 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Aug 17 - 11:58 AM Old humor is delicious, Raggytash. Jim's old anger is poison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 02 Aug 17 - 09:02 AM Joe, old they may be but the humour is still there, please try one. I am sure you will not be disappointed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Aug 17 - 03:39 AM "and I haven't been able to understand the relevance of that document." That document expressed perfectly what was happening to the music in Ireland - it wasn't the opinion of a few old many, it articulated the attitude of the church and their desire to control Irish culture Whenever the subject is discussed here in relation to what happened to the tradition, that is the one that is cited - Helen Brennan (a leading research figure in Irish dance, and Fintan Vallely both refer to it in their writings. What happened to the music back then is very much a part of these discussions. The music all but died then - it didn't die a natural death but was deliberately killed off and replaced by something else (controllable) A similar thing happened in Scotland when the Church took against the tradition - there they drove the songs underground and ended up with a magnificent reprtoire of bawdy and erotic pieces. Similarly in Wales, where the tradition was replaced by the outpourings from The Chapel In your own country, go read the writings of White, Courlander and Lomax on how the preachers preached constantly about 'The Devil's Music' All this is about control - mind and body. I grew up surrounded by strong Catholic influences, but it wasn't until I started working in Ireland that I realised how deep these influences went in peoples lives literally, from before birth to after death All forms of contraception were forbidden and women were encouraged to reproduce - no matter their financial or physical circumstances - having no children was, at best, a subject for sympathy, and at worst, a stigma. The influences of baptism, church attendance, religious pressure at school, marriage.... what you could eat (especially on Friday)... are too well to re-open here, but a number of things were a total revelation to me. I was introduced to 'Churching' by the 'Travellers' the idea that to give birth made a woman 'unclean', so much so that she was forbidden to prepare food in the home until, after a set period, she was 'Churched' (cleansed) by the priest by undergoing a set ritual The saddest, and to me, the cruelest, were 'The Killeens' Children who died after childbirth, before they could be blessed by the priest, were prohibited burial in consecrated ground and were consigned to the 'Killeens', often outside the local graveyard, but sometimes in a handy field set aside for the purpose. There are several in this area within a half hour's drive of our home This is a description of 'The Angel's Plot in Glasnevin "This Old Plot is the resting place for over fifty thousand infants who were buried there up to the 1970's. Glasnevin is one of the few Cemeteries that allowed stillborn babies to be buried in concentrated ground. In early times stillborn babies were not allowed in blessed ground, as they were unbaptised. Many babies were buried in the ditches and hedges on the outside of other cemeteries around the country. Often parents buried their babies themselves between dusk and dawn in fear of being caught and yet wanting their baby to buried in Holy Ground." Cruel or what? I sincerely believe that the Clerical abuses were a product of this desire to control Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:51 PM Let me bring up that term "anachronism" again. The year is 2017, and we are well into the 21st Century. The last Index of Forbidden Books was published by the Catholic Church in 1948, and the Index was abolished altogether in 1966. Jim refers at length to a document on dancing written by an Irish archbishop in 1925, and I haven't been able to understand the relevance of that document. I appreciate the book recommendations for their historical interest, but not for their current relevance. The Tailor and Ansty (1942) was banned by the Irish Censorship of Publications Board, but not by the Catholic Church. I'm sure the works of John B. Keane are interesting, so thanks to Raggytash for recommending The Bodhran Makers (1986) and Letters of a Matchmaker (1975). But as an American, I see these publications as 40 to 90 years old, and I can't see how anyone can use them as basis for a condemnation of the current situation of the Catholic Church. Maybe long grudges is what Ireland is all about, though. I had a run-in with a Cork-born priest in the 1980s, and then didn't see him for 25 years. He became pastor of my parish in 2005, and proceeded to make me miserable until he finally went back to Cork last year. He'll be back for the next month, so I plan to steer clear of the bastard. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 01 Aug 17 - 03:46 PM Jim in the old days to get a book on the index didn't someone have to read it, it was a dirty job but someone had to do it. I wonder if they ever got a second opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Aug 17 - 09:10 AM It's interest to note that one of Ireland's great classics - 'The Tailor and Ansty' - a must for anybody interested in Irish rural life, humour and vernacular speech), remained on "The Index" - the Church's list of banned books, for many decades (it may well still be on it) The elderly heroin, Ansty, had a habit of referring to her husband as "my stal (stallion)" - that level of conjugal enjoyment didn't go down too well with them upstairs. Wonder what they'd have made of Tom Jones or Moll Flanders!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:50 AM Joe, one of the great Irish writers is John B Keane, his observations of the Catholic church are extremely insightful and often very funny. Try The Bodhran Makers and the Letters of a Matchmaker I am sure you will enjoy his astute observations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Aug 17 - 06:38 AM "Was this Chesterton's Father Brown, Jim??" It's a currently running series based on the Chesterton stories - too long since I read them to remember which were his and which are new. This, From Helen Brennan's article in 'History Ireland' This process of selection was paralleled in the attempted creation of a new milieu for dance. Ceilis were held in local halls and schools separate from the locations traditionally favoured by the people – the house, barn or cross-roads. The more formal dances organised by the Gaelic League found favour with the Catholic clergy who had long fulminated against the country house dances. In 1925 the Catholic bishops attacked the evils of late-night dancing and gave their seal of approval to the Gaelic League dances: 'They may not be the fashion in London or Paris. They should be the fashion in Ireland'. They observed that 'Irish dances do not make degenerates'. The combined opposition of church and state to informal dances which were outside their control led to the passing of the 1935 Public Dance Hall Act which confined the holding of dances to places licensed for such a purpose and which imposed a government tax on the admission price. According to Junior Crehan, a noted fiddle player and folklorist from Mullagh, County Clare: "They believed that there was immoral conduct carried out at the country houses and that there was no sanitary arrangements, that was their excuse. You had to pay three pence tax to the shilling going into the hall which meant money to the government. They didn't care if you made your water down the chimney as long as they collected the money." I was present when Junior made his remark at a talk he gave during the Willie Clancy Summer School in the early 80s He was one of the most devout Catholics we ever met, yet he deliberately directed his remark to a row of priests and nuns from the local convent who were sitting directly in front of us. A ripple of discomfort ran down the whole line of them Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Aug 17 - 05:13 AM Was this Chesterton's Father Brown, Jim?? Joe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Aug 17 - 04:33 AM "Interesting that the good Archbishop disapproves " You've ignored the rest Joe - not worthy of you The church was responsible for taking Irish music from the homes and crossroads and putting it into commercial and tightly supervised hands If you have Fintal Valelly's 'Companion to Irish Music', I suggest you read the long entry of 'The Dance Halls act' Every Irish musicians we ever met and recorded cursed the priests for "destroying our music", as devout as they were - that continued to be an attitude right into the 1990s. The Bishop was saying what the rest of them were doing - the forcible breaking up of dances, the smashing of musical instruments, the reading of names at Mass..... all grist to the church's mill. It's as much a part of history as is 1917. The problem with the church is that they were obsessed with sex and they believed that any unsupervised activities were "The Devil's Playground" I have little doubt that one the Irish crossed The Pond the grip was broken - inevitable in a multi-racial and religious country like the U.S., but that's the way it remained back home in 'Holy Ireland'. One of the great dichotomies was the contrast between what th Church said and what its priests did. Off their own bat, the Church leaders made sex dirty - a necessary evil, (excellent depiction of this in Leon Uris's 'Trinity') while their priests ran rampant among those under their influence - and were ignored, and even on some occasions, assisted. There is a nice summing up of the hypocrisy in a detective series I was watching last night. The main character, Father Brown, objecting to the treatment of fallen women by the nuns, says to the Mother Superior: "But our Saviour was conceived out of wedlock" "Yes", came the reply, "but the Good Lord sent down Joseph to make an honest woman of her". It still raises a smile Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jul 17 - 10:33 PM Well, Jim, that's an interesting anachronism. Interesting that the good Archbishop disapproves only of "imported" dances, particularly on Sunday. He seems to approve of Irish dances. I used to chaperone dances in the parish hall of a Polish parish in Milwaukee in the 1960s. We did have a problem with girls smuggling alcohol inside their purses, and then the boys would get hold of it and get drunk and have fights. We had a bunch of young seminarians chaperone, but then one got beat up. After that, I was the only one allowed to chaperone because I was the only seminarian who knew all the kids. The kids liked playing bodyguard for me. Wherever I went, I was surrounded by three or four tough-looking boys. They didn't do any Irish dances there.... No polkas, either - but adult dances at Milwaukee Catholic churches had polkas, and the Chicken Dance. Favorites at California Catholic dances for adults are "YMCA," "Give Me that Old-Time Rock 'n" Roll," and "Boot-Scootin' Boogie." There was a beautiful, brilliant, wonderful young woman in that youth group who had a desperate crush on me. She was in tears when I told her I was intent on becoming a celibate priest.... Oh, but she was beautiful. The kind of woman you write songs about, years later. Her name was Merri. Tall, with long, silky hair and a beautiful smile. And a big heart....and I broke it - but I'll never forget her. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: robomatic Date: 31 Jul 17 - 02:06 PM You do not mess with basic human drives without consequences. Think of the forces within nature which one sublimates at one's peril. Think of grass bursting through sidewalks, of water wearing down rock, of Spock during pan farr. You can legislate, you can regulate, you can perorate, but everyone does it, or there be consequences. Deuteronomy says thou shalt not muzzle the ox when it treads the grain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Greg F. Date: 30 Jul 17 - 06:22 PM Ake, can you PLEASE take your idiotic homophobic bullshit somewhare else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: CupOfTea Date: 30 Jul 17 - 03:56 PM Difficult reading, to consider this entire thread. I survived 14 years of Catholic education, (Ursuline sisters), 8 years of Catholic summer camp (mostly Adrian, Michigan Dominicans) and never encountered any sexual impropriety firsthand, nor heard of it secondhand. Physical abuse peaked with Sr. Ancilla breaking flimsy hardware store wooden yardsticks while whacking at the young lads who vexed her. It was only in later years that any of the sex abuse scandal touched me, and the fallout was the mandated sexual abuse training (VIRTUS) that I was required to take, as was every person in the Diocese of Cleveland, (clergy, religious, teacher, coach or volunteer) who would have contact with minors while associated with the church. While parts of it were educational, like pedophile "grooming" victims, other large parts of it made me deeply sad, as they were obviously rules designed so that there would be no way whatsoever that any accusations could stand against the adults. More than the "protecting God's children" it was clearly protecting the diocese's bottom line. Some of the new rules about interaction tragically eliminated situations where some of the best mentoring could take place. Not touching a student without asking their permission gets weird when teaching anything physical - sports, arts, cooking, dance. Never being alone with a student without an open door- just how do you do that when you're helping her pin a close fitting garment she's trying on in clothing class? The follow-up website work was disgustingly insulting of the intelligence of those of us required to take it. An aspect of the whole shebang that occurred to me was: someone is making a cartload of money with these mandated programs. I casually knew one of the priests who were cast out over sexual allegations; he'd been the priest at my wedding shortly after ordination. I thought him sweet and kind. Turns out he grew up to be a nasty martinet as a pastor & his staff were delighted to see him go for reasons that had nothing to do with sex & never found out what he was supposed to have done. This spring I had to take a "refresher" that included updates in policy, particularly covering social media. I can be fired immediately should anything contrary to Catholic teaching shows up on any of my social media. There are things I will not "share" on Facebook & need to be careful who I let post on my page, because this situation is perfectly set up for a witch hunt that could cost me my job. I do not say that scrutiny should not happen, but I am sceptical of the cost (to the innocent)/ benefit (stopping abuse) analysis. The largest burden falls on the innocent & I do not know what metrics are used to judge the benefits- lack of lawsuits? Joanne in Cleveland ( hoping the new bishop is s good as he seems) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Jul 17 - 06:44 AM A further example of the separation of the sexes by the Church was the systematic destruction of the crossroads farmhouse dances by the clergy, who in the case of the former, broke up the open-air meetigs in rural areas by force, sometimes smashing up the musical instruments The excuse given was the "temptation of unsupervised meetings of young people" The Government in co-operation with the church, taxed all gatherings for dancing and music making in the homes with "The Dance-Halls Act", driving dancers into the "Ballrooms of Romance" Ken Loach's 'Jimmy's Hall' (about the only man ever deported from Ireland) covers this period excellently. The Bishops statement Evils of Dancing Statement of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland issued at their Meeting, held in Maynooth, on 6th October, 1925. To be read, until further notice, at the principal Masses, in all Churches on the first Sunday of each Quarter of the Ecclesiastical Year We have a word of entreaty, advice and instruction, to speak to our flocks on a very grave subject. There is danger of losing the name which the chivalrous honour of Irish boys and the Christian reserve of Irish maidens had won for Ireland. If our people part with the character that gave rise to that name, we lose with it much of our national strength, and still more of the high rank we have held in the Kingdom of Christ. Purity is strength, and purity and faith go together. Both virtues are in danger these times, but purity is more directly assailed than faith. The danger comes from pictures and papers and drink. It comes more from the keeping of improper company than from any other cause; and there is no worse fomenter of this great evil than the dancing hall. We know too well the fruits of these halls all over the country. It is nothing new, alas, to find Irish girls now and then brought to shame, and retiring to the refuge of institutions or the dens of great cities. But dancing halls, more especially, in the general uncontrol of recent years have deplorably aggravated the ruin of virtue due to ordinary human weakness. They have brought many a good, innocent girl into sin, shame and scandal, and set her unwary feet on the road that leads to perdition. Given a few frivolous young people in a locality and a few careless parents, and the agents of the wicked one will come there to do the rest, once a dance is announced without proper control. They may lower or destroy the moral tone of the whole countryside. Action has to be taken while the character of the people as a whole is still sound to stop the dangerous laxity that has been creeping into town and country. Amusement is legitimate, though some of our people are overgiven to play. What, however, we condemn is sin and the dangerous occasions of sin. Wherever these exist, amusement is not legitimate. It does not deserve the name of amusement among Christians. It is the sport of the evil spirit for those who have no true self-respect. The occasions of sin and sin itself are the attendants of night dances in particular. There may be and are exceptions, but they are comparatively few. To say nothing of the special danger of drink, imported dances of an evil kind, the surroundings of the dancing hall, withdrawal from the hall for intervals, and the dark ways home have been the destruction of virtue in every part of Ireland. The dancing of dubious dances on Sunday, more particularly by persons dazed with drink, amounts to woeful desecration of the Lord's Day wherever it takes place. Against such abuses, duty to God and love of our people compel us to speak out. And what we have to say each for his own diocese, is that we altogether condemn the dangerous occasions, the snares, the unchristian practices to which we have referred. Very earnestly do we trust that it may not be necessary for us to go further. Our young people can have plenty of worthy dancing with proper supervision, and return home at a reasonable hour. Only in special circumstances under most careful control, are all-night dances permissible. It is no small commendation of Irish dances that they cannot be danced for long hours. That, however, is not their chief merit, and, while it is no part of our business to condemn any decent dance, Irish dances are not to be put out of the place, that is their due, in any educational establishment under our care. They may not be the fashion in London or Paris. They should be the fashion in Ireland. Irish dances do not make degenerates. We well know how so many of our people have of late been awaiting such a declaration as we now issue. Until otherwise arranged it is to be read at the principal Mass on the first Sunday of each Quarter of the Ecclesiastical Year. The priests will confer with responsible parishioners as regards the means by which it will be fully carried into effect. "And may the God of Peace Himself sanctify you in all things, that your whole spirit and soul and body may be blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Thess. V. 23). (Signed), X Patrick O�Donnell, Archbishop of Armagh, Chairman. X Robert Browne, Bishop of Cloyne, X Thomas O�Doherty, Bishop of Galway Secretaries. 6th October, 1925. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:08 AM "The "answers" offered by you and a few others Jim, are not answers at all but inadequate excuses;" Then you must take them and disprove them - Joe has made the point also The Catholic church as I and my relatives knew it was rigidly divided sexually - the boys were under the care of the priests - the girls under the nuns Even the masses were divided - the women sat on one side of the church the men on the other - the women were forbidden to enter the church without covering their heads I haven't been to a morning mass since I was a child, but that was the memory that has remained with me - women all wearing head-scarves The most horrific example of this division was the case of 'The Poor Clares' convent fire in Ennis (still shrouded in secrecy) - a case once described by Edna O'Brien on the BBC, but hardly written about A fire broke out in the convent and the firemen were refused access - because they were - MEN!! A number of the nuns were burned to death behind locked convent doors. At the time these outrages were taking place, the priests did not have easy access to the girls without the co-operation of the nuns which wasn't particularly forthcoming as the Sisters were very protective of their power. The priest had their way with what was at hand - the boys - the nuns beat the girls It did happen that girls were turned over for the use of predatory men of course - that was covered in 'The Magdalene Girls', where it showed them being farmed out to wealthy donors to the Orders. Same sex rape took place within the church as same sex liasons take place widely in prisons or did at sea - they took what was available - nothing to do with sexual preferences. The same goes for the sexual bestiality that took place in remote rural occupations - as with naval practices, common enough to have its own repertoire of jokes. You came up both a claim of numbers - you provided no evidence that they were real - you are an anachronistic one-off You refuse to respond to evidence - you provide no evidence that you are for real Your "rates" show no deep study of the situation that gave rise to these events - your random example includes hastily grasped opinions from extremist groups, as has been pointed out No study in depth has ever taken place nor can it ever be while most of the evidence lies locked away in the Vatican Vaults These are "homosexual attacks" only because you wish them to be "homosexual attacks" Your own record of hatred of homosexuality underlines that fact Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Teribus Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:01 AM Raggytash - 29 Jul 17 - 12:40 PM "It does seem to be prevalent amongst members of the clergy, certainly in the UK" NOT according to the UK statistics supplied by the link in Iains post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 17 - 03:06 AM "There are numerous answers, pretending that they haven't been offered appears to be your way of dealing with them." The "answers" offered by you and a few others Jim, are not answers at all but inadequate excuses; especially the piece about "opportunity". I was of course referring to excessive RATES of abuse when I said "it only happened in the Catholic Church" My only mistake was in inserting the numbers 14 to 17,though I did follow it with (post pubescent). The actual numbers were 11 to 17. These assaults were against post pubescent males and young men by adult males. Time to be honest about what happened in the Catholic Church, the criminals are the people who committed the crimes, they should be brought to court and the whole sordid business exposed. It would be good for the victims, good for the Church and good for society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Jul 17 - 09:36 PM Yeah, it's a paradox, Donuel; but law enforcement is another profession where sexual abuse is common. I think it has something to do with being in a position of both power and trust. The police officer I caught, was up for promotion and I was doing his background check. The local police agency near his home had received a complaint that he had been rubbing ice on the genitals of his 11-yr-old stepdaughter. When I was out knocking on doors in his neighborhood, he had one of his subordinates check my license plates on the computer - and he made sure I knew he did it. He had somehow evaded prosecution at the time of the molestation, and was quite perturbed that I learned of it and was out asking questions. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Donuel Date: 29 Jul 17 - 07:30 PM that's paradoxically incongruous considering my mention of heroic police. yep, its complicated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Jul 17 - 04:08 PM I did investigate a number of sex offenders, Donuel. The only one I could say that I caught, was a police officer. He tried all sorts of power games to thwart my investigation. I also worked in my diocese to implement the no-tolerance policy for child sexual abuses. Joe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Donuel Date: 29 Jul 17 - 03:26 PM Joe, I do not envy you being between a ROCK (the Catholic Church) and a HARD PLACE (a safe haven for pedophiliacs). Your accumulated knowledge of the fiasco is profound yet a few of your excuses are specious. There are worthy policies then there are realities. It is good to hear change is underway. It sounds like you have been an instrument of transparency and healing which is to be congratulated. Just as Police are just doing their job, they are considered to be heroic at times when they bring criminals to justice. How many criminals have you captured or is it just academic. It is for you to know and to feel pride despite your prejudice. If it was easy everyone would do it. I know the second thoughts that arise when exposing a Nazi war criminal. Its complicated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Jul 17 - 02:37 PM I guess, in all fairness, I should point out that Akenaton is right about one thing. As Wikipedia says:
Most of us use the term "sexual abuse of children," which refers to all children with whom sexual contact is illegal, but Jim and a few others incorrectly use the term paedophilia. We know what they mean and don't make an issue of it, but Akenaton wants to muddy the waters by spitting hairs and so he continually makes a big deal of it. And don't give me a hard time about my mixed metaphor - it's intentional. The central fact is that a good number of priests, between 5 and 10 percent, had illegal sexual contact with children; and many dioceses were in a practice of covering up those crimes. I would suggest that for the most part, the coverups no longer take place. What we are arguing about, is a series of crimes that took place twenty or more years ago - and the more recent efforts to clean up the mess. But that was then, and this is now. It is no longer advantageous to any bishop to cover up any crime of sex abuse - the cost is just too high, and too many eyes are watching. Steve Shaw says above:
Yes, sex offenders will continue to be a problem in the Catholic Church and other institutions, but the churches and other institutions now know that they cannot protect sex offenders with impunity. Catholic bishops have to retire at the age of 75, so almost all of the bishops who did the coverups are retired or dead. Harshness and abuse were once accepted practices in the education of children, but this sort of abuse is no longer tolerated by society. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:40 PM It does seem to be prevalent amongst members of the clergy, certainly in the UK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:35 PM "No one has said it only happens in the Catholic church" This has been pointed out several times here and many times elsewhere Scoutmasters and schoolmasters have been mentioned specifically Accuracy and honesty tends to fly out of th window in these discussions There have also been numerous "answers" including the wielding of power All this, you have chosen to ignore The fact that same sex liaisons by non-homosexuals are common throughout the prison system are two examples regularly brought up as "answers" - you choose to ignore those also Joe's point "I think it's mostly because priests at one time were more likely to have unsupervised contact with boys".... also ignored. There are numerous answers, pretending that they haven't been offered appears to be your way of dealing with them. It is significant that, throughout the campaign against the Same Sex Marriage referendum here in Ireland, never once was the matter of clerical abuse raised as and example of the evils of homosexuality - not once Homosexuality has nothing to do with these crimes and nobody has ever attempted to link the two - until now Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:31 PM Didn't Jom claim that abuse by members of the Catholic Church was the greatest source of abuse in the twentieth century - Or some such twaddle - in a recent thread that was subject to "Closure". Turns out it amounts to less than 1%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM Jeri - 28 Jul 17 - 10:03 PM "But if you have any pre-pubescent daughters or grand-daughters, keep them well away from him, because he's obviously a heterosexual." - As will the majority of all those daughters and grand-daughters prove to be Jeri old girl - Or does that count as a homophobic statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:08 PM No one has said it only happens in the Catholic church though have they Ake you made that bit up. A few days ago I posted a similar item about the Buddhist faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 17 - 11:14 AM "If he had an argument, he would respond to what others have to say" Nobody else has said anything sensible about why the abuse happened, why it only happened in the Catholic Church, and why it was perpetrated mainly against post pubescent males. If you have no answers please don't condemn those who point out the obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM Why has this been allowed to degenerate into one of Ake's soapboxes of homosexuality? H attempted the same on the 'Male fertility' thread and threw in his other "liberal (fascist)" countries old favourite This is trolling - pure and simple If he had an argument, he would respond to what others have to say Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Donuel Date: 28 Jul 17 - 10:27 PM Being fictional, Ake has consistently offered a talented representation of a nightmare conservative and a monument to failed communication or John Q Public. You be the judge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jeri Date: 28 Jul 17 - 10:03 PM Y'all should just give up trying to get Ake to understand, because he's not capable of it. Either that, or he's just pretending to be that thick to keep you trying to do the impossible, and that really IS "trolling". Just leave him alone in his impenetrable shell of intentional ignorance. But if you have any pre-pubescent daughters or grand-daughters, keep them well away from him, because he's obviously a heterosexual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jul 17 - 06:50 PM Hmmm... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Greg F. Date: 28 Jul 17 - 06:23 PM Ake, can you PLEASE take your homophobic bullshit somewhare else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 28 Jul 17 - 05:41 PM "Ake, your approach seems to target normal, adult, law-abiding homosexuals. That's why we object. Don't target the people who don't do the crimes." I do not accept that Joe, and have never suggested such a thing. I am talking solely about the perpetrators within the Catholic Church. The reason for this abuse seems clear from the evidence, to say that any man would abuse a young boy given the opportunity as you stated earlier is obviously false.....sexual orientation must come into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:53 PM Wikipedia's summary of the John Jay report: The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages of 15 and 17 years. Ake, you failed to acknowledge that your "4 out of 5 victims are youths between 14 and eighteen" allegation is completely false. I think the division above makes better sense out of things. There's definitely something different about what drives a person to have sex with a child under the age of 10; but sex with those between 11 and 14 is equally deplorable - even if one calls it by a different name. Sex with willing partners between 15 and 17 is more understandable, but that's only 27 percent of the total number of victims. Nonetheless, the sex with those between 15 and 17 is illegal in most locations. The victims are, for the most part, ten or more years younger than the priests committing the crime. This is not normal conduct, for either heterosexuals or homosexuals - and it's not legal. Ake, your approach seems to target normal, adult, law-abiding homosexuals. That's why we object. Don't target the people who don't do the crimes. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Greg F. Date: 28 Jul 17 - 01:17 PM Ake, can you PLEASE take your homophobic bullshit somewhare else? I think that everyone here with a pretention to intelligence is more than tired of seeing your shit slung across the page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 28 Jul 17 - 12:54 PM Joe, just for the record, this was in no way meant as an attack on you. I was concerned that a previous thread was deleted for a reason I did not understand. There are many people of faith posting on here and I do not believe this issue should be swept under the carpet, that has happened too often and for too long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 28 Jul 17 - 12:29 PM I seem to reçall that there was some condemnation of ad hominem attacks one of the people who raised the complaints has no objections to doing the same to other posters. Terminus if you do not wish to discuss the subject in hand, fine, leave it to those that do. We have a group of people, religious leaders, who try to show the rest of the population how to lead their lives. When those same people perpetrate acts of abuse on vulnerable children, most rational people are appalled. It would appear you are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Jul 17 - 11:44 AM "The crimes were mainly sexual assault of minors and young men by adults who had previous homosexual contact." You have the advantage over the rest of us -you appear to have information that none f us have access to There is no overall breakdown of the victims ages or backgrounds - this is exacerbated by the fact that much of the evidence remains locked up and inaccessible I suppose if you are on a mission, as you appear to be, you may as well make up what suits and ignore what we do know. Joe's points - not even referred to by you, make the most sense - particularly "I think it's mostly because priests at one time were more likely to have unsupervised contact with boy" We 'ave already been bombarded with "plague carriers" and "unnatural perverts" by you - why not add "rapist" to the list You really do hate homosexuals, don't you Isn't it about time you saw somebody about your crisis of identity? One of significant facts of all this is that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg, largely due to the personal shame attached to these crimes Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 28 Jul 17 - 10:13 AM Jim....The vast majority of the sex crimes committed by priests were not paedophilia.... Paedophilia is an extremely rare crime, and is perpetrated at a lower rate amongst priests than in the general public. The crimes were mainly sexual assault of minors and young men by adults who had previous homosexual contact. "After the Boston Globe broke the story on priestly sexual abuse in 2002, the American bishops established an independent panel to study this issue. When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004, noted Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett, who headed the study, said, "There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature." Furthermore, the panel explicitly said that "we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades." One of those who served on the National Review Board, Dr. Paul McHugh, is former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins. He is on record saying, "This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it's not being discussed." More recently, the New York Times ran a story on Leslie Lothstein, another psychologist who has treated abusive priests. He concluded that "only a small minority were true pedophiles." Roderick MacLeish Jr. was the Boston lawyer who pressed the case against the Archdiocese of Boston; he examined all the files on this subject. As reported by Michael Paulson in the Boston Globe, MacLeish concluded that "90 percent of the nearly 400 sexual abuse victims he has represented are boys, and three quarters of them are post-pubescent." Once again, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist who has spent years treating sexually abusive priests. "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia," he said earlier this year. Instead, they have found a "relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia." Fitzgibbons goes further, saying, "Every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships." Notice he didn't saysome priests. Need more proof? When the John Jay College of Criminal Justice released its findings, the Boston Globe, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation, commented that "more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia." So if the definitive study, which covered the years 1950-2002, concludes that pedophilia was never the issue, why does elite opinion insist that there is a "pedophilia crisis" in the Catholic Church?" Joe, I have no anti homosexual agenda. I strongly object to the "liberal" ideology which seeks to conceal truth in all matters, not just the crimes of Catholic priests, but this issue is an excellent example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:58 AM Raggytash answers my question: Should bishops be expected to be all wise . . Frankly yes Joe they should. They are promoted to a position of being responsible for all that happens in their diocese. In other words, they're Chief Executives (CEOs). They're administrative people who have limited insight into the human psyche. Rarely are they spiritual gurus. And on top of that, nobody really has a full understanding of child molestation. You expect celibate bishops to understand? And answering the same question, Shakey says: The church generally doesn't hold back it's opinions on the big questions of how we should all live our lives. You're right about that, Shakey, but I'm thinking that you're thinking that bishops spend all their time dictating sexual mores. If you study what Catholic bishops do, I think you'll find that most of them target their efforts against poverty and other economic issues, against racism, against mass incarceration, and especially against discrimination against immigrants. They really don't know much about sex, and they generally avoid talking about it because their lack of knowledge embarrasses them (despite stereotypes to the contrary). That's what the Popes talk about too, for the most part. They botched the child molestation scandal horribly, but what they say about other issues is quite worthwhile. Lesson: don't go to bishops for sex advice - but please listen to what they say about immigration and refugees. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:35 AM Ake says in the Catholic church 4 out of 5 victims are youths between 14 and eighteen (post pubescent). He says he gets his information from John Jay report on sexual abuse in the U.S. Catholic Church. Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of the statistics in the Jay report:
11.6% were age 15 8.6% were age 16 6.5% were age 17 That totals 39.9%, or approximately 4 out of 10 - half the number you cite. As for gay priests, the number I most often hear is that about a third of priests are homosexual. Why so many? Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (par. 2357), homosexuals who are not sexually active can be quite comfortable in a seminary and in the priesthood. When I was in the seminary, nobody hassled homosexuals. Nobody made fun of them. Nobody told anti-homosexual jokes. There were times in the seminary when I felt that I was in an atmosphere that was overly sexualized, and it seemed to be a homosexual sexualization. As for why priests are more likely to molest boys than girls, I think it's mostly because priests at one time were more likely to have unsupervised contact with boys. A priest from our parish took five of us seventh-grade boys from Wisconsin to his order's motherhouse in Ontario. He would never have taken a carload of girls on such a trip. And nowadays, it would be unthinkable for a priest to take boys on a 600-mile trip, either. That's too bad - we had a wonderful time, saw Niagara Falls, milked cows for the first and only time in my life, and bought lots of firecrackers (and my neighbor the Sheriff confiscated all of mine, but he was nice about it). But ake, many of us suspect you use threads like this to promote your anti-homosexual agenda. And we want no part of it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:06 AM "it is also interesting that no one has tried to answer civilly." You are an obsessive homophobe Ake Homosexuality is now recognised as a natural state of being for a large section of the population - it has become fully accepted in our society In the near future it will be as illegal for you and people like you to behave the way you do as it is for racists to behave as they do - it is one of society's remaining great hates. By no stretch of the imagination can your behaviour be described as "reasonable" particularly when it is uses as a platform the long running and large scale rape o children Your continuing obsession is unhealthy and your gleeful reveling in the health risks brought on by a natural condition is more than a little stomach-turning The health risks are in fact no different than those brought on by other forms of human contact, sexual or otherwise - the fact that (the natural state of) homosexuality has been suppressed for so long is the cause of society not having got to grips with the solution to those problems yet - if it were to take up your "gay plague" "unnatural" argument, the problems of this "natural state" would never be solved. Homosexuality is not God's punishment' or 'evil' or 'unnatural' - it is a fact of life for many millions of people - a nautural state of being Live with it and stop persecuting people who have done nothing to you. Paedophelia has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality, it is predominantly an act carried out by heterosexuals, largely by family members and close friends - documented fact. Is that "civil" enough for you or is it just another of my "rants"? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Teribus Date: 28 Jul 17 - 02:55 AM Thanks Iains - 27 Jul 17 - 04:19 AM for those two links that attempt to inject some perspective into this thread - unfortunately it will not be appreciated as it runs counter to the mistaken dearly held beliefs of some of the "usual suspects" on this forum. Plainly stated if the subject under discussion is "child abuse" then it would appear that some here feel that those responsible for less than one percent of all child abuse are worthy of separate condemnation while the remaining 99% are not - funny that - must be that time of year reserved for the hobby-horse "Grand National", or was it created by Raggy to deliberately troll Joe Offer? Like most of Raggy's efforts this one gets shot down with the ease of all the others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 28 Jul 17 - 02:31 AM There is nothing wrong with my head, and my questions are pertinent to the thread.....it is also interesting that no one has tried to answer civilly. The facts that I mention were brought up in the John Jay report linked to by Joe......As you say in the US, "If it walks, talks and looks, it generally is" Of course the real answer is that the question is inconvenient and strikes at the whole ethos of "liberalism" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jul 17 - 09:25 PM Here's another on Burchtaell. Notre Dame didn't talk about such things when I lived a couple blocks away (1982-2000). Then the Burtchaell thing hit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:37 PM http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/us/priest-resigns-post-at-notre-dame-amid-accusations-of-sex-abuse.html The students were seminarians. He died in 2015. The author of the antiabortion book "Rachel Weeping" among others. The original story was in the South Bend Tribune, confirming rumors that had circulated for years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:10 PM OK, thanks, got it now, Sharkey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:39 PM "You got a broken record on your machine there, Ake? " Sounds like a dose of latent homosexuality to me Joe Why else would anybody be so obsessed with other people's sexual inclinations? Jim Carroll |