Catholic, against her parents wishes, at sixteen because she was called to. The ordinary and good people, are victims of this self-serving and deeply morally corrupt cover-up organised by the church's hierachy. I feel very sorry for these people. And as I say, I'm glad it's not me having my faith rocked right now. But I have nothing but contempt for a supposedly spiritual *organisation* which secretly colludes in the activities of paedophile members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:12 PM Research has demonstrated an association between child sexual abuse and a subsequent increase in rates of childhood and adult mental disorders. People with a history of sexual abuse are much more likely to experience higher rates for childhood and adult mental disorders, personality disorders, anxiety disorders and major affective disorders post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, chronic depression, substance use problems, personality disorders, suicidal tendencies, psychotic symptoms (e.g. delusions and hallucinations), low self-esteem, guilt and a feeling of being tainted, increased tendancies to do self-harm, dissociative disorders, difficulties in relationships and at work. My rant: So, if the RC church, and its members, do so much good in the world, why did they not reach out to those whom they knew were abused by RC priests? When those abused came forward, and as cases were confirmed, why did the church and its members not proactively offer sympathy, compassion and professional treatment? My observation was the abyse claims were first ignored, then doubted and the victims were publically marginalized, attempts were made to cover-up the crimes…in some cases the victims were blamed for the abuse….attempts were made to belittle the seriousness of the offenses (for example, through using population statistics, and by saying they were not children when the offenses occured, but prepubscent young people). When they took actions through the courts…the church and many members blamed the victims for the financial results on the local churches. ...and still do (if they could take an objective view). So….where were these good caring people…reaching out with compassion to help heal and treat those subjected to chuld abuse under the hand of those in a position of authority inside the RC church? It may be that other organizations (and those involving other clerics) did no better when it comes to reaching out and helping to heal those impacted by child sex abuse, at their institutions hands. But, many of these groups do not have members agressively defending and "selling the brand" of the good works their organization and membership do in the world. Some information on the impacts of child sexual abuse: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/416 http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/child-sexual-abuse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM I think you are dead wrong about Andrew Sullivan. He is one journalist that I follow. He is an anguished Catholic. He is not trying to sell stuff. He is a gay anguished Catholic who calls himself a sinner. I don't personally think he goes for cheap shots. He seems quite rational to me, but he is a like a dog on a bone. He is not going to let go of this, for reasons that I think are highly moral and not for his career or whatever. Let's find another scapegoat instead of him..and no one is putting down the decent and heroic people who are doing all sorts of good deeds..and quite likely the pedophiles did many good deeds too. And I think we have to stand and be counted here. I think we must call for resignations, and I believe the pope's; it looks like John Paul II was involved in coverups so there goes his canonization as far as I am concerned although I liked him....I think we must insist on every known abuser meeting with experimental psychologists as well as others to determine what causes this. I think we must have our eyes wide open to this perhaps not being a problem of lonely, unsocialized repressed men and perhaps something more sinister. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:32 PM Would you accept a kiss from a homeless person? Joe, I spent most of the 70s playing in rock bands.. ok, now things may be different, but then again I'm not a nun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM Who is blaming them? Not me, for sure. I generally like them. I think they've got a very bad deal out of all this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM Yeah, Smokey, but that's the way it is in all of life, no matter who or where we are. None of us is all good, and none of us is all bad. The goodness doesn't come at the "cost" of child molestation, however. Child molesters did the molestation, and selfish and incompetent and cowardly bishops covered it up - not all bishops, but enough so that it made a horrible mess of things. But most of the people (Christian and otherwise) who work with the poor and homeless, the aging and the suffering, are courageous and generous people who had no responsibility whatsoever for the molestation of children - so, why blame them for this mess? Would you accept a kiss from a homeless person? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM It's a pity all that goodness comes at such a cost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM I knew Archbishop Cousins, Peter and Jim and Crowsister. He was a gentle man, and he never "yelled" at anybody. Andrew Sullivan took a cheap shot and went for drama instead of truth. It's pretty easy for an unscrupulous reporter to put words in the mouth of a deaf person, isn't it? It was a terrible thing that Fr. Murphy molested boys at St. John's School for the Deaf from 1950 until it came to the attention of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in 1974. Archbishop Cousins first learned of the sexual abuse in 1974, and he removed Fr. Murphy from ministry in 1974. Cousins handled the situation as it should have been handled. The local police department of the City of St. Francis should have prosecuted Fr. Murphy, but didn't. The St. Francis PD was the ultimate small-town police department, and its officers were most likely too incompetent to handle issuing parking tickets very well. As I recall, they DID have a very good team in the local bowling league, but that's about it. Even the Milwaukee Police Department was known for its incompetence and racism and "old-boy network" attitudes at the time. But there is no evidence that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee handled the case inappropriately. There were many, many child molestation cases that the Catholic Church handled badly (and sometimes criminally), but there is no evidence to show that this one one of them. But Andrew Sullivan chose to go for the cheap shot nonetheless. Take an impartial look at Sullivan's article, and you'll see it's riddled with bias. Unfortunately, Fr. Murphy moved to another diocese after he was removed from ministry, and Cousins retired in 1977. Murphy lived in the Superior Diocese, as far north as you can go in the US without going to Alaska. Very few people in southeastern Wisconsin have ever been to Duluth-Superior. It's too cold, and too far away. Murphy and his offenses were forgotten up there in Northern Wisconsin, and he was allowed to serve as a substitute priest (celebrating Mass only) for many years, until his situation came to the attention of Cousins' replacement as Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, in 1995. But both Weakland and Cousins were bishops who did things right. They may not have done things exactly the way some people might demand, but there is no evidence that Murphy was able to molest any children after he was removed from ministry in 1994. The auxiliary bishop in Milwaukee during most of the time in question was Richard Sklba, another bishop who insisted on doing things right (and my favorite Theology professor). Even then, I have to say that Weakland was a homosexual, and he paid a former lover over $400,000 when the man threatened to expose him. And I was very disappointed that Sklba had approved the blackmail payment. There is good and bad in the Catholic church - and there are people who are both good and bad, just like in real life. None of us is perfect, and none of us handles every situation perfectly. Yes, the sexual molestation and child abuse in the Catholic Church was horrific, and more of the scandal will be uncovered in the coming years. The problem was partly bungled, and partly covered up by intent. Whatever, the whole thing is a terrible scandal and a terrible mess. But on the other hand, there is much good in the Catholic Church. I have a love-hate relationship with my pastor. He is a horrible administrator, and he was a terrible boss when I was his employee. But he's a good pastor, and he has a lot of compassion. At Mass on Holy Thursday this last week, I looked over and saw him giving a shoulder massage to an 80-yr-old priest who was celebrating Mass with him. After Mass, he gave the Sacrament of the Sick to a woman who has been in pain most of the last ten years; and I saw him ministering gently to another sick person today. Last Monday, my boss took me on a tour of the Loaves and Fishes Dining Room in Sacramento, where she worked for 12 years until she came to the women's center where I do volunteer work. My boss, Sister Judy, has been a nun for fifty years. As we walked through the complex, many homeless men and women came up to talk with their legendary Sister Judy - some of the homeless people even kissed her on the lips. Judy was really in her element among the homeless, and I was half-afraid she wouldn't come back with us to our safe women's center, where most of our guests actually have a place to live. There has been great wrongdoing in the Catholic Church, and I'm sure we haven't seen the end of it - and probably never will. Nonetheless, there is great good done in the Catholic Church. It's important to look at both sides of the coin. Andrew Sullivan didn't do that, probably because it doesn't sell newspapers. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" How did a deaf child know he was being shouted at? Oh, come on - many ways, as has been pointed out. It seems very sad to me that someone should question the word of a child - not of a journalist - in defence of the indefensible - the systematic rape of children and the persistant collusion by fellow clergymen and the hierarchy in order to not only allow the perpetratory escape justice, but to continue his offences. For me , the most relevant part of the article was this: "He will not quit, of course. And he will not personally repent for these personal failings in public. This is all "petty gossip" fomented by enemies of the church. It's old news. He has reformed things. He has, in the words of the Vatican, "nonresponsibility". Others will take the fall for those crimes of the past. And the broken souls and bodies that remain out there — the scarred victims of this abuse of power — where are they this Easter? What place do they have on this, our holiest day?" And the Catholic church will continue to be led by somebody who has directly colluded in the rape of children. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" What are you smokin', Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:23 PM That post was clumsily edited, but not wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM "Thus his own pastor presents the hierarchy as victims with his antisemitism analogy (an analogy he now seems to have drawn by accident). And the dean of the cardinals' college dismisses serious allegations as "idle chatter." Joe showed just how trite the defensive mindset can get with his ludicrous question: "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" The stupid boy obviously didn't realise that the archbishop was only miming." Aye, Peter. As an aside what concerns me is that some here appear to be assuming that all the posters concerned by the Church's cover-ups are anti Cstholic & anti Christian. I'm not. I considered being Baptised a few years ago. But found another path. I've ever found beauty and wonder in the Christian mystical writings. On my Catholic Grandmother's grave, I'm profoundly glad I never bound myself to such a filthy and rotten institution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:56 PM I saw Sullivan's article before seeing the link here and thought it was way over the top, particularly where it referred to the Murphy case, in which respect Joe has pointed up a crucial deception. But every time I start to feel sorry for this wretched pope he reawakens my fury by ignoring the whole cover-up outrage. At the same time he supinely allows others at the Vatican to conduct a suicidal rearguard action. Thus his own pastor presents the hierarchy as victims with his antisemitism analogy (an analogy he now seems to have drawn by accident). And the dean of the cardinals' college dismisses serious allegations as "idle chatter." Joe showed just how trite the defensive mindset can get with his ludicrous question: "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" The stupid boy obviously didn't realise that the archbishop was only miming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM Wait until we hear from developing nations. If this can and has happened in the Netherlands, where there is not the poverty you can find elsewhere, although it exists everywhere, where there is not the desparation, wait until we hear from the Philipines and Uganda especially..and we have been hearing about situations in Uganda for a long time, more involving nuns being abused, but I think also younger and perhaps teen women. How did priests figure they would not be discovered? Or was the temptation too great to override that? How did all of these numerous bishops think that it was OK to pass these people along or not report them to child abuse people..certainly by the 1980s it was required if it was a school situation and certain people were obligated to report abuse. Was there some secret training that bishops had that let them to uniformly it seems to act in this way? Did they confer with the same upper management person? Did they act individually? If they acted individually how come there don't seem to be many people turned over to police? How many abusers were turned over to police? What prevented more? There are many unanswered questions. If each bishop made the decision by himself, how could we gotten so many numb... assembled to think this way? That they were above the law. That this could go on on their watch. That they could pass criminal behavior on to other parishes? I can't figure it out and I will not apologize for the bishops, although I wonder how many had perhaps the same problem? I don't know. mg |