BS: Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 06:34 AM

I know it's illegal to have abortions in lots of places, Excuse my somewhat western-centric thinking there.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 09:27 AM

"I'm uncomfortable with the concept of big financial compensation for this kind of crime."
I heartily agree
The rush to litigation is a problem in Ireland and has restricted many things - especially access to walkers on opn land.
Doesn't mean that those with genuine grievances should not be compensated for, just that the rights to compensation should be used circumspectly
However, in the case of clerical abuse, this has not been as issue - there have been very few false claims by individuals, if any and compensation was agreed by the Government without too much prevarication by them.
The breathtaking strutting arrogance of the Church is what has brought the situation to its present dilemma
Its failure to meet agreed settlements, the arrogance of Magdalene nuns who still express contempt for their former victims, their failure to offer an acknowledgement or apology for what has happened and above all, their continued insistence that nothing will change, particularly in regard to education.
If I was a former abuse victim and was met with such arrogant intransigence I would be very inclined to say, "Feck 'em - I'll sue the bastards for every penny I can get out of them and I'll call a policeman whenever I see a priest withing 100 yards of a child" (that situation is now being depicted in our popular culture - see the extremely popular film 'Calvary' where it shows an innocent priest being chased away from a child's presence)
The Church could have avoided a great deal of this with the type of humility it demands of its followers.
As it is, it is happily digging its own grave - egged on by supporters like Joe, it would appear.
"Ladybird, ladybird, your house is on fire" as the children's rhyme points out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 12:40 PM

This thread is really beginning to remind me of Anderson's "The Emperor's New Cloths"...the stupidity and vanity the inability to see what is staring you in the face while you pirouette around in your glad rags (ideologies).

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 01:02 PM

Very profound and crammed full of content - a usual Ake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 01:31 PM

"Cloths"
Would that be tea cloths, by the way?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 02:47 PM

Steve Shaw says: I'm uncomfortable with the concept of big financial compensation for this kind of crime. If you're injured by a crime and can't work, or if you lose your money or property, that's different. Of course, there are mental as well physical injuries and it isn't possible to be black and white about it. But I'd hate to think that the prospect of a huge payout would be the main enticement to claim abuse. I also think that the prospect of having to pay out vast sums to many victims would be an enticement to cover up. I can see vast compensation prospects getting in the way of justice and closure.

I think maybe we're getting somewhere. I've been trying to say the same thing, but Steve said it better. I think that if Steve and I were to sit down and talk this out, I might suggest that compensation should be more generous that what Steve proposes.

I do not deny that priests and nuns committed crimes of both sexual and physical abuse - and the crime of obstruction of justice by covering up those crimes. I am appalled by those crimes.

But I've dealt with crime all my life, and I've learned to take a rational, constructive, methodical approach to it. I've also seen how the public naturally respond to crime, and it isn't very rational. When crime happens, we all have the tendency to place blame - and the tendency is to place the blame on all the members of a certain group. My town is in an absolute frenzy about homeless people, and there is a loud, frightened mob of people who blame homeless people for everything bad that happens - as if the mere fact of not having a home makes a person a criminal. And yes, there are a lot of crimes committed in our town by people who are homeless. The vast majority of crime is committed by people who do have homes, but people tend to ignore that. When we place blame, we humans do our best to place the blame on people who are "other," who have nothing in common with us.

So, if we are going to deal with crime rationally, we have to put aside our irrational responses and plan a measured approach that is targeted on the actual sources of crime. And that's all I'm asking for.

And part of this approach, is to take a very realistic view of the structure of the Catholic Church, and target those portions of the church that contributed to the crime and the coverups. We don't want to hear it, but the sources of crime that most affected us, are often very close to us.

Until very recently, there were Sisters of Mercy motherhouses scattered all over Ireland - and each one was independent. Some were very good, and some were seething with harshness and anger. The motherhouse at Kinsale had a particular reputation for harshness, and that motherhouse operated a huge industrial school up on the bluff above the harbor of Kinsale. That motherhouse was one of the first to be closed. But that harshness didn't happen everywhere. I visited the motherhouse at Tralee several years ago, and it was a friendly place - the women there were wise, honest, and happy. But the nuns died off, and the Tralee motherhouse closed last year. Each motherhouse controlled a network so schools and convents and other institutions. In some situations, the sisters owned and operated the institutions, and they worked in the employ of other institutions that were operated by outside authorities. But each motherhouse had a spirit of its own, and that spirit tended to be pervasive among all the nuns who belonged to that particular province. If the spirit of the motherhouse was harsh, there would still be a few strong women who could resist that harshness and carry on in a constructive manner - but it was very tough for them. If the spirit of the motherhouse was positive and generous, then it was easy for most of then nuns to be constructive - but there would still be a few troublesome nuns in every province, even the good ones. It's the "tipping point" rule - a small force for good or evil can have a remarkably powerful effect on a large group of people.

But there aren't many nuns left, and most of the motherhouses have closed or could no longer afford to operate independently in recent years. So, the Sisters of Mercy have consolidated, and the power structure has changed radically. I think we have five independent regions of the Sisters of Mercy, consolidated from dozens of motherhouses in about 2005. They will all be consolidated into one Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas in about 2020. By then, the primary function of the Sisters of Mercy, will be to operate nursing homes for their own members. By then, the average age of nuns in English-speaking countries will be about 80.

But I digress. My point is that each motherhouse of the Sisters of Mercy was an independent power center. Some were managed in a very positive way; and some were harsh communities of angry, unhappy women. All of the provinces had members who abused children, but only a few provinces were responsible for the worst of the crimes - but "a few provinces" is still many hundreds of women. The Irish Christian Brothers had particularly widespread problems, and some of their provinces had to file bankruptcy. For the most part, the problems in each province of each religious order happened independently - but in a parallel fashion, because the causative factors were very similar. And to a great extent, members of religious orders belonged to provinces where they came from, and they lived their lives in the area where they were born. And if they committed crimes, they committed them not far from where they were born.

The people who committed the crimes, were people who were known locally. They were not sent to the victims from outside powers. Rome had very little to do with sex crimes that were committed in local institutions. The crimes were committed locally, and the criminals lived locally. Blaming a faraway entity will not get to the root of the problem.

Wish I had time to write more.



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 03:04 PM

Jim, you often speak of the arrogance of Magdalene nuns who still express contempt for their former victims

When did these nuns make their statements expressing contempt? Are these arrogant nuns still alive? How many nuns made these statements?

These were real crimes committed by real people. I think I need to demand that you discuss them realistically. Details like who, when, and where and how often are important.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 03:20 PM

"When did these nuns make their statements expressing contempt?"
On our local readio in an interview
Didn't do much for your Church's reputation in an area one noted for its devotion to the Church
I pointed out that it echoed the general contempt your Church had for its victims and I specified why - you still don't seem to be prepared to go there
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 03:23 PM

Joe, you are starting to sound like another infamous poster to this forum, expecting military precision. (if there is such a thing)

People, in general, do not interview the individual, they do not interrogate them intensely as a police officer would, they take a viewpoint from the information available to them.

If posters here are cannot post their "gut" feeling without being called to account there would be few, if any, posts.

Now that may suit you in the present discussion (I know this thread in particular is difficult for you) but I would not benefit a wider understanding of the subject.

Another "let's sweep this under the carpet" approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 07:28 PM

I think you're being unfair to my position, Raggytash. Jim has taken a statment made by two old nuns and repeated it time and time again in an attempt to show that it is the general opinion of the Catholic Church toward the Magdalene Laundries. It's a tendency people have when they speak out against crime - they exaggerate and they use information out of context and out of proportion.

As I've said before, there was a homeless man in a wheelchair who yelled at a teenage kid at our Catholic school gym. The father of the boy is very much opposed to our homeless shelter. He milked that story for all it was worth for over a year, saying that the man "assaulted" his son and leaving out the detail that this was an old man in a wheelchair. It was stretching things to even call this a "verbal assault."

I highly suspect that Jim's quote is at least ten years old, possibly from 2002, when the Magdalene Sisters film came out. It was indeed an expression of contempt for the victims, and that is deplorable. I'm sure some of the sisters who worked in the laundries did their best to try to rationalize their way out of the guilt for their actions - we humans have a natural tendency to rationalize our offenses. But whatever the case, the last of the laundries closed in 1996, and most were closed long before.

So, yeah, if Jim is going to use an example over and over again, over the course of a number of years, then I think he needs to give that quote some context. It's just like his ludicrous use above of a 1925 statement from bishops about dancing - although at least he did us the favor of furnishing a date for that one. But for him to use an undated and undocumented statement from two nuns as proof of the "general contempt [my] Church had for its victims," is ludicrous. Some officials in my church showed contempt for victims, of that I have no doubt. I gave the example of Cardinal Pell, who was described as having a "sociopathic lack of empathy" when he met with victims in Australia. He was later transferred to Rome to act as finance minister, a job he was good at - I think his inability to handle the sex scandal at home may well have been part of the reason why he was transferred to a finance position. And yes, there were many Catholic leaders who had a lack of empathy for victims - and they deserve whatever penalty they have to pay for that.

But as a whole, I think that Catholics were very sympathetic toward the victims, and they were outraged by bishops like Pell who failed to show empathy and put business interests over the interests of the victims. To counter Jim's two Magdalene nuns, I can quote a nun who very angrily told me, "Joe, we told them (the bishop's office) what was going on, and they did NOTHING." Many, many priests and nuns and lay Catholics were and still are very angry about the conduct of bishops in this scandal. Benedict and Francis have appointed local bishops who are focused on finally cleaning up the mess, but there are still many John Paul II appointees in office.

But my point is that if we are to address these crimes effectively, we must address them specifically. Individual people committed these individual crimes at specific locations and at specific times. There were many parallel events, but the stories and reasons behind the events are different. When the same stories and the same perpetrators and the same victims and the same incidents are reported over and over again, this gives a false impression of the actuality of the event - just like the dad who left out inconvenient details of the story of the old cripple who yelled at his kid.

And then we get back to Rome. There's an excellent article in New Yorker Magazine (click) titled "What Pope Benedict Knew about abuse in the Catholic Church." Here's an excerpt:

Though the sexual-abuse crisis reached its peak in the public sphere during Benedict XVI's papacy, the single figure most responsible for ignoring this extraordinary accumulation of depravity is the sainted John Paul II. In the context of his predecessor's deplorable neglect, Pope Benedict gets slightly higher marks than most. In 2001, he acted to give his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, jurisdiction over all sexual-abuse cases, and soon he began to push the Maciel investigation, despite considerable Vatican opposition. After ascending the throne of St. Peter, he became the first Pope to kick predator priests out of the Church: in 2011 and 2012, the last two full years of his papacy, the Church defrocked three hundred and eighty-four offending priests.

It took a lot of work and a lot of courage for Ratzinger to push past John Paul II in 2001 and take responsibility for sex abuse cases.

John Paul II had become Pope in 1978, and he ignored the sex abuse problems at the very time when they were happening, preferring to let the local dioceses take care of their own problems. John Paul II has phenomenal power and popularity during his reign. He could have traded on that to bring the problem under control much earlier, but he didn't. There was no apparatus for collecting child abuse information in Rome until Ratzinger set it up in 2001, so it's unlikely that much will be found in any "secret archives" Rome might have on the matter.

So, for better or worse, because of the decentralized nature of the Catholic Church, Rome was not involved in the sex abuse scandal. I think that it has been generally helpful since Ratzinger took over the problem in 2001, but it is still mostly a local problem.

There are those who find fault with Rome for failing to defrock priests who committed sex crimes, but that's a debatable legal matter. If Rome defrocks a priest, it loses its last ability to exert any control over that priest, and can therefore no longer be held responsible for that ex-priest's actions after the defrocking.

So, yes, it was a very bad problem. But we need to discuss it realistically, in a realistic context.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 08:04 PM

"So, for better or worse, because of the decentralized nature of the Catholic Church, Rome was not involved in the sex abuse scandal. I think that it has been generally helpful since Ratzinger took over the problem in 2001, but it is still mostly a local problem."

Unbelievable, Joe. Your defence of Rome is valiant yet unconscionable at the same time. An institutional problem, largely ignored as you admit by a very long-term pope, is no local problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 08:07 PM

"Jim has taken a statment made by two old nuns and repeated it time and time again in an attempt to show that it is the general opinion of the Catholic Church toward the Magdalene Laundries."
I did no such thing - I said that their quote was typical - the Church has yet to even acknoledge their role in filling the laudndries with"sinners"
Amazing that you should regard them as "old" - incradibly ageist as well - don't the opinions of "old" people count for anything with you?
The Quote was actually 4 years old
You really do thrash around for to find defence for your Church.
You people really do confirm my opinion that the world would be a cleaner place without your church being in a position to foul it up.
Your defence of what happens far suppses that of any public statement made by any churchman I have heard here
Most just hand their heads and remain silent - it takes a special devotion to blame victims
Sick in the extreme
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 08:30 PM

Steve, most of those bishops in Rome, came from other places all around the world. And many of them fought hard to keep Rome's nose out of what they considered to be local matters.

The effective targets are the local and national churches, not Rome. That's just the way it was until Ratzinger shifte responsibility in 2001. As I said above, I think John Paul II should have taken responsibility for this issue soon after when he was elected in 1978, but he stayed out of it. The problem was widely known by the mid-1980s, but Rome stayed away from it.

But for many reasons, I am happy that the Roman Catholic Church is decentralized. It gives me much more say-so, since my local bishop is boss and I can talk to him directly.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 08:34 PM

P.S. Jim, if you'd drop your moralizations and you "sick in the extreme" bullshit commentaries, maybe you'd actually be able to carry on an intelligent discussion.
I don't deal in propaganda. I believe in reason.
I do my best to discuss facts and reasoned opinions, considering all sides of an issue. I am not "sick in the extreme."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 08:37 PM

Read your own response to me again, Joe, and tell me how it's not self-contradictory. Oi, I'm going to bed now, Perseids or no!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 08:51 PM

Steve, it is self-contradictory, I suppose. The reality was that dioceses are independent - and for the most part, I like it that way. But in the area of child sexual abuse, there were several bishops whose conduct was abhorrent, a long time ago. And although I prefer decentralization, I see there was a need to intervene nonetheless. SOMEBODY needed to kick butt. And if the bishop reigns supreme in his own diocese, who's gonna kick his ass when he needs it?
I don't know how things operate in law enforcement agencies where you live. In the U.S., local police agencies handle local crimes. The FBI does not deal with sex offenses unless they involve interstate trafficking.

In the Catholic Church until Ratzinger took over supervision of child abuse cases in 2001, local dioceses had authority over all local matters.

What's the difference?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 02:57 AM

There is a gigantic elephant in the room......Why is the abuse taking place?    Hundreds of posts agonising about who is responsible, who are the victims, how much money should they get.

Is it not more important to determine why these men are assaulting mainly teenagers and young adult males?

Only when we are prepared to accept the evidence of why the assaults are being perpetrated, can a remedy be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 03:26 AM

"Is it not more important to determine why these men are assaulting mainly teenagers and young adult males?
"
This one was dealt with at the beginning and has been reiterated over and over again - including by Joe
That was what was available, these were the people the clerics had access to.
It had nothing to do with the sex of these victims - the boys and the girls were equally abused - the priests were given access mainly to the boys - the Nuns took charge of the young women
The aabuses were not just sexual; they were physical
The cruelty of of the Industrial Schools like Ferns, run by Priests was the first to hit the headlines - others emerged later
Patrick Galvin's autobiographical 'Raggy Boy' trilogy covered this fully - sex was never the main issue - just the inordinate wielding of power.
The Magdalene Laundries ran from the 18th century to the 1990s - for the correction of "fallen women"
When are you going to stop trying to make it one of your homophobic rants?
Physical cruelty dominated all of these institutions.
Ken Loach's son, Jim, lifted the lid off Britain's dirty linen box with his, 'Sunshine and Oranges' when he exposed the secret deportation of English Children to Australia to be put to work there - again, brutality rather than sex.
Please take your obsessive hatred of a form of life that is now accepted for what it is - natural
Get help
"maybe you'd actually be able to carry on an intelligent discussion."
If you actually ansered the points I am making rather than pretending I am talking about something else, maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.
As far as I am concerned, blaming the victim and the country they came from (Ireland, The "Irish" church" and "the Irish people" is sick - you have done this.
The Churches and the Vatican were fully complicit in these crimes - that is what I am claiming has wielded the massive damage to your religion - not "a few bad apples" as you originally claimed way back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 05:33 AM

Galway Bay FM News Item from Yesterday

It gives a brief glimpse of the prevarication that has taken place.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:00 AM

The United Nations' view; from this morning's Times (Irish edition)
This is not going to go Away
Jim Carroll

MAGDALENE ABUSE MUST NOT GO UNPUNISHED, UN TELLS IRELAND
Ellen Coyne Senior Ireland Reporter
Members of the Catholic Church must be prosecuted and punished for their role in the Magdalene laundries, the United Nations has said.
The UN committee against torture has unequivocally dismissed the state's investigation into the institutions and claims damning documents showing church and state collusion against women have been ignored.
The international human rights body has said that the government must en¬sure that religious orders responsible for perpetrating abuse against women and children for decades must be forced to hand over evidence.
In 2011 the committee called for an independent investigation into the laundries, which helped lead to the McAleese commission and Enda Ken¬ny's apology in 2013 to the women who had been affected. Despite the apology, the state has maintained that it was not liable for how women and girls were treated in the institutions.
Finishing its second examination of Ireland's compliance with torture laws yesterday, the committee criticised the McAleese commission, saying there had been no independent, thorough and effective investigation into the treatment of women.
The panel of international human rights experts said that the state had not exhausted all of the information and records of laundries available, and criticised the fact that documents were re¬turned to religious congregations after the McAleese commission had finished its work.
The committee received correspondence from an American academic that Felice Gaer believes documents were left out of official reports by the state appeared to suggest that the state knew about documents that showed gardai were often used to stop women being removed from the Galway Magdalene laundry by family members but did not include it in official reports.
James Smith, an academic at Boston College, informed the UN committee this year that he had made the government aware of records in the Galway diocese archive.
Felice Gaer, vice-chairwoman of the committee, told The Times that she believed the Irish government was aware of these documents as far back as 2012. It is understood that members of the McAleese commission visited the archive in the same year but did not include a reference to the use of gardai in its final report. In its concluding observations, the committee yesterday called for archives on the laundries to be open and accessible to survivors.
In 2013 the McAleese commission, which had no powers to compel evi¬
dence or make criminal recommendations about abuse, published its report into the laundries. It found that at least 11,500 women passed through between 1922 and 1996 and that more than a quarter were sent to carry out forced labour without pay by state authorities.
The report has repeatedly been criticised by survivors' groups as a white¬wash that was too close to the government.
The UN committee yesterday said it "deeply regrets" that the state had not independently investigated the institutions and has called for an impartial investigation of the historic abuse with the power to compel evidence and en¬sure perpetrators are prosecuted.
During its examination, the commit¬tee had accused the government of "walking away" from Mr Kenny's apology. In the same year Mr Justice John Quirke drew up a report to compensate women who had been incarcerated in the laundries. The UN committee said the ex-gratia payment scheme, which has provided €25.5 million to 667 survivors so far, should be expanded to include other women who were forced to work in the laundries but who did not reside there. The government will have to update the committee on progress it has made on its concluding observations within one year.
Justice for Magdalenes, the cam¬paign group, welcomed the commit¬tee's findings.
The Department of Justice yesterday defended the McAleese report as a "comprehensive and independent examination of the Magdalen laundries". A spokesman said: "It did not uncover evidence of any systematic criminal abuse in the particular institutions."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 06:58 AM

Don't give me any of that shit about cruelty and trying to equate it with sexual assault, I suppose you are about my age and probably been belted with the Lochgelly Tawse as often as I and my compatriots were, sure there were a few "psychopaths" amongst our teachers, but you soon learned not to be disruptive in class or impudent.

Do you expect teachers of the fifties and sixties to be dragged into court and punished for cruelty? Do you think we could take the Education Authorities for a couple of million?

Grow up you bully! You just couldn't wait to get your fangs into Joe, not because you give a flying fuck about historic cruelty, but because you have a pathological hatred of anyone with a belief in God.

The cruelty and sex issues in the church have two distinct and differing causes.....the evidence on the sexual issue pertaining to the gender of the young people and the sexual orientation of most of the perpetrators is irrefutable.

Read the Jay report, it proved the case, presented evidence, then reported that the abuse had little to do with homosexuality.....a complete cop out. Just like the British Pakistani grooming gangs the authorities preferred to look the other way....DISGRACE.

The times are changing again, people no longer believe the PC message.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 07:11 AM

Akenaton, you are talking through your anal orifice, amongst my friends I have a reverend, a canon and a bishop. People I meet regularly, people I drink with, people who I invite into my home.

Your diatribe is far removed from the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 07:22 AM

My post was aimed at Jim, Raggytash. You appear to be a more complex character.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 10:01 AM

"Don't give me any of that shit about cruelty and trying to equate it with sexual assault,"
Sexul assault is the oldest form of denigration of victims - it has nothing to do with homosexuality - it doesn't even have anyhting to do with rape - it is a way of subjugating victims
The united Nations has made it clear on the the violence and slavery connected with the Laudndris - I, or anybody else need not expect anybody to be "dragged into court" - the Church institutions stand to be tried fro crimes against humanity - this has nohing to do with established and adhered to methods of punishment - it involves severe beatings, starvation, the stealing and trafficing of children and possible manslaughter
You seem reduced to schoolyard name-calling in the absence of argument - why don't you go and sort out your own sexuality and clean up the atmosphere here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 10:06 AM

And by the way - I suggest you read your own mouth-frothing diatribes before you call anybody a bully
I don't think I've encountered such arrogant bluster since th balmy days of Speke Seconary Modern Junior School
Grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 03:00 PM

Ake, can you please take yout homophobic and anti-Pakistani bullshit somewhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Aug 17 - 05:57 PM

Thanks for the article on the Magdalene Laundries, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 02:05 AM

Plenty more where they came from Joe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 03:23 AM

I'm struggling to figure out what to think of all this, Jim, to get it into some sort of balance. I tend to prefer to consider current problems rather than past ones, but I do realize we need to do what we can to heal the wounds of the past.

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when abuse was acceptable in many spheres. Many people are right on the cusp of demanding abuse even today - I hear all sorts of complaints about "luxuries" that our local jail inmates get, and yet it seems to me that inmates get the bare minimum of what would be considered humane treatment.

For some reason, we had a lot of military academies in Wisconsin when I was growing up - and I was embarrassed that some of them were Catholic. I don't really know what went on at those academies, but I imagine they were quite harsh. I think there was a time in our history when harsh treatment of children was considered to be a virtue. During college, I worked as a counselor at a Catholic boys' camp outside Milwaukee. The usual camp term was 2 weeks, but there were maybe 15 wealthy Mexican kids who stayed they entire 8-week summer season at camp and went to military academies during the rest of the year. They spent time with their families before and after camp, but were away from home all year round. The families were really wealthy - Presidential Cabinet members and such. I felt bad for the kids - they never seemed very happy.

That was the 1960s, and I think that was a time when brutality in U.S. schools and institutions was becoming no longer acceptable. I think that brutality carried on longer in Ireland.

During my last year of college and until I entered the Army, I also worked at a Catholic home for emotionally disturbed boys. The director was a priest who was a social worker, and there were nuns who were social workers who directed the four age-separated "cottages." The home seemed to use the best practices known at the time. One thing bothered me - the "quiet room." When kids got out of control, their shoes and belts were taken from them and they were locked in a padded room. They didn't stay in the room long and the room didn't seem to be used abusively, but I just didn't feel right about it. The home is still in operation, but I'm sure there are no priests and nuns staffing it any more.

I keep wondering about St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee, where the priest who directed the school molested as many as 200 boys. I had a friend whose brother was at the school during the time, but I see her only rarely now. I wonder if I'll ever get a chance to ask what happened to her brother.

I keep trying to find opportunities to ask Irish priests and nuns here about their experience growing up in Ireland - I generally have contact with Irish priests and nuns a couple times a week, including a weekly Scrabble game with an 85-yr-old nun from Kerry. So far, I really haven't heard anything negative. They don't deny that things happened, but they generally contend that the abuse was the exception, not the rule. I have not been able to get a balanced, proportional view from them about what happened in the Catholic Church in Ireland, but I keep trying. This is a group of about 40-60 Irish-born priests and nuns that I know, so it's not an insignificant number. And most of them have kept their ties to Ireland alive, and have visited regularly.

My wife got a Catholic education in Rhode Island, and she went home every night. But she knew resident student who lived in dormitories, and and they said there "certain nuns that you had to look out for." She didn't know of any nuns who actually did anything wrong, but there were nuns she knew not to trust. I suppose the same could be said about my seminary experience - there were priests I didn't trust, although I don't remember ever discussing with my classmates that feeling of not trusting certain professors. The priest/professors I did not trust, were often very popular with other students.

I did have one incident in high school where an upper classman got too "friendly" with me and slipped into my bed to tell me about what he had experienced at some music event. I was 14, and didn't understand what was going on - and actually, nothing happened. The other guy confessed it to the priest who was Dean of Discipline, who handled it very well. I'm still in awe of how that dean handled things. He may have saved me from a lifetime of trauma and guilt. I always thought that priests were a little out of touch with reality, but that guy wasn't. I thought the world of him, and still do. May he rest in peace.

If my incident had happened a year earlier, I'm not sure what would have happened. The previous year, we were under the "old rules" and we had a Dean of Discipline who enforced them the "old way" (he later became Chief of Maintenance).

I think there has been a change in the Catholic Church, and I don't think there are philosophies still extant that would support what created the scandalous things that happened in the Industrial Schools and the Mother and Baby Homes and the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, as well as in seminaries and Indian schools and military academies and other church-run institutions in the U.S. I just don't think the things that happened then could happen now, but maybe I'm wrong.

You're not going to like to hear me say it, Jim, but I need to point out that the director of St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee was named Lawrence Murphy. At the same time, there were Irish-born U.S. priests in the U.S. like Father Flanagan (of Boys' Town) who condemned the Industrial Schools when he visited Ireland. There were Irish-born priests in the U.S. who committed absolute atrocities, and there were Irish-born priests here who spoke out with amazing courage against those atrocities.

All I can say is that I'm struggling to figure all this out. I see both remarkable and horrendous people in the Catholic Church, so I just can't make generalizations.

-Joe-

Jim, I want you to understand that in all of our discussions of this issue, I have tried my best to be brutally honest. Sometimes my observations will not coincide with yours, because I have had very close relationships with American and Irish-born priests and nuns who were absolutely remarkable people - and I have to say that the bulk of my experience has been positive. But I have also been able to observe and sometimes to work against things in the Catholic Church that were NOT right. And I struggle to get it all in balance and make sense of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 17 - 04:18 AM

"There was a time in the not-too-distant past when abuse was acceptable in many spheres. "
The wholesale sexual molestation of children has never been acceptable in my lifetime - not openly anyway - Clerical abuse was was still an issue well within my lifetime
Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1835 nd a few decades later in the US - the last Magdalene Laundry closed its doors 21 years ago
Transportation ended in the mid- 19th century here - illegitimate children were being sold to wealthy American buyers up to th e latter half of the twentieth century
These are relatively recent events
We know they've been exposed and stopped - now comes the mopping up
Many of the victims are still living and still need to be helped close an extremely traumatic period in their lives.
You don't do that by telling them to forget it and move n - these sort of incidents just don't work like that
I'm with Steve about the dangers of compensation, but that's not for us to decide
The first step is for the church as a body to accept its complicity
If it doesn't do it voluntarily, it could well end up having to do it in the International courts - which wouldn't do anybody any good, particularly the Church
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 17 - 04:32 AM

An interesting article in the Guardian today regarding the pope's stance on abuse.

Article

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 17 - 08:14 AM

Seems a case of the Church running to catch up to me Raggy - a little late in the day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 17 - 08:28 AM

Yes Jim, it is late in the day, but at least the pope has acknowledged the problem. A little credit has to be given, I do hope he will back this up with action.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 17 Aug 17 - 12:16 PM

He has had several years to do so. He has severe dereliction of duty in this regard. No excuses will be offered by me. He is good in other areas but totally irresponsible in this primal area.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 04:30 AM

Archbishop Hart is at it again. The article attached is from todays Guardian. I think the last paragraph is the most telling.

Article - Re Archbishop Hart

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 05:04 AM

Well, the idea of the Sacrament of Penance (Confession), is that there is a sacred trust so that the person confessing can feel certain that whatever he/she say will never be revealed. In our seminary training, we were taught that if something was said in confession that needed to be revealed to the proper authorities, the priest was to do his best to convince the confessor to talk with the priest about it outside the sacrament, so that it could be revealed.

Somehow, I think we all should be allowed that trust sometimes, that we can say what we want without fear of being reported.

I think that in almost all situations, the issue of breaking the "seal of confession" is purely hypothetical, but it sure can get people riled up.

And it does seem to me that Archbishop Hart is trying to make a real issue out of a hypothetical one.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Aug 17 - 05:20 AM

But Joe, it is not hypothetical in the case of Mary Rose McCall nor for other people in the same situation.

The basic question remains "Is the church above the law".

My gut reaction is No it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 01:33 AM

Depends what people write in the laws, Raggytash. The laws of most nations honor the seal of confession, while the laws of other nations do not. The laws of the Catholic Church make the seal of confession sacrosanct - so if civil laws do not honor that, then I guess there's a conflict. But the seal of confession is more-or-less like doctor-client or attorney-client privilege - and it is honored by law in most situations.

If I had gone on to become a Catholic priest, I would choose to follow the church law and still do my best to ensure that the appropriate authorities were notified. I suppose a government could cause a standoff by requiring a transcript of what went on in the sacrament, but that seems unnecessary. In every situation I can think of, there is an alternative.

All Mary Rose McCall needed to do, was talk with the priest about the matter outside of confession. She went into the confessional with the knowledge that the priest was not allowed to reveal what she said.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 02:52 AM

"The laws of most nations honor the seal of confession, "
And thereby hangs the greatest arrogance of all of the church Joe - the law of the Church is above that of the nation - an so, above the interests of the people.
That cannot be possibly justified and it cannot, and hopefully will no longer be tolerated.
Many of these crimes were allowed to continue because of the sanity of the confession - and please don't tell me that the culprits would never have confessed without that protection
There is little value in a confession that cannot (and was not used) to stop further abuse - absolving the culprit only serves to make them feel more comfortable in their crimes.
No body or individual should ever be placed over national laws to protect crimes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 04:15 AM

"The laws of most nations honor the seal of confession, "

So I presume you do not believe in attorney client confidentiality either?

That will work really well won't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 04:33 AM

Firstly Joe, I am not blaming you personally for any of this, you just happen to be the person who is trying to defend the catholic church. This is not a discussion about you but an attempt to bring to light the abuses of your faith.

Mary Rose McCall was just 16 Joe, most children of that age are somewhat naive. She had been abused by a High School Teacher and her husband, people she probably perceived as being in a position of authority, I believe she desperately needed helped.

What did the priest do ........... he gave her absolution, did that help her, she says not.

Reading the next paragraph I am not sure whether she became pregnant through this abuse. She says "I was a child who had a child"

Could the priest have done more, I think he could and should. He was aware that a serious crime had been committed but he said nought. Now in some legislatures that makes him an accessory.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Aug 17 - 10:30 PM

Jim sez: And thereby hangs the greatest arrogance of all of the church Joe - the law of the Church is above that of the nation - an so, above the interests of the people. - this in response to my statement that the laws of most nations honor the seal of confession.

I dunno, Jim. I think the laws of nations are supposed to serve the needs of the people, even though those needs be religious concerns that you don't agree with. People consult counselors and doctors and attorneys, and confessors, with an assurance that what they say is said in secret. As an investigator, I knew that client relationship was protected, so I went to other sources to get the information I needed. Perhaps there were times when a practitioner might have information that nobody else had, but those situations were rare - and the usual value of the client relationship was far more than the value of the information I might have been able to collect from the practitioners.

So, yeah, if your view of government is that it is an Authority to which all others must submit, I suppose you're right. I see government as an institution meant to serve the needs of the people, and I see the secrecy of the practitioner-client relationship to be perfectly logical.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 11:00 AM

"I think the laws of nations are supposed to serve the needs of the people,"
As is the Church Joe - the Church is not the people and they've let them down in this matter
I would have thought that the Church coming to terms with its own sins has become a matter of self preservation as much as it is a moral duty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Aug 17 - 09:22 PM

OK, Jim, take a moment to think this out clearly. The Seal of Confession gives no benefit to the Catholic Church, or to the priest who hears confession. This is a benefit solely to the person who goes to confession, to be able to speak freely with absolutely no fear of reprisal.

Same with all practitioner-client privileges. They are meant to benefit the client.

When I was doing security clearance investigations, I was required to interview the practitioner and get record information whenever the applicant had received mental health treatment. Of course, I had to have a release form signed by the applicant to get the information - but the applicant had to sign the release or forfeit the job he was applying for. So, I was able to get information that the client had given in confidence. I always thought that was unfair to the applicant, but that was what I was required to do. Most practitioners "filtered" the information they gave me, and I was relieved about that.

But we didn't bother to interview clergy about counseling situations or confession, because we knew that relationship was sacrosanct.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 03:18 AM

Here we are talking about keeping secret crimes that are quite likely to be repeated - keeping them secret is in fact colluding to allow them to continue
I've always regarded Confession as the supreme hypocrisy - a 'get into Heaven free, whatever you've done' - a piece of mystical nonsense which is little different from the purchased absolutions that were a lucrative living for clergymen (and often those masquerading as them)
Along with the sale of fake 'reliques' they were part of the 'God industry'
That's always been the problem for me - Churches that operate independently of their claimed religion and make up 'sins and laws' that bear no relationship to any documented scriptures
All part of the 'power' that is now disappearing
Only when they do, perhaps then we can sit down and discuss religion rationally with all the ballyhoo stripped away.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 04:23 AM

Up above on August 9, I said "I spent eighty bucks on a stranger's rent yesterday, or maybe he just ripped me off."

I was talking about the questions I have about setting priorities for spending money, and had no intent to boast of charity - but I got soundly condemned anyhow, by the oh-so-perfect people here who issue such condemnations.

Anyhow, there's a rest of the story. Turns out that this guy has been doing this for years. He drives an older Mercedes that is certainly serviceable. He goes to Mass at various Catholic parishes in the area, and then asks for help with rent money. He always asks for the same amount $65. I gave him 80 because I didn't have change.

He talks about coming from Croatia, near the Medjugorje shrine. He's very polite and cordial. The people at the Croatian Hall tried to get him a job, but he wouldn't accept it. Seems like he's doing pretty well pulling the same scam over and over again.

So, I got taken for eighty bucks. Got a moderately good story out of it, though.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 04:52 AM

"Got a moderately good story out of it, though."
Why is presenting a case of a charity recipient abusing generosity "a moderately good story"
It seems to me such incidents undermine acts of charity
I get told stories of dishonest Travellers and drunken Irishmen who go home and beat their wives - usually to put both of those communities in a poor light.
Pat and I give what we can afford to charity, but, being in the position we are, we have to choose carefully and one of the main considerations is not that a refugee or a homeless person might rip us off, but that the organised Charity might be skimming too much off what we give for its own uses
Other than that, the victims are our concern, and if some are making false claims - tough, but not worth a thought!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 05:14 AM

Well, the charities and law enforcement agencies here, are making a big deal about not giving to panhandlers - because in too many circumstances, it's a scam. Still, I get convinced by them sometimes, and often find out later that the same person hits people up for gas money day after day. I should know better, but I still get convinced to part with my money now and then. Doesn't have anything to do with religion for me, by the way.

So, the suggested alternative is to give to reputable charities who are often able to stretch the value of donations.

But basically, Jim, I was hurt by your condemnation of me for talking about donations. I was just trying to tell a story about something that happened to me and the conundrum it posed. I saw no reason why I should be condemned for telling my story.

There are a lot of religious people whose faith seems to be centered around condemning the conduct ands thinking of other people, and I hate that. A lot of people on the internet do that, too. Is that what you've become? There's a lot of substance to you and you do excellent folk music research, but you've gotten stuck in this drive to condemn. Ease off a bit and give other people breathing room, hey?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 05:35 AM

By way of a little light relief I thought I'd post the following:

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 08:52 AM

Dr. Laura is about as "light" and "amusing" as Rush Limbaugh.