BS: Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:35 AM

The Roman catholic church position on scattering of ashes was in the link I gave:
According to new guidelines from the Vatican's doctrinal office, cremated remains should be kept in a "sacred place" such as a church cemetery. Ashes should not be divided up between family members, "nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects."

The church has allowed cremation for decades, but the guidelines make clear that the Vatican is concerned that the practice often involves "erroneous ideas about death." Those ideas run the gauntlet from deeply nihilistic to New Age-y, the Vatican says, from the belief that death is the definitive end of life to the notion that our bodies fuse with nature or enter another cycle of rebirth.

It's not about preventing the scattering of ashes (for everyone) but of seeking consistency. If you have a Roman Catholic funeral service you should then follow Roman Catholic funeral procedures, not have your ashes scattered in what appears to be a 'Humanist' practice.

Similarly I can't imagine the Roman Catholic church allowing burial in its own consecrated church grounds for someone who had chosen a funeral service under a different faith.

You do get people who choose to follow one practice for the service "It's what mum would have expected" and it reassures her friends and relations, but then scatter the ashes because that's in accordance with their own beliefs.

I can understand the Roman Catholic church's view on this point. (without necessarily agreeing with it)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:37 AM

"the English were too concerned with driving the survivors off their lands and, if possible, out of the country to allow them to bury their dead."

I think that if you have thousands dying of extremely contagious diseases for which there is no known cure, the impetus for getting them under the ground is driven by thoughts for the living more than anything else - otherwise Carroll would accuse the "English" of deliberate germ warfare.

I have no wish or desire to revisit any of your old hobby-horse threads Jom, they are tiresome beyond words, only you dredge them up whenever you are losing ground as a deflection tactic. As usual in this case your "hysterical" facts are just simply - WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 07:45 AM

"otherwise Carroll would accuse the "English" of deliberate germ warfare."
So it is common to shovel the dead unmarked burial pits in the event o a catastrophe
The last time that happened in Britain was during the Great Plague - there is such a pit in Hampstead Heath
The main reported causes of death were reported to be diphtheria dysentery and starvation
"otherwise Carroll would accuse the "English" of deliberate germ warfare."
The deliberate nature of the famine was the refusal to feed and shelter the victims - the workhouses that Peel had established were closed and the plentiful supply of food was either locked away and guarded by armed soldiers or shipped abroad for profit
"!I have no wish or desire to revisit any of your old hobby-horse threads Jom,"
Who on earth invited you even to contribute to anything on this forum - you offer only permanent insulting belligerence
I raies the Famine in passing in relation to unmarked burials - you were the one who knee-jerked into defending this atrocity
If my facts are wrong produce contrary evidence to show they are - belligerent denials and insults don't hack it.
Otherwise - shut the door behind you as you leave please.
"It's not about preventing the scattering of ashes (for everyone) but of seeking consistency. "
The church is no longer in a position to seek anything, certainly not how the bereaved choose to dispose of their dead
Temporal laws may well dictate such matters but the times they are a-changing, as far as the old order is concerned
If the Church plays its cards right and stays away from peoples' personal tragedies and out of their bedrooms they may still have a role in society
We've not long buried my sister and I have to say that I was very impressed and moved with the way the undertakers (The Co-op) handled a non-religious funeral
They actually visited her in her final illness and established what she wanted to happen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 09:09 AM

Jim:
It's not about preventing the scattering of ashes (for everyone) but of seeking consistency. "
The church is no longer in a position to seek anything, certainly not how the bereaved choose to dispose of their dead
Temporal laws may well dictate such matters but the times they are a-changing, as far as the old order is concerned
If the Church plays its cards right and stays away from peoples' personal tragedies and out of their bedrooms they may still have a role in society

The church is certainly in a position to clarify its position on how the remains should be dealt with, if the person, or their relatives, wish to have a Roman Catholic funeral. If they are seeking any other form of funeral then the wishes of the church don't come into it.
If you wish to use the services of a business, you accept their terms, or don't deal with them. You can't insist that they go against their own principles in order to be able to deal with you. They are equally able to walk away from the transaction.

As for keeping the Church away from peoples personal tragedies, then that is for the people concerned to decide. Many people take great comfort in the presence of a priest at such times.
You are of course welcome to your own views, and to avoid the use of priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 10:11 AM

"if the person, or their relatives, wish to have a Roman Catholic funeral"
And there's the rub Nigel
If the Church makes unreasonable demands on the use of its facilities then it alienates itself from its followers
I am not up on the scriptures so perhaps you can point me at a religious edict saying what should happen to the deceased when they shuffle off.....?
This seems to me to be a church demand and not one of religion
The Church has caused no end of grief and division by demanding that - for instance - all non Catholics marrying in Church have to guarantee that their children will be brought uop as Catholics - interesting film on one real life situation ' A Love Divided' (1999) is well worth looking out for.
I never understood the 'no meat on Friday' rule, but the fact that it no longer applies indicates that it was dreamed up by the church rather than drawn from the scriptures.
The making of sex a distasteful necessity seems down to the church - King David and Solomon seemed to enjoy their bit on the side.
The church seems to be adopting the attitude "you obey my rules or I'm taking my ball home"
Religion should belong to the believers, not the Church.
I remember when our singer friend, the late Tom Lenihan lost his eldest son to a rat bite
We turned up at his home expecting a description of the massive funeral (which there was)
Tom and his wife Margaret, both extremely devout ald life-long old-style Christians in their 70s, did not attend.
When we asked why they told us "why should we go into Miltown when we can speak to God and pray for our son in this kitchen?"
I'm a non-believer, but that makes sense to me.
"then that is for the people concerned to decide"
My point exactly - up to now, this has not been possible because o a whole minefield of church-invented rules which gave them the ownership of God rather than the worshipers.
These are largely meaningless, bureaucratic rituals invented by a church to give it an importance it often does not deserve, in my opinion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 10:55 AM

I am not up on the scriptures so perhaps you can point me at a religious edict saying what should happen to the deceased when they shuffle off.....?

I've already linked the response to that. But just in case you chose not to read:
In 1963, the Vatican said burial of deceased bodies should be the norm, but cremation is not "opposed per se to the Christian religion." Catholic funeral rites should not be denied to those who had asked to be cremated, the church said.

But in recent years, "new ideas" contrary to the Catholic faith have become widespread, the Vatican said. The new statement names pantheism (the worship of nature), naturalism (the idea that all truths are derived from nature, not religion) and nihilism (a deep skepticism about all received truths) as particularly problematic. If cremation is chosen for any of those reasons, the deceased should not receive a Catholic burial, the new guidelines say.

So the objection is to a 'mix 'n' match' cremation where decisions on the reason for cremation are against the teachings of Catholicism.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 12:16 PM

"but cremation is not "opposed per se to the Christian religion."
My question was rhetorical Nigel - I wished to underline that up to 1963 cremations were totally banned by the church - today's ruling is in fact a compromise
You responded to none of my other examples of church makkie-ups
One of the cruellest examples of these was told to us by a devout Irish Travelling woman – blind from birth and mother of sixteen children (forbidden by the church to use any form of contraception – but that aside)
Her father was an alcoholic, which we rather disapproved of as Mary was separated from her husband and relied heavily on family support
She explained the circumstances of his heavy drinking
She and her sister were born blind and once, while they were living briefly in Dublin, a local doctor suggested that Mary's sister's blindness might be curable
She was operated on and, when they removed the bandages in the presence of her father, she found she could see, for about five minutes, and then her blindness returned
Her father was distraught and went to the hospital chapel to pray
He told the hospital chaplain what had happened and was asked, "did you say "thanks be to God" when you thought she'd got her sight back?"
Her father told him, "No, I was too excited".
"Well" said the priest, "that's why the operation wasn't a success; make sure you do if they operate again".
Mary's sister never had another operation and her father never had another sober day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:21 PM

I am sure the priest will make a fine stoker.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:49 PM

Jim, your "thanks be to God" story was the action of one insensitive priest. I would guess that most priests would be appalled at that man's insensitivity, just as you and I were.
There are lots of insensitive people in the world. In fact, all of us do and say insensitive things at times. But there's no church rule that dictates that priests must be insensitive.

And again you repeat: Tha fact o unmarked graves and unresgistered deaths is a long standing and fully accepted fact, particularly in Ireland, where so many of them took place
There's nothing inherently wrong with unmarked graves and unregistered deaths (although it appears that the deaths at Tuam and Lanarkshire were registered, although possibly not to your specifications). But the unmarked graves were just what people did, not something horrific. You appear to advocate cremation and scattering of ashes - what's the difference?

You have failed to provide evidence of anything more than occasional brutality at Tuam and Lanarkshire, and yet you build another of your sweeping condemnations on very limited evidence.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:01 PM

"Jim, your "thanks be to God" story was the action of one insensitive priest."
Yes it was Joe, but he was operating in a scenario that enabled his insensitivity to ruin lives
Todays priests may be appalled at what happened but there are plenty of other examples of similar things taking place
It's far too easy to blame the individuals when in fact the problem lies wit the fact that their power and influence allowed them to do such things
WE were an extremely poor family when I was growing up - my father was away from home, sending money when he could, yet the priest would come around every Friday night and demand a donation for the church, which my mother invariably gave, good Catholic girl that she was.
I don't blame the priest - that was his job
Your barrel is getting very full of rotten apples
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:19 PM

Jim I fail to see why you insist on condemnation an entire church because of some horrible personal experiences and the publicised failings of a MINORITY. As in all walks of life, not all priests are saints and you seem to insist on judging events of the past in terms of modern mores.
It was a different time, a different milieu, a different paradigm.
The world has progressed and hopefully become more civilised since those times. You seem unable or unwilling to accept this.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 04:24 PM

Jim, time and time again you have accused me of denying or defending wrongdoing done in the Catholic Church, and that is untrue and unfair. I acknowledge that wrongdoing has been a widespread scandal in the Catholic Church, but I have also seen many church leaders who have done remarkably good things.

I see the "thanks be to God" story that you told, and I conclude that the priest is a bastard. You see the same story, and you conclude that all priests are bastards - and you have the gall to accuse me of denying the wrongdoing because I do not agree with your broad conclusion.

You say that the Catholic Church created the situation that allowed that insensitive priest to speak so stupidly, and I wonder how the Catholic Church was supposed to be able to regulate this guy's stupidity. When I attended a U.S. Catholic seminary in the 1960s, all seminarians were required to take at least six months of fulltime Clinical-Pastoral Education, an intense program in hospitals that did all it could to teach future priests and other ministers to respond to such situations with compassion. I know dozens of Irish-born Catholic priests who were educated in seminaries in Ireland at the same time, and they were all trained to respond to tragedies with absolute compassion, just like I was. Some of them respond very well, some are mediocre, and some are assholes. Who's to blame for them being assholes?

Institutions are morally neutral. They can do neither right nor wrong. It's the people within the institutions that do the deeds, and it's people who deserve the credit or blame. Your approach is cockeyed. You see people in the church doing wrong, and you blame the church - and then you distribute that blame to all that belong to the church (former members, to your mind, are absolved). Your approach, Jim, is illogical and unfair - and it borders on bigotry. The underlying principle of bigotry is blaming the entire group for the misdeeds of a few members of that group. How does your approach differ from that?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:31 PM

Yes it's the individual who bears the primary blame, but surely this discussion is also about the INSTITUTIONAL cover-up of the wrongdoing, the Church playing down/denying/ lying about the misdeeds, quietly moving miscreant priests to areas where they are not known, failing to point the finger...all done for the interests of the church and nothing at all to do with the interests of the abused children, who the Church appears to see as something of an embarrassment. I'm up for hearing your defence of the Church on those specific grounds. But the argument that it isn't the fault of the Church, it's just a few rotten apples...you may think that that argument washes, Joe, but the world isn't with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:47 PM

I get that, Steve. Bigotry is widespread. Bigotry is the easy way out. It involves very little thinking, and absolves the bigot of personal responsibility.

But as I said, the Church is morally neutral. It can do no right, and it can do no wrong. It cannot defend itself, so it's an easy target. Only people can do all these things.

The coward targets the group, and then extends blame to the members of the group. It takes courage and hard work to identify and resolve wrongdoing.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 07:06 PM

I'm not clear about what you are saying. You appear to be claiming that people who wish to see the INSTITUTION of the Church account for itself are bigots. Therein lies an assumption that anyone who challenges the Church on this is a triumphalist anti-Catholic. Well, just maybe those people are prioritising, just for once, the interests of the victims of the abuse, and are complaining about the reluctance of the Church to do the same. That's where I stand, so call me a bigot if you like. In return, I might just call you a defensive denier of the Church's role in all this. Of course, I may have got you wrong. I hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 08:27 PM

"Jim I fail to see why you insist on condemnation an entire church because of some horrible personal experiences and the publicised failings of a MINORITY."
Iains
I fail to see why you tke a minute part of muy argument and totally ignore that the behaviour of the hierarchy of the church brought the whole position of the church to the verge of ruin
The rape of children were down to individuals - the ignoring, covering up and even facilitating those reps over decades (at least) was down to the hierarchy
The MMAGDALENE LAUNDRIES , where "fallen women" were incarcerated, humiliated, beaten and, if their condition led tem to giving birth, had their babie taken from them and sold to wealthy buyers, ran from the 18th century to the end of the 20th, the last one closed on 1096
The INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS beat, humilated and sexually abused boys from the first half of the nineteenth to the late twentieth century
How can you possibly put this dwn to some horrible personal experiences and the publicised failings of a MINORITY.
COME ON - you are not even trying.
Unless you are passing this off as "false news" how can you - how can anybody possibly defend it or minimise it?
Do you think these accounts are fake?
"but I have also seen many church leaders who have done remarkably good things."
Immaterial Joe - I believe Goebbels loved cats
Goodness does not absolve badness
" I wonder how the Catholic Church was supposed to be able to regulate this guy's stupidity."
You are not responding to the point I have already made - "it wasn't this guy's stupidity" that was the problem - it was the power he weilded to enable him to inflict that cruelty - it was also the state of minds of the victims that allowed that cruelty to be inflicted without striking back in some way
These guys were as powerful as AL Capone - that was still obvious right up
to the point when we moved here in !998 among older people
That is going gradually - appeasing those ways stands to slow down that departure.
Your church really is crumbling - I don't want that to happen - not this way.
I would be delighted to see all religions taught as philosophies alongside political and cultural philosophies and measured against one another rather than taught as individual dogmas which set people against one another.
Institutions are neutral - doesn't that depend on whose in charge?
That's like saying all western governments are democratic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 11:53 PM

Jim says (and Steve says more-or-less the same): Institutions are neutral - doesn't that depend on whose in charge?

No, Jim. What it means is that people within the institutions are the ones who make the decisions. Institutions do not make decisions, and institutions do not do right or wrong. It's the people who make the decisions, not the institutions. People within the institution who oppose faulty decisions, should not be considered culpable for those decisions.

I'm not denying any of the wrongdoing that took place within the Catholic Church - but it's not the church that did the wrong, it's individuals. Those individuals who did wrong should be tried and punished for their wrongdoing, and restricted so they cannot commit the same wrong again. But to blame an entire group for the wrongdoing of a few, is a classic example of bigotry.

Blaming an institution for wrongdoing, is faulty logic in two different ways: it tends to absolve or hide the culpability of those who actually committed the offenses, and it tends to spread blame on those who were not involved or who opposed the offenses.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:51 AM

". What it means is that people within the institutions are the ones who make the decisions. "
No Joe - it's people who run and control these institutions who make the decisions, just like it is the captains of industry or the boards of education, or the occupiers of the White House or The Prime Ministers office who make the rules
The rest just follow orders
If the thinking behind the rules are bad, the whole organisation is rotten and in need of reform
Inevitably, if things go wrong, them upstairs will pick one of their minions to take the blame - as is happening here
I don' believe that abusive priests are necessarily evil, even f what they did was
They were weak, often sick individuals as much in need of help as their victims.
It is the situation they were operating in that needs examining and reforming and until that happens your organisation will never be trusted again
I have always believed that religion should be totally voluntary and that those who run it should have no power other than that of spiritual advisors offering advice that has to be accepted or rejected freely by people who haven't been pre-conditioned to automatically accept it without question - rejecting totally the arrogant Jesuit boast that they could take a child and mould it like plasticine
These events took place in an atmosphere of fear of and domination by a clergy that had power beyond life itself - the power to threaten eternal damnation to those who stepped out of line.
Your churches, throughout the world, bacame part of the toxic mix of religion and politics and allowed themselves to become the weapons of monsters like Henry VIII, and Empires oppressing the poor of the world for gain and self aggrandisement - in doing so, the Church became as rich and powerful as those they served - richer even.
Right into the twentieth century, the Vatican stayed silent while church leaders supported dictators like Hitler, Pinochet, Salazar, and all those vicious torturers who terrorised entire third-world countries - all had Archbishops backing up their atrocities to make them respectable.
In all this, your religion got lost and its ordinary followers forgotten
Sure - there were exceptions - Archbishop Romero, Martin Luthur King and Desmond Tutu are among my heroes - or nearer home, Canon Collins, Hewlett Johnson - as far back as John Ball
I have a massive respect for the last Bishop of Kilaloe, Willie Walsh, who dedicated a great deal of his time to defending Travellers rights - but all these were embarrassing misfits whose work was largely rejected or ignored by the church - the hierarchy were probably part of the murder of Romero
Your Augean Stable is very much in need of a clean-out, before those who have been betrayed by it burn it down altogether
Stop blaming the few and start accepting that the problem goes far deeper than their individual actions
Respectfully
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 04:55 AM

You appear to be arguing that an institution is some kind of inanimate entity, Joe. It isn't. It's made of people. The institution of the Church is hierarchical. Once these offences become public the culpability passes upward - unless urgent, public and direct action is taken to punish the perpetrators. Anything else is an institutional cover-up, and that cover-up is perpetrated by people who fully represent that institution. No-one blames the institution for offences committed by individuals, unless of course the institution has deliberately contrived to place them where they are more likely to offend. I would put quietly moving errant priests to distant parishes in that category. No-one is saying that everyone who belongs to the institution is to blame for offences committed by individuals. But what happens after those offences are exposed is crucial to this argument. To hold the Church as an institution to account is not bigotry, and to accuse the challengers of bigotry is just an attempt at evasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 05:39 AM

So it is common to shovel the dead unmarked burial pits in the event o a catastrophe
The last time that happened in Britain was during the Great Plague - there is such a pit in Hampstead Heath

It happened in Coventry after the bombing in WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 06:18 AM

"It happened in Coventry after the bombing in WW2."
And it didn't take half a century for people to find out it was there and no doubt all deaths were carefully registered ad their relatives informed of their decease
One of the most moving reports of this present discovery was that an elderly man in tears holding up a photo of him and his bedridden mate taken at the home
He explained how his mate "just disappeared" and nobody was told what happened to him
That is i=the 'human' side of all these events and it is common
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:33 AM

By the way - the victims of a wartime bombing in no way constitutes "common to shovel the dead unmarked burial pits" (unless you mean Wimbledon Common of course!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:43 AM

"You appear to be arguing that an institution is some kind of inanimate entity, Joe. It isn't. It's made of people. The institution of the Church is hierarchical. Once these offences become public the culpability passes upward - unless urgent, public and direct action is taken to punish the perpetrators." - Shaw

Any institution IS an inanimate entity. How ethically, how efficiently it functions depends upon the people involved and that can change depending upon situations and circumstances and over the course of time - that is not the fault of the institution which remains the same inanimate entity (One that once demanded that heretics be burnt at the Stake - that would not be the case today).

"The institution of the Church is hierarchical." - Superficially that may well APPEAR to be the case. Joe Offer has already taken great pains to point out throughout this thread that each Diocese within the Church operates autonomously under the direction of the Bishop of the Diocese who may or may not take heed, by varying degrees, of guidelines from the Vatican (Joe Offer please NOTE that in writing this as one of the highest ranking problem posters on this forum I am merely stating what you yourself have previously written and that I am not looking in any way, shape, or form, for any "endorsement" from YOU, or anybody else, which I would regard as worthless - Just hope that that is perfectly clear) None of the "usual suspects" appear to have listened to what Joe has had to say, but then that is not uncommon for them, the only people they listen to are themselves as individuals.

"Culpability" with regard to any actual abuse perpetrated remains fixed with the party "Guilty" of the offence - actions that can be taken are constrained by law which requires formal investigation with its required burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt - in the cases being discussed those would and should have been criminal investigations undertaken by the police not by the Catholic Church. Such investigations and examination of evidence offered may well reveal degrees of "Guilt" of persons as accessories AFTER the fact. The institution of the Church itself has no culpability as it has no formally declared hard and fast rules that state it must "protect" and "shield" it's officials from due process of law. Members of the clergy and lay members of church MAY be responsible under law as private individuals guilty of committing offences under criminal law - the Church as an entity is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 08:33 AM

"the Church as an entity is not"
The Church hierarchy is guilty of at least complicity to conceal what happened and in some cases to facilitate the continuation of the abuses by passing abusive priests on to parishes where their activities were not known - this latter became an international issue when some abusers ran out of parishes to where they could be passed on to in Ireland and were shipped off abroad
Why do you people continue to deny facts that have long been established in the country where they took place and have done enormous damage to the reputation of the church?
You can deny these facts until they pour out of your ears, but these are what is gradually destroying what remains of the reputation of the church - not ant-Catholic bigots
Even leading members of the hierarchy, such as the Bishop of Dublin, Diarmud Martin have admitted that that the continuing mishandling of these crimes have damaged the church and need addressing urgently
It would be interesting to know exactly where you7 disagree with this general consensus, instead of throwing up irrelevant objections that bear no relation to reality
(Articulate enough, I hope!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 10:38 AM

Once these offences become public the culpability passes upward....

Uk Labour Party.....cough! cough!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 10:57 AM

Best laugh of the day so far !! Thank you Teri-towelling!!

On the one hand you're not looking for any endorsements which you would regard as worthless and with the other castigating other posters for not listening to other people.

Brilliant, love it, keep it up !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:34 AM

In case there is any lingering doubt, this is how things stood six years ago - if anything, they have worsened
CRISIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:36 PM

Here's a place where the shit is only just starting to hit the fan:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2017/02/philippines-sins-father-170216113536779.html

Poland is going to be the big one, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 02:31 PM

And what if the Church doesn't tell the police? Just let the abuse carry on until it does? Then not blame the Church? I'm sure the kids won't mind.

Institutions wouldn't exist without people belonging to them, without people drawing up the rules and protocols, without people constructing a hierarchy of responsibility. Last time I checked, there was nothing inanimate about people. Oh, and institutions evolve. The people change, the rules are changed and the hierarchy may move with the times (perhaps by being made more democratic, more accountable and by some of its functions being delegated, perhaps regionally as has been mentioned with regard to the Church). The apparent aim of the argument that it's not the institution, it's rotten apples, is to divert the blame away from an institution that is in severe danger of losing its reputation. I'm sure the kids won't mind that either.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 02:56 AM

Steve Shaw says: And what if the Church doesn't tell the police? Just let the abuse carry on until it does? Then not blame the Church? I'm sure the kids won't mind.

What if "The Church" doesn't tell the police? Churches can't talk. There are individuals in churches who are responsible for reporting crimes against children. They should be held to answer on criminal charges. Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City failed to report sex crimes by priests in his diocese. He was convicted of the offense, and resigned his position as bishop. That's how such offenses should be handled.

Since its first article on the subject in 1983, the National Catholic Reporter, a very Catholic publication also in Kansas City but not an organ of the Catholic Church, has published thousands of articles condemning specific Catholic bishops (particularly in the U.S. and Europe) for their well-described offenses in the Catholic sex abuse scandal. Many other Catholics have fought hard and constantly against this sexual misconduct since it was first discovered in the 1960s and discovered on a widespread scale in the 1980s. These good people do not deserve to be blamed for the sex abuse scandal.

You take a top-down view of the Catholic Church that sees all actions and power as existing only in the echelons of upper management. I think that view is invalid and insulting. The Catholic Church is my church, every bit as much as it belongs to the most pretentious cardinal. I don't deserve to be blamed for that cardinal and his watered-silk robes and his outrageous insensitivity to the concerns of people in need. I have fought against him all my life, to keep my share of control over MY church.

Don't blame every Jew for the misdeeds of a few. If you do, you are an anti-Semite.

Don't blame every Catholic for the misdeeds of a few. If you do, you are an anti-Catholic bigot akin to the Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan.

Place the blame where the blame belongs - on individuals who are responsible for specific acts of wrongdoing. You cannot resolve this scandal by using a wide brush that includes Catholics who are also opposing this scandal.

The same is true when you blame all Americans for the misdeeds of the Trump Administration.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:26 AM

But while your Kansas City bishop was failing to report sex abuse, more sex abuse was going on. His failure as a high-up member of the institution's hierarchy made things worse.

Saying that churches can't talk is a bit disingenuous, Joe. You know very well that I wasn't talking about big buildings with steeples. That's why I wrote Church, not church.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:43 AM

Steve Shaw says: Saying that churches can't talk is a bit disingenuous, Joe.

It's not disingenuous, Steve. It's stating an obvious fact that you refuse to acknowledge. Blame the responsible individuals, not the group. I acknowledge that it is hard work to identify the individuals who are responsible, but that is what must be done. The lazy shortcut of blaming the entire group, is bigotry.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 06:23 AM

"The lazy shortcut of blaming the entire group, is bigotry."
Not the group Joe - the system
Until you come to terms with that you will never tackle these problems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 10:54 AM

How am I blaming the whole group, Joe? I'm blaming the members of the Church hierarchy who, when they know of the abuse, help to perpetuate it by their dilatory behaviour. To make things worse for the victims. Those members of the hierarchy, such as your Bishop of Kansas, are betraying the trust of the whole institution. This is not just about a few errant priests. Far more people than that are involved. The fact that the Church has dealt with this so ineptly speaks volumes about its sheer incompetence as an institution when things go badly wrong. The priest abusers are evil men. The inaction, or inappropriate action, of those in your institution who could have done something about it is inexcusable. It isn't just those priests. It's every other Catholic who knew or suspected what was going on who did either nothing or the wrong thing. They helped to perpetuate the abuse. And that is far from being the " entire group."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:51 AM

Could someone please link to a BBC article today regarding a Koran teacher in Oldham

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 12:40 PM

Rag,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-41387339

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 12:48 PM

Thank you.

Although for some reason I am not surprised that you, of all people, did the honours.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 11:17 AM

Could a mod perhaps change the title of the thread to Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 03:56 PM

Well, I did change the thread title. However, this thread started with information about physical and sexual abuse of choirboys in the Regensberger Domspatzen. The report accuses 49 members of the Catholic Church of carrying out the abuse between 1945 and the early 1990s. Two of the offenders were identified as priests who had died. I don't know about the others, whether they were priests or other church employees.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:33 PM

Which begs the question of how Islamic clerics treat children.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 05:42 PM

The distinctive thing about Catholic abuse is how many people are complicit in it. Sunni Islam and Protestantism have very flat hierarchies - usually the buck stops only a few miles from the perpetrator. Catholicism has a military-style chain of command going through many levels all the way up to Rome, and all the commanding officers are supposed to be enforcing standards on their subordinates. Which doesn't actually happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Monique
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 05:43 PM

According to the book "L'amour circoncis" by Abdelhak Serhane (in French, not translated into English so far), not well. You can put this article into a translator.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 07:50 AM

Afghanistan is a Moslem country yet does not eradicate bacha bazi.
Abuse exists everywhere.Dancing Boys

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 08:05 AM

Most of the people in these figures will be Protestant, with a fraction Jewish and Muslim.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

As in Afghanistan, it's a different problem from that of Catholicism. Sunni Islam and fundie Protestantism don't have institutions run by large franchises answerable to the CEO, like the Catholic religious orders. There is no central authority you can point to and accuse of legitimizing the abuse. (There is in Hasidic Judaism, but that's on a rather smaller scale, and somewhat fragmented). So it really does come down to blaming individuals and the culture they've absorbed.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 27 Sep 17 - 11:04 PM

Iains - PM
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 03:59 AM

As this thread refuses to die a death I think it is time the title was changed. It is not only incorrect but insulting to an entire religion.

Raggytash - PM
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 11:17 AM

Could a mod perhaps change the title of the thread to Clerical Abuse of Children

Took along time!

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:07 AM

"It is not only incorrect but insulting to an entire religion."
It has never been insulting to religion - show where it has
The genuinely religious were the victims of clerical abuse and religion has suffered because of how the scandals were swept aside by the Church hierarchy
It is this that has been the cause of the present reduced state of the church.
These arguments have centred around the church, not religion - nobody has ever suggested it was religion to blame
On the oyther hand, your statement "Afghanistan is a Moslem country yet does not eradicate bacha bazi." chooses to target the religion
I won't re-open the "implant" statements that have been part of the islamophobia of this thread
It is Catholic clerical abuse - abuse by clerics who were Catholic, that first caused this eruption - no getting away from that fact
Spreading it to other religions is fine if yoyu want to debate how religion is taught in our societies, but it will never alter the fact that Catholic clerical abuse remains a front runner in this particular race
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:27 AM

I am very happy to see you have adopted the new thread title.

Concerning dancing boys it is the society that tolerates the abuse. The society follows the Moslem religion overwhelmingly (>99% predominantly Sunni). Perhaps the society is hypocritical or simply does not care, or perhaps religion has a far lesser impact on the way the people conduct themselves than many would think. Perhaps the Imans should pursue the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:30 AM

I won't re-open the "implant" statements that have been part of the islamophobia of this thread

It was not about Islam.
It was about a demographic group who happen to be mostly Muslim.
I stated repeatedly that it was nothing to do with Islam, but you pretend to not know that even though you have been shown the quotes numerous times.

Culture implants everyone and the people who said it was a cultural issue were actually of that culture.

You bring up that six year old discussion whenever you are at a loss for a response to anything!

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 04:41 AM

"The society follows the Moslem religion overwhelmingly (>99% predominantly Sunni). Perhaps the society is hypocritical or simply does not care, or perhaps religion has a far lesser impact on the way the people conduct themselves than many would think. Perhaps the Imans should pursue the issue."
So it is about religion and it's OK to target the muslim religion but not the Christian
SExual abuse is a feature of every society throughout the world irrispective of race and religion
Glad we cleared that one up.
Not here Keith - "implant' was about all male Pakistanis being culturally implanted - not the action of a few criminals
I bring it up regularly because it runs though your attitude to Muslims like Blackpool runs through rock
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 05:03 AM

Not here Keith - "implant' was about all male Pakistanis being culturally implanted - not the action of a few criminals
I bring it up regularly because it runs though your attitude to Muslims like Blackpool runs through rock

I do not have "an attitude" to Muslims and unlike you I have never denigrated any religion.

all male Pakistanis being culturally implanted - not the action of a few criminals

I always maintained and stated that only a tiny minority were involved and still do, but we are all implanted by our culture.
It was people of that culture that I quoted, as I claimed no knowledge of it.