BS: Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:37 AM

For reasons unknown my previous thread was closed, however Joe Offer maintained that just 2 members of the Catholic clergy were involved.

The report I read on the BBC News suggested a figure of 49 members of the clergy.

One of the factors that has allowed such abuse to continue unsuppressed is the opposition to open debate of the issue.

The article on the BBC was published on the 18th July perhaps someone would provide a link, doing on my android is nigh on impossible.

Thanks

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:46 AM

'49 confirmed perpetrators' is consistently reported across several international papers I read.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:47 AM

This of course should have been posted in the BS section, perhaps a kind Mod could relocate it.

One further issue is that a suggestion was made giving quite low estimates as to the number of children abused, the true figure is far higher at over 500.

Not that numbers should in any way be used to excuse the actions of the prepetrators.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:09 PM

Those figures, Raggytash and Peter, were what I too understood to be correct. In fact the place was a huge ring of paedophiles and child abusers, and the victims were legion. There may be many more who don't wish to come forward.

As I said on the initial 'removed' thread, I watched the choir singing on Youtube, and to think innocent boys like this were treated as mere objects for sexual gratification by so-called 'clerics' made my blood boil.
There were instances of withholding food, severe beatings and intense bullying.
It reminded me of Charles Dickens' Dotheboys Hall with added paedophilia.
The whole thing must be investigated openly and people brought to justice.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:11 PM

Sadly Senoufou it won't be discussed if threads about it are suppressed.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:23 PM

As long as posters on here restrict themselves to the necessity for investigation of this particular case, and don't start tub-thumping or insulting all Roman Catholics, and all religions, and then attack each other with nasty, rude and unpardonable spite...(hmmm, is this likely??) then the thread may be allowed to remain.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:24 PM

It is endemic. Read abuse tracker every day. Keep an eye on australia in coming days. The creepiest cardinal is going on trial...he was absolutely horrid to survivors and their families. Guam, india, mexico. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Read up on cardinal from new york. Pope is nice but does nothing about it. To many clerics it is normal and they can not see the devestation. It is of course not limited to catholics.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:45 PM

Sorry about the previous thread closure. Apparently, one of the moderators considered humorous side talk of bromances to be unacceptable.

Ah, here's the article:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40643253

Hundreds of German choir boys abused over six decades - report
18 July 2017

At least 547 young members of the Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir in Germany were subjected to physical and in some instances sexual abuse over a period of 60 years, a new report says.
The report accuses 49 members of the Catholic Church of carrying out the abuse between 1945 and the early 1990s.
The alleged perpetrators are unlikely to face criminal charges because of the amount of time that has elapsed.
Victims said the experience was like "a prison, hell and a concentration camp".
The alleged physical abuse relates to children attending both the Regensburger Domspatzen's pre-school and high school, according to the lawyer tasked with investigating the abuse, Ulrich Weber.
Among those singled out for criticism in the report was former choirmaster Georg Ratzinger, elder brother of retired Pope Benedict XVI.
Mr Weber said that while Mr Ratzinger, now 93, had no knowledge of sexual abuse, "one can accuse him of looking the other way and failing to intervene".
He was head of the choir from 1964 to 1994 and denies any knowledge of what went on. It was "never discussed" while he ran the choir, he has said.
He has in the past admitted to occasionally slapping boys but insisted he never beat them until they were "black and blue".
Representatives from the Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir have yet to officially respond to the report.
'Culture of silence'
Presenting his findings on Tuesday, Mr Weber said the investigation had found 500 cases of physical abuse and 67 instances of sexual abuse over six decades.
However, he said he was unable to contact or speak directly to a number of former students and said he estimated the true number of victims to be as high as 700.
Of the 49 church members who carried out the abuse under what was described as a "culture of silence", nine were found to have been involved in sexual abuse, Mr Weber added.
He said the alleged perpetrators had been identified but were not expected to face criminal charges because the alleged crimes took place too long ago to be legally valid.
He said the victims described their experiences at the boarding schools in southern Germany as "the worst time of their lives, characterised by fear, violence and hopelessness".
The church has previously offered to pay the Regensburger victims compensation of between €5,000 (£4,436; $5,776) and €20,000.
Criticism of cardinal
The 1,000-year-old choir was initially rocked by allegations of widespread sexual abuse in 2010.
A 2016 report into the allegations found that 231 children had been abused.
Mr Weber also criticised Regensburg Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, who is now a cardinal, for the weaknesses of the initial review of the scandal when it first came to light in 2010. The cardinal has rejected his findings.
The Catholic Church has been hit with a number of scandals in recent years. In the 1990s, revelations emerged of widespread abuse in Ireland and at the turn of the century, more cases of abuse were revealed in more than a dozen countries.
The UN has accused the Vatican of "systematically" adopting policies allowing priests to sexually abuse thousands of children.
Since his election, Pope Francis has appeared to offer new hope to victims, with a call for action on sex abuse in the Church.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:53 PM

There is an investigation in Australia also.

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:01 PM

To my ear the phrase 'catholic abuse of children' is awkward and misleading. Abuse of children by Catholic priests seems more precise.

Personally I like polemics, they convey outrage, but I have learned there are people who do not like such vehemence or facts.
-not that there is anything wrong with that-

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:25 PM

The information I got the other day was from a Wikipedia article on the Regensburger Domspatzen. An excerpt:

Sexual abuse scandals
In the wake of worldwide scandals, incidents of sexual abuse at the choir school became public in March 2010, some of them dating back to 1958. The two named perpetrators both died in 1986. Former choir director Georg Ratzinger has denied knowledge of sexual abuse. The case has taken additional prominence because Georg Ratzinger is the brother of Pope Benedict XVI. A report in 2017 stated that at least 547 boys were victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse or both between the years 1945 and 1992 and that current Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer had announced plans to offer victims compensation of between 5,000 and 20,000 euros ($5,730 US and $22,930) each by the end of the year. The report faulted Ratzinger "in particular for 'looking away' or for failing to intervene." The report also stated that former Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, whom Pope Benedict XVI later named Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, bears "clear responsibility for the strategic, organizational and communicative weaknesses" for his poor efforts to investigate claims of past abuse when they surfaced.

I also gave a link to a July 18 article in the Bavarian Süddeutsche Zeitung that dealt mostly with the compensation being paid to the victims.

There was a Reuters article Tuesday in The Guardian that said there were more than 500 boys physically and sexually abused. The investigator, Ulrich Weber, "found that 547 former pupils had probably been victims of physical and/or sexual violence. Of those, 67 suffered sexual abuse. He blamed 49 individuals, 45 of whom were physically violent and nine of whom were believed to have committed sexual violence."

I did not see anything that said how many of those 49 people accused were priests. It would seem unlikely that there would be 49 priests associated with the choir over half a century, but I suppose it's possible.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 02:13 PM

For reasons unknown my previous thread was closed

I could make an educated guess at the reason and the person who closed it........ oh, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 02:21 PM

Yep, Greg, she didn't like me talking about our bromance....
I think she was trying to protect you from scandal, and she didn't like me calling you Greg the Fraud.

But anyhow, I think it's important to refer to factual information talk about these child abuse matters. I think it helps to refer to facts in discussion of just about anything.

Sometimes I think I'm in the minority on that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:18 PM

I was in Catholic schools for 8 years of grade school, four of high school, and four of college. Those last 8 years were in a seminary, where I lived in a dormitory. I had a tough first semester of first grade. All I remember is that the nun made me sit in a corner all the time. My folks pulled me out of that school, and my experiences in Catholic school after that were good. There was one priest in the seminary that I hated, but that was because he was a mean bastard, not that he was physically abusive. Mostly I really liked my teachers. I had mostly nuns in grade school and mostly priests as teachers in the seminary, very few lay teachers. I didn't experience anything one would call abuse in those 16 years. I know hundreds of priests, and I do know some who were accused of sexual offenses - maybe 5 percent of the priests I've known are on the list of offenders at http://bishopaccountability.org/. Some of those who were accused, I expected would get into trouble sooner or later. But most were not people I would suspect of having any tendency toward abusing children.

But abuse was part of education in the not-too-distant past. Many people took "spare the rod and spoil the child" to mean that abuse was a necessary part of child-rearing. I've seen it often in the way coaches treat athletic teams, although I didn't experience that myself. I've seen a few Scout leaders whose treatment of kids bordered on physical abuse - and one who was removed because of sexual abuse of his own children.

I worked for 5 summers at a Catholic boys' camp, and we had one counselor whose reckless conduct bordered on abuse. One time, he drove the camp truck, full of kids, at 90 miles an hour. One time, one of the kids forced another to do a blowjob on a third boy - and somehow, this counselor was on duty in the cabin and unaware of what was going on. "Mooning" (exposing one's bare rump to the world) was popular at the time, and this counselor did it often. He got fired when the camp director (a priest who was preoccupied with a blonde social worker we called "Barbie Doll") finally figured out how crazy he was.

Now, where I encountered abuse, was in Basic Training in the U.S. Army at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri in 1970, at the age of 21. There has always been a train of thought in the military and law enforcement (and boys' choirs and military academies and some residential schools), that abuse is a necessary part of training - to "toughen up" those young men and give them the discipline they needed. Our fort was under scrutiny because several recruits had died of meningitis the previous winter. Some of the drill sergeants, especially younger ones, were reluctant to accept the controls that had been imposed upon them, and they did whatever they could to bend the rules so they could mete out what they thought was a proper amount of abuse. One drill sergeant took a special disliking to me, and subjected me to a constant flow of demeaning verbal abuse and extra duty. He never touched me, but he did everything he could to break me. I finally had it, and blew up with a stream of profanity and a list of all the things he'd done to me. I was sure I'd be punished, but I'd had it. The drill sergeant was shocked, and almost seemed scared. He left me alone after that. I think he felt threatened by the thought that I had a list in my head of all the things he'd done. But those 8 weeks in Basic Training was the most miserable time in my life.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:57 PM

Joe, everything in this world doesn't revolve around you. You certainly ARE in the minority about a LOT of issues.

My advice: get over it.

Or seek professional help.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:24 PM

Oh, OK, Greg. What's THAT all about?

Scorned bromance, I guess. Don't pay it no nevermind, folkies. The rejection hurts so incredibly bad, but I'll get over it...

Here's a link to the Weber report on the Regensburger Domspatzen:

http://uw-recht.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Abschlussbericht_Domspatzen.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:21 PM

No, Joey The Hypocrite - excuse me, but as you can call people names swith impunity, I thought I'd follow your example - - that's about the fact your limited personal experiences don't have squat to do with the subject of this thread - unless of course you've abused children yourself or have personal knowledge of persons that have done so.

So, Joey - since many folks on this thread disagree with your viewpoint, can we expect you'll make it disappear?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:41 PM

I attended Catholic schools for 13 years. The last seven were spent at an all-boys school run by priests and brothers. The only female on the staff, except for the cooks, was the school nurse, and even that was a matter of doubt. I did receive what I now recognise to be a lot of ridiculous "education" but I never witnessed or experienced any sexual abuse, nor heard any rumours of it. I went on several school journeys too - no problems. Like most schools there was corporal punishment, in our case allegedly administered via a leather implement of some sort, but it was administered sparsely, never to me, and I never heard reports of bare bottoms. Yet when I visited the school website's message board recently I saw a load of really serious accusations of abuse dating from the time I was there. I couldn't get my head round that.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:46 PM

Greg, have you any idea at all what it must be like to have suffered abuse (of any sort)? For Joe to have shared on here his experiences undergoing Basic Training at the young age of 21 must have been rather hard for him. The abuse of the choirboys included physical, verbal and bullying. Joe has suffered those too and wanted presumably to express how it felt.
To tell him to 'get over it' is appallingly rude and unkind.
This thread isn't about being completely nasty to other posters, including Joe.
I can't speak for other contributors on this thread, but for myself I find your abrasive and confrontational style childish, annoying and deplorable, and not at all in the spirit of Mudcat.
You need to get yourself some manners and some humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:53 PM

In the U.S., the term molestation is often used to describe the sexual abuse of children; and I think that the simple term "abuse" is often understood to be physical or verbal, usually without sexual connotations. Most of us who have children or have worked with children, have at times been guilty of such abuse - the kid gets out of control, and we respond with a slap or a cruel word. Sometimes, we're convinced that such abuse is the right thing to do, although we'd never dream of doing something sexual to a child. Whatever the case, sexual abuse is almost always separated from physical and verbal abuse in the U.S.

There doesn't seem to be that separation in stories that come from Europe. When I see an article from Europe that says that 547 children were abused, my first thought is that they were all sexually abused. I felt relieved when I saw that 67 were victims of sexual abuse, and the others of varying levels of physical abuse. And we don't know what those levels are, or their frequency. Maybe some were just a slap on the face or the fingers. Maybe some required medical treatment. We don't know.

When I was a camp counselor in the 1960s, I would sometimes calm down unruly boys by forcing them to sit on my lap while I held htem tight around the waist and talked to the calmly. That never hurt anyone, and it prevented the kid from hurting anyone - but I understand that practice is now unacceptable.

One time, when a kid was completely out of control, I grabbed him by the wrist and squeezed until he settled down. I was appalled to see a bit of a bruise on his wrist. Was I abusive?

This abuse happens everywhere - not only in institutions that we don't like. Sometimes, it's done by people we know and love. In fact, the people we love most probably do it just as often as the people we hate. Isn't that right, Greg?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:57 PM

Er, with respect I think that Joe's been upping the ante somewhat more than necessary lately. He does it to me but I can't be arsed to get too worked up about it. I have too much gardening to do.

Anyway, dunno why I posted my last post. All I can say is that the saddest aspect of sexual abuse in the Church is the tendency of the powers that be to cover it up. If priests were allowed to be happily married chaps like me I think the problem would, well, not disappear maybe, but be much reduced. But the honest thing to do is to address abuse issues head on, not try to pretend that they don't really happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:03 PM

I'd agree with your comments about child abuse and coverups, Steve.

And yes, I've been upping the ante, because I've heard too many complaints about a small, combative sect taking over the BS forum. I'm hoping maybe that can be fixed by some substantive, fact-based discussion, laced with a little humor directed at those who fail to make a positive contribution to the discussion.

I know some people who got a little nervous about my "bromance" remarks...

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:23 PM

a small, combative sect taking over the BS forum.

Is this "sect" extraterrestrials? Muslims? Scientologists?

Or just persons who disagree with you?

Of course, as a "mod" or a not mod, depending upon which of your posts we choose to believe- you don't have to conform to the regulations that everyone else needs to comply with.

Does that factor into this?

With all due respect,

Greg The Fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:23 PM

"Maybe some were just a slap on the face or the fingers."

You really didn't need to do that Greg mention, did you, Joe? Anyway. Your mention of rapped fingers reminded me of a tale that's gone into Shaw family history. My mum had tried to teach me to to do my letters before I went to school, and, by the time I went, I was pretty good at doing capitals. But when my teacher, Miss Scanlon, tried to get the class to do lower-case letters, I refused. Lower case was not what my mum had taught me and NOBODY overruled my mum. End of.

So a frustrated Miss Scanlon seized a six-inch ruler and bashed me on the fingers, firmly but very gently, I admit. But I wasn't having it. I marched out of school, five years old, straight to the police station, half a mile from the school, where I reported Miss Scanlon for hitting me FOR NOTHING! The desk sergeant was very nice and he took me seriously and even wrote things down. Eventually my dad came to rescue me from the police station. Miss Scanlon was mortified that I'd reported her to the police and was very nice to me from then on. She even let me carry her handbag on the way to church on holy days of obligation. Years later, I got to know her a bit better and realised what a solid gold woman she was. The house in Radcliffe where she lived on her own is still there and I never fail to remember her as I drive past it on my way to my mum and dad's. She died almost twenty years ago aged 90 and is buried in Radcliffe Cemetery.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:14 PM

Greg, have you any idea at all what it must be like to have suffered abuse (of any sort)?

Damn right I do, and I HAVE, as have several generations of my family - both Jewish and Irish, since the 1840's.

Give it a frickin' rest. Who the hell do you think you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:47 PM

Steve, the Miss Scanlon story was great. As for Greg - well, I don't want him to feel I'm ignoring him. He gets really testy when he feels he's being ignored. I actually like the guy - but don't tell him that. It's fun needling him.

When I was in Third Grade (age 8) in a Catholic school in Detroit, we had Mrs. Ross. Mrs. Ross had a reputation for throwing chalkboard erasers at boys when thye misbehaved. She threw a lot of erasers, and it always seemed to make us laugh. Nobody ever got hurt or even got hurt feelings, but I suppose some people nowadays would think it horribly abusive.

And then in Eighth grade in Wisconsin, Sister Raymonde was principal. If you did something in class that the teacher couldn't deal with, you went to Sister Raymonde. If your offense was bad enough, you'd get swatted on the behind with her canoe paddle. I never heard anyone say that it hurt. The word was that wind resistance slowed the paddle down enough that it couldn't hurt you. Sister Raymonde administered punishments with a smile and a sense of humor, and kids loved her. The "bad kids" seemed to try to get sent to Sister Raymonde.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 12:44 AM

I was a college student in the seminary for the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1966-70. Even then, the archdiocese was aware that there was a problem with priests molesting children. As a result, seminarians were subjected to stringent psychological screening. In the second year of college, we were all given a battery of psychological tests, and we each had an interview with a psychiatrist. One Monday morning early in my third year of college, 10 classmates were gone, without explanation from anyone. We figured out that the ten had been removed because they had failed the psychological testing. Few of those who were removed were big surprises - they were all pretty strange. I was never aware of any sexual abuse problems while I was in the seminary, but I see at http://bishop-accountability.org that two seminary professors I knew were accused of sexual misconduct and were removed from ministry. In all, I knew 13 of the Milwaukee priests on the "accused" list for Milwaukee and two from Sacramento. The Sacramento priests were both good friends of mine, but I saw nothing about them that raised any question in my mind. The accusations against one of the Sacramento priests are just too much to deny. The other one was exonerated.

In the 1970s, the Catholic bishops of the United States pooled their money and built several state-of-the-art treatment centers for priests with mental health and addiction problems, and sexual problems including molestation of children. The psychiatrists who staffed these centers promised sure results, and the bishops believed them. Troubled priests were sent to the centers for 6 months to a year of treatment, and then were sent home when they were certified as "cured." Many bishops reassigned priests to new assignments as soon as they came home with a certificate of rehabilitation. It took a number of years to determine that a number of "cured" priests just went right back to their previous misconduct. Some were sent from one parish to another, hoping that "cured" priests would find a good fit in a second parish if they didn't fit into the first assignment.

Mind you, there were far too many dioceses who just turned a blind eye to the problem of molesting priests - I think that mostly they were afraid of the cost of reparations for these criminal priests, and they put their finances above the concerns of the victims of these crimes. I think that a good number of dioceses, including my own Sacramento Diocese, did their best to handle each sexual abuse case quickly and with compassion for the victims - even back in the 1980s.

There was almost no press coverage of the sexual abuse problems in the Catholic Church for a long, long time. In 1983, the National Catholic Reporter published its first story about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. It has reliably cranked out articles about church sex abuse ever since - and many bishops hate this publication. I've subscribed to the newspaper since it was first published in the 1960s.

The sex scandal was hidden by the Catholic Church in Europe for a much longer time, and I don't know why that coverup succeeded for so long. Maybe because they didn't have a nasty little newspaper like the National Catholic Reporter, or maybe because the Catholic Church in Europe was more often a "state religion."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 02:40 AM

Greg, how dare you address me like that???? You rude, objectionable chip-on-shoulder nitwit!!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 02:45 AM

I'm beginning to worry, I seem to be agreeing strongly with every post from Sen...:0)   I suspect Sen is more worried than me about that.

IMO this thread and its predecessor were submitted in a vindictive attempt to get at Joe......I also suspect that Joe is well aware of this and even so, has taken time to explain his views on the matter.

The Catholic Church does NOT promote the sexual assault of teenagers and young men by it's priesthood, is opposed to homosexuality in all its teachings, supports family values etc. The fact that these crimes are taking place in such numbers points to the psychological health, or ill health of the perpetrators.
Where the Catholic Church fails in my opinion, is in not properly vetting the men who enter the priesthood, perhaps it would be politically incorrect to do so, but a large number of mainly young men would be saved from severe mental problems in later life due to these criminal actions.

Would it really be impossible to amend the celibacy rule and have "family values" promoted by people who actually know something about family life?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:14 AM

Ake, if they had amended the celibacy rule, I'd be a priest today. I'm very active in church activities, and people often think I AM a priest. I applied again for the priesthood in 1996 after I got a divorce and annulment, but they weren't interested. At the time, my diocese was recruiting priests almost exclusively from third world countries. I think that all this will eventually force the Catholic Church to restructure the function of priesthood, perhaps into a less elevated and more temporary position - but it won't happen in my lifetime.

Ake, you say that the Catholic Church fails in not vetting the men who enter the priesthood, but I described above the "extreme vetting" process I went through in the seminary.

I think the Catholic Church fails by setting priests apart from real life, in a position where actual human beings cannot live. I can't tell you how many priests I know who are profoundly unhappy. The only happy ones seem to be the ones in religious orders who live in community. There are wonderful men and women in my congregation who would make excellent priests. I'm sure I could pick twenty who would do a better job than any of the priests who were assigned to my parish in the 15 years I have been there.

And no, I don't think this thread was started as an affront to me. It's a legitimate question that ought to be discussed seriously.

Oh, another thing. I have no strong prejudice against homosexuals, but I do feel uncomfortable around heterosexuals and homosexuals who seem to sexualize every moment. There was a time before the "purge" in my seminary, when the atmosphere had a sexual charge to it. There were times I felt I was the only straight guy in the place. That's not true - there was a heterosexual majority there, but the heterosexuals weren't out being sexy every moment. It was a very uncomfortable feeling. I hope I've been able to say that without being offensive to anyone's sexual orientation, because it's not about whether one is hetero or homosexual. It's about "hitting on" people all the time, instead of just interacting as friends and letting a sexual attraction grow natually if it does.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:10 AM

No akenaton, you've got me wrong. I may have disagreed in the past with some of your opinions and standpoints, but you have never been aggressively rude or insulting to me. One can differ without being nasty, and you have always been civil.

I admire Joe for continuing to post in depth about the thread title. He obviously knows much about the Catholic religion and this particular case, and his information is interesting and informative. He also hasn't 'bitten'anybody. I cannot understand why anyone would want to insult or mock him.

"...who do you think you are?..." Well I know exactly who I am and what I stand for. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:42 AM

Sadly child abuse is not restricted to the Catholic church. Many religions and organisations are equally guilty.

http://childfriendlyfaith.org/information-about-abuse-neglect-by-religion/

Having had 7 years of a Jesuit education, I can say that I had absolutely no suspicion of anything untoward happening to any of the pupils during my time there, other than having a blackboard duster hurled across the room or getting beaten by whalebone encased in leather. Then it was the norm. There was not the slightest hint of any sexual predation although it is clear that it happened elsewhere.

If anything can be worse than a deviant priesthood it must be forces representing the UN that are guilty of child abuse. This is an organisation with a specific mission to protect the rights of children.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/united-nations-soldiers-paedophilia-un-child-rape-ngo-staff-a7648791.html

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:07 AM

Is Greg too nasty to be a part of this community.
Have not enough decent, moderate people like Sen been driven away from the forum?

He usually does not even express views on the topic under discussion.
(A bunch of his friends are dominating the Labour thread while refusing to enter debate on it right now.)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:25 AM

Clerical abuse was first documented by a clerical scribe writing The Annals around the time The Book of Kells was being put together - there is little doubt that is has been a part of enclosed religious life since time immemorial
What we are seeing is a gradually more enlightened time coming to terms with sexuality and wronging old bad habits - certain sections of the religious population seem to be having trouble with that
As Iains rightly points out, this type of abuse is not confined to the Church - it happens wherever unrestricted power is wielded over the weak and vulnerable - nor is the abuse confined to sexual behaviour
It most certainly is not confined to the Catholic Church the **** has yet to hit the fan over similar abuses in other religions.
Those Christians who have targeted Muslims over their attitudes to sex need to set about building themselves a fall-out shelter
It has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality - homosexuals are no more prone to rape and paedophilia than are hetros
In my opinion homophobia is a sickness - not homosexuality
Clerical - or any serial abuse within institutions is about power and distorted sexuality due to enforced celibacy - it is also down to availability of victims
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Ake goes into Wandsworth Nick or The Scrubs and calls the inmates a bunch of 'disease ridden poofdahs' - you could sell tickets for those particular cage fights
The main criminals in the case of Catholic clerical abuse are those who covered up and facilitated the rapes of children - the church leaders from the bishops to the Vatican
The latter still refuses access to documented evidence that would give closer to the victims and the surviving families of those whose lives were scarred and ruined even to the point of suicide
In Ireland, details are now emerging of the possibility of manslaughter by clerical institutions - secret mass graves and covered up deaths of maltreated children under institutional care
The most positive   
The past and current revelations are a speck compared to the diarrhea storm that is quite likely to hit the fan
Probaly the most positive thing to come out of all this is that, at long last, the grip of the church on the minds of the people appears to be weakening - some way to go but early days yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:28 AM

"Is Greg too nasty to be a part of this community."
Isn't it about time your started sorting out your own behaviour rather than concentrating on that of others Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:47 AM

Jim.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/boys-town-founder-fr-flanagan-warned-irish-church-about-abuse-46390952-237644371

Thus far the politicians have not had too many stones upturned. No doubt their day will come.
Were Elm House and Haut de la Garenne discredited enquiries, squashed, or still to tell their story?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:28 AM

Jim.....I'm afraid the stats say something different.


Catholic League view

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:30 AM

how dare you address me like that????

Well, Sen, back up and re-read a few of your posts and then ask yourself the same qiestion.

GTF

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:32 AM

I think Jim, you'd rightly object to a thread with the title "Muslim Abuse of children".

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:38 AM

"...Give it a frickin' rest. Who the hell do you think you are?..."

Greg, I have never, either in my life or on here, ever ever spoken to anyone in such a fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:20 AM

Keith, we are trying to rescue the Labour thread from your insane and obsessive grip. If that means discussing the heights of mountains, or Dave, well so be it. Your input is highly repressive, and responding to it is worse than pointless.

Joe, one problem in this sexy-obsessive world of ours is the language we use. Priests are "celibate." We have "gay weddings" and "same-sex marriage." You'd think that the average priest went around all day expending his energy resisting sexy urges instead of getting on with his priestly duties. You'd think that gay people shunned the mundane vicissitudes of everyday life so that they can spend all their time "being gay." One clown here insists on referring to "homosexual marriage." Defining a long-term relationship via a reference to sexual proclivities in that way only is a gross misrepresentation. Well I've been happily married for forty years and, while you don't get to hear about my sex life, I can tell you without fear or favour that I haven't quite got sex on the brain all day (I used to, but I had it lowered). There are lots of lovely young women on holiday here at the moment and I confess to being one of those blokes who has enough of an "aesthetic" streak in him to have a very subliminal sexy thought at frequent intervals (though not quite every six seconds). But as I go about whatever it is I go about every day, it's on the back burner. So I agree with you. We can have great, well-balanced lives without sex being upfront all the time. That's just annoying. I like the openness of modern life but there can be casualties.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: bobad
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:33 AM

Keith, we are trying to rescue the Labour thread from your insane and obsessive grip.

By putting it into the insane and obsessive grip of your cabal of bullies.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:40 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:32 AM

I think Jim, you'd rightly object to a thread with the title "Muslim Abuse of children".
Unfortunately the original title is open to being misread.

While the Roman Catholic church (and many of the public) seem to believe that the word 'catholic' relates exclusively to that church, its meaning is actually much wider.

Much as 'Conservatives', and 'conservatives' have different meanings. Putting the term at the start of a sentence (or heading) will force it to start with an upper case letter whether that is the intended use or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:15 AM

"Thus far the politicians have not had too many stones upturned. No doubt their day will come."
I'm not sure what your link was about Iains, the power of the church was such that many people knew about it and did nothing while many who claimed it was going on were ignored or vilified
Particularly horrific was the case of the priest who committed more rapes of children than any other, Brendan Smythe, it's difficult to find out exactly how many rapes he committed, but it's recond to go into the hundreds.
Each time his behaviour was discovered he was moved on to continue raping children - this included Wisconsin
When the children protested he called them sinners for defying 'God's will' and when the parents confronted his cardinal they were given a religious lecture and told they would never win if they took on the church.
"Jim.....I'm afraid the stats say something different."
And I'm afraid that the last people I would go for information is a body who has never come to terms with sexuality, has struggled with the idea of sexuality since Jesus and Mary Magdalene were mates, is dominated by elderly single men who see fit to pronounce on matters such as contraception and pregnancy termination and who prohibit half the population on this planet from taking Holy Orders because of their gender.
Homosexuality is as familiar as walking on the Moon to these people
This affair is still in its early days and the powers that be have not begun to quantify the incidents, let alone find the causes - that takes specialist skills by qualified people

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:22 AM

Whoops
Preamature ejaculation - must stop doing that
Pronouncements such as that one leaves the distinct impression of something being covered up.
"I think Jim, you'd rightly object to a thread with the title "Muslim Abuse of children"
I certainly would if it was an attempt to implicate the religion as a whole
I have always made it quite clear that I believe this involves the church hierarchy, not Catholics as a whole
Maybe the title should read The Catholic Church's abuse of children, jus as the Muslim cases should read the abuse of young women by a handful of Muslim criminals.
Unfortunately, the latter is not possible because of the Islamophobic nature of Western society
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:43 AM

Ake, the Catholic League is an extremist group, not an official Catholic representative.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:17 AM

Sorry Joe I was unaware of that, but I suppose the stats will be accurate, as they are repeated on several media outlets.

In what way are they extremist? they seem to promote the ideals of the Catholic Church, regarding homosexuality, family, abortion etc.

Would a socially conservative organisation not be nearer the mark?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:24 AM

"Keith, we are trying to rescue the Labour thread from your insane and obsessive grip. If that means discussing the heights of mountains, or Dave, well so be it. Your input is highly repressive, and responding to it is worse than pointless."

I'm sure a simple apology to Keith concerning your tactics on the thread would have been accepted and would have saved the thread from becoming meaningless?   Or perhaps that was your intention when all chance of escape with any sort of credibility was gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:31 AM

" they seem to promote the ideals of the Catholic Church, regarding homosexuality, family, abortion etc."
It seems to have escaped your notice that the views expressed by the old guard of the Church are as extremist as they come
Some have still to leave behind the opinion that sex is a necessary evil and the church constantly attempts to infuence the various referaenda on pregnancy termination.
Ireland is on the point of taking its first giant step into the middle of the twentieth century compared to Britain - we await with bated breath to se whether it will make it
A few years ago a couple of 'Magdalene Nuns' were interviewed over their roles in the Madelene Laundries
They said their work was "guided by god" and described their victims as "fallen women" and "the sweepings of the street"
Dickens would have been proud of such phrases had propriety allowed him to use them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 12:02 PM

Ake
All stats are accurate but unless you understand why they were quoted, how and why they were obtained and how they fit into the broader picture they are worse than useless.
To put the Catholic League into context they appear to be the equivalent of the "Wee Frees" I am translating Joe's definition into language you may understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 02:43 PM

Please, do not think that this problem is confined to the Roman Catholic denomination. If its ie more common there, that is probably due to the (semi-) enforced celibacy of the priesthood.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:24 PM

Jim. The point I was making was twofold:
Father Flanagan who founded boys town came back to Ireland and severely criticised the abuse of children in institutions he visited. The Irish government villified him. This was in the 1940's. Claims of abuse are not new-gathering a believing audience is.
https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/only-father-flanagan-of-boys-town-shouted-stop-to-child-abuse-in-ireland
My second point is that the boystown Fr Flanagan founded was itself the subject of investigation under the Franklin affair. Many claims were made concerning abuse but subsequent court action found them to be baseless.Not everyone accepts this verdict.
It may be pure coincidence but I find it hard to accept that whenever politicians are the subject of claims of abuse the subsequent enquiries seem to have all vestiges of credibility destroyed, long long before a case can be prepared. Are the allegations baseless? or creatively destroyed?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:40 PM

Sorry Iains
Still don't get your point
The Church and the State were hand in hand in this affair, and to an extent, still are.
Accusations of abuse were treated with contempt and disbelief by the Authorities and the church hierarchy, even though many of both were well aware of what was happening
Even parents didn't accept what was happening to the kids, so powerful was the influence of the Church
Up to the present day, the State has undertaken to bear the financial burden of the abuses being exposed - some of the religioius bodies have refused to pay anything, even the wealthy ones, and taxpayers money is being used to fill the gap
Films like The Magdelene Girls, and the one on the Industrial schools based on Patrick Galvin's trilogy did more to expose the facts than did the establishment
A similar job was done in Canada with 'The Boys of St Vincents"
DeValera's dream of Ireland couldn't cope with all this - brave investigative journalists did what the State should have been doing
I honestly can't think of one prominent clerical whistleblower - though there must have been some.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:34 PM

Two great films of the recent past which involve some of these matters are "Philomena" and "Spotlight". Deserved award winners.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:57 PM

The Industrial Schools movie that Jim refers to is Song for a Raggy Boy. It's an excellent film. I can't remember who recommended it to me, but I suspect that it was either Jim or Martin Ryan.

Iains posted a link to a very interesting piece about Father Flanagan (of Boys' Town) and his condemnation of the Industrial Schools. Please, take a look at it.

Now, there's an interesting bit of church political intrigue in the Domspatzen matter. Gerhard Ludwig Müller was Bishop of Regensburg 2002-2012. Here's what the Wikipedia article on Müller says:

In 2016, Fritz Wallner, a former chair of the lay diocesan council in Regensburg, Germany, alleged that Müller as Bishop of Regensburg had "systematically" thwarted the investigation of abuse in the "Regensburger Domspatzen" boys' choir. Georg Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI's brother, led the choir from 1964 to 1994. Müller insisted that neither the church nor its bishops were responsible for abusers. In February 2012, he said that "if a schoolteacher abuses a child, it is not the school nor the Ministry of Education that are to blame." He maintained that only the perpetrator is guilty. In 2016, a commission of 12 members was instituted to address the history of abuse and its cover-up in the boys' choir, a move critics viewed as long overdue. Wallner called for the church to purge any person associated with Müller, who had overseen the church's response to the allegations. In July 2017, a comprehensive report on abuse at the boys choirs said that Müller had "clear responsibility for the strategic, organizational and communicative weaknesses" of the church's response when the abuses were first reported.

In 2012, Benedict XVI appointed Müller Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) [once known as the Holy Office, or the Holy Inquisition]. Müller's 5-year term was up in 2017, and Pope Francis did not renew his contract - i.e., Müller was sacked. And Müller did not take his removal gracefully. He complained about the short notice of the non-renewal, and chose to retire rather than accepting a new assighment. It will be interesting to see whether Müller will be another troublemaking "Cardinal without portfolio" like the renegade Cardinal Burke.
Both Burke and Müller come from the old school, which believes in the "discipline" that appears to have been the rule at the Regensburger Domspatzen, along with a belief in obedience to top-down management. Trouble is, Burke and Müller don't like the guy at the top, and seem to be almost in open rebellion against Francis.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:15 PM

Would recommend both of these highly
There is a steady trickle of such films now; the most impressive being 'Mea Maxima Culpa'
I can remember the time when such films would be met by massive protests and censorship
Hopefully they will continue to treat the subject seriously rather than capitalise by sensationalising it
Galvin's 'Raggy Boy' trilogy (thanks Joe) is worth reading as a piece of literature
Among the first albums of traditional songs was his double album set, songs of Irish Rebellion - still have them.
His published collection of songs published by the Workers Music Association remains a classic
Sorry for the thread drift - thought I'd try on my other hat
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:30 PM

Ake, the Catholic League is one of a number of right-wing Catholic organizations that act like they're official representatives of the Catholic Church. The group was founded in 1973 by Jesuit priest and Merquette professor Virgil Blum, and kept a fairly low profile in its early years. A new president, Bill Donohoe, took office in 1993 and has maintained a much more aggressive stance. It often seems like the League is a one-man operation, but it is supported by the extreme right-wing bishops of the U.S. Its office is on the same floor as the offices of the Archdioces of New York, but it has no official connection to the Archdiocese or to the Catholic Church.
And it really pisses me off when news agencies go to Donohoe and ask him to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. This happens quite often. Why can't they go to a bishop, or to the National Council of Catholic Bishops?

Early in the history of the Internet, the right-wingers grabbed up all the Catholic-sounding URLS and built websites on some of them. The most popular is Catholic Answers https://www.catholic.com/, which has a "team of apologists standing by to answer your questions.
Then there's the Eternal Word Television Network, EWTN, which has cable TV stations all over the U.S. and a network of radio stations.

All of these right-wing organizations speak as though they are official representatives of the Catholic Church. This has been a bit uneasy in recent years, because they aren't sure they like Pope Francis.

The right-wingers control very few Catholic universities in the U.S. Most of the universities are older institutions run by religious orders that don't agree with the neoconservatives. Many of these religious orders have their own publications and other media. These religious orders make it clear that they speak for themselves, not for the Catholic Church. My favorite in America Communications, run by the New York Province of the Jesuits.

I liked above to the National Catholic Reporter, which takes pride in being a "liberal rag." It is fiercely independent. Another independent Catholic publication is Commonweal Magazine.

So, generally the way it is in the American Catholic Church, is that the liberals speak for themselves, and the conservatives claim to speak the absolute truth for the entire Catholic Church. After all, they really believe that only they have the truth.

So, be careful of the Catholic League.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:24 PM

Today a news article on the BBC implicates Buddists as not following a true path. Could someone do the honours and provide a link please.

It's a pain in the proverbially trying to do so on a an android.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:40 PM

Thanks Joe, I followed one of your links National Catholic Advisor. I found an article concerning the issue being dealt with on this thread.

I am amazed that you can recommend this publication.

It was a large article of many pages, but I read it through, they started by citing the abuse of a child...a little girl, by a member of the priesthood, from there they rambled on about how terrible paedophilia was.
Not once in the article was the main issue addressed.....that this is not about paedophilia, but the sexual abuse of teenagers and young men by homosexual priests.
Never mentioned in the who article?   These people are IMO not in the business of "advising", but rather in "concealing"......they must know the statistics from the previous priest abuse scandals.....that over 80% of the victims are male between 12 and 17......That over 80% of male abusers of young boys had already had homosexual experience.

Maybe I was unlucky in the article I picked, but I would appreciate your views on the piece, just follow your link.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:00 PM

So - if something is written badly, the information it carries is of no value??
Homosexuality has never at any time been linked to clerical abuse - that is part of your archaic hatred of homosexuals
Give us a break Ake - can't we be allowed to discuss this topic seriously without your using it as a hate-soapbox?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:38 PM

Am I the only one who finds it incredibly distasteful that someone should use the sexual abuse of children as a soapbox to attack a state of sexuality that is now fully legal and is is recognised as being as natural as being left-handed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 02:20 PM

Ake, the National Catholic Reporter has had hundreds of articles on the subject of the abuse of children by clergy in the Catholic Church, all available at that link. Here (click) is a link to the most recent of many articles on the Regensburger Domspatzen. I believe that in a boys' choir, the boys are usually soprano, which means that they are reasonably young.
But it really doesn't matter, does it? When an over-21 adult has sex with an under-18 child, it's a crime in most civilized parts of the world.
You can access many, if not all, of the National Catholic Reporter articles on abuse under "Accountability" on their Website. The National Catholic Reporter is very critical of how the Catholic Church has mishandled the sexual abuse crisis all these year - and their position more-or-less matches mine. Here (click) is a sex-offender priest's story. It's very unsettling.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:54 PM

Jim, I am "attacking" the sexual assault of mainly youths by adult men who happen to be priests.

If these priests had been heterosexual and were assaulting young girls you would be screaming for their blood.

You are a clumsy and ignorant debater, stick to ranting.
You should find the words Racist, Fascist, homophobe if used often enough, will keep your head above water.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:17 PM

Joe.
The age of consent in the UK is 16years and has been for some time. The only exception until recently was for homosexual males where the age was 18 until recently. Now it is also 16.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_United_Kingdom

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM

It isn't here. It varies by state. Of course, I haven't had a job where I had to know for some years.
Age of Consent, by state

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:54 PM

Iains is wrong, Jeri. There are important exceptions here. He hasn't done his homework. Nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:18 PM

well little sniper shaw hows about you enlighten us all or are you simply popping up to troll as you normally do when you have zilch to contribute. You are saying wikipedia is wrong. Possibly it is. It would not be the first time. Perhaps if you know so much you would care to tell us the specifics of its error.

he age of consent (the legal age to have sex) in the UK is 16 years old.

The laws are there to protect children. They are not there to prosecute under-16s who have mutually consenting sexual activity but will be used if there is abuse or exploitation involved.

To help protect younger children the law says anyone under the age of 13 can never legally give consent. This means that anyone engaging in sexual activity with a child who is 12 or younger will be subject to penalties set out under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The law also gives extra protection to young people who are 16 to 17 years old. It is illegal to:

    take, show or distribute indecent photographs
    pay for or arrange sexual services
    for a person in a position of trust (for example, teachers, care workers) to engage in sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: SussexCarole
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM

No one seems to have mentioned the mental abuse of children by the Catholic 'authorities'. Guilt, sin and more guilt - that's what we were made to feel about ourselves at our Catholic Primary school.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:45 PM

No sniping, no trolling. You simply hadn't checked your facts. You said the only exception was for homosexual males, etc. etc. It wasn't the only exception at all and I'm glad to see that you corrected yourself in your subsequent post, which came after mine. Since 2000, it has been illegal for people in a position of trust to engage in sexual activity with children under 18. That is a very important exception that covers people working in a number of professions dealing with children. You got that wrong then you called me a troll then you corrected yourself. Weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Shakey
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:00 PM

SussexCarole, if there was an up-vote button I would click it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: SussexCarole
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:25 PM

Thanks Shakey

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:29 PM

I never got the guilt thing in my upbringing, or in my 16 years of Catholic education. Still, I don't deny that it exists - and it's a phenomenon that warrants study. Seems to me that it exists primarily in ultra-conservative institutions and families. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the severity and harsh discipline that is found in some religious schools. It seemed to me that it was common in the West of Ireland, but not around Dublin. It's a prevalent attitude in many dioceses in the United States, but not in most. Some of it seems to depend on the tone the local bishop sets; but some dioceses have a tradition of severity and the people want a severe bishop.

In every Catholic parish I've belonged to, there seem to be a few sad-looking women who appear to be very pious; and they seem to keep having babies. I rarely see them with husbands. If the husband is there, he seems aloof, and uninvolved in caring for the children.

Lately, the conservative women in our parish have begun wearing headcoverings, usually lace mantillas. I'm not sure what that's about. Most of these women, while conservative, are not the somber sort. But there's one young women who concerns me. She spends 15 minutes or more after Sunday Mass, kneeling on the concrete floor in the aisle - and she seems to be crying. So, I wonder what the deal is with her.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 02:41 AM


I never got the guilt thing in my upbringing, or in my 16 years of Catholic education. Still, I don't deny that it exists

That is my experience as well. I imagine my primary school of the very late 50's and early 60's was as orthodox as any - we always had the Angelus for example, had long rosary sessions and we all learned sections of the 'penny catechism' by heart - but we never got those "you are all sinners bound for hell!" diatribes: in fact we associated them with somewhat mad varieties of the more extreme Protestants.

As for matters of sex: it simply didn't arise. Perhaps because Vatican II had happened before I reached senior school, but I recall no discussion of any sort of sexual matters outside biology lessons. What did arise was a much more generalised discussion about treating everyone with respect, with no distinction by gender. You can, perhaps, put this down to the teachers and school being repressed about sex, but for my part I didn't. Rather, I treated it as an important aspect of life, but one amongst many.

One little scene to ponder, when I was at University and around 20. I was in the foyer area outside computer room with Sarah who was going to a party in that evening. She asked for help putting a necklace on and while I was doing so remarked I was the only male friend she had she would trust to do that. Maybe that marks me as an odd-ball, or repressed, or some such, but to me it was more an indictment of all the other men she knew, that 'a little grope' was somehow acceptable. Given the choice of the repressed or the gropers, I know which camp I would rather fit into.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 03:15 AM

"well little sniper shaw hows about you enlighten us all or are you simply popping up to troll as you normally do when you have zilch to contribute."
So far this tragic and potentially contentious discussion has been conducted with the minimum of personal abuse and a fair degree of dignity and gravity-
Is it too much to expect that the victims of these events are treated with enough respect to not get this thread closed?
"If these priests had been heterosexual and were assaulting young girls you would be screaming for their blood.""
I don't "scream for blood" nor do I rant
The same thing I asked of Iains goes for you
Personal abuse aside, unlike you, I don't discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual crimes or Catholic or Muslin or Traveller or Irish crimes - a crime is a crime, whoever commits it.
Nor do I try to make any of these anything other than the criminal acts they are.
The Clerical abuse outrages have two distinct aspects.
I've never believed the "few bad apples" theory" - far too many incidents and far too long a history.
The celibate nature of clerical life may have something to do with it, but this abuse has gone hand in hand with centuries of power and influence wielded with draconian savagery - its weaponry ranges from divine blackmail to simple brute force and has been established by a Church that has been given access to children's minds from the moment they begin to think - I'm delighted somebody brought up "guilt"
The Irish church (I grew up with the phrase "Holy Ireland" ringing in my ears) is on the skids - congregations have dwindled, the numbers of masses have been reduced and in some towns, no longer take place, and there is a recruitment crisis in the priesthood.
And still the Vatican will not open its files to victims, Religious bodies will not pay legally demanded compensation and the victims of the savage MAGDALENE LAUNDRIES are still being described as "whores" and "the sweepings of the street".
These crimes have never really been generated by sex - it has always been about the wielding of power in order to establish superiority and control over subjects.
That power is coming to an end
Education here is now a pitched battle, with the church fighting desperately to maintain its 90% plus stranglehold on education
Yesterday it was announced that an inquiry is to be held into the use of nuns in the medical system (possibly something to do with a recently failed attempt to put Ireland's largest maternity hospital under the control of a religious body that believes pregnancy termination to be a 'mortal sin') - not to mention the deaths of women who have been forbidden treatment because "Ireland is a Catholic Country" (to quote a Galway Hospital medical attendant)
I find it beyond belief that a notorious homophobe should attempt to turn this into another campaign against homosexuality (sorry - I lie, given past behaviour, I would have been surprised if it hadn't become an issue).
Enough is enough Ake - homosexuality has been recognised as the nature=al state of being that it is - please try to keep up with what has been happening in the outside world for well over half a century.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 03:53 AM

Jim.
I had no intention of poisoning this thread. If Shaw wished to draw attention to further qualifiers concerning the age of consent, he had his chance but wished to merely make the point that I had not done my research. All legislation has minutae attached. The general premise about the age of consent being 16 was correct. It would be hoped that someone who claims to have been a teacher would be aware of the age of consent being lifted to 18 when one of those involved is in a position of authority over a minor. This qualifier is not in the mainstream and would not be known without a specific search. Shaw could have added this to the debate instead he chose to write"Iains is wrong, Jeri. There are important exceptions here. He hasn't done his homework. Nothing new. ". Now Jim is that a useful contribution or merely provoking? Amplification of this important legislation is welcomed, point scoring is not. His behaviour here towards my posting is typical on all threads that I participate in. The old adage "It is better to give than to receive" did not have shaw's puerile behaviour in mind. His sole purpose is to bully, goad,and divert threads. If you wish I can supply numerous examples from both him and his puny acolytes.
Now let us return to this very important topic

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 05:01 AM

"I had no intention of poisoning this thread. If Shaw wished to draw attention to further qualifiers concerning the age of consent"
It was your boorish bad manners I was referring to Iains - not your opinion
I doubt if you are qualified to judge the reasons for another poster
expressing an opinion - try to pretend the rest of us know as much as you for five minutes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 05:55 AM

There was not "legislation with minutae [sic] attached." The legislation was changed significantly in 2000 to protect children between 16 and 18 from sexual activity with people in positions of trust. That is hardly "minutiae." You said that the only exception had been for male homosexual activity. I'm glad that my post prompted you to correct yourself in the end, even with your customary bad grace. Perhaps you could refrain from making authoritative statements that are uninformed in future. We waste a lot of energy here checking the accuracy of what people say when they could have afforded us the good manners to check it for themselves first. Your current outbursts on three separate threads are boorish in the extreme and are uncalled for. It's about time you reined yourself in.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:47 AM

The guilt thing was very real at the schools I attended. The overall general drift was that we are all miserable wretches who need saving, but, at least, we were Catholics and had a game chance as long as we stuck to the rules. Naturally, anything at all to do with sex pitched you into severe danger of mortal sin. I can't think that I was especially unusual in living in a permanent state of guilty unease in consequence. The double whammy was that you then had to confess all your impure thoughts/impure acts to a celibate man behind a screen, who would occasionally entertain himself by requiring you to elaborate on the lascivious details of your transgressions. Even then I found the notion that you could rid yourself of several weeks of accumulated guilt by muttering three Hail Marys to be ludicrous. I kid you not - we were once told that the very best time to be run over by a bus was as you left the church just after confession.

However, the silliness of it all is relatively benign compared with what happens in other religions. It doesn't make it right but it wasn't too hard to escape and, in spite of what Joe may think, I came out relatively undamaged and can laugh about it.

But that isn't the same as sexual or physical abuse...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:56 AM

Well jimmy and chunderboy you both seem determined to wreck this thread(as usual) So let us look at some recent posting to see what fine fellows you are:

Shaw a recent post,"Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling" (I suspect many would dispute that statement)

Jimmy a recent post. "Now fuck off and provide some evidence"

Shaw a recent post."Leave the Chardonnay for the kids and the Essex girls. About your level, actually. Someone's got to drink it I suppose. Oaky whites? I puke in your general direction."

Shaw."You're a waste of space. And unfunny to boot."(definitely hit a nerve there!)

Shaw your patronising, schoolmaster, know it all approach simply makes you look even sillier than you are.

Now I suggest you both troll off and let the serious discussion continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 01:16 PM

It seems to me that the "legal age of consent" does not come into this equation, as even the seventeen year old victims were sexually assaulter.....I don't think consent was given in any of the cases.

Jim, This thread deals with "Catholic abuse of children"......over 80% of sexual abuse of young people in the Catholic Church is perpetrated against boys...by adult males many of whom admit to previous homosexual contact.

The statistics are glaringly obvious....The Church itself is only guilty of some isolated cover ups and a stupid celibacy rule. The criminals as always are the perpetrators, who in this case are mainly homosexual.

Now don't come back until you find some alternative cause of this very unusual type of abuse and why it is perpetrated by people with previous homosexual contact.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:54 AM

Perhaps you'd care to forget your homophobic instincts for a minute and contemplate the glaringly obvious fact that male priests have extremely limited opportunities to gain access to young girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 12:11 PM

I have yet to hear of any homosexuals who have a sexual interest in young girls.....or for that matter heteros who have a sexual interest in young men......You are clutching at straws.

Estimates of homosexual presence in the priesthood range from over 20% to almost 40%...I find the higher figure unbelievable, but even 5% would be a massive over-representation.

I advise you to join Jim in his hunt for an alternative answer to this vexing issue......Don't hurry back.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:02 PM

Estimates of homosexual presence in the priesthood range from over 20% to almost 40%

According to what? "The Homophobe's Handy Desk Reference And Bible"?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:06 PM

It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay. Estimates range widely, from 10 percent to 60 percent.

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:10 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

Meta analysis points to 1 in 3

These figures are really quite easy to come by

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:36 PM

It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay.

Yep, that's the word, all right. Unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:29 PM

By the fixation on the percentage of homosexual priests one would be led to assume they are automatically sexual predators. Sexual predators exist in all walks of life, the only significant factor is that as priests they have a greater opportunity to be predators by virtue of more exposure to potential victims.

How many priests are homosexuals is a total irrelevance. The question to be asked is how many are predators. The answer is nobody knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:40 PM

Iains, we are discussing a specific crime here "Catholic abuse of children".....Nobody is trying to insinuate that all male homosexuals are predators.

No one has yet come up with an alternative cause of Catholic child abuse, the evidence regarding the sexual orientation of most of the predators is pretty convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:45 PM

Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana but I agree with that, Iains. The only thing I'd add is that priests may attract particular reverence from their flocks which may help them to better hide their activities. There's nothing special about priests in that regard. There are lots of people in well-respected positions who have similar opportunities. What is disturbing about the Church is the apparent predilection for covering it up once it's been discovered. The Church opens itself up to accusations of institutionalising the cover-ups, therefore the abuse itself. That's the issue. It would be really good to see an assertive, open, zero-tolerance approach to abuse from the Church. That is what we haven't seen and that's the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:56 PM

Thanks for that very interesting link Shakey, I have taken the liberty of doing a "Blue Clicky"
Number 0f Homosexual priest estimates

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 05:01 PM

"It would be really good to see an assertive, open, zero-tolerance approach to abuse from the Church. That is what we haven't seen and that's the problem"

But you can't stand the truth Steve, that has become obvious on many threads.......and you just hate the Church

Do you expect us to take you seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:06 PM

Ake, Catholic priests are normally 24 to 26 years old when they're ordained. If the victim is a 16 or even 15 years old male or female, I might concede that a priest's attraction to that victim could be considered "normal," if inappropriate and most likely illegal.

But if the victim is 14 years or younger, that's perversion. And there have been plenty of victims 14 years old and younger.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the John Jay report on priest sex abuse in the U.S. The complete document is here:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:44 PM

Having been educated in catholic schools I am aware of numerous individuals who did not conform to an accepted norm for teachers.

From the Nun at infant school who liked to put small boys over her knee to spank them to some very dodgy christian brothers at my grammer school.

I avoided the brothers like the plague and I would suggest they never tried it on with me as a punch in the nuts often offends.

How many of my fellow scholars succumbed I do not know, but I suspect more than a handfull did.

Personally I would have castrated anyone found to be guilty of such crimes ...... and I know that's not very christian of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:23 PM

What a stupid post, akenaton.

The Catholic Church has been a big part of my life and it still is for many members of my close and extended family, including my parents, who are still battling on. I can write articulately and grammatically and I have priests and brothers to thank for that. I'm a scientist and I received a pretty good grounding in the basics of science at my secondary school. Whatever moral standpoints I now adhere to must have had their germ in my Catholic upbringing. It's the only one I had, after all.

Looking back, I also see that I was exposed to the kinds of absurdities that I occasionally like to make fun of here. We Catholics were the only people who could get to heaven and masturbation meant hellfire. Stuff like that. No-one's ever managed to tell me what happened to all those poor buggers who ate meat on Fridays before the rule was relaxed. And no one-legged man has ever come home from Lourdes with two legs.

But I found it easy enough to escape. I'm an atheist of the Dawkins persuasion, but I must confess that leaving Catholicism behind isn't going to get you beheaded even if your granny might go ballistic. I think that adherence to a religion and a belief in an impossible deity is infantile in the extreme. But anyone who wants to believe it is fully entitled to do so, no ifs, no buts.

Catholicism is like all other religions in that it can only survive by catching people before they are sentient beings. I don't like that dishonesty one little bit and I think it damages people. But the current problem for the Church is that it is failing to demonstrate that it holds the moral high ground. Simply moving errant priests to remote parishes won't do. You'll be found out. Denying the dreadful abuses of the past by trying to rationalise them is disreputable. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Either you confront that in a straightforward, open and honest way or you risk being branded institutionally hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM

".and you just hate the Church"
Who wouldn't hate an organistion that has covered up and facilitated the persistent rape of children for decades
YOuu defend these crimes by refusing to discuss them
Instead you use the thread as a soapbox to trumpet your hatred of homosexuals
If are the best Church can offer in its defence it deserves to be brought into line and controlled
These rapes have nothing to do with homosexuality - gays are no more prone to paedophilia's than any other section of society
In fact most cases of paedophelia come from withing the family or from family friends - I believe you have something to say about "family values".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 03:11 PM

"over 80% of sexual abuse of young people in the Catholic Church is perpetrated against boys."
The church is actually guilty of not removing the perpetrators out of being in the position where they were able to rape children
They ignored the rapes until they became so obvious they could no longer do so,
They then passed the perpetrators on to parishes where they were not known and could continue their little hobby
When this became too obvious, they were shipped abroad where they could rape African children
This was deliberate collusion, not just cover-up.   
The Senior Clergy kept this behaviour secret and threatened the parents who dared complain
To this day, the Vatican has refused access to many of the documents that might bring closure to the victims and their families - a form of ongoing abuse.
A number of rapists still occupy high office in the dying church
It matters little that people like you continue to defend this behaviour - the church will never return to the position it once held - it is losing its influence in schools, congregations are declining and churches are undermanned by clergy - rightly so.
As an atheist, I bear no ill will to believers and their belief - they are quite at liberty to do so without the malignant influence of the church
Believers do not need the church, but it will be interesting to see how politicians in a declining system manage manage without divine support

In a few years time the catholic Church as a body will be as dead as The Church of England
That is to be welcomed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 07:00 PM

You speak too broadly, Jim. Yes, what you say is true for some locations. That didn't happen in my diocese of Sacramento, California. Priests who offended were removed from ministry, and victims were offered counseling and compensation. Offenses were reported to law enforcement authorities, and some of the offenders went to prison.
In one neighboring diocese, Santa Rosa, the exact opposite happened.

In the much-larger diocese where I grew up, Milwaukee, results were mixed - but most cases were handled reasonably well. That's about how the crime of sex abuse is handled the world over - sometimes it's handled well, sometimes not-so-well, and sometimes it's covered up.

One would think that such a thing should never happen in a church. But it does happen - and when it does, it's a scandal.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 07:22 PM

"Yes, what you say is true for some locations."
It happened in enough locations to be described as commonplace Joe
In Ireland is has been accepted as having happened without dispute - you may find pockets where that was not the case, but what I described was commonplace - there are no reports of whistle-blowers siding with the victims and supporting their complaints
The churches have been found out and have pleaded gui;ty - the government had ordered to pay some reparation and has agreed to foot a large proportion of the bill (which is being paid for by the taxpayer)
Some of the church groups have refused to pay
There is no dispute that the Church as a body acted to cover it up these crimes and continue to do so by refusing to pass on vital documented information.
The major documentary on the scandal, Mea Maxima Culpa, was based on events in the U.S.
All this is a done deal - all that needs to be decided now is whether the church should ever have access to people's minds and bodies ever again - the faithful are boting with their feet on that one, hence the empty churches and shortages of priests.
It's more than a scandal - it's a crucial question on the trustworthiness of the church as an organisation and it's spread into education and to health care
Had the referendum on same sex marriage taken place before the clerical abuse revelations, Ireland would still be living in the dark ages
As it is, the threats of excommunication fell on deaf ears - hopefully any forthcoming votes on women's rights to choose will meet the same fate
One religion schools and demands for baptismal certificates in order to be educated is the next in line
The grip is well and truly broken
This is an ecclesiastic earthquake - not before time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 08:09 PM

Too broad a brush, Jim.

Take the offense named in the original post. It was first reported in 2010, hit the press again in 2016, and then again in 2017 - each time, people react as if this were a brand-new story. Most of the offenses happened before 1990. Of the 547 cases reported, 67 were instances of sexual abuse, and they took place over a period of 60 years. Two of the offenders were identified as priests who both died in 1986, the other 47 merely as "Catholics."

And yes, the offenses were commonplace, and they happened all over the world. I've seen no evidence that clergy committed sex offenses at a rate higher than other men, but still it's a terrible scandal that such things should be done by clergy. And there is no doubt in my mind that the sexual abuse of children is a serious crime that should be vigorously prosecuted.

But sex abuse of children is commonplace everywhere, wherever there are children. It happens in schools, sports teams, and youth organizations.

Jim sez, as he has often said before: all that needs to be decided now is whether the church should ever have access to people's minds and bodies ever again

I suppose the same should be said for schools, sports teams, youth organizations - and families.

Institutions are stuck between a rock and a hard place if they report crimes committed by their employees or volunteers. They face mass hysteria, and they also face financial claims likely to drive them to bankruptcy as punishment for offenses they did not commit. Seems to me there ought to be a better way to handle such things. My diocese ended up paying $1 million to each victim, decades after the offenses; even though the diocese had "done the right thing" in the first place and referred the offenders to prosecution and paid victims $40,000 or $25,000.

People are outraged by crime - and they should be. But it's also important to view things in proportion and remember that the vast majority of people (and priests) never, ever commit a crime. If we overreact to crime, we risk building a repressive society.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 09:52 PM

I count at least two dozen other threads on this topic. Doesn't anyone search the Forum before creating a new thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 10:29 PM

Well, Rap, BS threads get so nasty as time goes along. Maybe it's better to start out fresh every once in a while.

It's an issue I've been concerned about for forty years, and I've had to deal with it directly on occasion. It arouses a lot of concern, and rightly so. I think that it is vitally important that we as a society learn how to react to crime. Too often, the reaction is hysteria. Demagogues like to take advantage of the rightful anger and fear that people have about crime, and then stir it into a frenzy of prejudice.

How do we deal with crime in constructive ways? Too often, our responses to crime can be more damaging than the crime itself.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 11:50 PM

I think the thing is Joe - you misunderstand.

i've never been to America - but i get the impression from the Americans who come over here, that religion is something from the old country - you take it as seriously as you feel it warrants. People call themselves Jewish who've never been in a synagogue in their lives.

Ireland and the Catholic ghettos in English cities like Liverpool. It is the old country. In Ireland since Devalera's time - Catholicism is part of the constitution, and really there isn't personal space for an opt out.

I was from an orange and green background - my mother was the only one of four kids not brought up in the church. The totality with which my Catholic relatives submitted themselves to the rulings of the church was intense - mentally you took a step back. The brutality of the teaching brothers was something no one questioned, or queried their right to behave cruelly like that. Divorce, contraception were totally forbidden - and the rulings were adhered to absolutely. Little kids knew every word of the service and all the hymns - in Latin! Scariest was the way the kids talked to the priests. We were always respectful to our teachers - but the Catholic kids acted as though it was their duty to love the bastards who were for no real reason, beating them unmercifully.

They owned their souls, in a way which I think a non-Irish person would find hard to understand.

if i'm wrong in my observations Jim - I apologise. That's just the way it seemed to me. I worked in Germany for a while. Theres lots of Catholics there, and they seem more relaxed - but Irish Catholicism seems qualitatively different. something a bit mad about it!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:51 AM

Some things you can equivocate Joe but not this.
This is not an issue you can say "well but..." about.
You should not hedge yourself about this.
To give arguments like 'other people do the same crime elsewhere' - is an excuse that taints yourself.

No second hand defense whatsoever should be given.
Nor should you offer a Mea culpa unless you are guilty directly or by offering moral or physical support to the perpetrators in any way.

If they are guilty that is all you need to say.

Some things are cut and dried, set in stone or beyond absolution.
Or is this against your religion?

You will be better off NOT trying to reconcile the two.
I believe some things are irreconcilable. But that's just me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:09 AM

No, Al, I don't think I misunderstand. I've studied the sociology of the Catholic Church with a very critical eye since my seminary days in the 1960s - and I've seen a lot of places where the Catholic Church is very, very sick. I have visited many churches and convents in Ireland, and I've seen both the good and the bad. I certainly acknowledge and deplore the bad, but I've also seen good in the Catholic Church in Ireland. But yes, there's an awful lot of bad, a repressive air that seems to pervade everything in some parishes.

In the Sacramento Diocese where I've lived for almost 40 years, there is an unusually large number of Irish-born priests and nuns - and I know dozens of priests and nuns here who were born in Ireland. I had a 30-year relationship with an Irish-born priest here who was a particular bastard who did his best to make Catholic life miserable for me - but lots of people loved the m----f----. But for the most part, the Irish-born priests and nuns I know are wonderful people. I've asked a number of them what it was like when they were growing up, and almost all of them had a very positive experience.

It's the same in the U.S. Many Catholics grew up in very severe surroundings, and their experience of the Catholic Church was severe. Most are no longer Catholics, but some grew up thinking that severity is an inevitable part of life. They do their best to make their parishes the unpleasant places they think churches should be. I met a sacristan in a church in County Clare who was like that - I'm sure she gave a sour attitude to the whole parish. And the Cathedral in Galway was like that. The two priests I met there were quite nice, but the entire congregation was somber and sour.

My sister was a very active and happy Catholic until she lived in Boston during the era of Cardinal Law. All of the Catholic Church in Massachusetts seemed to be set on denying the sexual abuse that had gone on in a number of parishes, and that air of denial caused a sickness in the entire archdiocese. That soured my sister on Catholicism, and rightly so. She left, and hasn't been back since.

My other sister lived in Connecticut, and her husband got sick and died when she was 40. A local priest made friends with my brother-in-law during that time, and visited him often. But there were times when the priest would be alone with my sister, and he made sexual advances toward her - while her husband was near death in the next room.

So, yeah, Al, I see the bad stuff - and I fight it wherever I find it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:16 AM

if i'm wrong in my observations Jim
Can't see why you have to apologise Al - that's exactly the way it seems to me
Joe
I really can't see why you feel this is "too broad a brush"
What is unique about these abuses is the power used to carry them out - I can't think of another group of people who could tell the children that what was happening to them was "God's will" as Brendan Smythe did to hes 100 or so victims, or the access to childrens' minds enjoyed by the clerics.
The arrogance of the church hierarchy and the continuing refusal to co-operate fully has done and will continue to do enormous damage
It is true that such abuses happen in all walks of life, but the obvious immunity felt by the church shown in the way they behaved and are still behaving separates it from all other forms
I didn't start this thread; had I done so I might have chosen a different title - 'The Religious Abuse of Children' maybe - that's what it is.
Other religious and non religious bodies are involved - the Church of Ireland still need to examine their own consciences as to what happened in the Six Counties - care and medical homes are now coming under scrutiny
This really is a multi-faceted affair
The victims need to be satisfied that their case has been heard fully - it still hasn't - blanket solutions and deals never do that
I've met a few who still won't speak up about what happened to them - the self-hatred, guilt and shame is palpable.
The revelations have called into question the position of the church in society - whether a group with such a powerful influence should ever be entrusted to care of the vulnerable again being the foremost
It is misleading to say that these reports first emerged in 2010 - similar reports in the form of innuendos and hints have been circulating throughout my life - dodgy priests, scoutmasters, teachers..... all grist to the child's oral culture
"Bad apples", "recent events" miss the point by miles
I would have thought that handling this in a correct and open manner is a matter of self-interest for the church
I am saddened to see the effect it has had on lifelong devotees who are still trying to cope with the damage it has done to their own faith.
Rap
This affair has opened up a massive can of worms which goes far beyond that actual abuses
I really do believe that 'you ain't seen nuffin' yet'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:30 AM

Jim, Brendan Smyth was an incredibly evil man.

But he was one man.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:41 AM

Brush sizes are irrelevant.
That which is irreconcilable only leaves criminals and victims in need of repair. For the criminals, justice. For the victims, healing.
Hence, reparations are in order.

As long as Priest's crimes are put in a separate category outside the code of criminal justice those who enable sick Priests are an accomplice to the crimes.

One can pile excuses high or bury evidence deep but that only aids and abets the criminals. It appears Pope Francis agrees with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:17 AM

Jim sez: I would have thought that handling this in a correct and open manner is a matter of self-interest for the church

I think so, too, Jim. But I think that since about 2002, the Catholic Church has fairly quickly turned itself around on this matter. Yes, there are still some offenses and some coverups - but I think that the tide has turned and that Catholics are insisting on full disclosure about everything that has happened.

I said that the offense named in the original post - the Regensburger Domspatzen offenses - was first reported in 2010, and then re-reported in 2016 and again in 2017. In earlier posts in this thread, I said that my diocese was aware of a problem in the late 1960s and responded to it then by giving us seminarians rigorous psychological testing, and that other U.S. dioceses responded by building treatment centers in the 1970s, and that the National Catholic Reporter began reporting church sex offenses in 1983 and has published hundreds of critical articles since then. How is that misleading?

I think we need to examine the hundreds of individual offenses one by one, in detail, and determine exactly what happened and why. What's happening is that people are getting the distorted impression that sexual abuse happens all the time, everywhere there is a Catholic church. Catholic priests are incredibly disheartened because they're all suspects of crime now, and yet only 5 percent of them have actually committed the crimes - maybe up to 10 percent in some places, but the most credible percentage I've seen is 5 percent.

In the U.S., http://bishop-accountability.org/ has a database that reports on every diocese and every priest. It's not a pretty picture, but it reports the truth. And part of the truth is that at least 90 percent of priests are not guilty of sex offenses.

Presenting a distorted view of crime, whether it's shoplifting or child abuse, doesn't help anyone.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:19 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests

https://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/facts-and-stats-on-child-abuse/

All child abuse needs to be uncovered and punished. Concentrating on a small minority of Catholic priests as the sole perpetrators is taking the spotlight away from far more people that are guilty of the crime.
The above 2 links shed a little more light on the scale of the problem.
This quote from the second link illustrates my point;
"Very few children (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust, for example a teacher, religious leader or care/social worker."

For absolute clarity the statistics apply only to the UK and Ireland.
However I would be surprised if the breakdown of the statistics would show much variation worldwide.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:19 AM

"But he was one man."
He was one of many Joe
You continue to avoid the point
This happened because (at best) the church ignored it
It spread because they allowed the passing on of perpetrators to other parishes
It continues to be a problem because of the refusal of the church to acknowledge the damage that was done and continues to be done - that reaches the very top of the organisation
Things cannot and will not be allowed to happen again and the only way to make the best of that is for the many good people in the church to face it head on
The longer it is not resolved the more damage that will be done to the thinks I believe you hold to be important
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:28 AM

Ah, you're a stubborn man, Jim Carroll.

You're wrong, but you're a stubborn man....

I don't deny the offenses that happened - and there were indeed many. But there were many more who did not offend, and who did not participate in coverups. They don't deserve your blanket accusal.

Broad brush, Jim, broad brush.

-Joe Offer-

And Donuel, the width of the brush does indeed matter. It's an injustice to accuse those who have done nothing wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:43 AM

Sorry Joe
You are taking the same line as your church
Can you7 explain why your church has taken the nosedive it has

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:01 AM

what i meant was -i'm not being racist -not in this case at least!
it really seemed to me that Irish Catholicism seemed to have this mad intense thing that's not there in the mediterranean or the northern european church. The Spanish Inquisition aside!

Theres this wonderful scene in a Ken Russel film - the one about Delius, where his young scribe Eric Fenby arrives at church in northern europe somewhere one afternoon where he finds the local priest having sex in the pews with an eager parishoner.

THe priest looks up, and Fenby says ,will you take my confession?

Without saying a word they both just walk towards the confessional.

So relaxed - you can't imagine that story amongst the Catholics I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:09 AM

The Church has got itself into a mess by appearing to be institutionally complicit in cover-ups, Joe. This is slightly redolent of the ugly Labour Party thread (don't go there...) in which the party has been accused of harbouring antisemitism. There has been a lot of hand-wringing and self-examination inside the party, of which I'm a member, over that issue (never enough to satisfy some outsiders, naturally) and it's been played out in full public gaze. I will not be a member of a party that is institutionally antisemitic but I'm happy that the party is not such, despite the rotten apples. This doesn't appear to have happened in the Church. I say "appear." Sexual abuse is a criminal offence and we need to see the thing fully and frankly out in the open, not priests quietly moved from their parishes or the Church taking decades to reluctantly admit that widespread abuse has gone on. That's called making a rod for one's own back, ironically in an attempt to save one's own arse, when the Christian thing to do would have been to immediately put the victims first. If you're happy (not you personally) to be in an organisation that appears institutionally corrupt, fine. If you're not happy to be a member of an organisation that's perceived that way, you have to organise and fight like mad from within and you have to be seen doing it. As a now-outsider seeing a fight that looks from the outside to be reluctant, patchy and drawn-out I'd say it isn't anywhere near enough.

And this post is not an invitation for the usual opportunists to start rattling on about antisemitism. I hope you'll delete any posts of that nature that appear. I could be wrong but I thought the comparison was apt in some regards.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:38 AM

Jim asks: Can you7 explain why your church has taken the nosedive it has

Well, yes, Jim.

• 40 percent left because the Catholic Church went liberal. They became fundamentalist Christians.
• 40 percent left because it didn't go liberal enough. They became atheist and "spiritual but not religious." Or Unitarian.
• And we who remain think it's our responsibility to make the Catholic Church into what it ought to be.

It never should have been a "state religion." Putting Church into bed with State, was a huge misdeed. Constantine didn't do religion any favors.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:44 AM

And Steve, you say the Christian thing to do would have been to immediately put the victims first.

That's what happened in my diocese. We had a bishop who was a good guy. And that's what happened in a lot of dioceses.

But not all, regrettably.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 06:15 AM

Which is the problem. I don't doubt that the vast majority of Catholics are good people. As you'd expect, I still know lots myself. But a large part of this issue is about perception. Once you've made that rod for your back it's damned hard to put things right in the public eye. Bad reputations are easy to collect but hard to shed.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM

None of that explains the animosity being expressed against the church particularly in represent to the abuses, the Laundries and the violence of the industrial schools - it's fairly specific.
If what you say happened in your parish happened everywhere, there wouldn't be a problem
It didn't and there is
Simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:12 AM

Mormons.

Jews.

Baptists.

Methodists.

Aetheists.

etc. etc. etc.

Like rape, this seems to be a crime based upon control. Not sexual, just one person wanting, needing, to enslave another to (usually) his desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:20 PM

I would say that there have been between five and ten percent of priests doing the sexual assaults.
And another five to ten percent covering up. These are mostly motivated by cowardice, I believe.
The percentage of offenders is small, but a few wrongdoers can have a vast effect. Brendan Smyth had 143 victims, spread over a number of parishes. His criminal conduct poisoned every one of those parish communities. I don't know how a congregation can survive such a betrayal - even though it was just one man who did the crime.
Smyth was first suspected of sexual misconduct in the 1970s, but he was not arrested until 1991. I can't figure out the dynamics of what went on during that period. Did Smyth's superiors in the Norbertine order not believe the allegations, or were they trying to protect themselves from financial claims, or what?
This is what I cannot understand. With all of this going on, how could church authorities continue to allow it? To my knowledge, no church official has come forward to speak with total honesty about what happened.
I do have a theory. Almost every chancery office (administrative office) in almost every diocese, is staffed mostly by priests who are social misfits. They're the milquetoast types who cannot relate to people, so they cannot function for long as parish priests. I've met a lot of very creepy priests in chancery offices, and they quietly wield a lot of power. They serve to insulate bishops from honesty, and they deal with problems in cowardly, secretive ways under the bishop's authority - and without the bishop's knowledge. But in the end, the bishop is responsible for their actions. I can picture that - chancery people quietly moving offenders from one place to another while hushing everything up. Two or three quiet transfers a year can happen easily without anybody noticing - and can multiply the damage exponentially. And if a priest dares to speak up in complaint about a problem with another priest, he can easily be transferred to a remote, rural parish. The bishop is out making official visits all around the diocese, totally aware of what is going on in the chancery office. And bishops are usually transferred in from other locations, so they don't really know the priests they supervise.
And regular parish priests are isolated, rarely aware of what goes on oiutside their own parish - managing a parish is all they can deal with. And to a great extent, sex offender priests are very charming and engaging on the surface - and they often do their jobs as priests very well. Who would ever expect that such a charming, gentle person would be a child molester?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:34 PM

Given that this abuse is not a new phenomena I find your suggestion difficult to believe Joe. This abuse has been widely known in the Catholic church (for example) for decades. I should expect, as a minimum, that a responsible leader, eg a bishop, should be constantly vigilant for such abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:40 PM

One question Joe why are there so many homosexuals in the priesthood and why is abuse of minors in the general population overwhelmingly against females, while in the Catholic church 4 out of 5 victims are youths between 14 and eighteen (post pubescent)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:46 PM

But the bishops tried, Raggytash. They gave us seminarians rigorous psychological testing in the 1960s, and they believed that would solve the problem. They spent millions on state-of-the-art treatment centers in the 1970s and 1980s, and were proud that these centers could do such wonderful things to turn around the lives of wayward priests.
And when the bishops lost faith in the treatment centers in the late 1980s, they began referring criminal priests to criminal prosecution. The number of offenses dropped dramatically in the 1990s, but that was too late.
Most people really don't know how to deal with crime. Should bishops be expected to be all-wise in such matters? Hindsight is easy, but what was in the minds of these people when all this was happening? I have worked with children all my life, and I have been in situations where I found out later that people were committing sex offenses with children - and I had no idea at all what was happening, until the criminal was arrested. Child molestation is the quietest of crimes.
There was a guy who lived across the street from me who was physically and verbally abusive to his children and to his wife. I'd say things to him about it on occasion when I felt he was getting out of hand, and he'd stop. I never thought about calling the police. Maybe I should have, but would that have solved the problem or made it worse? How have you responded to similar situations?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:53 PM

Should bishops be expected to be all wise . . Frankly yes Joe they should. They are promoted to a position of being responsible for all that happens in their diocese.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 02:57 PM

You got a broken record on your machine there, Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:05 PM

Should bishops be expected to be all-wise in such matters

The church generally doesn't hold back it's opinions on the big questions of how we should all live our lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:14 PM

You got a broken record on your machine there, Ake?

Yup - as well as a broken head.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:25 PM

Yup - as well as a broken head.

Insightful - No
Funny - Nope
Cutting - Not Even

Why bother

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 06:41 PM

Why Bother

'Cause its The truth. Not that it would matter to you, Sharkey.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:25 PM

'Cause its The truth. Not that it would matter to you, Sharkey.

Oh, so his head is broken is it, you know that and it's the truth?

And just to help

Shakey

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:39 PM

"You got a broken record on your machine there, Ake? "
Sounds like a dose of latent homosexuality to me Joe
Why else would anybody be so obsessed with other people's sexual inclinations?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:10 PM

OK, thanks, got it now, Sharkey.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:37 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/us/priest-resigns-post-at-notre-dame-amid-accusations-of-sex-abuse.html

The students were seminarians. He died in 2015. The author of the antiabortion book "Rachel Weeping" among others. The original story was in the South Bend Tribune, confirming rumors that had circulated for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 09:25 PM

Here's another on Burchtaell.

Notre Dame didn't talk about such things when I lived a couple blocks away (1982-2000). Then the Burtchaell thing hit.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 02:31 AM

There is nothing wrong with my head, and my questions are pertinent to the thread.....it is also interesting that no one has tried to answer civilly.

The facts that I mention were brought up in the John Jay report linked to by Joe......As you say in the US, "If it walks, talks and looks, it generally is"

Of course the real answer is that the question is inconvenient and strikes at the whole ethos of "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 02:55 AM

Thanks Iains - 27 Jul 17 - 04:19 AM for those two links that attempt to inject some perspective into this thread - unfortunately it will not be appreciated as it runs counter to the mistaken dearly held beliefs of some of the "usual suspects" on this forum.

Plainly stated if the subject under discussion is "child abuse" then it would appear that some here feel that those responsible for less than one percent of all child abuse are worthy of separate condemnation while the remaining 99% are not - funny that - must be that time of year reserved for the hobby-horse "Grand National", or was it created by Raggy to deliberately troll Joe Offer?

Like most of Raggy's efforts this one gets shot down with the ease of all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:06 AM

"it is also interesting that no one has tried to answer civilly."
You are an obsessive homophobe Ake
Homosexuality is now recognised as a natural state of being for a large section of the population - it has become fully accepted in our society
In the near future it will be as illegal for you and people like you to behave the way you do as it is for racists to behave as they do - it is one of society's remaining great hates.
By no stretch of the imagination can your behaviour be described as "reasonable" particularly when it is uses as a platform the long running and large scale rape o children
Your continuing obsession is unhealthy and your gleeful reveling in the health risks brought on by a natural condition is more than a little stomach-turning
The health risks are in fact no different than those brought on by other forms of human contact, sexual or otherwise - the fact that (the natural state of) homosexuality has been suppressed for so long is the cause of society not having got to grips with the solution to those problems yet - if it were to take up your "gay plague" "unnatural" argument, the problems of this "natural state" would never be solved.
Homosexuality is not God's punishment' or 'evil' or 'unnatural' - it is a fact of life for many millions of people - a nautural state of being
Live with it and stop persecuting people who have done nothing to you.
Paedophelia has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality, it is predominantly an act carried out by heterosexuals, largely by family members and close friends - documented fact.
Is that "civil" enough for you or is it just another of my "rants"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:35 AM

Ake says in the Catholic church 4 out of 5 victims are youths between 14 and eighteen (post pubescent). He says he gets his information from John Jay report on sexual abuse in the U.S. Catholic Church.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of the statistics in the Jay report:

The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages of 15 and 17 years.

13.2% were age 14
11.6% were age 15
 8.6% were age 16
 6.5% were age 17

That totals 39.9%, or approximately 4 out of 10 - half the number you cite.

As for gay priests, the number I most often hear is that about a third of priests are homosexual. Why so many? Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (par. 2357), homosexuals who are not sexually active can be quite comfortable in a seminary and in the priesthood. When I was in the seminary, nobody hassled homosexuals. Nobody made fun of them. Nobody told anti-homosexual jokes. There were times in the seminary when I felt that I was in an atmosphere that was overly sexualized, and it seemed to be a homosexual sexualization.

As for why priests are more likely to molest boys than girls, I think it's mostly because priests at one time were more likely to have unsupervised contact with boys. A priest from our parish took five of us seventh-grade boys from Wisconsin to his order's motherhouse in Ontario. He would never have taken a carload of girls on such a trip. And nowadays, it would be unthinkable for a priest to take boys on a 600-mile trip, either. That's too bad - we had a wonderful time, saw Niagara Falls, milked cows for the first and only time in my life, and bought lots of firecrackers (and my neighbor the Sheriff confiscated all of mine, but he was nice about it).

But ake, many of us suspect you use threads like this to promote your anti-homosexual agenda. And we want no part of it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:58 AM

Raggytash answers my question: Should bishops be expected to be all wise . . Frankly yes Joe they should. They are promoted to a position of being responsible for all that happens in their diocese.

In other words, they're Chief Executives (CEOs). They're administrative people who have limited insight into the human psyche. Rarely are they spiritual gurus. And on top of that, nobody really has a full understanding of child molestation. You expect celibate bishops to understand?


And answering the same question, Shakey says: The church generally doesn't hold back it's opinions on the big questions of how we should all live our lives.

You're right about that, Shakey, but I'm thinking that you're thinking that bishops spend all their time dictating sexual mores. If you study what Catholic bishops do, I think you'll find that most of them target their efforts against poverty and other economic issues, against racism, against mass incarceration, and especially against discrimination against immigrants. They really don't know much about sex, and they generally avoid talking about it because their lack of knowledge embarrasses them (despite stereotypes to the contrary).

That's what the Popes talk about too, for the most part. They botched the child molestation scandal horribly, but what they say about other issues is quite worthwhile. Lesson: don't go to bishops for sex advice - but please listen to what they say about immigration and refugees.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 10:13 AM

Jim....The vast majority of the sex crimes committed by priests were not paedophilia.... Paedophilia is an extremely rare crime, and is perpetrated at a lower rate amongst priests than in the general public.
The crimes were mainly sexual assault of minors and young men by adults who had previous homosexual contact.

"After the Boston Globe broke the story on priestly sexual abuse in 2002, the American bishops established an independent panel to study this issue. When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004, noted Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett, who headed the study, said, "There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature."

Furthermore, the panel explicitly said that "we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades."

One of those who served on the National Review Board, Dr. Paul McHugh, is former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins. He is on record saying, "This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it's not being discussed." More recently, the New York Times ran a story on Leslie Lothstein, another psychologist who has treated abusive priests. He concluded that "only a small minority were true pedophiles."

Roderick MacLeish Jr. was the Boston lawyer who pressed the case against the Archdiocese of Boston; he examined all the files on this subject. As reported by Michael Paulson in the Boston Globe, MacLeish concluded that "90 percent of the nearly 400 sexual abuse victims he has represented are boys, and three quarters of them are post-pubescent." Once again, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist who has spent years treating sexually abusive priests. "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia," he said earlier this year. Instead, they have found a "relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia." Fitzgibbons goes further, saying, "Every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships." Notice he didn't saysome priests.

Need more proof? When the John Jay College of Criminal Justice released its findings, the Boston Globe, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation, commented that "more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia." So if the definitive study, which covered the years 1950-2002, concludes that pedophilia was never the issue, why does elite opinion insist that there is a "pedophilia crisis" in the Catholic Church?"


Joe, I have no anti homosexual agenda. I strongly object to the "liberal" ideology which seeks to conceal truth in all matters, not just the crimes of Catholic priests, but this issue is an excellent example.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 11:44 AM

"The crimes were mainly sexual assault of minors and young men by adults who had previous homosexual contact."
You have the advantage over the rest of us -you appear to have information that none f us have access to
There is no overall breakdown of the victims ages or backgrounds - this is exacerbated by the fact that much of the evidence remains locked up and inaccessible
I suppose if you are on a mission, as you appear to be, you may as well make up what suits and ignore what we do know.
Joe's points - not even referred to by you, make the most sense - particularly "I think it's mostly because priests at one time were more likely to have unsupervised contact with boy"
We 'ave already been bombarded with "plague carriers" and "unnatural perverts" by you - why not add "rapist" to the list
You really do hate homosexuals, don't you
Isn't it about time you saw somebody about your crisis of identity?
One of significant facts of all this is that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg, largely due to the personal shame attached to these crimes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 12:29 PM

I seem to reçall that there was some condemnation of ad hominem attacks one of the people who raised the complaints has no objections to doing the same to other posters. Terminus if you do not wish to discuss the subject in hand, fine, leave it to those that do.

We have a group of people, religious leaders, who try to show the rest of the population how to lead their lives. When those same people perpetrate acts of abuse on vulnerable children, most rational people are appalled.

It would appear you are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 12:54 PM

Joe, just for the record, this was in no way meant as an attack on you. I was concerned that a previous thread was deleted for a reason I did not understand. There are many people of faith posting on here and I do not believe this issue should be swept under the carpet, that has happened too often and for too long.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 01:17 PM

Ake, can you PLEASE take your homophobic bullshit somewhare else?

I think that everyone here with a pretention to intelligence is more than tired of seeing your shit slung across the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 03:53 PM

Wikipedia's summary of the John Jay report: The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages of 15 and 17 years.

Ake, you failed to acknowledge that your "4 out of 5 victims are youths between 14 and eighteen" allegation is completely false. I think the division above makes better sense out of things. There's definitely something different about what drives a person to have sex with a child under the age of 10; but sex with those between 11 and 14 is equally deplorable - even if one calls it by a different name. Sex with willing partners between 15 and 17 is more understandable, but that's only 27 percent of the total number of victims. Nonetheless, the sex with those between 15 and 17 is illegal in most locations.

The victims are, for the most part, ten or more years younger than the priests committing the crime. This is not normal conduct, for either heterosexuals or homosexuals - and it's not legal.

Ake, your approach seems to target normal, adult, law-abiding homosexuals. That's why we object. Don't target the people who don't do the crimes.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 05:41 PM

"Ake, your approach seems to target normal, adult, law-abiding homosexuals. That's why we object. Don't target the people who don't do the crimes."

I do not accept that Joe, and have never suggested such a thing.
I am talking solely about the perpetrators within the Catholic Church.

The reason for this abuse seems clear from the evidence, to say that any man would abuse a young boy given the opportunity as you stated earlier is obviously false.....sexual orientation must come into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 06:23 PM

Ake, can you PLEASE take your homophobic bullshit somewhare else?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 06:50 PM

Hmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 10:03 PM

Y'all should just give up trying to get Ake to understand, because he's not capable of it. Either that, or he's just pretending to be that thick to keep you trying to do the impossible, and that really IS "trolling".

Just leave him alone in his impenetrable shell of intentional ignorance.

But if you have any pre-pubescent daughters or grand-daughters, keep them well away from him, because he's obviously a heterosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jul 17 - 10:27 PM

Being fictional, Ake has consistently offered a talented representation of a nightmare conservative and a monument to failed communication or John Q Public.
You be the judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM

Why has this been allowed to degenerate into one of Ake's soapboxes of homosexuality?
H attempted the same on the 'Male fertility' thread and threw in his other "liberal (fascist)" countries old favourite
This is trolling - pure and simple
If he had an argument, he would respond to what others have to say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 11:14 AM

"If he had an argument, he would respond to what others have to say"

Nobody else has said anything sensible about why the abuse happened, why it only happened in the Catholic Church, and why it was perpetrated mainly against post pubescent males.


If you have no answers please don't condemn those who point out the obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:08 PM

No one has said it only happens in the Catholic church though have they Ake you made that bit up. A few days ago I posted a similar item about the Buddhist faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM

Jeri - 28 Jul 17 - 10:03 PM

"But if you have any pre-pubescent daughters or grand-daughters, keep them well away from him, because he's obviously a heterosexual." - As will the majority of all those daughters and grand-daughters prove to be Jeri old girl - Or does that count as a homophobic statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:31 PM

Didn't Jom claim that abuse by members of the Catholic Church was the greatest source of abuse in the twentieth century - Or some such twaddle - in a recent thread that was subject to "Closure". Turns out it amounts to less than 1%.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:35 PM

"No one has said it only happens in the Catholic church"
This has been pointed out several times here and many times elsewhere Scoutmasters and schoolmasters have been mentioned specifically
Accuracy and honesty tends to fly out of th window in these discussions
There have also been numerous "answers" including the wielding of power
All this, you have chosen to ignore
The fact that same sex liaisons by non-homosexuals are common throughout the prison system are two examples regularly brought up as "answers" - you choose to ignore those also
Joe's point "I think it's mostly because priests at one time were more likely to have unsupervised contact with boys".... also ignored.
There are numerous answers, pretending that they haven't been offered appears to be your way of dealing with them.   
It is significant that, throughout the campaign against the Same Sex Marriage referendum here in Ireland, never once was the matter of clerical abuse raised as and example of the evils of homosexuality - not once
Homosexuality has nothing to do with these crimes and nobody has ever attempted to link the two - until now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 12:40 PM

It does seem to be prevalent amongst members of the clergy, certainly in the UK

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 02:37 PM

I guess, in all fairness, I should point out that Akenaton is right about one thing. As Wikipedia says:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Most of us use the term "sexual abuse of children," which refers to all children with whom sexual contact is illegal, but Jim and a few others incorrectly use the term paedophilia. We know what they mean and don't make an issue of it, but Akenaton wants to muddy the waters by spitting hairs and so he continually makes a big deal of it. And don't give me a hard time about my mixed metaphor - it's intentional.

The central fact is that a good number of priests, between 5 and 10 percent, had illegal sexual contact with children; and many dioceses were in a practice of covering up those crimes. I would suggest that for the most part, the coverups no longer take place. What we are arguing about, is a series of crimes that took place twenty or more years ago - and the more recent efforts to clean up the mess.

But that was then, and this is now. It is no longer advantageous to any bishop to cover up any crime of sex abuse - the cost is just too high, and too many eyes are watching. Steve Shaw says above:

It would be really good to see an assertive, open, zero-tolerance approach to abuse from the Church. That is what we haven't seen and that's the problem.

I think that for the most part, zero-tolerance is a reality in the Catholic Church. No priest who is a sex offender has any hope for support or sympathy from the leadership of the Catholic Church. Yes, there is a lot of cleanup left to do for those long-ago crimes, and dioceses will continue to attempt to protect themselves from claims they deem unreasonable. But for the most part, the deeds were done long ago, and reparations have been paid or are in the process of being paid. The Industrial Schools were all closed long ago, and the Magdalene Laundries are no more. And most people no longer go to church, because it is no longer socially required. People who go to church nowadays, go because they want to.

Yes, sex offenders will continue to be a problem in the Catholic Church and other institutions, but the churches and other institutions now know that they cannot protect sex offenders with impunity. Catholic bishops have to retire at the age of 75, so almost all of the bishops who did the coverups are retired or dead.

Harshness and abuse were once accepted practices in the education of children, but this sort of abuse is no longer tolerated by society.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 03:26 PM

Joe, I do not envy you being between a ROCK (the Catholic Church) and a HARD PLACE (a safe haven for pedophiliacs).

Your accumulated knowledge of the fiasco is profound yet a few of your excuses are specious. There are worthy policies then there are realities. It is good to hear change is underway.

It sounds like you have been an instrument of transparency and healing which is to be congratulated. Just as Police are just doing their job, they are considered to be heroic at times when they bring criminals to justice. How many criminals have you captured or is it just academic.

It is for you to know and to feel pride despite your prejudice.

If it was easy everyone would do it.

I know the second thoughts that arise when exposing a Nazi war criminal. Its complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 04:08 PM

I did investigate a number of sex offenders, Donuel. The only one I could say that I caught, was a police officer. He tried all sorts of power games to thwart my investigation.
I also worked in my diocese to implement the no-tolerance policy for child sexual abuses.
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 07:30 PM

that's paradoxically incongruous considering my mention of heroic police. yep, its complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 17 - 09:36 PM

Yeah, it's a paradox, Donuel; but law enforcement is another profession where sexual abuse is common. I think it has something to do with being in a position of both power and trust.

The police officer I caught, was up for promotion and I was doing his background check. The local police agency near his home had received a complaint that he had been rubbing ice on the genitals of his 11-yr-old stepdaughter. When I was out knocking on doors in his neighborhood, he had one of his subordinates check my license plates on the computer - and he made sure I knew he did it. He had somehow evaded prosecution at the time of the molestation, and was quite perturbed that I learned of it and was out asking questions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 03:06 AM

"There are numerous answers, pretending that they haven't been offered appears to be your way of dealing with them."

The "answers" offered by you and a few others Jim, are not answers at all but inadequate excuses; especially the piece about "opportunity".

I was of course referring to excessive RATES of abuse when I said "it only happened in the Catholic Church"

My only mistake was in inserting the numbers 14 to 17,though I did follow it with (post pubescent). The actual numbers were 11 to 17.

These assaults were against post pubescent males and young men by adult males. Time to be honest about what happened in the Catholic Church, the criminals are the people who committed the crimes, they should be brought to court and the whole sordid business exposed. It would be good for the victims, good for the Church and good for society.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:01 AM

Raggytash - 29 Jul 17 - 12:40 PM

"It does seem to be prevalent amongst members of the clergy, certainly in the UK"

NOT according to the UK statistics supplied by the link in Iains post.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 04:08 AM

"The "answers" offered by you and a few others Jim, are not answers at all but inadequate excuses;"
Then you must take them and disprove them - Joe has made the point also
The Catholic church as I and my relatives knew it was rigidly divided sexually - the boys were under the care of the priests - the girls under the nuns
Even the masses were divided - the women sat on one side of the church the men on the other - the women were forbidden to enter the church without covering their heads
I haven't been to a morning mass since I was a child, but that was the memory that has remained with me - women all wearing head-scarves
The most horrific example of this division was the case of 'The Poor Clares' convent fire in Ennis (still shrouded in secrecy) - a case once described by Edna O'Brien on the BBC, but hardly written about
A fire broke out in the convent and the firemen were refused access - because they were - MEN!!
A number of the nuns were burned to death behind locked convent doors.
At the time these outrages were taking place, the priests did not have easy access to the girls without the co-operation of the nuns which wasn't particularly forthcoming as the Sisters were very protective of their power.
The priest had their way with what was at hand - the boys - the nuns beat the girls
It did happen that girls were turned over for the use of predatory men of course - that was covered in 'The Magdalene Girls', where it showed them being farmed out to wealthy donors to the Orders.
Same sex rape took place within the church as same sex liasons take place widely in prisons or did at sea - they took what was available - nothing to do with sexual preferences.
The same goes for the sexual bestiality that took place in remote rural occupations - as with naval practices, common enough to have its own repertoire of jokes.
You came up both a claim of numbers - you provided no evidence that they were real - you are an anachronistic one-off
You refuse to respond to evidence - you provide no evidence that you are for real
Your "rates" show no deep study of the situation that gave rise to these events - your random example includes hastily grasped opinions from extremist groups, as has been pointed out
No study in depth has ever taken place nor can it ever be while most of the evidence lies locked away in the Vatican Vaults
These are "homosexual attacks" only because you wish them to be "homosexual attacks"
Your own record of hatred of homosexuality underlines that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 06:44 AM

A further example of the separation of the sexes by the Church was the systematic destruction of the crossroads farmhouse dances by the clergy, who in the case of the former, broke up the open-air meetigs in rural areas by force, sometimes smashing up the musical instruments
The excuse given was the "temptation of unsupervised meetings of young people"
The Government in co-operation with the church, taxed all gatherings for dancing and music making in the homes with "The Dance-Halls Act", driving dancers into the "Ballrooms of Romance"
Ken Loach's 'Jimmy's Hall' (about the only man ever deported from Ireland) covers this period excellently.

The Bishops statement

Evils of Dancing
Statement of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland issued at their Meeting,
held in Maynooth, on 6th October, 1925.

To be read, until further notice, at the principal Masses, in all Churches on the first Sunday of each Quarter of the Ecclesiastical Year
We have a word of entreaty, advice and instruction, to speak to our flocks on a very grave subject. There is danger of losing the name which the chivalrous honour of Irish boys and the Christian reserve of Irish maidens had won for Ireland. If our people part with the character that gave rise to that name, we lose with it much of our national strength, and still more of the high rank we have held in the Kingdom of Christ.
Purity is strength, and purity and faith go together. Both virtues are in danger these times, but purity is more directly assailed than faith. The danger comes from pictures and papers and drink. It comes more from the keeping of improper company than from any other cause; and there is no worse fomenter of this great evil than the dancing hall.
We know too well the fruits of these halls all over the country. It is nothing new, alas, to find Irish girls now and then brought to shame, and retiring to the refuge of institutions or the dens of great cities. But dancing halls, more especially, in the general uncontrol of recent years have deplorably aggravated the ruin of virtue due to ordinary human weakness. They have brought many a good, innocent girl into sin, shame and scandal, and set her unwary feet on the road that leads to perdition.
Given a few frivolous young people in a locality and a few careless parents, and the agents of the wicked one will come there to do the rest, once a dance is announced without proper control. They may lower or destroy the moral tone of the whole countryside.
Action has to be taken while the character of the people as a whole is still sound to stop the dangerous laxity that has been creeping into town and country.
Amusement is legitimate, though some of our people are overgiven to play. What, however, we condemn is sin and the dangerous occasions of sin. Wherever these exist, amusement is not legitimate. It does not deserve the name of amusement among Christians. It is the sport of the evil spirit for those who have no true self-respect.
The occasions of sin and sin itself are the attendants of night dances in particular. There may be and are exceptions, but they are comparatively few.
To say nothing of the special danger of drink, imported dances of an evil kind, the surroundings of the dancing hall, withdrawal from the hall for intervals, and the dark ways home have been the destruction of virtue in every part of Ireland.
The dancing of dubious dances on Sunday, more particularly by persons dazed with drink, amounts to woeful desecration of the Lord's Day wherever it takes place.
Against such abuses, duty to God and love of our people compel us to speak out. And what we have to say each for his own diocese, is that we altogether condemn the dangerous occasions, the snares, the unchristian practices to which we have referred.
Very earnestly do we trust that it may not be necessary for us to go further.
Our young people can have plenty of worthy dancing with proper supervision, and return home at a reasonable hour. Only in special circumstances under most careful control, are all-night dances permissible.
It is no small commendation of Irish dances that they cannot be danced for long hours. That, however, is not their chief merit, and, while it is no part of our business to condemn any decent dance, Irish dances are not to be put out of the place, that is their due, in any educational establishment under our care. They may not be the fashion in London or Paris. They should be the fashion in Ireland. Irish dances do not make degenerates.
We well know how so many of our people have of late been awaiting such a declaration as we now issue. Until otherwise arranged it is to be read at the principal Mass on the first Sunday of each Quarter of the Ecclesiastical Year. The priests will confer with responsible parishioners as regards the means by which it will be fully carried into effect. "And may the God of Peace Himself sanctify you in all things, that your whole spirit and soul and body may be blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Thess. V. 23).
(Signed),
X Patrick O�Donnell,
Archbishop of Armagh,
Chairman.
X Robert Browne,
Bishop of Cloyne,
X Thomas O�Doherty,
Bishop of Galway
Secretaries.
6th October, 1925.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: CupOfTea
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 03:56 PM

Difficult reading, to consider this entire thread. I survived 14 years of Catholic education, (Ursuline sisters), 8 years of Catholic summer camp (mostly Adrian, Michigan Dominicans) and never encountered any sexual impropriety firsthand, nor heard of it secondhand. Physical abuse peaked with Sr. Ancilla breaking flimsy hardware store wooden yardsticks while whacking at the young lads who vexed her.

It was only in later years that any of the sex abuse scandal touched me, and the fallout was the mandated sexual abuse training (VIRTUS) that I was required to take, as was every person in the Diocese of Cleveland, (clergy, religious, teacher, coach or volunteer) who would have contact with minors while associated with the church. While parts of it were educational, like pedophile "grooming" victims, other large parts of it made me deeply sad, as they were obviously rules designed so that there would be no way whatsoever that any accusations could stand against the adults. More than the "protecting God's children" it was clearly protecting the diocese's bottom line.

Some of the new rules about interaction tragically eliminated situations where some of the best mentoring could take place. Not touching a student without asking their permission gets weird when teaching anything physical - sports, arts, cooking, dance. Never being alone with a student without an open door- just how do you do that when you're helping her pin a close fitting garment she's trying on in clothing class?

The follow-up website work was disgustingly insulting of the intelligence of those of us required to take it. An aspect of the whole shebang that occurred to me was: someone is making a cartload of money with these mandated programs. I casually knew one of the priests who were cast out over sexual allegations; he'd been the priest at my wedding shortly after ordination. I thought him sweet and kind. Turns out he grew up to be a nasty martinet as a pastor & his staff were delighted to see him go for reasons that had nothing to do with sex & never found out what he was supposed to have done.

This spring I had to take a "refresher" that included updates in policy, particularly covering social media. I can be fired immediately should anything contrary to Catholic teaching shows up on any of my social media. There are things I will not "share" on Facebook & need to be careful who I let post on my page, because this situation is perfectly set up for a witch hunt that could cost me my job. I do not say that scrutiny should not happen, but I am sceptical of the cost (to the innocent)/ benefit (stopping abuse) analysis. The largest burden falls on the innocent & I do not know what metrics are used to judge the benefits- lack of lawsuits?

Joanne in Cleveland ( hoping the new bishop is s good as he seems)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 17 - 06:22 PM

Ake, can you PLEASE take your idiotic homophobic bullshit somewhare else?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 02:06 PM

You do not mess with basic human drives without consequences. Think of the forces within nature which one sublimates at one's peril. Think of grass bursting through sidewalks, of water wearing down rock, of Spock during pan farr. You can legislate, you can regulate, you can perorate, but everyone does it, or there be consequences.

Deuteronomy says thou shalt not muzzle the ox when it treads the grain.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 10:33 PM

Well, Jim, that's an interesting anachronism. Interesting that the good Archbishop disapproves only of "imported" dances, particularly on Sunday. He seems to approve of Irish dances.

I used to chaperone dances in the parish hall of a Polish parish in Milwaukee in the 1960s. We did have a problem with girls smuggling alcohol inside their purses, and then the boys would get hold of it and get drunk and have fights. We had a bunch of young seminarians chaperone, but then one got beat up. After that, I was the only one allowed to chaperone because I was the only seminarian who knew all the kids. The kids liked playing bodyguard for me. Wherever I went, I was surrounded by three or four tough-looking boys.

They didn't do any Irish dances there....
No polkas, either - but adult dances at Milwaukee Catholic churches had polkas, and the Chicken Dance. Favorites at California Catholic dances for adults are "YMCA," "Give Me that Old-Time Rock 'n" Roll," and "Boot-Scootin' Boogie."

There was a beautiful, brilliant, wonderful young woman in that youth group who had a desperate crush on me. She was in tears when I told her I was intent on becoming a celibate priest....
Oh, but she was beautiful. The kind of woman you write songs about, years later. Her name was Merri. Tall, with long, silky hair and a beautiful smile. And a big heart....and I broke it - but I'll never forget her.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 04:33 AM

"Interesting that the good Archbishop disapproves "
You've ignored the rest Joe - not worthy of you
The church was responsible for taking Irish music from the homes and crossroads and putting it into commercial and tightly supervised hands
If you have Fintal Valelly's 'Companion to Irish Music', I suggest you read the long entry of 'The Dance Halls act'
Every Irish musicians we ever met and recorded cursed the priests for "destroying our music", as devout as they were - that continued to be an attitude right into the 1990s.
The Bishop was saying what the rest of them were doing - the forcible breaking up of dances, the smashing of musical instruments, the reading of names at Mass..... all grist to the church's mill.
It's as much a part of history as is 1917.
The problem with the church is that they were obsessed with sex and they believed that any unsupervised activities were "The Devil's Playground"
I have little doubt that one the Irish crossed The Pond the grip was broken - inevitable in a multi-racial and religious country like the U.S., but that's the way it remained back home in 'Holy Ireland'.
One of the great dichotomies was the contrast between what th Church said and what its priests did.
Off their own bat, the Church leaders made sex dirty - a necessary evil, (excellent depiction of this in Leon Uris's 'Trinity') while their priests ran rampant among those under their influence - and were ignored, and even on some occasions, assisted.
There is a nice summing up of the hypocrisy in a detective series I was watching last night.
The main character, Father Brown, objecting to the treatment of fallen women by the nuns, says to the Mother Superior:
"But our Saviour was conceived out of wedlock"
"Yes", came the reply, "but the Good Lord sent down Joseph to make an honest woman of her".
It still raises a smile
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 05:13 AM

Was this Chesterton's Father Brown, Jim??
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 06:38 AM

"Was this Chesterton's Father Brown, Jim??"
It's a currently running series based on the Chesterton stories - too long since I read them to remember which were his and which are new.
This, From Helen Brennan's article in 'History Ireland'
This process of selection was paralleled in the attempted creation of a new milieu for dance. Ceilis were held in local halls and schools separate from the locations traditionally favoured by the people – the house, barn or cross-roads. The more formal dances organised by the Gaelic League found favour with the Catholic clergy who had long fulminated against the country house dances. In 1925 the Catholic bishops attacked the evils of late-night dancing and gave their seal of approval to the Gaelic League dances: 'They may not be the fashion in London or Paris. They should be the fashion in Ireland'. They observed that 'Irish dances do not make degenerates'. The combined opposition of church and state to informal dances which were outside their control led to the passing of the 1935 Public Dance Hall Act which confined the holding of dances to places licensed for such a purpose and which imposed a government tax on the admission price. According to Junior Crehan, a noted fiddle player and folklorist from Mullagh, County Clare:
"They believed that there was immoral conduct carried out at the country houses and that there was no sanitary arrangements, that was their excuse. You had to pay three pence tax to the shilling going into the hall which meant money to the government. They didn't care if you made your water down the chimney as long as they collected the money."

I was present when Junior made his remark at a talk he gave during the Willie Clancy Summer School in the early 80s
He was one of the most devout Catholics we ever met, yet he deliberately directed his remark to a row of priests and nuns from the local convent who were sitting directly in front of us.
A ripple of discomfort ran down the whole line of them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:50 AM

Joe, one of the great Irish writers is John B Keane, his observations of the Catholic church are extremely insightful and often very funny. Try The Bodhran Makers and the Letters of a Matchmaker I am sure you will enjoy his astute observations

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 09:10 AM

It's interest to note that one of Ireland's great classics - 'The Tailor and Ansty' - a must for anybody interested in Irish rural life, humour and vernacular speech), remained on "The Index" - the Church's list of banned books, for many decades (it may well still be on it)
The elderly heroin, Ansty, had a habit of referring to her husband as "my stal (stallion)" - that level of conjugal enjoyment didn't go down too well with them upstairs.
Wonder what they'd have made of Tom Jones or Moll Flanders!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 03:46 PM

Jim
in the old days to get a book on the index didn't someone have to read it, it was a dirty job but someone had to do it. I wonder if they ever got a second opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:51 PM

Let me bring up that term "anachronism" again. The year is 2017, and we are well into the 21st Century.
The last Index of Forbidden Books was published by the Catholic Church in 1948, and the Index was abolished altogether in 1966.
Jim refers at length to a document on dancing written by an Irish archbishop in 1925, and I haven't been able to understand the relevance of that document.
I appreciate the book recommendations for their historical interest, but not for their current relevance. The Tailor and Ansty (1942) was banned by the Irish Censorship of Publications Board, but not by the Catholic Church. I'm sure the works of John B. Keane are interesting, so thanks to Raggytash for recommending The Bodhran Makers (1986) and Letters of a Matchmaker (1975).
But as an American, I see these publications as 40 to 90 years old, and I can't see how anyone can use them as basis for a condemnation of the current situation of the Catholic Church. Maybe long grudges is what Ireland is all about, though. I had a run-in with a Cork-born priest in the 1980s, and then didn't see him for 25 years. He became pastor of my parish in 2005, and proceeded to make me miserable until he finally went back to Cork last year. He'll be back for the next month, so I plan to steer clear of the bastard.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 03:39 AM

"and I haven't been able to understand the relevance of that document."
That document expressed perfectly what was happening to the music in Ireland - it wasn't the opinion of a few old many, it articulated the attitude of the church and their desire to control Irish culture
Whenever the subject is discussed here in relation to what happened to the tradition, that is the one that is cited - Helen Brennan (a leading research figure in Irish dance, and Fintan Vallely both refer to it in their writings.
What happened to the music back then is very much a part of these discussions.
The music all but died then - it didn't die a natural death but was deliberately killed off and replaced by something else (controllable)
A similar thing happened in Scotland when the Church took against the tradition - there they drove the songs underground and ended up with a magnificent reprtoire of bawdy and erotic pieces.
Similarly in Wales, where the tradition was replaced by the outpourings from The Chapel
In your own country, go read the writings of White, Courlander and Lomax on how the preachers preached constantly about 'The Devil's Music'
All this is about control - mind and body.
I grew up surrounded by strong Catholic influences, but it wasn't until I started working in Ireland that I realised how deep these influences went in peoples lives literally, from before birth to after death
All forms of contraception were forbidden and women were encouraged to reproduce - no matter their financial or physical circumstances - having no children was, at best, a subject for sympathy, and at worst, a stigma.
The influences of baptism, church attendance, religious pressure at school, marriage.... what you could eat (especially on Friday)... are too well to re-open here, but a number of things were a total revelation to me.
I was introduced to 'Churching' by the 'Travellers' the idea that to give birth made a woman 'unclean', so much so that she was forbidden to prepare food in the home until, after a set period, she was 'Churched' (cleansed) by the priest by undergoing a set ritual
The saddest, and to me, the cruelest, were 'The Killeens'
Children who died after childbirth, before they could be blessed by the priest, were prohibited burial in consecrated ground and were consigned to the 'Killeens', often outside the local graveyard, but sometimes in a handy field set aside for the purpose.      
There are several in this area within a half hour's drive of our home
This is a description of 'The Angel's Plot in Glasnevin
"This Old Plot is the resting place for over fifty thousand infants who were buried there up to the 1970's. Glasnevin is one of the few Cemeteries that allowed stillborn babies to be buried in concentrated ground. In early times stillborn babies were not allowed in blessed ground, as they were unbaptised. Many babies were buried in the ditches and hedges on the outside of other cemeteries around the country. Often parents buried their babies themselves between dusk and dawn in fear of being caught and yet wanting their baby to buried in Holy Ground."
Cruel or what?
I sincerely believe that the Clerical abuses were a product of this desire to control
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 09:02 AM

Joe, old they may be but the humour is still there, please try one. I am sure you will not be disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 11:58 AM

Old humor is delicious, Raggytash. Jim's old anger is poison.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 12:39 PM

"Jim's old anger is poison."
Thanks for that Joe - very impressive fro someone who refuses to take responsibility for the church he defends
I have no hate, neither did my father, who was a victim of your church's fundamental excesses
I have an interest in understanding of what happened and why it did, not in brushing it under the carpet where it might be forgotten
Do you honestly believe what I have described is acceptable ot do you think I am making it all up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 12:42 PM

I suppose it would be poisones hatred to point out that today's papers carry the results of a survey that it has been found that on third of adults in Ireland use the "withdrawal method" of contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy
A fine legacy, for the 21st century, don't yuo think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 01:39 PM

Jim, take a look at your 1925 statement on dancing. Look at the signatures on the document:

• Patrick O'Donnell, Archbishop of Armagh, Chairman.
• Robert Browne, Bishop of Cloyne
• Thomas O'Doherty, Bishop of Galway
  6th October, 1925.

Now, tell me the nationality of all those who signed. Irish, right?

I don't defend my church, Jim. It is what it is. When it does wrong, I fight the wrong. You, on the other hand, live in Ireland and you defend Ireland to the hilt. And you are a prime practitioner of a primary fault of the Irish - transference of blame. In Ireland, "The Church" is not some external authority. It is Irish, through and through. All the bishops, all the priests, are sons of Irish mothers and have Irish sisters and brothers. Yes, Irish Catholicism has been and in many ways still is a very sick form of Catholicism - but it is Irish, through and through.

If you claim to love Ireland, then you also ought to share the blame for the sickness of the Irish Catholic Church.

And yes, the Irish exported their sick brand of Catholicism all over the world. Look at the lists of names of priests who were sex offenders. Many of them were Irish - all over the world. Wherever you go in the English-speaking world, the Catholic church is far more Irish, than it is Catholic.

The entire nation of Ireland needs to take responsibility for its Irish Catholic Church. It was and still is very much a tool of the sicknesses of Irish culture - and also of many of the good aspects of Irish culture. I got my Catholic faith from my Irish grandmother, who was a good, loving, joyful woman - and I'm proud of that.

-Joe-

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

As for birth control, I'd recommend pills as a temporary measure, and then a vasectomy. The "withdrawal method" is messy and a bit weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 03:22 PM

"Now, tell me the nationality of all those who signed. Irish, right?"
Please don't reduce this to nationalities Joe - Ireland is a Catholic country - these things happened by edict of the Catholic church
The people of Ireland are not to blame for this any more than the English people are to blame for the crimes committed by their government or their establishment
That is an appalling cop-out
The church were experts in mind control - you are blaming those subjected to that process
I remind you of the South American rape of a child who was then refused a life saving abortion by the church - Irish Catholicism ?
Or the Pope who turned his back on the Italian Jews being shipped off to Auschwitz
Or the Churchmen who conspired in the murder of Archbishop Romero - or those who gave their support to Pinochet, or the Catholic Doctors in Italy who are refusing to carry out legal pregnancy terminations on needy women......
The present Pope has refused to bring about conclusion for the victims of clerical rape by releasing locked-away information that would help do so - I don't think we have an Irish Pope yet - do we?
That is truely saddening - Evil Irish Catholicism - it has the ring of desperation about it.
Incidentally - one of those "Irish" bishops was actually British - do you include British Catholicism in your blame
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 03:27 PM

Clerical abuse has been found to have taken place inthese places
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Dominican Republic
India
Ireland
Norway
Poland
United States
Ireland is fourth in the league table of legal actions - top of the list is The United States
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 10:16 PM

mexico
argentina
philippines
francd
guam
italy
haiti
keep going

if you just mean catholics,lots more i am sure.

orthodox jews have a lot of trouble.

read abuse tracker every day if you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 03:28 AM

Joe has overstepped the mark as far as I am concerned
He played the classic defence card of all rapists and those who would defend than and blamed the victims "The Irish people"
The last high ranking figure to have been accused of multible sex assaults was the Pope's adivisor, Australian George Pell, which brings thes crimes right to the door of The Vatican - as if the covering up of the crimes of others wasn't enough
Accusing those of us who find the church's involvement in these crimes of "poisonous hatred' and blaming a nation of generally tolerant, welcoming and friendly people for allowing them to happen is really not acceptable
These are crimes committed from within an organisation that has placed itself far beyond the reach of ordinary worshippers and believers - one of the most powerful organisations on this planet
Not acceptable Joe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 04:44 AM

Hi, Jim -
Yeah, I suspected one of those anti-dance bishops was English. But that opposition to dancing not the kind of thing you'd see from Catholic bishops in most places. One certainly wouldn't see it in Italy, or Spain, or Portugal, or the Slavic nations.
Now, if you look at the list of nations where sex abuse of children by Catholic priests occurred, I think you'll find that a good number of the priests accused of these crimes, were born in Ireland. That is most assuredly the case in the United States.
I live in a U.S. diocese that has very few American-born priests. After the Irish priests stopped coming here in the 1970s, they recruited priests from third-world countries. My ex-wife's cousin wanted to become a priest, and his pastor said, "You leave that to the Irish." So the cousin went to Wisconsin and became a priest in the Salvatorian order. I got divorced and got an annulment in 1992, and I retired the first time when my government job was privatized in 1996, when I was 48 years old. I applied to become a priest, already having completed 8 years of seminary. The Irish vocations director showed no interest in me, and I went in another direction and fell in love again. But I could have become a priest by the age of 52, and I could have given them many years of service. But I think the Irish Mafia preferred to get third world priests who would be easier to control.

The Irish Mafia or FBI (Foreign-Born Irish) priests had control of many dioceses in the United States until just recently, and they made sure that priests of other nationalities stayed in the minority. Same with police departments in many U.S. cities - they were under Irish control. And the Catholic Church in Australia and parts of Canada is similarly under strong Irish influence.

I had a friend here in California, an Irish-born priest named Tony Gurnell. His father was a Huguenot Protestant from France who emigrated to Ireland and made his living making stained glass windows. Fr. Tony said that Catholic seminaries in Ireland were heavily influenced by the heresy of Jansensenism, a theological movement from France that emphasized original sin, human depravity, the necessity of divine grace, and predestination. That's why, Tony said, that so many Irish-born priests seemed to emphasize the "dark side" of life. I believed all that, but then Tony told me that this happened because the British saw they couldn't defeat the Catholic Church in Ireland. So, they built the world's biggest Catholic seminary, and staffed it with priests from the area of France that had been most heavily influenced by Jansenism. I wasn't able to verify that, so I dunno. But that was one Irish priest's theory, and he agreed with my contention that Irish priests were unusually influenced by a negative view of humankind.

But there's no doubt in my mind that the Irish Catholic Church is thoroughly Irish. It is an integral part of the Irish people and culture, and the Irish people and culture are an integral part of it - unlike the Catholic Church in every other part of the world.

If you blame the sexual abuse of Irish children by priests on me, then you certainly have to shoulder part of the blame yourself. And you are just as much to blame as the Catholic guy who lives next door to you. All of Ireland shares the blame, because they did not put a stop to what these Irish Men of the Church were doing. The only ones who had the power to put a stop to all of this, were the Irish people. Jim, I think it's pretty lame of you to try to put the blame for an Irish problem on me, an American. Honey, we've got troubles of our own.

But all of this is because we're talking on your terms, Jim - and I concede that your perspective has an element of validity. The trouble is, you tend to see only one side of a coin. You see some things as good, and some things as bad. You see the Irish people and atheists as good, and the Catholic Church and religious people as bad.

I tend to see things both ways. It makes me wishy-washy, but I think it's a more honest approach. I see good and bad aspects of the Catholic Church and religion, of atheism, and of Ireland.

But to change the subject, let's talk about the United States. I love my country, but I hate my President. Last year at this time, I loved both my country and my President, and my life was much less conflicted. But since my country has a hateful President now, many people in other nations now think that the U.S. is a hateful country.

And the same goes for my Catholic Church. I hate the sex scandal my church went through and the terrible things that priests and bishops did, and I sure as heck hope that the measures put in place will prevent such a horrible thing from happening again. But I'm living in a racist, anti-immigrant country; and I am very proud that my Catholic Church is one of the strongest forces opposing racism and hatred in the U.S.

It's not black-and-white, Jim. The world is far more complex than that. And your sweeping condemnations just don't make sense.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 04:50 AM

Oy, it is to laugh.

Jim sez: Joe has overstepped the mark as far as I am concerned
He played the classic defence card of all rapists and those who would defend than and blamed the victims "The Irish people"

The victims, Jim, were children. Irish children.

The criminals, Jim, were priests and bishops. Irish priests and bishops, not Italian or American or Jewish or Arab or anything other than Irish.

And only the Irish people had the power to stop them, and they didn't.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:39 AM

The Italian people stood up to their Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:43 AM

"And only the Irish people had the power to stop them, and they didn't."
You are now adopting the ploy used by every rape defence council in history - "The victim could have said no"
Beneath contempt
You have now made this a racist attack on the Irish
Also beneath contempt
This is an international affair - the Irish have brought it into the open and since they have, the international nature of these crimes have gradually
now emerged
The people of Boston could have stopped it
You ignore the power exercised by the church - from birth, a power they are fighting to retain
The Jesuits boasted about that power "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"
You ignore the fact that that power made them virtually invulnerable, especially in their alliance with the State
It has taken revelations of the widespread and long term abuse of children under the influence of the church to weaken that power and finally break that grip - hopefully, once and for all
Now we see the various factions taking up their positions - you have obviously decided which side you are on
You have decided on a racist stance
You have a list of the countries involved so far - you continue to make this an anti-Irish attack
Shame on you Joe, deep shame on you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:48 AM

"The Italian people stood up to their Church."
There - you have the support of the inventor of the "Irish children brainwashed to hate Britain" claim
I'm sure Tr=eribus will be along to join you shortly with his stupid Irish who didn't really want independence but were stupid enough to be tricked into demanding it by foreigners
You're assembling quite a team
Long spoons required for this feast
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:50 AM

ITALY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:05 AM

Jim, don't give me that. I've just finished 12 years of being the main target of the rage of an alcoholic Irish priest. He's been home in Cork for a year, but he's coming back Sunday and staying for a month. I put up with that bastard for 12 years, determined that I was never going to let him force me to kiss his ass and that I was not going to let him push me out of MY parish. One of the first things the guy did when he came to town, was to push me out of my job in the parish. He kept trying to push me out of various volunteer positions, but I held firm. He once referred to a class I taught as "Joe's fucking Bible study." He suspected me of stealing. I once yelled across the empty church to tell him how fucked up he was.
The Catholic Church is fucked up in many ways, but the Irish Catholic Church is particularly fucked up - and it's Irish people who are to blame, not Americans. And the Irish exported their fucked-up priests all over the world.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:06 AM

Thanks Jim.
Your link shows how the Italians are standing up to the Church on child abuse as they already have on divorce, contraception and abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:09 AM

Yep. The Italians took the child abuser priests to court and convicted them of their crimes. How many convictions did they get in Ireland, Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:12 AM

" but the Irish Catholic Church is particularly fucked up"
No more than anywhere else where it has held supreme power
What has happened is that the Irish church have been found out, which has led to new revelations elsewhere
The Irish people were the victims - not the perpetrators
They were victims of the supernatural blackmail that the church has always gone in for - "go with us us go to Hell"
Blaming them is tantamount to blaming the victims of Stalin's purges - for the show trials.
You continue to ignore the facts of what is happening - as I said, you have chosen to blame that rapists for allowing themselves to be raped
Shame on you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:23 AM

The rapists were Irish, Jim. Irish police should have arrested them, and Irish courts should have convicted them of their crimes.

Italians and Americans and Englanders didn't victimize those Irish children. It was Irish priests, and the Irish parents and police and government did nothing.

There is no national church in the world that holds more power than the Irish Catholic Church - and they exported their power all over the world. Get that straight, Jim.

I've suffered under Irish priests. I know. I lost my job, my good name was slandered far and wide, and my application for priesthood was rejected. And the priests who did that to me were born, raised, and educated in Ireland.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 07:59 AM

An interesting take on the church by the irish times:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-catholic-church-trying-to-dump-sex-abuse-priests-on-st

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 08:18 AM

"The rapists were Irish, "
Not the American ones, Joe, nor the Italians, nor the Canadians, nor the Australians (which inculd Our Man in the vatican)..
This is really no better than the efforts on this forum to make all paedophiles and traffickers "Implanted Muslims"
"There is no national church in the world that holds more power than the Irish Catholic Church - a"
How about the ******* Vatican - is that not a State in its own right.
It has taken a battle with that august body to break the power of the Church in Ireland and that was only brought about through the courage wof those who stood up and demanded enquiries into what had happened
The church was carried kicking and screaming to these enquiries and they are still refusing to reveal what they have locked in their vaults
Your racist behaviour in all of this has now put you beyond my respect (not that it matters of course) - truely outrageous -and revealing.
I sympathise with your persecution at the hands of the church (though I have to say, it sounds as if you are better off out of it)
It's a shame that you can't sympathise with fellow suffers who you now choose to blame
Throughly depressing - all of this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 04:47 PM

Jim, in some sort of fog, says in response to my "The rapists were Irish" comment:
Not the American ones, Joe, nor the Italians, nor the Canadians, nor the Australians (which inculd Our Man in the vatican)..


Jim, please use some common sense here. In the very next sentence, I said, "Italians and Americans and Englanders didn't victimize those Irish children." It is true, however, there there is a distressing number of Irish-born priests on the lists of sex offenders in almost every nation. That number is particularly high in the United States, where Irish-born priests and bishops controlled many dioceses for a century or more.

I often get the impression, Jim, that when I work very hard to type up a balanced, rational position, you read only the first few words of what I wrote and then dash off an angry, distorted, illogical response. It really doesn't seem that you read what I write.

And then I said, "There is no national church in the world that holds more power than the Irish Catholic Church."
And Jim's response: How about the ******* Vatican - is that not a State in its own right.
Well, no, Jim, the Vatican is the headquarters. It is not considered to be a national church. The Catholic Church in Ireland has a primate in Armagh who heads the national church. Interestingly, the United States Catholic Church does not have a primate, although there are certain ethnic Catholic churches within the United States that do have primates or similar leaders.

I can't argue against that sort of stuff you're saying, Jim. It just doesn't make sense.

I do agree with your point that Vatican intervention served to break the power of the Irish bishops who supported the coverup of sexual abuse for so many years. But mind you, the power was held by Irish bishops. It took some very intricate diplomatic work for Rome to be able to break their power. The Pope couldn't just say "cut the crap" and expect obedience. It took a lot of work to break those bishops.

And then, Jim, you have the nerve to say that I do not sympathize with the children who suffered these crimes committed by some priests and the subsequent coverups committed by some bishops.

And then, on top of that, you accuse me of "racist behaviour." I think I deserve an apology for that, and for your accusation that I have no sympathy for the children who were victims of these crimes. You're getting irrational, Jim.

---

OK, let's put all that away and get to the root of the matter.

There's no question at all that a number of priests and even some nuns in Ireland committed crimes of abuse and sexual abuse against children. Those people should be prosecuted for their crimes and punished. Those bishops and others who covered up those crimes, should also be punished. I don't think anyone questions that. Nobody. Don't ever try to argue that any of us here would defend these criminals.

Where the question lies, is who is responsible for reparations for these crimes that were committed thirty, forty, and sometimes more than fifty years ago? You, Jim, seem to think it is "The Church" that should be liable, since it employed these criminals. And by "The Church," you seem to imply that means that the current worldwide membership of the Catholic Church should be liable for crimes committed in Ireland fifty years ago. And furthermore, you seem to imply that those who are no longer members of "The Church" should be free from any blame or liability. That's what I can't agree with, Jim. Those who were members of the Irish Catholic Church at the time the crimes were committed, certainly have some measure of liability for the damages caused by those crimes. But the population of the Irish church has changed dramatically in the years that have gone by. Some say that the Irish church has one-tenth the members it had fifty years ago Does the simple act of leaving the church absolve one of liability?

Half a century ago, everyone in Ireland was Catholic, and the Catholic Church had a lot of members to pay the bills. Now the church is much smaller, and most of its assets are tied up in old churches and other old buildings that are costly to maintain. How is a church one-tenth its former size, supposed to pay for crimes committed fifty years ago? The reparations have not been as generous in other countries, but the rate of compensation in the United States got up to a million dollars per victim. We had to sell buildings and close schools and terminate employees to pay those reparations.

And you have the nerve to suggest that I in California should be liable for the damage done for crimes committed in Ireland, while Irish people who used to be Catholic should have no liability because they - not the children - are the victims.

Your logic is twisted, Jim. You dare to shame me in California for crimes committed in Ireland fifty years ago. That's really weird, Jim.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: bobad
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:12 PM

Lol Joe, you've gotten a taste of what we deal with every time there is a thread about Israel, except it's ten times worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 07:52 PM

Once again you ignore the fat that this is an international problem - why are you making it an "Irish" one?
You have had the list of countries involved so far - are they "Irish" by birth or adoption?
This becomes bizarre

CLERICAL ABUSE IN THE UNTED STATES
The only thing tha abusers have in common is that they are clerics.
The church does not have to answer for the crimes of individuals - it should be made answerable to their part in covering up and facilitating the crimes.
My logic is twisted????
Jim Carroll
Where have you responded to these facts

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 09:52 PM

Jim, I guess I just don't understand how your brain works. It seems scrambled.

At the time I was talking about the sex abuse in Ireland, I thought that was what we were talking about. Or at least that was what you were talking about when I responded - you know, that 1925 dancing stuff....

Most certainly, there was clerical abuse of children by native-born Catholic priests in many countries. But it's also true that Irish priests spread far and wide over the world. It was not something I was familiar with in Milwaukee because the majority of our priests were Wisconsin-born with German roots. Irish-born priests were rare in Wisconsin. But as I traveled and eventually moved to California, it was clear to me that many dioceses on the east and west coasts of the U.S. were dominated by Irish-born priests all the way to the end of the 20th century. For the most part, I liked the Irish priests, and some are close friends. And as I've said before, only five to ten percent of priests were involved in criminal abuse of children.

But what was your point, and what "facts" were I supposed to respond to? You're going around in circles, and it's making me dizzy.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 12:08 AM

the town i grew up in in washington was a mission of ireland...vancouver w a was a mission of quebec i think..unless it was france ubut i think quebec.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 04:11 AM

"At the time I was talking about the sex abuse in Ireland, I thought that was what we were talking about."
No we weren't Jow - we were talking about clerican abuse that had been discovered because of revelations that had emerged in Ireland - there were never national barriers to it.
In the course of those arguments, the case of a 11 year old South American child who had been raped, made pregnant and refused a life saving abortion because of church influence.
My point has always been that it has nothing to do with religious belief ot the believers, but about the powerful position the church has over people's minds - in everyday life, in education, in health, in matters of personal relationships.... the abuse of power is the problem, not belief.
That power has never been a respecter of national barriers - it emanates from Rome and spreads throughout the whole Catholic world.
Many of may family and most of my friends are Catholics - I have no problem with any of them because of their beliefs.
As a child, I had problems with the priest who visited the house and insisted my mother gave donations to the Church funds from the pittance she had to feed us; my father worked away - thanks partly to the church; he would never have stood for such behaviour.
That is a small example of power being exercised by the powerful over a somewhat timid and defenceless woman - and it was in Liverpool - not Dublin.
The priest was actually a Scot.
What has happened in Ireland regarding the Church is not unlike what happened in Ireland i the first few decades of the 20th century
There, the Irish stood up to the Empire and eventually brought about its end
Here, the abuse that appear to be common throughout the clerical world (not just among Catholics) has been discovered, exposed and the position of the Church has been challenged.
How can it poissibly be Irish if it is happening throughout the Catholic world?
This, from the Wiki entry:
"Allegations of and convictions for sexual abuse by clergy have occurred in many countries. There are no accurate figures available on the number of sexual abuse cases in different regions. But, in 2002 The Boston Globe reported, "clearly the issue has been most prominent in the United States."[12] The US is the country with the highest number of reported Catholic sex abuse cases.[43] Plante wrote, the "crisis in the United States reached epidemic proportions within the Church, the likes of which haven't been witnessed before."[40][not in citation given]
After the United States, the country with the next highest number of reported cases is Ireland.[23] A significant number of cases have also been reported in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.[44]"
Shame on you for making this yet another attack on the Irish, and shame on you for ignoring the role of the hierarchy of the church
There are people on theis forum I would have expecting this from - you were not one of those - up to now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 04:26 AM

Jim, what I say and what you understand me to say, are two completely different things.
I actually think that if you could just understand what I'm saying, you'd agree with most of what I have to say.

I would never say that the sex abuse was exclusively an Irish problem - it has been a worldwide problem in the Catholic Church for at least the last fifty years. But yes, it was (and is) an Irish problem in Ireland. And it's up to each nation to come up with its own solution. Rome really has very little to do with it, because dioceses within the Catholic Church are largely autonomous. Each bishop is ultimately responsible for his own mess.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:45 AM

"Jim, what I say and what you understand me to say, are two completely different things."
The what has "Irish" got to do with anything, especially when your own country holds the Gold Medal for clerical sexual abuse and the phenomenon is common throughout the Catholic world
You hade it "Irish" when it is Church generated
The Vatican knew about the abuses and kept silent
They hold information on the details of those abuses and refuse to release them
If you haven't seen Mea Maxima Culpa - I suggest you make a point of seeking it out
It is a documentary - not fiction, and it is based on the American abuse revelations
Your church tolerated Brendan Smythe just as the British part of Ireland did.
There are no National boundaries to any of this - Ireland features because that's where the shit hit the fan, not because the abuse was any more serious her than it was anywhere else - that is something Americans have to deal with - but it would be wrong of anybosy to make it an "American" problem as you have made it an "Irish" one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 07:09 AM

"the British part of Ireland " is also Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 01:09 PM

""the British part of Ireland " is also Ireland."
Tell that to the marchers - then run
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 01:16 PM

Incidentally Keith
The Irish Government, as reluctant as they may have been, carried out detailed enquiries into the incidents in the Republic
The British Government have done...... what exactly
There are indications that the abuses include those carried out by non-Catholic clergymen - but of course that sort of thing couldn't possibly happen in Britain or its provinces, could it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 03:26 PM

Jim, in order to understand the sex abuse scandal, I think you need to understand the power structure of the Catholic Church. It's true that in the last 2 centuries, Rome has sometimes tried to promote the idea of the absolute power of the Pope, but that has never been true. The Catholic Church is a confusing web of interdependent autocracies, and the powers of superior autocracies (like Rome) are actually quite limited. Each bishop is the sole authority in his own diocese, and can rarely be overruled. And each pastor is the sole authority in his own parish, and the power of the bishop to overrule him is severely limited.
Now, there are many weak bishops, and they are often ruled by political factions and wealthy businessmen and powerful cabals of priests within their dioceses. Our Bishop of Sacramento is like that. Nice guy, but he seems to be afraid of everybody.
The structure and power of national churches varies from country to country. The U.S. has the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops http://www.usccb.org/about/, which meets twice a year and decides things by consensus, not by majority vote. And any bishop may decide not to go along with the consensus and go his own way.
Ireland is different because it has had the Catholic Church as a national church. I don't know how closely the church and state are tied nowadays, but there once was a very close tie. The seat of the Primate of Ireland is in Armagh, and there is some kind of council of bishops. But again, each bishop is sole authority in his own diocese.

Rome stayed completely out of the child sex abuse scandal until about 2000, and expected local bishops to handle such matters in their own dioceses. After a lot of outside pressure, Cardinal Ratzinger finally pushed John Paul II to take some responsibility. Ratzinger took more interest in the problem when he became Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis seems to be trying harder - but meeting a lot of political opposition from all sides.

So, that's an overview.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:13 PM

Yet the Church is seen almost universally as an institution that is ruled from Rome. You appear to be trying to get the institution off the hook big time, Joe. Admirable, but how accurate...?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 06:36 PM

Steve: as an outsider
I don't think Joe is trying to get the church off the hook he is just telling us how things are configured, times change and what was standard yesteryear is not standard now, I don't agree with his take on the compensation front because the American way is sue for as much as much as you can get, unfortunate, but you have to live with that if you are in the USA.
I recognise where both Joe and Jim are coming from and wish they could see where they agree a rather than where they differ but thats life on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 07:56 PM

I am a practicing although totally disgusted catholic. I am not a good catholic. I think the institution is rotten to the core. I think child abuse has always been a practice and hierarchs did not seemed shocked when stuff came out. They were under orders from the various popes, only one of whom in my adult life seemed to be a decent man..John Paul I luciani. He would have thrown the abusers in the clink just like that. The bishops are under orders not to let scandal out..even if they have to lie, even if children have to commit suicide..does not matter.

And this bit about they are so autonomous..there was a fairly recent situation in australia where the bishop just mentioned maybe they should think about women priests..poof..someone was down from the vatican just like that.

And in Guam..is everyone following Guam? A true cesspool of abuse..and they sent an abuser..a harrasser, not a child abuser..known to have this problem..to the vatican..and from there he is sent to guam to investigate.

There are scumbags. I will name the two I find scummiest. Sue me. You won't get much. Pell and Dolan. Scumbags...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 07:58 PM

Hi, Steve,
The Papacy lost control of the Papal States in 1870 with the formation of the unified nation of Italy. Before that, the Pope was a player among national leaders (but one player among many), and the Papacy was tossed back and forth among the French, Spaniards, and Italians for centuries.

The Pope in 1870 was Pius IX (Pio Nono), who reigned as Pope from 1846 until his death in 1878. Now, Pio Nono was the Prince of the autocratic Popes, and the loss of the Papal States must have hit him hard. He very dramatically made himself a "prisoner of the Vatican," and didn't leave the Vatican until his death in 1878 - the Popes kept up this "prisoner" act until the Concordat with Mussolini in 1929. Pius X is another autocratic pope who's particularly interesting to study.

But hey, Pio Nono didn't stop there. He began a "cult of the Pope" that remained strong until the papacies of Benedict XVI and Francis. Pio Nono convened the First Vatican Council in 1869, and that Council is the one that defined the Doctrine of Infallibility. Although he was no longer a player among national leaders, he did his best to consolidate power within the church into the Papacy.
That consolidation worked to an extent, but the power of the national churches remained strong - especially in the most Catholic of nations, Ireland and Poland. For the most part, the power of the papacy was an illusion - local bishops retained power within their own dioceses, and Rome rarely dared to attempt to interfere. In strong national churches like Ireland and Poland, most of the power remained in the nation - distributed or consolidated depending on how well the bishops of the nation got along with each other.

Now, I know that people see "The Church" as an entity, and tend to put the blame for every bad on "The Church." But "The Church" is an abstraction. "The Church" is made up of real people. If you want to effect change, you need to target where the power lies - and for the most part, targeting Rome won't get you anywhere because Rome has far less power than people think it has. For most of the last 150 years, the power of "The Church" in Ireland has rested among the small number of bishops of the dioceses of Ireland. Mostly, the Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of All Ireland in Armagh were dominant - but not always. The recent scandals have served to shake up the power of this cabal, and Rome did appoint some new people to shift the power, but the power still rests among the bishops of Ireland. It will be interesting to see how the new Taoiseach deals with this cabal of bishops. My opinion is that Enda Kenny accomplished quite a lot. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

But yes, the power of Rome is, for the most part, an illusion. Francis does pretty well, but he trades on his personal credibility and personality. Much as I disliked him, John Paul II did the same. Benedict XVI tried a more intellectual, bureaucratic approach - with mixed results. But it was Benedict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) who first intervened in the child abuse scandals and pressured the national churches to clean up their acts - and I give him a lot of credit for that.

So, it's my belief that the most effective way to push this sex scandal to resolution, is to target the local bishops and the national councils of bishops. That's where the blame lies, and that's where resolution can be accomplished.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 08:58 PM

Jim, your solemn pronouncements about what a horrible person I am, get in the way of discussion. I am actually a very nice person. I'm here for discussion, to exchange ideas with other people. You may sometimes disagree with things I say, but that doesn't mean I'm a horrible person. I express what I think, and my ideas are always subject to change. I know that this is a controversial subject that makes a lot of people angry. I know that people get angry and call me unsympathetic because I try to discuss it calmly and dispassionately, but I think that calm and rational and honest discussion is necessary.

I do tend to think that most people mean to do good - but sometimes they screw up horribly anyhow. For the most part, I try to avoid passing judgment on anyone - I don't think passing judgment does any good. I think that even sex offenders think they are doing good, and I'd like to understand the reasoning behind their thinking. I think that bishops responded to the sex abuses in a variety of ways. The bishop we had for most of that time was a very compassionate sort of guy, and he offered counseling and no-questions-asked reparation money. Others showed no compassion at all toward the victims, and often refused to believe or acknowledge that a priest had done wrong. Others were afraid of being bankrupted by claims for damages, and so they were evasive - or worse. But they all had their reasons, and I'd like to understand those reasons. There was a wide variety of offenses and a wide variety of responses by bishops, and it's important to consider them individually instead of lumping them all together. It's the only way we can come to an understanding of the problem.

Although the victims may have had their reasons for doing what they did, I firmly believe that the children affected were innocent victims - don't EVER think that my opinion on that is otherwise, Jim. It's hard to believe that you would make such an implication. In an ideal world, these victims should have had a sympathetic hearing at the first time they reported the offenses, and then they should have been offered mental health treatment and compensation as soon as possible - and the offenders should have been suspended from ministry and prosecuted.

The issue gets murky whan it's thirty or forty years after the offense and the offender is dead. I don't know what's the right thing to do then. I see a lot of angry people who are not victims, but they still want to see somebody pay for these crimes. Even if the offenders are dead, they still want to see somebody pay. The Hitchens and Dawkins people seem to be trying to capitalize on this, and I don't really know how to respond to that anger.

Somebody questioned me privately about what I said about the Irish priest who made the last 12 years miserable for me, and he wondered if I was being unfair to the Irish Catholic Church because of that. I may have had one Irish Catholic priest who treated me like dirt, but I stood up to him pretty well. I have been close friends with many, many more. I find many Irish Catholic priests to be very wise and open-minded. Much of what I've said about the Irish Catholic Church comes from them.

So, my basic point of view is that things are what they are. It's up to us to study them and figure them out, but I don't see any reason to get angry or offended in these discussions. It's important to conduct discussions with an open mind and not to pass judgment against people because of ideas they propose. They may be wrong - but the process of exchanging even wrong ideas can lead us to understanding.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 12:20 AM

Check out "The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara". I first heard about this case when I was a kid reading Jewish themed comic books. It was a big time international publicity case circa 1860 and was a factor, though I'm not sure how significant a factor, in the Vatican losing political control over the Papal States. I would call it child abuse, though not the usual kind considered today. Absolutely fascinating. It also had repercussions within Jewish communities in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 01:07 AM

Yeah, Robomatic, the Mortara story is one of the juiciest of the Pio Nono stories. Wikipedia says:

In 1858, in a highly publicized case, the police of the Papal States seized a 6-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, from his parents. A Christian servant girl of the family, fearing he would die, had reportedly informally baptized him six years prior while he was ill. The Papal state law forbid Christians being raised by Jews, even their own parents, and considered the informal baptism of the infant a valid religious conversion. The incident provoked widespread outrage amongst liberal Catholics and non-Catholics, and contributed to the growing anti-papal sentiment in Europe. The boy was raised in the papal household, and was eventually ordained a priest at age 21.

Interesting, no?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 01:42 AM

I was fascinated that the case of an infant Jewish kid in a Papal State could strike the imaginations of so many people of so many backgrounds on an international level. Other than the sad case for the participants, it was encouraging to learn how many folks cared. And discouraging to learn how little it mattered.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 02:48 AM

"Jim, your solemn pronouncements about what a horrible person I am, get in the way of discussion. "
Where have I done that Joe -?
I have at no time reduced this to personalities
I have simply said that you7r reducing this to a racist attack on the Irish - first on the "Irish" church. then on the "Irish people for not stopping them is unacceptable - no more than that
I think I understand, of the power structure of the Catholic church, to the extent any outsider can.
I have no interest in the intrenal machinations o the church, only the effect they had and still have on the lives of those they weild that power over.
It is a power no other organisation has ever had, or hopefully ever will have, though it has been claimed that this is what the Soviet Union, with the worst of its excesses was aiming for - mind control.
These crimes were committed in a situation where, to disobey the church a=was to risk eternal damnation - that was the power wielded by the priests, and some of them used that power to abuse those in their care, sexually and with physical brutality
"Sinners" were incarcerated, treated like slaves and beaten.
Men of the cloth had their sexual way with children using the power that their collars gave them.
We are now (only) beginning to become aware of how extensive this was in the United States and Ireland - but that knowledge is being restricted by a Church still withholding information - an act of sheer self-interest.
I have come to like and to trust you on this forum - on this, we can and will never agree while you refuse to debate fully all the implications of this affair.
This in an international phenomenon - the Irish have featured prominently because they first drew it to public attention - for no other reason - they stood up and exposed what was happening to them in defiance of the most powerful organisation on the planet.
That, as far as I am concerned, is a credit to them
Since they diod, it has emerged that the American Church was as bad, if not worse.
Thousands of Italian priests have been found to have been doing the same
Latin America - Europe - Africa.... the list is growing.
When will you come to terms with the fact that this is not just 'a few bad apples' but a phenomenon that involves and undermines your entire church?
If this had happened i, say, Education, or the health services, or social services.... or any other nationl body, those organisations would be facing minute examination - not just the "few bad apples", but the entire structures and their influence
That has begun to happen in Ireland and the Church is now fighting to hang on to the power it has so badly abused.
That is also to the credit of the Irish people
I could be argued that it should have happened earlier, but considering the power that the Church had, and still has, both politically and spiritually, it is hardly surprising that it didn't
By the way, I'm regarded as a fairly easy going person by those who know me.
I cherish the memory of an argument I once had with MacColl - he asked me who I hated and I couldn't think of anybody - hate really doesn't come easy to me, though anger often does.
Jim Carroll

---

I removed subsequent messages from Akenaton and Jim Caroll. They were a personal quarrel that had nothing to do with the topic of discussion. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 06:40 AM

Thank you Joe - would that all threads were dealt with in this manner rather than the Draconian practice of closing them to all
I trust this will become standard practice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 03:02 PM

read this.
http://www.manilatimes.net/clerics-answer-cases-child-abuse/342726/#prettyPhoto/0/ by one of the good guys.

The present archbishop of dublin, diarmuid martin, is also one of the good guys..probably why he is not a cardinal. the ab of armaugh is also named martin. don't know if he is or isn't.

the pope has been fairly useless in this fight...dereliction of duty if you ask me. he has actually reinstated some defrocked priests, I believe. Double check me on that....some very bad stuff in argentina, where he is from..i believe involving deaf children. deaf children seem to be particularly vulnerable victims.

there is no need to defend the church itself. individual people, especially falsely accused, yes. i personally do not like the huge sums for reparation..would rather see it turned into something like social security or va disability or something monthly...

but what stupid stupid stupid people to not figure out fairly long ago that they couldn't keep doing this hiding or they would bankrupt the church and force it to sell many of its holdings..and all of them if all survivors were compensated.

all eyes on dolan please..as a person cruel to victims. not suggesting he has personally abused them otherwise. he needs to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 03:35 PM

"and all of them if all survivors were compensated."
You have to be Joking !!!!
THe Catholic Church is could pay all the victims with the contnts of about fifty feet of a wall in the Vatican
This does not include the price of property held by many of the orders who were involved in the abuses - the Sisters of Mercy being a typical example   
This is the estimated wealth of the Vatican alone, without taking anything else into consideration.
What is the net worth of the Vatican?
Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate.
All beside the point - do the crime-serve the time
"MARCH 2017 "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 04:30 PM

if you multiply 100,000 living victims (ridiculously low number) x 1,000,000 each (which most of them will never see..lucky if they see $35 in a developing country) what do you get?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 05:35 PM

Jim's March 2017 (thejournal.ie) link says

In 2002, an indemnity agreement was entered into by the Fianna Fáil Government and 18 religious orders. Under this agreement, the congregations agreed to hand over €128 million in cash and property. This was increased to €353 million after the publication of the Ryan report.

The article says Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and (former) Taoiseach Enda Kenny say that the religious orders should make good on their 2002 agreement. I do wonder if the religious orders agreed to the increase when their liability was almost tripled after publication of the Ryan report.

Martin was appointed Archbishop of Dublin in 2004, and many think he has been quite good in responding to the child abuse scandal. But I'm in a leadership position in the Mercy Associates, and I can tell you that the wealth of the religious orders of Ireland is an illusion. There have been very few new priests and sisters and brothers in recent years, and the assets of the religious orders are being used to operate nursing homes for retired members. Just last year, the Sisters of Mercy closed and sold a huge motherhouse at Tralee. Such buildings are expensive to maintain and of little practical use, so it will most likely be torn down. The motherhouse in Kinsale was sold long ago. The original Mercy convent on Baggot Street in Dublin was going to be closed and sold, but a consortium of Mercy sisters from around the world took it over and turned it into an international center. I visited a number of convents in Ireland last time I was there, and I can tell you that the sisters are not living in luxury. I can see how it's difficult for them to pay this huge debt. Old convents are not easy to sell, and it's even tougher to sell old churches and old schools and other large institutions. A friend of mine is head of the Loretto Sisters in the U.S. - it took her five years to sell her order's motherhouse, and the proceeds of the sale were quite limited. And what happens to the old priests and nuns should their religious orders go bankrupt?

Up above, I tried to explain the power structure of the Catholic Church. It is highly decentralized, and always has been. Each diocese and each religious order is a separate entity that causes and should be obliged to resolve its own problems. I'm part of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas. We have our own leadership and our own liabilities. Why should we be responsible for the mistakes of the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland?

Jim like to blame "The Church" for everything bad that is done by Catholics, wherever they may be. He won't admit to it even though you can see it for yourself above in this thread, but he has often shamed me personally for all sorts of things because I am Catholic and he claims I support and defend the misconduct done in the name of the Catholic Church.

I think that "The Church" is an abstraction. It isn't "The Church" that commits crime. It is real people who do those things, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should be prosecuted and forced to make reparations. I think that it is important that those people who were responsible be identified - the blame should go to those who deserve the blame. And Jim won't like to hear this, but I think that some partial blame is due to those who stood by and did nothing while they knew that crimes were being committed. Jim won't hesitate to blame current Catholics like me for the crimes that were committed in Ireland forty or fifty years ago, but somehow he seems to think that Irish people who were there at the time are free of blame if they are no longer Catholic. It gets a little foggy here, but that's what it seems that Jim is saying.

Where my big question arises, is to what extent should reparations be assessed against those who did not commit the crime? And secondly, what amount of reparation payment is a fair amount to be assessed? Should the Vatican be required to sell St. Peter's and the Vatican Museum and my parish church in California to satisfy the debts of the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland?

Jim seems to see the Catholic Church as a monolith that should have financial liability for all misdeeds done in the name of the church, wherever they happened and whenever they happened.

This whole matter of reparations is sticky. In 1988, the United States agreed to pay $20,000 to each surviving inmate of the World War II internment camps where Japanese-Americans were imprisoned during World War II. I thought that was fair and reasonable, but there are also proposals to compensate African-Americans for slavery and Native Americans for property loss and relocation that took place during the 19th century. While I agree that the actions of the United States against slaves and Indians was appalling, the ancestors of most current Americans did not live in North America at the time these atrocities took place. So, should current American taxpayers be liable for the misdeeds people did so long ago? The same applies to the Catholic Church of Ireland. Should the liability rest only on current Catholics, or should responsibility fall on all those whose ancestors were Catholic at the time of the crimes?

The Catholic Church here in California has held huge fundraising campaigns to recover from the loss of the money paid out to victims of sex crimes from the 1980s and 1990s. People resented the fundraisers, but the church had to get money somewhere to pay its bills.

So, it's a complicated question, and there aren't easy answers.

But I think it's important to realize that real people committed the crimes, not an abstract church; and that real people who did NOT commit the crimes are the ones who get stuck paying the reparations. I do not deny or defend the crimes. I just wonder how long I'm going to have to keep paying the cost of reparations.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 06:00 PM

That's it, mg! Sell St. Peter's and the Vatican Museum to Trump so he can turn it into a Trump Plaza, with big, gold T*R*U*M*P letters on the dome. It'll be H-U-G-E!!!!

And maybe it'll keep Trump busy, so he won't have time to get the U.S. in any more trouble. Gee, I wonder how much he'll charge those nouveau riche reparations millionaires for admission to St. Peter's.....

No doubt, he'll make Italy pay for the wall he'll build around the Vatican.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 06:29 PM

Don't sell it until I've been to Rome next year.

I went to Rome in 1968 on a school trip. We had an audience with Pope Paul, not a bad old boy, though I doubt whether he was really in control. At one point I was about three feet away from him. He was a small bloke but he mentioned our school and we all cheered like mad. I also saw Michelangelo's Pietà in St Peter's. We all paraded past the amazing statue and kissed the foot of Jesus. A few years later some lunatic attacked the statue with a hammer, so you can't get near it any more. We went to Florence in May and saw some amazing Michelangelo sculptures, so I determined to get Mrs Steve to Rome to see the stuff I may have seen as an immature schoolboy but never really appreciated. Not just the Michelangelo, though he really does it for me. Those bloody Medicis...

Damn this bloody thread drift...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 09:33 PM

Like Steve, I love Rome. It is absolutely the most wonderful walking city in the entire world. Last time I was there, I skipped my group's audience with Pope Benedict, and went walking. It was a very hot day and I had to stop three times for beer, but it was one of the most delightful days I have ever had in my life.

This question of church assets is a sticky one. Plenty of people think that churches are hypoocritical if they have assets. The Papacy lost control of the Papal States (most of Central Italy) on 1870, and Italy was supposed to pay the Pope for the loss. This was not settled until the Lateran Treaty of 1929. The Vatican invested the proceeds from that 1929 agreement, and that money became an endowment that pays most of the expenses of operating the Vatican. Because of that endowment, the Vatican can remain independent of the national churches, no longer tossed around among France, Italy, Spain and other nations. It does not have to ask member dioceses for money.
Lots of people would like to get their hands on that endowment, including some sticky-fingered clerics who went to prison for their efforts. But so far, that endowment has remained largely intact.
The Catholic Church owns lots of beautiful churches. But those churches are so expensive to maintain, that they would be of value to others only if they were torn down and turned into business properties. Many dioceses would love to get rid of empty churches, but local governments get in the way of the razing of landmark churches - and rightly so.
Most religious properties are, in essence, public buildings that are used freely for the communities in which they are located. Some governments contribute to the maintenance of those buildings, and some don't. But for the most part, the buildings are used for the common good - and communities would suffer if the properties were sold and converted to private use.

So, then we get to the subject of reparations. I think almost all of us agree that the physical and sexual abuse of children was a horrible crime, and the victims deserve some sort of compensation for the harm done to them. And since the Catholic Church was the employer of the criminals who committed these crimes, the church is rightly liable for at least part of this compensation. But how much compensation is fair? No amount of money can repay the damage done by these criminals, so does that mean the victims should take all the assets of the Catholic Church in return for their injuries? The extent of the scandal in the U.S. was vast, as was the coverup by a number of dioceses. While some dioceses like mine had given generous settlements right away, others tried every trick in the book to evade responsibility. When those evasive dioceses finally broke, the price of reparations had gone up to $1 million per victim. And dioceses like mine that had already paid $40,000 years ago, were compelled to pay an additional million to victims.

Am I right to feel uncomfortable paying $1 million to victims who had already agreed to $40,000 settlements decades ago? Dioceses can't fight the increased demands too loudly, because public opinion is now firmly on the side of the victims who keep demanding more - just like the threefold increase in the assessment against religious orders in Ireland. The sad fact is that no amount of money can heal the harm done by child molesters, and so innocent churchgoers are forced to pay more and more for those crimes.

So, I dunno. It is a very difficult question, and I don't know how to answer it in a way that will satisfy anyone. I'm sure Jim will tell me how horrible I am for saying this, but this is what I think. I don't know the answer - I only have questions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 09:41 PM

Following up on a sale of church property to the Current Occuant: I immediately went to whether Trump would want to have himself painted over the portion of the Sistine Chapel showing God giving life to Adam. The immediate followup was whether he would want to be depicted as God or the first man?

I could only imagine him wanting to be BOTH.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 10:12 PM

Now I can't erase the image of a naked Sistine Trump from my mind....

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 11:50 PM

Tiny hands by Michelangelo!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 03:37 AM

"It isn't "The Church" that commits crime. "
It was and continues to be the Church that covered up the crim - from the top to the bottom - from the fellow priests who knew about their colleagues' "little weaknesses" to the Vatican, who locked away the details and still keeps them locked up
"The Church" is the body that makes this affair a unit - it sets it aside from all other similar cases of abuse
I have yet to get a response to the fact that, if this had happened within any other section of society it would have been handled very differently - not with mere retrospective exposures and a few sackings, but with mass legal actions against the perpetrators and their accomplices
The church, as a body, can be said to be complicit in these crimes - the knowledge of what was happening became a way of life within the church as a whole - something accepted and allowed to continue for the sake of self-survival.
I really don't believe that Joe and those who share his views really understand the enormity and the seriousness of what happened.
The issue of compensation is for the surviving victims to decide, not outsiders like us, but it is really a side-issue
I'm reminded of the twenty seven year farce following the Hillsborough Disaster when I listen to some of these arguments - the denials of blame, the blaming of the victims, the official cover-ups - above all, the denial of responsibility by those who could have done something different and didn't.
I was in Liverpool on the day that the enquiry finally laid the blame where it should have been 27 years earlier
The overall impression I was left with wasn't one of vengeance or demands for compensation, but one of relief by the families that, at long last, the truth had emerged
I have no interest in football whatever, (I hate the game) but I sat and watched those speeches from relatives with tears streaming down my face.
THat has yet to begin in this affair, yet there are those demanding that it should be forgotten and "we should be allowed to move on" - let bygones be bygones.
If the Irish Church is anything to go by, that just ain't gonna happen.
The question of compensation will be easily solved by the revenue brought in from the sale of unused churches.
Just a point about who has footed the bill so far.
"Irish taxpayers are to fund most of what is likely to be the largest payout from public funds to child abuse victims anywhere in the world. Organisations representing clerical abuse victims and members of the Dail claim the final compensation bill will be around €1.3 billion (£780 million)."........" the Catholic Church will only pay €128m towards the bill."
The rest comes out of ours - the taxpayer's pocket
And the church still prevaricates and refuses to cough up.
NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The least that can happen must be that the church - as a body - puts its hands up and admits its guilt fully and supplies all information necessary to bring closure.
The best that can happen is already happening arbitrarily
The church, as a body, must never occupy positions in our society where these crimes, or similar, can ever happen again.
The Church's role in Education is now a big issue here in Ireland
It's say in the nation's health is being challenged - the proposed turning over of Ireland's main maternity hospital has collapsed.
The referendum on same sex marriage was passed with ease, despite the church's intervention (we now have a gay Taoiseach - beautifully unbelievable).
It remains to be seen what will happen in future referendums on pregnancy termination - let's see if the Church threatens excommunication to those politicians who vote "yess", as they did last time.
At long last, the toxic mix of religion and politics is being washed down the drain - not before time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 04:35 AM

the vatican..what can i say about it..it harbors criminals. there is a policy still standing called crimen...something..a book by an australian named kieran tiepsal??? out that is very good at explaining it. bishops are ordered to keep things secret. pope has told bishops currently they only now have to report if countries command it. they have the priests in a bind...they object and they will lose their position, their retirement, their housing, whatever. it is a filthy filthy system. there is blackmail going on most likely...if you out me for being a pedophile i will out you for being gay..and if 100 percent of the priests are gay itis fine with me.

i am sympathetic to the pedophiles...they have a neurological condition somehow..could be from birth or could be developed by various circumstances...no one would wish this curse on them...but they must be locked up in either a jail or a monastery with large screen tvs or whatever...or if society and the perps would allow it, brain surgery...you can't count on drugs to be taken...you need something permanent...

as far as churches go...we make them too big and in the past way too ornate. now they are often quite ugly. just rent a room from the unitarians or have simple new england style churches for a smaller congregation. we need to review the history of these huge cathedrals..some have to do with knights templar and all sorts of mysteries. god is probably just fine with a smaller simpler building ... and we can't afford to keep some of them...maintenance, heating, etc.

the bishops and cardinals need to be really really looked at as to their involvement in coverups. the majority were said to be coveruppers at least a while ago. they will still do what they can get away with...and this is partly to do with a sense of fiscal responsibility...they fail to coverup and they lose the church buildings...

we can meet in the denny's parking lot if we need to. under a tarp on a baseball field..but we can not have a church based on abusing..often raping..children..right on the altar all too often.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 04:52 AM

"we can meet in the denny's parking "
One of our finest singers and dear friend, Tom Lenihan, lost his son when he was bitten by a rat around the farm - John was infected with Weill's disease and dies within weeks
Tom and his wife Margaret - then in their 80s were devastated
They both were deeply religious - "simple genuine Christians" as Tom Munnelly described them, but they never attended his Church funeral in Miltown, they watched the hearse depart from their front door and viewed its progress into town down the hill from there
When we asked why, we are told, "John was born in this house and this is where he spent most of his life - we don't need a church service to remember him - this house holds all our memories of him"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 07:18 AM

Jim and mg should go into business selling old churches. They'd soon find that nobody wants to buy them - and nobody wants to allow them to be torn down.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 07:33 AM

I have stopped contributing to this thread, as All of you appear to have buried your heads in the sand for various reasons.
However I must point out that there was almost no paedophilia involved in any of the cases which have been revealed most of the abuse has been between adult males and post pubescent minors, between 11 and 17. Most of the abusers who have been found guilty of these crimes have had previous homosexual contact.

Perhaps any future discussion on this subject will take these facts into account when forming opinions.
mg thinks it would be fine if 100% of priests were homosexual, how would these men have the necessary qualifications to teach family values to their flock?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 07:39 AM

I wonder exactly how many lusty, red-blooded, thorough-going heterosexual males have ever had "previous homosexual contact.." 😂.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 07:46 AM

I couldn't possibly comment on your sexual past Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 07:53 AM

That's a pretty stupid remark, even for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 08:00 AM

"I have stopped contributing to this thread, "
No true
Your nastiness and trolling doesn't merit the description "contribution" - just trolling - and you most recent posting is an indication that you haven't "stopped posting"
You can't possibly know that "Most of the abusers who have been found guilty of these crimes have had previous homosexual contact."
There has been no survey of who are what they are, the names of most of them lie under lock and key in the Vatican - that has been stated over and over again - perhaps you should try paying a little more attention to what people say if you can't be arsed to look up the facts for yourself.
Please stop miking things up - your not even good at THAT!
"They'd soon find that nobody wants to buy them"
Might surprise you to learn that many Church of Ireland (Prod) churches are being used as music or cultural centres - there are two within ten mils of here Joe - one in the next but one town of Ennistimon, north of here, and one which has been into a magnificent community centre in Kilrush
Over in East Clare, one is being used for a Museum
Comhaltas has dozens of them all over Ireland
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 10:46 AM

Buddhist saying "The problem with closed minded people is that their mouth is always open"

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 11:34 AM

Ake, can you PLEASE take your homophobic bullshit somewhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 01:17 PM

Greg, are you seriously suggesting that the sexual abuse of 11 to 17 year old males by adult priests has nothing to do with homosexuality?

If so, your stance is idiotic or you are dismissing the evidence.

I don't particularly care whether you or anyone else thinks I am homophobic, this is a discussion forum and all are entitled to their opinion, but I do care about the dismissal of clear evidence.

If we are going to ignore certain relevant issues in any discussion because they do not fit into our ideology, we might as well pack up.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 02:02 PM

"If so, your stance is idiotic or you are dismissing the evidence."
There is no "evidence"
You know this as you refuse to back up your claim
How can there possibly be any "evidence" if identities of the vast majority of the culprits has been kept secret?
If here was evidence, you would link us to it
This is yet more of your latent homosexual homophobia
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 02:40 PM

I am fine if they are all gay but no pedophiles, gay or non. I do not assume that gay people can not be pedophiles. Of course they can. Until proven otherwise i would assume same percentage as non. There are easy tests to measure attraction and yes, studies show there are definite preferences as to sex or gender or whatever it is. I think we will all be taking them at some point.   Also think we will find that we are all omnisexual and that some people are able to channel better.

As for selling churches..think developers dont want some of them in high cost areas? Look at st. Patricks..creepy creep is running it and would not even put bathrooms in it.

And today they they took up a collection to put mosaics on the dome of basilica in dc. I have never seen a collection for survivors. Those are our priorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 04:02 PM

Ake, can you PLEASE take your homophobic bullshit somewhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:23 PM

And while we are at it, just who are these children abusing Catholics?

If I have that wrong it seems all children in Catholic Sunday schools admit to some degree of abuse even if it is just losing their Sundays.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 01:31 AM

Well, both Ake and Greg_F now have broken records in their players.
Ake, with all due disrespect, most of us don't use the word paedophilia. It's a clinical term. Nonetheless, most of us are appalled at the thought of a priest raping a 14-year-old boy, and believe the priest should be sent to prison. We call it child abuse, or child molestation, or sexual abuse of children. But yes, most of the victims are age 11 or older - but normal homosexuals do not rape 14-year-old boys.
So, shut up already.

---

Jim says: Might surprise you to learn that many Church of Ireland (Prod) churches are being used as music or cultural centres

Doesn't surprise me at all, Jim. I've known that for years. But such churches are still white elephants that cost a lot to maintain, and they sell for very low prices or are given away. In Chicago, the archdiocese has had many beautiful old churches that they can't give to anybody - and the city won't let these landmark buildings be torn down.

The point I've been trying to make, Jim, is that you speak in half-truths and anachronisms. You insist on blaming the child abuse scandal on "The Church," and fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of the people who committed these crimes are dead or extremely aged. In sticking to your "The Church" abstraction, you also fail to acknowledge that the people and actions have changed over the years since the crimes took place. Reparations are going to be paid out of funds that would otherwise be used to support aged nuns and priests who did not commit the crimes in question. It's certainly fair that reparations should be paid - but if the priest and nuns agree to pay a certain amount and then that amount is tripled, is that fair?

The criminals should be prosecuted, and reasonable reparations should be made. But opening up the same stories over and over and over agan - twenty or thirty years after they ended - what good does that do anybody?

"The Church" that you speak of died long ago. Catholics don't do things that way anymore. Strict controls have been put in place to prevent future child abuse. No doubt, the controls will fail from time to time, but I think the lesson was learned years ago.

But go ahead, you wallow in your anger about long-ago events for as long as you like. What good does that do you?

And mg, you also speak in anachronisms. Get over it. For the two of you, it's like these decades-old crimes are being committed over and over again, every day. Your outrage is getting moldy.

MG, that archbishop you call "creepy-creep" is Timothy Cardinal Dolan, who used to be Archbishop of Milwaukee. Your name for him fits pretty well. Luckily, Pope Francis doesn't seem to be appointing people of his ilk - but no doubt, Dolan has his job in New York permanently. I once saw a priest do a great imitation of Dolan as a bobblehead doll. Apparently, he nods and grins at people as he walks along. He's quite the glad-hander - one of the darlings of the conservatives. Still, St. Patrick's is a landmark with historical and cultural value and it gets constant heavy use - you won't get a lot of support for selling it. Same with St. Peter's in Rome. What right does anyone have to take it away? If a person in my employ commits a crime, how much can be taken from me?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:29 AM

Joe:"If a person in my employ commits a crime, how much can be taken from me?"

That really neatly summarizes the morality/justice of reparations.
Does the guilt belong to the individual or the organisation?
The only guilt the organisation has is that by association and perhaps lax controls. The modern world is very different from that of one or two generations ago and the glare of publicity shines in places never dreamed of 20,40,60 years ago.
How can the standards of today be applied to events that occurred in a time of totally different mores?
Even if by convoluted logic guilt can be assessed in shekels to be taken from the organisation-is it fitting in view of the fact that such a cost may destroy it?
   My own view is that the horse bolted way back and that trying to destroy the church of today for the errant behaviour of a small minority active in the past is both totally wrong and repugnant.
I say that a lapsed Jesuit educated catholic that has not crosses the door of a church in over 50 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 04:05 AM

"You insist on blaming the child abuse scandal on "The Church," "
No I don't Joe - I say that the Church played a part in those abuses
I have consistently listed the part it played - ignoring the abuses, even though they were common knowledge, passing on the culprits to places where they were unknown so they could continue their abusing and finally shipping them abroad where their abuses were (presumably) perpetrated on people who didn't matter
That is full complicity and it is what I am accusing the Church, as a body, of doing.
The Vatican hid and continues to to hide the details of those abuses and has yet to admit its part in what happened and apologise for it
It is a "half truth" to claim the victims have been fully compensated - the Irish taxpayer has been given the responsibility of the donkey's share of the bill, the church is still prevaricating.
You and others have suggested that this situation must go on in order for the Church to hold onto its vast wealth.
You refuse even to respond to the facts of the Church's involvement other than to express outrage and make accusations of "half truths and anachronisms"and, disgracefully, attempt to make this "Irish" rather than the International scandal it has become.
The Church I am speaking didn't "die long ago" - modern social development has forced it to make compromises - extremely reluctantly, and these revelations have all but totally undermined its authority - that is not the enlightened change that needs to happen
Atheist that I am, I have no wish to see the destruction of the church - I have far too much respect for the believers I count as friends.
The Church, as a body must no longer be in the position to influence the running of countries in important matters, as it still does.
It has proved itself untrustworthy with children, yet in Ireland, it controls over 90% of our primary schools - many schools are demanding baptismal certificates for entry in places where they are the only alternative - here, we would have to ship a child over forty miles to find a non or multi-denominational school
Unless the activities of the church are confined to the VOLUNTARY spiritual guidance of those who seek it, the Church will implode, leaving a massive gap in the lives genuine believers.
You say my anger concerns something that happened "long ago" - I assume you are claiming the same for all those who have walked away from the churches here, leaving them virtually empty and in the crisis that are now facing
You speak with the smug ignorance of someone far detached from the reality of what is happening
It all seems very different 'Up in Wisconsin' (as Don Lange put it in his song).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 04:55 AM

I'm not sure I'm hearing you correctly here, Joe. I hope you're not saying that the book should be closed on crimes because they happened decades ago. Recently, a man in his late 70s living locally, well known to most people in our town, was sent to prison for 15 years for sexually abusing underage boys in the late 1950s. He had lived a lie for decades, becoming a highly-respected man in the community and occupying public positions. The sense of betrayal we all felt when he was finally exposed was palpable, which, of course, is nothing when set alongside with the lives he ruined. This is one category of crime that time can never diminish.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:08 AM

"I hope you're not saying that the book should be closed on crimes because they happened decades ago. "
Perhaps those taking this line should state clearly what statute of limitations should be applied to such crimes - and to what other crimes they should be applied (or should they apply only to those committed by clerics)?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:28 AM

Seems to me a little semantic confusion is creeping in. Where is evidence of a statute of limitations being applied to past cases of child abuse? There seems a conflation of crime, punishment,individuals, organizations.
An individual is responsible for the crime and as an individual must suffer the punishment. Reparations punish the organization as priests are probably men of straw.
       How far back in time should the failings of the organization be pursued and punished? Do the descendants of the spanish inquisition deserve reparations?

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

"Reparations punish the organization as priests are probably men of straw."
Reparations are paid for misdoing, mismanagement, injustices.... of the overseers, as well as those responsible
Once more, the actions of the Church are being ignored
They active participated in the activities by covering them up and allowing them to go on.
They need to answer for that fact as well as there being measures put into place to ensure they can's happen again
The victims/survivors appear to have been forgotten in all this - do they not need closure - do the crimes against them not need to be answered for
Would the parents of a child killed by an unpunished drunken driver be told to forgive and forget if they saw that driver driving around as if nothing had happened?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 08:06 AM

This article attempts to explain the scale of and ins and outs of reparations Busines insider aticle on Reparations

Just for Iains t I c
I'm sure the "Via Maria" film would put peoples minds at rest regarding the Inquisitors, they were bunch of naughty but nice old guys

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 09:44 AM

Well, both Ake and Greg_F now have broken records in their players.

Well, Joe, since Ake keeps spouting the same BS over and over and over, I can save a great deal of time and effort by re-posting the same reply.

Its simply a matter of efficient use of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 10:31 AM

What's the definition of insanity again?
Of course, you don't expect a different outcome, you just want the same old non-reaction over and over.
I wonder what THAT signifies...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 11:43 AM

I wonder what THAT signifies...

A minor personality disorder, perhaps? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 12:39 PM

From Joe......"We call it child abuse, or child molestation, or sexual abuse of children. But yes, most of the victims are age 11 or older - but normal homosexuals do not rape 14-year-old boys."

I think the correct term is sexual assault of minors, but whatever, the crimes are committed by adult males upon young males, that is homosexual assault. You deny that it has anything to do with sexual preference, yet almost all the assaults are committed against young males, not young females......please explain this anomaly.

It is irrefutable that there is a huge over representation of homosexuals in the priesthood (approx. 30% against 1.5% in the general population).....please explain this anomaly.

Why do these rates of assault not manifest themselves in other religious denominations.?

The Church is not to blame for the assaults, only for clumsy attempts to cover up and a mad Celibacy rule. They are now between a rock and a hard place, easy meat for the haters of religion who are hugely over represented in this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 01:09 PM

My apologies for adding further complications to what is already a sore subject.
I had no idea the a statute of limitations would apply in child abuse cases. I stand corrected. . In the US it appears a unique case in every state and worldwide the time period varies, and the definitions become increasingly complex. In the case of sexual child abuse a statute of limitations may occur or may not, depending on where the crime occurred.
The link below is a CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE IRISH LAW OF LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ARISING FROM NON-SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN and contains comparisons worldwide.


http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpNonSexAbuse.htm

(You probably need to be a lawyer to truly understand what it is stating)

http://www.catholicwhistleblowers.com/whistleblower-essays/statutes-of-limitations-regarding-clergy-sexual-abuse-of-minors

In places there is a clear distinction between Child abuse and child sexual abuse and can lead to very different outcomes.

http://angelroar.com/foradults/c-child-abuse-resources-adults/childabusestatuteoflimitationsbystate

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 02:43 PM

Irish Law Reform Consultation

Very complicated. Appendix A at the end of chapter 5 Makes the whole dilemma more readable

best to skip to :
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
89
Part I: Preliminary Issues
89
Provisional nature of recommendations
89
The need for a special regime
89
Differing regimes for sexual and non-sexual child abuse
89
The elimination of periods of limitation
89
Part II: Options for Reform
89
Option One: Test of "disability" Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 2000
89
Option Two: Test of "discoverability" Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991
89
Option Three: Presumption of incapability; the Ontario model
90
Option Four: Fixed period of time
90
Part III: Scope and Operation of the Test
90
Definition of "non-sexual abuse"
90
Mixed cases
91
The cause of action
91
Relationship of trust and dependency between the plaintiff and the defendant
91
Vicarious liability and liability of supervisory authorities
91
Retrospective effect of statutes of limitation
91
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF THE LAW OF LIMITATIONS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS

APPENDIX B: LIST OF LAW REFORM COMMISSION'S PUBLICATIONS

The other 2 papers seem to echo and illustrate Business Insiders article ..... all worth a read

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:09 PM

Can I suggest that, rather than pander to an obsessive hate merchant, we ignore Ake's attempts to turn this discussion into another of his "queer-bashing" expeditions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:46 PM

Jim
How About "Ignorance is bliss" tae coin a phrase

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 04:34 PM

Anyone who has done any reading on the subject, will know that Pederasty has been rooted in homosexuality since the time of Ancient Greece.

Some much needed information will be found here WIKI

"Some modern observers restrict the age of the younger partner to "generally between twelve and seventeen",[6] though historically the spread was somewhat greater. The younger partner must, in some sense, not be fully mature; this could include young men in their late teens or early twenties.[7]

While relationships in ancient Greece involved boys from 12 to about 17 or 18,[8] in Renaissance Italy they typically involved boys between 14 and 19,[9] and in Japan the younger member ranged in age from 11 to about 19.[10]

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:53 PM

and now for a Musical Interlude

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 09:22 PM

Steve Shaw says: I hope you're not saying that the book should be closed on crimes because they happened decades ago.

Well, Steve, I do think that the books should be closed on the crimes sooner or later. I think there is wisdom behind enacting statutes of limitations. As time passes, it becomes harder and harder to conduct a fair trial. More and more, it becomes a "he say, she says" proposition - and memories of witnesses fade as the decades pass.

In the U.S., the turning point was 2002. It was handled in different ways in different places, but it was handled decisively. Because of the huge number of crimes by priests discovered, the state legislature here in California enacted a temporary extension of the statute of limitations on crimes against children, and a window was set for claims to be filed. That window has now closed, although some settlements are still being negotiated. I think that a temporary extension was a good way to handle things. It cost us Catholics a lot, but it settled things quite well and gave us some safety from an endless chain of future claims for older and older crimes. It also forced us to develop procedures for both preventing and compensating future crimes. Without that security, it was hard to plan for the future - or to collect money from donors. Current priorities for the Catholic Church in California and immigrants and the homeless, and these are important issues in this Age of Trump. I'm relieved that we have been able to put the child molestation scandal behind us here in the Catholic Church of California. I wish some other state legislatures had acted so decisively.

In another of his solemn condemnations that Jim denies making, he says that I disgracefully, attempt to make this "Irish" rather than the International scandal it has become.

No, Jim, that's not my point. My point is that the crimes were committed locally, and need to be prosecuted and compensated locally. In Ireland, the crimes were committed by Irish priests and some nuns, not by priests from the Vatican or from the U.S. And those criminals were supervised by Irish bishops or religious superiors. The answer to the sex abuse scandal in Ireland is in Ireland, not in the Vatican or in the U.S. The power to stop these crimes was in Ireland, not somewhere else.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 12:13 AM

and those irish bishops..some of whom were stupid beyond belief, like brady, were in thrall to the vatican...they were owned lock stock and barrel by the vatican. they were told when to jump and how high. they were ordered, presumably under pain of mortal sin, to defend the church against scandal...it was absolutely the vatican. s..t rolls downhill.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:47 AM

I don't think your perception is correct, mg. Some auxilliary bishops may be in thrall to the Vatican. Indeed, they may have been placed in a diocese by the Vatican to keep an eye on the local ordinary. But for the most part, local ordinaries are an independent lot. They know they're not beholden to the Vatican, and they generally aren't afraid to express that independence. They tend to have the attitudes of corporate executives, and often can be a bit low on ability as spiritual leaders and "people skills."

And they are rarely "stupid." Still, I tend to take a cynical view of bishops because so many of them seem overly concerned with the material needs of the structure of their dioceses, to the disadvantage of the spiritual needs of Catholics and their communities.

Sean Cardinal Brady was an organization man. He liked things to run smoothly. But he served the structure of the Catholic Church of Ireland, not the Vatican. He resigned in 2014, at the standard retirement age of 75.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:27 AM

"I do think that the books should be closed on the crimes sooner or later."
In these circumstances, that is one of the most inhuman statements you have made to date Joe
These crimes have only come to light comparatively recently - their extent continues to be an almost daily revelation.
Summing them up overall, they are the rape and abuse of children and young people - serious crimes of the type that have torn Britain in two racially to the extent of ruining Britain's economy and bringing about a sharp rise in racist incidents in the wake of Brexit largely when it was generated on the actions of a tiny handful of Asian criminals in areas of England - there it was underage girls, here it was schoolchildren, unmarried mothers, altar-boys - anybody that priests could get their hands on
And they should be forgiven and forgotten?   
Come on Joe - what kind of human being would ever consider such a thing?
Many - most of the victims are still living - they have lived with the consequences of the crimes committed against them, lives have been ruined - even ended, by the damage that was done.
The crimes were committed locally - really?
What about the covering up, what about the continuing refusal of access to information, what about the refusal by the church to acknowledge their part in these assaults - similar to your own refusal to accept that the church has tainted itself to the point of destruction for its part.
Very few prosecutions have taken place- Smythe was the worst, so society leapt on him as a sacrificial lamb, despite the fact that that same society colluded to allow him to continue to abuse - in Ireland and in the United States.
I reckon that, given your forgive and forget attitude, the Hillsborough disaster would have just made it thorough your statute of limitations.
I ask again What about the victims in all this - are they not desrving of closure, having aleardy suffered lifetimes of misery for what happened to them at the hand of the church?
You continue to stone-wall on the part played by the church - you refuse to acknowledge that they refuse to co-operate or admit their guilt.
You refuse to discuss the effect that this has had and is continuing to have on thousands of lives - even though your church is dying here because of what took place.
I take no satisfaction in that - you apparently don't care
This affair will run and run throughout the rest of my lifetime - the State may forget it, the church may continue to refuse to accept responsibility, but the people of Ireland won't
I occasionally find my self at odds with Ollaimh's habit of overstatement, but here I go all the way, there is a great deal of hypocritical apologism connected to this subject, and you reflect a considerable amount of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:36 AM

So, Jim, instead of just pronouncing that my statement is inhuman, can you address my reasoning behind my statement? Do you have any understanding of the concept of statutes of limitations? Is it practical to prosecute fifty-year-old crimes, and can a prosecutor conduct a fair trial of a fifty-year-old crime?
I don't know how I could stand trial for something I did fifty years ago. I just can't remember much from then very clearly.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:34 AM

"Do you have any understanding of the concept of statutes of limitations? "
Yes I have Joe - and I also have an understanding that crimes have been committed, victims lives have been ruined and the perpetrators have never been brought to justice
To support that situation by seeking to hide behind the law is beneath contempt
We are talking about an incredibly wealthy and influential institution here - we know the part they played, we know their refusal to co-operate in contemporary investigations, we know of their refusal to meet up with the obligations put on them by law - and we know they seek to cling on to the power that brought about this brutal period of our history.
I suppose you hold groups like those who sought out justice for the Holocaust in the same contempt
I ask again - where do the victims stand in all this - have they no right to acknowledgement?
You have offered none
Should they forget the crimes committed against them - they won't because they can't - nobody ever could
"Ollaimh's" accusations ring louder and louder each time you post
I ask again, where is the juystice for the victims in all this - is their right to justice any less than that of the perpetrators"
Fair trial - my arse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:44 AM

Jim sez: To support that situation by seeking to hide behind the law is beneath contempt

Well, no, it's simply an opinion that's different from yours. And, of course, to disagree with Jim Carroll is "beneath contempt"....

In the U.S., setting a deadline for claims served as motivation for people to step forward and tell the truth about how they had been molested as children. The dioceses got a lot more claims than they expected. Without a deadline, many claims never get filed, and the damage done lies festering for years. Better for all to be done with it. Fairly, but done with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:00 AM

"Well, no, it's simply an opinion that's different from yours. "
Cop-out again Joe
I am tired of asking you to respond to the rights of the victims - you refuse to do so
That also is beneath contempt
You have put the rights of dirty old men over their rights
Enjoy your Christianity Joe - I'm relieved never to have been tainted by it, those I have been privileged to witness its effects
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:13 AM

Setting aside The Statute of Limitations, on which I agree with Joe, the Crimes were not committed BY the Church, but by adult males who happened to be employees OF the Church.

Should the law enforcement agencies be held responsible for the actions of every bent or sexually abusive policeman?
The Church can only be faulted on improper vetting of priests(they should have spotted the time bomb within their organisation) and a limited and desperate attempt at damage limitation.

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

One again, the complicity is being ignored by the usual suspects
The victims apparently are the figments of somebody's imagination
End of story as far as this particular branch of Christianity is concerned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:32 PM

Certainly, Jim, the primary concern in all this should be for the victim. But does it do the victims any good to keep reopening these wounds on a regular cycle, year after year?

And can you really say that there is no validity to my contention that it is near-impossible to conduct a trial that is fair to anyone, 50 years after the crime took place?

There's a woman in my local parish whose sister was killed by a boyfriend over twenty-five years ago. The boyfriend had never committed a crime before. He spent 25 years in prison, and then was recommended for parole. The victim's sister organized a "victim's rights" group, and the prison guard union backed it up with a lot of money. This group appears at every parole hearing in the state, fighting against all paroles because they are a violation of victim rights.

Is that what "victim rights" are, Jim - eternal vengeance? The woman I know has fed her anger for over a quarter century. Has it done her any good? Since I've worked the last five years for improvement of conditions for people in jail, I am very careful around this angry woman. So far, I have been able to keep a cordial relationship with her - but I'm careful.

There has to be a place of balance in all of this, Jim. Prolonging the anger forever, does not bring peace to anyone.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 02:18 PM

Yes. It is absolutely necessary for them to open these wounds if it helps them or others. Do you read abuse tracker? I do first thing every morning. Every day new stories from new people...not the same people each time. Torture is sometimes involved. Do we want the truth or not? It is horribly inconvenient and hard to process or to believe nice father otoole did that but if he did his victims have an absolute right to speak up. The financial aspect is an unfortunate consequence of this. I wish it was not a factor but it is. It is a very very sick church..not the only one to be sure. I want the church to go way back to before constantine and look for true roots in england especially..seems they had a nice church led by joseph of arimathea as far as i know. Mary magdalene perhaps in france.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 02:22 PM

There is a huge difference Joe, in the case you cited the perpetrator has been punished for his crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 02:58 PM

@But does it do the victims any good to keep reopening these wounds on a regular cycle, year after year?@
What makes you think such wounds ecver close
The facts are now open - too late to keep them hidedem
The victims and their families are tho ones demanding that their wrongs be redressed
How dare you compare these events to a woman demanding vengeance?
The recognition is what is being demanded - who the hell do you and yours think you are to refuse it?
A feeble excuse Joe - getting more feeble by the minute
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:28 PM

Who here has seen the movie 'Doubt' about a Parrish Priest.(Philip Seymour Hoffman)

Powerful performances without being apologetic

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:36 PM

Usually, it's the conservatives who dwell on crime, recycling their outrage time and time again. Benghazi comes to mind. I just realized the other day that only 4 Americans died in the attack. The story has been repeated and amplified so many times, that nobody knows what happens. I do have sympathy for the families of those four diplomats who died, but I really don't want Mrs. Clinton to go to prison for their deaths.

In my community, we have a group that is very strongly organized in opposition to our homeless shelter. Anytime a transient is arrested, the group will beat the story to the ground, repeating and amplifying it over and over again. There was a wheelchair-bound homeless man in a cowboy hat who came into our choir practice one night. He was a little intoxicated, but not bad; so we let him stay and listen. I was afraid I was going to have to force him to leave when I was locking up the doors, but he was already gone. The next day, I learned that he had left the church and gotten involved in a disturbance next door. The father of a teenage boy said the homeless man had "assaulted" his son. I learned later that it was a VERBAL assault, a detail the father managed to omit, along with the fact that the assaulter was in a wheelchair. In other words, an old man in a wheelchair yelled at a kid. The father repeated the story at a hearing before the County Board of Supervisors almost a year longer, adding that Joe Offer was responsible for the crime because he failed to call the police when the man was listening to the choir practice.

But it seems we have our little group here who dwell on crime, too. I was wondering about the Abuse Tracker that mg reads daily. Turns out, it is part of the bishopaccountability Website that I use as my main source of information.

I do believe that justice must be done in these cases, that criminals should be prosecuted and punished, and victims should be compensated. But I think a reasonable statute of limitations would be 20 or 25 years after the victim reaches adulthood. Even after 20 years, evidence gets very stale and it becomes impossible to reconstruct what happened with any accuracy.

And I really don't think that this feeding frenzy of abuse trackers is a healthy thing for anybody. Life goes on. We can't live our lives obsessed with crime. I agree with Donuel about the value of the movie "Doubt," and I think "Spotlight" was excellent. We need to come to an understanding of all this and do our best to ensure it does not happen again. But dwelling on the whole thing and repeating it over and over, is just like the Benghazi addicts do. This obsession with Catholic sex crimes does seem to be an addiction for some people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:04 PM

@But it seems we have our little group here who dwell on crime, @
What you have just suggested is that the victims cannot be trusted with justice because they might abuse it
How disgusting is that?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself - you oun, but you won't be
Depressing when you see the mask fall away
As for your #little group# = you, Ake and maybe Iains (the feller who said the victims of the London fire couldn't be house in vacant property) are the only ones who support nott giving the victims of clerical abuse justice
You are now down to attacking the victims for claiming reperation - How soon before we get "They brought it on themselves" like Smythe claimed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:16 PM

I don't question the actual victims of crime at all, Jim.

I question people like you and mg who have made the sex abuse scandal into a hobby.

The victims want peace and healing and sympathy, and they deserve it. You want blood. Don't try to misdirect this and try to convince people I have no sympathy for the victims. The Benghazi people keep trying that on Hillary Clinton. And the likes of you are trying to make the plight of the sex scandal victims into a tool to promote atheism and your political agenda.



-Joe Offer-

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

let's not call it feeding frenzy or obsession. Give it a nicer name..ministry let's call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:18 PM

hobby does not quite cut it...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:26 PM

Spectator sport?

Kinda like a fantasy football league, I think. It's quite divorced from reality, all this breathless reporting every three years of recycled crimes that happened in the 1970s, and all the maudlin sympathy for the poor little children who are now drawing pensions.

I worked for thirty years as an investigator, mg. I like to see things reported accurately and in proportion and context, with exploration into the reasons why things happened. This sex abuse by clergy was a serious problem, and it will continue to be a problem. I think that we have made great headway toward resolving the problem, but I think we have a whole lot to learn. The frenzied finger-pointing doesn't allow for serious discussion and learning.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:27 PM

And furthermore, I don't count hoping to help prevent the rape and perhaps future suicide of 12 year olds, or God forbid, 3 year olds, to be a hobby. Hobbies are more like refinishing furniture or training falcons or gluing macaroni on jars for art.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:28 PM

Maudlin sympathy...that takes the cake. That is sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:38 PM

When child abuse occurs in all environments and belief systems by persons of any number of backgrounds and occupations then it is an unhealthy obsession that focuses attention on one small subset of one particular religion and ignores the true scale of the problem.

Is this an attack on a religion or those guilty of child abuse? Why not focus attention, for example, on the more than 130,000 children sent to a "better life" in former colonies, mainly Australia and Canada, from the 1920s to 1970s under the child migrant programme .

The children, aged between three and 14, were almost invariably from deprived backgrounds and already in some form of social or charitable care. The reality, for some of those children, was a childhood of servitude and hard labour at foster homes: on remote farms, at state-run orphanages and church-run institutions. They were often separated from siblings. Some were subjected to physical and sexual abuse.

To give some sort of perspective to what I say a link is attached.

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=aaschsslbk

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:39 PM

Leading on from Iains post of Aug 17 04:38
Oranges and Subshine - Film Critique
Interesting reading as well as some current side issues re treatment of Mexican migrants by ICE

Relevant Sample from end of Oranges and Sunshine
In his speech delivered at Parliament House in November 2009, then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told child migrants, "the laws of our nation failed you." But the laws of the nation worked then, as now, just as intended: upholding the economic and political power of the ruling class and reserving its greatest repression for the most oppressed and vulnerable sections of the population

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:56 PM

I am as aware of the australian problem as i know how to be. it is awful. horrible number of suicides. perhaps there will be justice at the top..who knows.

I also volunteer to work with girls who have been abused, often by the mother's creepy boyfriend. If you want me to toot that particular horn more, I will be glad to.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:16 PM

Joe, in effect you are saying that child sexual abusers should be left alone after x number of years, arbitrarily defined, whereas their victims, many of whom will long outlive that time limit, will continue with their living hell until the day they die. I've already illustrated this point with a recent case that happened locally which saw a man sent to prison for abuses dating back to 1959. The evidence against him, though ancient, was corroborated by his many victims, which is what nailed him. He pleaded guilty, no option. That abuse occurred nearly sixty years ago, Joe, but after all that time the victims still got justice and many of them still live round here. You are being far too kind to the abusers and far too couldn't-care-less about their victims. That's how you are coming across. Let the courts decide whether evidence is too degraded on a case-by-case basis. It could be that the prospect of justice fades with the decades, but, even after half a century, it may not be impossible, as I've shown. So, no arbitrary limits. Think of those victims first.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 12:21 AM

Yes, Steve, that's what I'm saying, without the emotional add-ons. That's one of the many reasons why there are statutes of limitations for most crimes. We should be able to expect that our criminal and civil courts and our law enforcement agencies should be able to handle such serious cases with reasonable alacrity. There comes a point in time where evidence is stale and witness testimonies are no longer valid because of lapse of memory and the death or unavailability of witnesses. So, from a legal perspective, it is no longer possible to conduct a fair trial. And yes, I believe that there should be a law that sets time limits on prosecutors, requiring them to file charges and bring cases to trial within a reasonable amount of time. Yes, there may be a few valid cases that get missed because of that, but so be it.

Now, because of the special nature of child molestation and the fact that children are often not able to step forward and press charges until they have reached adulthood, I think the limit should be set at twenty to twenty-five years after the victim reaches adulthood. Ten years would be a reasonable limit for most crimes, but I think that the special circumstances of the crime of child molestation demand a longer time allowance.

But yeah, after a certain amount of time, the claims get less credible and harder to prove or disprove. And when we've reached that point, I believe it's time to stop. I say this with thirty years of experience as an investigator. It's not about sympathy or lack of sympathy for the victims - everybody has sympathy for the victims. There comes a time when it just doesn't make sense to try to get evidence about events that happened long ago. It's still worthwhile to research such things and learn from them, but information gets to a point where it is too old to be valid in a court of law.

Now, once a claim has been filed and a crime has been reported within the time allowed by that statute of limitations, then I think the case must be prosecuted to the end, even if the court trial takes years. And if there is a judgment against the offender or his/her employer, that judgment should never be invalidated by the simple passage of time.

I don't know the details of the story in Jim's March 2017 (thejournal.ie) link that says

In 2002, an indemnity agreement was entered into by the Fianna Fáil Government and 18 religious orders. Under this agreement, the congregations agreed to hand over €128 million in cash and property. This was increased to €353 million after the publication of the Ryan report.

Did the religious orders agree to the increase to €353 million? Can they afford to pay it? Did some of the orders pay, and others not? The Christian Brothers (not the LaSalle Christian Brothers, the Irish Christian Brothers) were particularly notorious in their operation of the industrial schools in Ireland and other institutions in Canada and other nations. They seemed to have a philosophy of harsh treatment, and they got found out. I would imagine that their portion of the debt is huge, and I also imagine that they may well be close to bankruptcy. So, it may be that the Christian Brothers have failed to pay their portion, while others like the Sisters of Mercy have paid in full. Sorry, but I don't believe that the Vatican should be required to pay the debts of individual religious orders or dioceses out of its endowment. These were local crimes, not Vatican crimes.

Now, the question arises whether all Catholics should share equally in responsibility for all reparations for all victims. I think not. The sexual abuse existed everywhere, but some dioceses and some religious orders responded to victims with compassion and sympathy and nearly-immediate compensation. Should those who "did the right thing" be penalized equally? I don't think so.

It's a difficult question. I believe that most of people involved tried their best to "do the right thing," but a sizeable number of people did not. What's the proper response in all this? Punish all for the misdeeds of a minority?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:11 AM

"Is this an attack on a religion or those guilty of child abuse?"
As the main protagonists in this affair from the very beginning have been (often devout) believers, it is certainly not an attack on religion, not should it be - beliefs ought to stand or fall on their own merits as society develops to the stage where they can debate the subject freely and competently.
The danger of what is happening is that the church will totally collapse, leaving a vacuum in the philosophy - a cynicism.
What has to come out of all this is that the church be confined to the teaching of philosophy to those who voluntarily seek its advice.
If the clergy have any input into the nation's affairs, it has to be on the same basis as we all have, as individuals and not as representatives of a powerful pressure group.
It's position in education is now coming under scrutiny, as is it role in health.
Some of its most prominent 'messages'; on homosexuality for instance, have now been swept aside - Ireland has a gay Prime minister and a children's minister who has been in a life-long lesbian relationship - the Prime Minister recently took part in the Gay Parade in Belfast, along with representatives of the Garda Siochana (Irish Police Force)
The Church has failed to gain ownership of Ireland's most important maternity hospital - one of the most significant statements made in that campaign was made by a participant in one of the demonstrations, who said, "I'm fed up with the church and its influence on the state. Taxpayers money going into the hospital does not equal religious ownership of the new hospital".
This is only a start - but it is a start.
The decision on reparation mus be one decided by those directly affected - the question of the continuing power and influence is one we all have to decide - and are deciding.
The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has admitted that these exposures have been "badly handled" - no doubt he is a pragmatist who realises the damage that this has done and will continue to
People like Joe have yet to arrive at that conclusion - blaming the victims, The Irish and Irish Catholics and telling the victims they are not to be trusted with the right to justice....... don't think so really!!!
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:41 AM

Jim sez: What has to come out of all this is that the church be confined to the teaching of philosophy to those who voluntarily seek its advice.

What I find frightening, Jim, is that word "confined." I speak loudly and constantly in the name of the Catholic Church on behalf of immigrants and the homeless, which are currently my two main concerns. And no matter what happened in the sex scandal, I WILL NOT BE CONFINED.

I acknowledge that other members of my church have done terrible things. Nonetheless, I WILL NOT BE SILENCED.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 04:24 AM

"I WILL NOT BE SILENCED."
Your church is a waelthy and powerful organisasation Joe - it flaunts that wealth and has abused that power
That is the Church I am referring to,, not the dedcated Christins who speak up of behalf of immigrants and the homeless - that is the real job of the church written into thee sctipures. part of the job description
You kow the Church I am referring to
All to often, your church throws its weight behind those who oppress the poor, homeless - and particularly the immigrants, (not only yours, but other Churches)
In Britain, The House of Lords has often been described as "The Conservative Party at prayer".
Please try to address my poing without distorting it - you know where I stand on these matters
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 04:24 AM

On one hand I have an immigrant who is facing imminent deportation and a lifetime of separation from her children, and I have five people sleeping in the rain with no blankets.
On the other hand, I have a person who was molested by a priest forty years ago and wants a million-dollar settlement.
I see the homeless people and immigrants every day, and their welfare is where my passion lies.
I have compassion for victims of child molestation, but I have never met a child molest victim.
Where will I want to spend my money?
Does that mean I'm unsympathetic?
I spent eighty bucks on a stranger's rent yesterday, or maybe he just ripped me off. Was I wrong because I didn't spend it on child molest victims wanting a million bucks?
If I believed my million would heal a victim of abuse, I'd pay it - but it won't.
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 05:22 AM

Bravely said sir.

Do you arseholes see what real liberalism means and can accomplish?

Or would you rather sit on your fat arses and polish your mythical ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 05:35 AM

You are prevaricating Joe - and you have the support here in the form of obne of our tame trolls to underline that fact
You don't have to be a Christian to give to charity - - being a human being usually does the trick -
Some of us do it without bothering to mention it and never raise the question of being "ripped off" - we give what we give without a fanfare and without question.
It seems a 'Christian' tendency in some to flaunt their charitable donations
"Do you arseholes see what real liberalism means and can accomplish?
Or would you rather sit on your fat arses and polish your mythical ideology."
Says what needs to be said without need for comment
I hope to two will be very happy together
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 06:23 AM

I really do not have anything to bring to the prior discussion but I have read with interest the views on limiting the time when prosecutions can be brought about. My view is that there are some crimes which should never have a statute of limitations applied. Particularly those where the victims are still suffering as a result of that crime. Just my opinion but I think that may be backed up by the effort put in to capturing and prosecuting, for instance, Nazi war criminals.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 06:50 AM

Dave beat me to it there. I heartily disagree with setting any kind of time limit for sex abuse cases. The powers that be can decide on a case-by-case basis whether the remaining evidence has any prospect of leading to a conviction if pursued in court. And stating that victims will still be suffering many decades after the immunity from prosecution deadline has kicked in is not an emotional add-on, Joe. It's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 08:21 AM

The question of institutional abuse should never have a time limit set on it, particularly in relation to children
Any institution found to be involved in abuse should have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they have cleared out their Augian Stable and that it can not happen again
Behaving as the Church has done doesn't even to begin to address those conditions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 08:56 AM

So, THEN Jim sez: You are prevaricating Joe
Oh, I wonder what he's calling me a liar for now. I guess I have to put up with it. The poor guy babbles a lot and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And then she says: You don't have to be a Christian to give to charity
Which I guess is supposed to be an implication that I said one had to be Christian to give to charity. When did I ever say that, Jim?

But still I'm stuck with a dilemma, and that's what I was trying to talk about. But Jim Carroll believes in free expression only from people who agree with him. Nonetheless, it's a dilemma. I think that Catholics were overwhelmingly favorable to the victims when this whole scandal broke out. After all, it was mostly Catholic children who were the victims. They favored immediate compensation of the victims, and immediate prosecution of the criminals. But this thing has gone on and on, and the compensation thing became a bidding war in the U.S. until the price got up to a million dollars a victim - and many dioceses who had already made settlements were forced to pay the same victims a second time for the same crime.

And most of these reparations are coming out of money that people gave as charitable contributions. And if the bills go up higher, the people will have to give more or see their churches go into bankruptcy. Indeed, many dioceses did go into bankruptcy because of these claims.

So, yeah, it's a dilemma for people who contribute to churches. Do they donate to what has become a bottomless pit of million-dollar claims for forty-year-old crimes, or do they bypass the church and give their money direct to charitable needs? As I said above before I was so rudely called a liar, I know the immigrants and the homeless people and their need is real to me. I've never met a person I knew to have been molested by a priest, so their need is not real to me. And on top of that, I have seen no proof that ever-increasing reparations serve to heal the harm that was done to the victims.

So, Jim, try to answer my question without calling me a liar this time. Why should I want to donate to a compensation fund when the compensation doesn't appear to do any good?

And Jim, please remember that I have never said that one has to have a particular religious faith in order to give to charity. And don't call me a liar again. It isn't nice, even if you use the word "prevaricator." I'm smart enough to know what that big word means.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 09:09 AM

Now that Joe has filled in his background and experiences I can better understand what and why he has communicated in the past that always seemed like a hidden agenda guided his words.

Until we know the etiology of ones language from experience we can not communicate effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 11:57 AM

I've never met a person I knew to have been molested by a priest, so their need is not real to me.

However, that doesn't mean their need is not real, Joe- only that you choose to denegrate and dismiss it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 11:59 AM

Joe is perfectly correct to support the Statute of Limitations, in the UK we have loads of historic sexual offences milked to the bitter end by people who were assaulted fifty years ago in a completely different time frame......Remember the "groupies" who just couldn't wait to get into bed with their pimply heroes....I suppose there will be many of them in the compensation queue telling everyone how their life was ruined by the harrowing experience.
In my day, you learned who to avoid if you had any sense and if you were a young woman you made bloody sure you didn't end up in the wrong place with the wrong person.

The world these days is populated by "victims" of on sort or another, with no sense of responsibility for their own wellbeing....society will look after them. Well the times are a changin' once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 12:23 PM

"Oh, I wonder what he's calling me a liar for now."
"prevaricate
prɪˈvarɪkeɪt/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: prevaricating
speak or act in an evasive way."
Didn't even have to pull the dictionary off the shelf for that one - I thought everbody knew that
"When did I ever say that, Jim?"
What other purpose did your list of donations to the needy have here if not to prove your Christianity?
"But Jim Carroll believes in free expression only from people who agree with him"
When did I ever say that, Jim?
I'm asking you to qualify your arguments - you have done so by blaming the victims for their suffering and suggesting that they have no rights to justice because they cannot be trusted not to misuse it.
As things stand at present, the church has proved itself untrustworthy in its relationship with the most vulnerable of its parishioners.
It's role in collecting for charity is not an issue here.
Ireland is one of the most charitable places I have ever experienced - most of those charities are non-religious, so if ever we had to choose, we would find no difficulty in picking one.
It really isn't an issue when it comes to putting the church where it truely belongs - as spiritual guide.
Similar types of argument have been used in defence of allowing our hospitals and schools to remain under religious control
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 12:47 PM

Presumably the law concerning the statute of limitations was thoroughly thrashed out prior to reaching the statute book. Different places came to different views as to the length of time dictated by the statute, what exemptions should apply to modify it, or even if, for sexual crimes against minors, any statute of limitations should apply. The law in any particular jurisdiction is what the law is. My feeling is that a limitation in this particular set of circumstances is not ideal, but conversely I would also argue that the arguments for presenting a case must satisfy a progressively higher bar as time elapses.It is a difficult issue to resolve. After a considerable period of time has elapsed how is justice best served? Neither Joe nor Jim seem to articulate a decisive argument- both sides have merit. For this particular crime a closure for the victim is of far greater importance than satisfying the letter of the law. Surely restoring the complete mental stability of the victim is the end result required.(having not been there I cannot begin to understand the victim's anguish, often bottled up for years) Compensation should not just be financial. I know nothing about the subject but I would have thought therapy was required above all. The additional cross the victims have to carry is that they themselves(30% according to some figures), due to their own abuse subsequently go on to start the cycle of abuse all over again
That is a terrible legacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/24/science/sad-legacy-of-abuse-the-search-for-remedies.html?pagewanted=all

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 01:47 PM

"Presumably the law concerning the statute of limitations was thoroughly thrashed out prior to reaching the statute book."
And presumably the Irish Government was well aware of the law concerning the statute of limitations when it agreed to take the lion's share of reparation debt in conjunction with the Church
Maybe they were guided by conscience rather than law - would that the church had adopted the same principle - but that's religious organisations for you!!
ANOTHER TERRIBLE LEGACY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 02:15 PM

Steve Shaw, in response to my saying I don't knowe any sex crime victims:
However, that doesn't mean their need is not real, Joe- only that you choose to denegrate and dismiss it.

To say that a stranger's need of a million dollars is not real to me, is certainly not to denigrate or dismiss it. I merely question how a million-dollar settlement is going to resolve the harm done.

And Jim, in his oh-so-righteous tone of condemnation, says: I'm asking you to qualify your arguments - you have done so by blaming the victims for their suffering and suggesting that they have no rights to justice because they cannot be trusted not to misuse it.

Jim, I'm going to have to see a quote to believe I would say such a thing. I certainly do not blame the victims for their suffering and all those other empty accusations that you spew so freely and with such solemnity.

Look, I'm in a predicament here. I'm on the losing side, and I know it. I don't deny the crimes committed and the harm done and the suffering that continues. I am horrified and ashamed that some of the people who committed the crimes were people I once considered to be my friends. I truly believe that there is a need for fair and immediate settlements.

But that's my money that they're paying in those settlements. A huge portion of the contributions I paid to my church over the last 50 years or go, goes to those settlements. And so, I dare to ask how long and how much I'm going to have to keep paying, and is it doing any good. This isn't priests or bishops or cardinals or the Pope who's paying - it's me. I'm glad that many priests and bishops learned that they are going to have to lead a more austere lifestyle - some of them were outrageously big spenders. But they and the child molesters are not paying the bill for these settlements - I am.

To remain Catholic through all of this, is to choose to be on the losing side. But it's my church where I grew up, and it is a spiritual home to me. I have never been a big fan of the so-called "institutional church," but that institution is not my faith. For me, Church is the people I've loved and joined with in ancient rituals and sacred songs for decades. I have nothing but disdain for officious and judgmental priests and bishops I've known over the years, but I've known so many more good ones. And I realize that no group of people is perfect and that every group has some members who do wrong, so I remain part of the church even though I am appalled by the actions of the wrongdoers.

And the wrongdoers are not paying the bills for their actions. I'm paying, and I didn't do the crime. And so I dare to ask how much and how long I'm going to have to pay. That's all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 02:29 PM

And Jim, where I grew up, "prevaricate" was just a nice way of calling somebody a liar. I guess I took that on faith, and never bothered to look up the word.
You learn something new every day.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 02:45 PM

Joe, Firstly I am not having a go at you personally, please be clear on that.

I can understand your predicament, however the church you follow has for decades allowed atrocious abuse to take place by the very people who are supposed to be LEADERS of that faith and then sought to protect those same people from the punishments they should be subject too, and that they so richly deserve.

It matters not one iota whether that the abuse occurred last month, last year or even fifty years ago, the victims are still VICTIMS.

Though I accept that a financial sop does not "cure" the problem it MAY go some little way to compensate the VICTIMS.

I care not one jot for the prepetrators, if they are ruined so be it, and if the church that has strenuously endeavoured to protect them to brought to ruin, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:03 PM

There was no reaction to my post of: 31 Jul 17 - 02:06 PM
Yet that raised an issue which has not been directly addressed otherwise in this forum, that the institutional call for sublimation of a natural and powerful human drive is a contributor or motivator to this worldwide problem.

It may be that no one has the willingness to challenge this thousand plus year old policy but to me that means that the problem is not being completely addressed and will persist.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:10 PM

I should also add that the Catholic church is one of the most wealthy organisations the world has ever seen.

If the church is forced to pay out they can well afford it, not individuals like yourself Joe, the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:18 PM

"was just a nice way of calling somebody a liar."
Americans always have had a poor grasp of the English language
If I gave the impression I was accusing you of telling lies, I apologise
I have been saying that you have been avoiding important questions throughout this argument - that was what I meant
"Jim, I'm going to have to see a quote to believe I would say such a thing. "
You put something up about a local "victims rights" group to illustrate how those seekers for justice abused their position - isn't that comparison an indication that you believe claimants cannot be trusted - if not, what's it doing here?
Again, if I have got that wrong, I apologise.
And still you prevaricate
I've said on numerous occasions that I believe that how the actual perpetrators should be dealt with is something for the victims to decide, or if not, to at least have an input into.
My point has been all along is that it is how the Church, Churches, Diocese, Bishop, archbishops, Popes.... whoever, dealt with what was certainly common knowledge   
The church, as a body, were part of these crimes, for ignoring them or for facilitating them by assisting the perps bt passing them on to parishes were their "little weaknesses" were not known.
I really find it upsetting to fall out with you over this, but you honestly do not seem to have grasped the seriousness - both to the victims and to the genuine believers whose lives have been turned upside-down by these revelations.
I am ashamed to say that I find myself pleased that people like the Lenihans, or Martin Reidy or Junior and Cissie Crehan.... or any of those kind gentle people who used to splash holy water over us from the little font by the door as we left their homes (because we hadn't done it for ourselves) did not survive to experience what is happening now.
They were as much betrayed by what was happening as those who were the actual victims
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:31 PM

Did you know that the splashing of holy water stems from washing on entering the house rather than leaving, Jim? I learned that from a priest in Whitby of all places!

Sorry to detract from such a serious topic but I like to impart bits of useless information.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 03:42 PM

This isn't priests or bishops or cardinals or the Pope who's paying - it's me..... so I dare to ask how much and how long I'm going to have to pay.

Well, Joe - I suggest that you take that up with the Church, rather than complain about the victims. For example, the Church might re-direct the money spent to attempt to take away a woman's Constitutional right to choose- they seem to have plenty to spend there and to further other political causes. Or perhaps its time to re-direct your philanthropy.

RE: how settlements might benefit the victims, with all your connections and experience in the various aid organizations and communities it shouldn't be to difficult for you to locate several victims, and talk to them & get to know them. That might make it "real" to you.

And the question wasn't from Steve, it was from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 04:09 PM

No disagreement there, Raggytash.
You say: the church you follow has for decades allowed atrocious abuse to take place by the very people who are supposed to be LEADERS of that faith and then sought to protect those same people from the punishments they should be subject too, and that they so richly deserve.

I have lived most of my life as a Catholic in two dioceses: Sacramento (California) and Milwaukee (Wisconsin). Both of these dioceses had priests who were child molesters, and I have known a number of priests in both dioceses who committed these crimes. Both of these dioceses took immediate action against the offenders as soon as the crimes were discovered. Sacramento offered immediate settlements and counseling to all who filed complaints. I don't know what Milwaukee did - the scandal came to light long after I left the seminary and moved away from Milwaukee in 1970. But I do know that Miulwaukee paid a lot of money in settlements and had to file bankruptcy. I'm sure that some cases were not handled well in both dioceses, but it appears to me that for the most part, both dioceses tried hard to "do the right thing."

I also know that there were many dioceses that did NOT handle these crimes well. It would be interesting to see a study of how each diocese in my country responded. I'm afraid that the U.S. map would be covered with far too many dioceses that consistently mishandled cases - and a good number where the coverups were clearly criminal, some notoriously so. I did not experience these coverups in Milwaukee and Sacramento. Indeed, Milwaukee was already making efforts in the 1960s to screen out seminarians who might become sex offenders - I went through that screening myself, and I can tell you that it was rigorous.

My sister was a very active Catholic, and she lived in the Boston area during the reign of the notorious Cardinal Law. She said that Law's attempts to deny and cover up sex crimes in the Boston Archdiocese were like a sickness that pervaded all Catholic activities in the entire area. My sister left the Catholic Church, and will have nothing to do with any sort of religious practice. I can't talk with her about religious matters any more - she just gets angry. When I visited her in Egypt five years ago, I was interested in learning about Islam and Coptic Christianity and the history of Judaism in Alexandria, but she got angry every time I brought up a question. My other siblings stopped practicing religion when they became adults, but my sister lasted until she was in her 40s. Only my parents and I remained Catholic - and I think I can say that my parents and I enjoyed being Catholic and did not experience the negative side of Catholicism that does indeed exist in many places.

I don't post what I post here in an attempt to defend the Catholic Church - there is no defense for the terrible things that were done in the name of my church. I have not and I will not defend these terrible crimes. But I do believe that there is a need for fair and open discussion of this scandal and its repercussions. And that's what I'm trying to do - just discuss the matter and share my thoughts and experiences, because that's all that I have the power to do.

Still, I do not think that larger and larger settlements are going to heal the wrong done. Healing is not going to occur by throwing money at the wound. I agree that there is a need for financial settlements, but financial settlements are not enough.

I do not believe that the process can stop with the payment of settlements. That's just not enough. I think that the next step is free and opoen and honest discussion by the victims and by those who committed these horrible crimes against them. We all need to hear why these things happened, what led up to them, what actually happened, and what has happened to both victims and offenders since the offenses. There have beginnings of these discussions in many places, but nothing really significant has happened so far.

Now I'm going to say something that will put our sharks into a frenzy, but I think it needs to be said. I do not think that honest discussion and healing can begin until the criminal prosecutions and reparations have been completed. How can a priest or bishop talk freely and honestly, if he has to fear being sent to prison or being required to pay millions of dollars more? The truth of this matter is not pretty; and if offenders tell the truth, it will bring about another frenzy of anger and demands for more prosecutions and reparations. And I think it's safe to say that most of the people who are in a frenzy, are NOT people who were victims of sex crimes.

But we need to know why this terrible thing happened, and we need to know how to prevent it from happening again - in churches, or in other parts of society. If we can allow the truth to be spoken, we may learn how to stop or control this problem of child molestation that is so widespread in our world.

As I've said before, the independent newspaper National Catholic Reporter has been publishing bluntly honest articles on the Catholic sex abuse scandal since 1983. Today I was reading an NCR article titled 'Uncommon conversation' on sex abuse falls silent. It tells the story of one attempt made to achieve the honest dialogue I seek between victims and offenders - and the article reports that this effort failed. I hope that people will continue to attempt such discussions - they are the next step beyond reparations, and it is a necessary step.

But such discussions may happen only if there are statutes of limitations that put an end to the prosecutions and reparations after a reasonable length of time.

Please remember that I seek only honest discussion. I do not seek to defend the people who committed these crimes or to denigrate the victims. Why would I want to do that?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 04:36 PM

Raggytash says: I should also add that the Catholic church is one of the most wealthy organisations the world has ever seen.

Well, I suppose they could give empty churches and convents to the victims. Nobody wants to buy the darn things.

A major item of disagreement, is whether the Catholic Church is one entity that should be liable as a whole for reparations for these crimes, or if all of the separate dioceses and religious orders should be individually liable. I believe the latter should be the case, since each religious order head or local ordinary (head bishop) is the chief executive of that particular entity and should be able to control what goes on there. Most of the rest of you choose the former (that the Catholic Church as a whole should be liable), and I have to say that both positions have validity.

-Joe-

Robomatic, I don't understand what you said July 31, and I don't understand it any better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 04:45 PM

That's somewhat disingenuous Joe, both you and I know that the Catholic church has wealth far beyond its buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 05:40 PM

For the most part, Raggytash, what I say is true. Dioceses and religious orders have a lot of wealth tied up in buildings, and many have filed bankruptcy. The area of contention is about the endowment of the Vatican, a multi-billion-dollar stock portfolio built on reparations that Italy paid for the loss of the Papal States. The Vatican is supported by the earnings from that portfolio, which makes it financially independent - and as I said before, it means that it is no longer the political pawn of wealthy interests that it was when it was kicked around among the Spanish, French, and Italians. I would think that forfeiting that portfolio would make the Vatican dependent on the wealthy American interests that have such a powerful (and conservative) effect on the Catholic Church in the United States.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 07:08 PM

"Steve Shaw, in response to my saying I don't knowe any sex crime victims:
However, that doesn't mean their need is not real, Joe- only that you choose to denegrate and dismiss it"

I don't know which Steve Shaw said that to you, Joe, but it wasn't this Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 07:13 PM

Oops, sorry, Greg, I hadn't spotted that you'd already corrected Joe on that.

Could be two countries divided by a common language thang, but, to me, "to prevaricate" means nothing remotely like "to lie."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Aug 17 - 07:57 PM

I get so confused....

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 02:43 AM

"I do not seek to defend the people who committed these crimes or to denigrate the victims."
You are still missing or avoiding the point Joe
That is not what is being discussed here.
The perpetrators should have been punished by law - the vast majority of them weren't - those who were found out (or were investigated when they were accused) got off with a slapped wrist and let go on their merry way
If they had been Muslims or schoolteachers or medical staff, they would have been facing long jail sentences.
But that is beside the point
The Church on every level, as an institution, participated in in these crimes at the time and the church hierarchy continue to hide evidence essential to bringing closure the victims and their families
Again, if that were to happen outside the church, it would be punishable by law.
The lack of contrition on the part of the Church has led to its being undermined in the eyes of ordinary worshipers - that is why your churches are empty and it is why your religion is dying.
Personally, I don't care that it is dying - but I would rather that believers thought about it and said "this doesn't make sense"
As for the power of the church being undermined; that is long overdue - these crimes could never have gone on for so long if the Church had not possessed as much power as it did.
Your religion makes a creat thing about confession and forgiveness - yet it is a little short of it when it comes to its own sins
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 03:11 AM

better look at milwaukee again. it is one of the very worst places, presided over by creepy creep himself...read up on the deaf boys..the perpetual care cemetary fund...

it does not bother me to pay for these offenses. i figure it is my obligation as much as anyone's. i have not reduced the not huge amount i donate to the church or diverted it...i do not want parishes to suffer or go bankrupt..but i think the vatican needs to start at least having more treasures visible to the public for an admission fee...and they need to open secret archives...they are afraid, very afraid, of what is in there...too many wicked secrets...and some possibly wonderful ones....to do with mary magdalene for one...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 04:41 AM

I do wonder about things that happened in my home town of Milwaukee, mg. St. John's School for the Deaf was right next door to the seminary I attended. I never saw any people there, although the brother of a friend of mine was a student there and she never said anything bad about the deaf school. And thirty years later, I learn that the priest in charge of the school, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, was molesting students for years, at the time I was living next door. Yes, that was creepy to find that out.
We had lots of priests in the seminary as professors, but none of them ever mentioned the School for the Deaf or the priest who was in charge.
The School for the Deaf was located on a huge piece of church-owned property that included the minor and major seminaries, the motherhouse of the Sisters of St. Francis, a Catholic parish church and school, and later a Catholic high school. All of these institutions interacted, but not the School for the Deaf. I heard the names of many, many priests - but never heard mention of the name of this priest who was in charge of the deaf school. I think I knew every other priest who worked on this piece of property where I lived for eight years (maybe 35-50 priests), but not this one. Interesting how he could escape unnoticed.


The Milwaukee perpetual care cemetery fund was something I was going to bring up. When people bought plots in Catholic cemeteries, they paid an endowment fee that guaranteed perpetual care of their graves. This money was banked with the rest of the assets of the diocese. When the diocese was threatened with sexual abuse claims, the diocese separated the cemeteries into a separate corporation and transferred the perpetual care funds to the cemetery corporation. Some people challenged this transfer. I think it was legitimate, but it sure made a lot of people angry. I know that from the other side, I would have been angry if I had paid good money for my parents' graves, and then lost that money to abuse settlements.

I believe that the Vatican Archives are open to scholars, just as the Library of Congress and the National Archives are open in the U.S. In all these institutions, some documents are protected for various reasons. The Vatican Museum and many areas of the Vatican are open to the public. It costs 15 euros to go to the Vatican Museum and Sistine Chapel, and 6 euros to go up into the dome of St. Peter's. The Vatican Museum has a huge amount of stuff that is reportedly of great value, but it certainly is not a state-of-the art display. The display cases look lie they haven't been dusted for a century. The Egyptian Museum in Cairo is the only other museum I've seen with such funky displays of such valuable artifacts. The Vatican sure doesn't waste its money on museum maintenance.
Entrance to St. Peter's Basilica and all the basilicas in Rome, is free. Only a very few Catholic churches charge admission. Most of the Missions here in California charge admission except during worship services, and that bugs me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 05:55 AM

And still you are shuffling around the Vatican and other leading Church bosies being directly implicated in the crimes and their cover up
Your message is clear and simple - Joe as is your dedicated lemmingism that will take your religion over the cliff along with you.
More power to your elbow, I say - at least we will have made the most of an appalling period in history
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 06:20 AM

Jim. take to read carefully to what I have said above. I am honestly seeking a solution, for healing for the victims. It seems to me that the only solution you seek, is that the Catholic Church be beaten into total submission. Winners often seek such solutions - and such solutions rarely work. I humbly admit that the Catholic Church lost in this situation, and lost bigtime. But no matter how bad the offense committed by a group, there is still a sizeable number of well-meaning people on the losing side.
If you win and set out to destroy the losers, you'll lose. If you win and acknowledge that a vast number of the losers are people of good will, then you can truly win.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 08:39 AM

It just goes on and on ............

Catholic Priest - Lawrence Soper

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 08:41 AM

I should have made clear he has only been charged with offences

.......... not proven guilty at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 09:35 AM

So Joe, what then would you say to the victims, if given a chance?

Sorry folks, happened a long time ago, not my problem, I ain't paying, tough shit, get over it?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 01:22 PM

"I am honestly seeking a solution, for healing for the victims"
The first step to healing is to recognise the illness - the church has refused to do so, so it has painted itself out of the picture
"I" do not wish to beat the church into submission - I am watching as it is being rejected wholesale because of its inaction and detachment
Please don't blame me for what many thousands of former churchgoers are now doing
You act if this is a one-man campaign and refuse to even acknowledge what actually happening on the ground here.
This really is head-in-the-sand stuff.
Today's papers are full of articles announcing that older priests are having to take on other parishes because the disillusionment has severely effected the recruitment of priests
Wake up Joe - your House is on fire!!
I really am only the messenger here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 01:41 PM

No need for any "soul searching", The Catholic Church should scrap the celibacy rule and employ married priests especially married with children, the pederasty would stop.

It seems mad to me that a Church which extols family values employs priests who have no knowledge of family life and with such a very high percentage of homosexuals when homosexuality is proscribed by the Catholic Church.

In the UK the grooming and trafficking of young girls by British Pakistani gangs is at last being called what it is ...racist crime.

Time to have an honest look at homosexuality in the priesthood.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 01:47 PM

Ake, would you please take your repetitive homophobic bullshit somewhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 01:48 PM

And please take your anti-Pakistani racist BS with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 03:31 PM

read usa today. big story, front page. guam problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 03:42 PM

Jim Who Knows All Things says, solemnly: The first step to healing is to recognise the illness - the church has refused to do so, so it has painted itself out of the picture

Jim, that is downright ludicrous. Why do you think the Archdiocese of Milwaukee hired psychiatrists to screen us seminarians in the 1960s? Why do you think the bishops of the United States spent millions on treatment centers for child molester priests in the 1970s. Why do you think that the National Catholic Reporter and other Catholic publications like the Jesuits' America have published a steady stream of articles exposing the sex abuse scandal since 1983? They recognize the illness, no doubt about it.

I don't know the details of how things happened in the Catholic Church in Ireland and in the UK, but I imagine the story came out in much the same way, and much earlier than you might contend.

The problem, Jim, is that you fail to understand the complexity of organizations, including the Catholic Church. All organizations of people are the product of myriad conflicting forces There is no such thing as a monolithic organization, where all the members think the same and act the same. Even rigid dictatorships are far more diverse than you might think. And most organizations have a wide spectrum of power centers - very few leaders are able to direct everything from the top. Most actions and decisions happen locally, not at headquarters.

Everything you say about the Catholic Church is true - and at the same time, everything you say about the Catholic Church is false. Everything that happens in the Catholic Church is the result of one faction prevailing over another faction, for at least a brief moment and at a particular location. And in a worldwide organization like the Catholic Church, one thing can happen in one location, while the exact opposite thing can be happening unnoticed on the other side of the earth - or right next door, as happened with the School for the Deaf next door to my seminary.

Jim, I think you need to take a course in organizational dynamics. You, sir, just don't get it. Talking to you is like talking to a wall, because you cannot accept the idea of diversity.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 07:11 PM

Hmmm. I'm all for devolution, Joe, but kindly tell me whether the dictats from on high apropos of contraception and abortion (for example) are able to be officially varied regionally. Oh, I know that they they are unofficially varied. But I tend to think that your claims for wide spectrums of powers and local decision-making are somewhat abitrarily variable. Sounds like a get-out clause to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 07:29 PM

"Jim, is that you fail to understand the complexity of organizations"
The stock reesponse of all politicians when confronted with a situation they are unable to deal with "don'yt you worry yourr pretty little head about it"
How dare you be so partonising?
"Everything that happens in the Catholic Church is the result of one faction prevailing over another faction, for at least a brief moment and at a particular location. "
Then they are not fit foir purpose - how can anybody trust an organisation so unstable - would you put chidren in their charge - woulyd you expose childrens minds to such a set-up from their earliest days?
I'm **** if I would
You talk anout how Milwaukee treated the offenders - how generous of them!!!!!
How about the victims - were similar amounts spent on repairing their damaged minds - or were they just told to go away and forget it as you have suggested?
You once again absolve the church for their crimes
Sorry Joe - your non-responses have become embarrassing - you reflect the self-serving evasive dishonesty of your church perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 10:52 PM

Sorry, Jim. You appear to be unable to carry on an intelligent conversation, so I'm not going to bother to answer you.

Steve, my latest copy of National Catholic Reporter arrived today, once again telling the story of the difference between the actuality of the Catholic Church and the power structure of the Catholic Church. I couldn't help but think how much the Catholic Church is like the United States in this Year of Trump. The dictates of Trump are indeed outrageous, as are the dictates of many Catholic leaders on abortion and birth control. But Catholics still get abortions and use birth control at the same rate as other people. And yes, the way that many priests and bishops and church lawyers handled child abuse victims was appalling, but there were also many church leaders who handled victims with great compassion and generosity.

So, you have to look at the Catholic Church as an organic, diverse, and constantly changing whole, a mass of conflicting forces. When you pronounce solemn condemnations of the whole for real offenses, without recognizing all those within the body who are fighting against those offenses, you do a grave disservice to those who are fighting the good fight.

Same with us Americans - many of us were in shock when Trump was elected President by a minority vote. We just didn't see that comeing. But hey, don't hate us because Trump is our President. Hate Trump, like we do. But we'll come back. Just watch us.

Here's an article on Extending the Statute of Limitations, written by Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest who's a good guy. The temporary extensions enacted by a number of state legislatures opened a window to allow processing of claims without a lot of legal delays. It gave immediate and generous compensation to victims, and it sped up the process so dioceses could get on with things. There is still room for old claims to be filed, but the temporary extensions made it possible to handle the bulk of the claims quickly and with a minimum of hassle for all involved. And when the claims are settled, the anger dies down and we are all able to move forward again.

I do think that million-dollar settlements are too high. I think a hundred thousand would be fair in most cases. But I know damn well why the amount got up to a million and many dioceses had to pay a second time. There were a number of bishops who tried all sorts of delaying tactics, and they got caught. There was righteous anger because of the games those bishops were playing, and that anger drove the compensation rate up to a million. Those very bishops were the ones who made such a mess of the scandal in the first place - and because of them, all of us had to pay. And believe me, it won't be bishops paying those bills. Some of them downsized their cars and residences, but the bishops who made the mess are still living in the lap of luxury - or else they're dead or retired.

Read the Reese article. It gives some good insights.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 11:03 PM

MG has harsh words for Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York. Here (click) is an article she'll appreciate. I sure don't trust the m----f-----...

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: mg
Date: 10 Aug 17 - 11:22 PM

he is the worst or second worst..one in australia is very very bad...they sure know how to pick them. people were calling him the american pope. that has died down. i have never ever heard one good word about him..oh he is fine once you get to know him, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 01:19 AM

Well, mg, I get the impression that Dolan of New York is kind of like a car salesman. For him, business is his first priority. He's charming, and he can ooze with compassion when he's trying to win you over, but you get the impression that his primary motivations are his business interests. And he's made himself very popular with the ultra-conservatives, which is a red flag for me. Don't think he's been suspected of anything criminal, though.

Pell, from Australia, is actually facing criminal charges. The charges have not been revealed, but it appears that he has been accused of directly sexually abusing children himself. When he was serving as a bishop in Australia, his was the only diocese that did not go along with the child abuse protection plan set up by the bishops of the nation. His plan wasn't horrible, but it did give less protection to victims and more protection to his diocese.
I've read descriptions of contacts he's had with victims and their parents, and they show a total lack of sensitivity.

I really liked Cardinal Roger Mahoney from Los Angeles, but he got in a lot of trouble and there was thought of filing criminal charges against him for covering up. I'd like to think that he just got buried in an impossible situation, and that he didn't do anything intentionally wrong - but I dunno. It does appear that he bungled the abuse scandal in his early years and was exemplary in his later years.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 03:39 AM

"You appear to be unable to carry on an intelligent conversation,"
And you appear to be incapable of carrying out an honest one,
" so I'm not going to bother to answer you."
You haven't ansewred me so fat - and now you are making it official - fine by me
Simple questions - for all if not for you - for anybody
What if it had been found that schoolteachers throughout our education had been sexually abusing pupils for generations, that fellow teachers had been ignoring those abuses and headmasters, when the abuses became impossible to ignore, had allowed the abusers to other school's where they could continue their abuses.
What if the various education departments had gotten wind of these buses and, when they became too prominent to cover up, had moved them on to places abroad to continue their abuse.
Finally, when the abuses became generally known throughout the the world, what if all the various local and national education authorities had conspired to hide any recorded facts and, where financial compensation for the survivors had been agreed upon, the education department were these abuses had been most prominent, had reneged and allowed the taxpayer to bear the major part of the burden.
If this all had happened, had been reported on nationally as having happened, and if the situation had reached a stalemate, with the vast majority of the culprits unpunished and the facts of their abuses still locked away somewhere in the middle of a foreign country - would you continue to trust such organisations with the care of children and would you blame the parents of the victims they should forget what had happened and get on with their lives - that last bit is rhetorical, because that is exactly what you have done.
I said earlier that I bear no great ill will to your religion and, for the sake of genuine believers, I would hate to see the church disappear over this, but to be honest, if your view represents the liberally minded wing of Catholicism, I would demand that every priest, canon, Bishop, Archbishop, passed an rigorous annual test before they were let within reach of any child
What I have described above is exactly what has happened in your church and your response is an indication that it is rotten to the core.
Arguing with you has been a sharp learning curve, for which - many thanks
I hope that all the money Milwaukee has spent on the care of its abusive priests was not wasted and has allowed them to carry on their lives untroubled by their bast sins
I'm sure tat their fellow priests will ensure them a safe passage to Heaven!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 05:43 AM

Jim, you're getting irrational again. Calm down.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 06:24 AM

Stop being patronising Joe
I am not being irrational - I am presenting a picture of how your church is now being regarded
You appear to have the same disregard for the fate of your church as you do for the suffering of its victims
Kindly respond to the points - I really am not going to go away - I'm well used to being insulted by people like yourself
Let's try to make it easy for you (to use your own partonising attitude)
Which of the points I have put up regarding to education is not applicable to the behaviour of your Church - and why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 17 - 06:30 AM

May I suggest that you don't respond to Jim at all rather than respond in this rude manner. In fact, Jim's point is well made. Whatever you say about the forces pulling in different directions within the Church, it is essentially an undemocratic, authoritarian institution that attempts to impose dictats on its members. In that regard it may not be the worst of the big religions, but that's how it is. It isn't my club any more so I haven't got much to say about celibacy or about how many gay men are permitted to become priests. The gay men I know are all wonderful, balanced human beings as it happens and I don't see it as an issue. The point is about the institutional nature of the cover-up of what we have learned to be widespread abuse. It simply isn't believable that these things went on unobserved or without concern for decades, or centuries, and it's clear that the ranks higher up than the perpetrating priests were concerned enough to cover for them in all the escalating ways Jim describes. The abuse has been so widespread that it simply isn't possible that the highest authorities were not aware of the scale of the issue. Yet it isn't the Church that has been leading the exposures. In other words, the people who knew most about the abuse were the one saying the least and doing the most dragging of feet (and, in consideration of the cover-ups, I think I'm being kind there). It isn't an excuse to say the the Church is in fact many churches and that there was no control. Sure, priests may find it easier than many to carry out the abuses by dint of the position they are in. The Church isn't to blame for that, but it is completely to blame for its lack of vigilance, and, worse, its apparent greater concern for the abusers, and for itself, than for the victims. It isn't the same as saying that Catholics still have abortions in spite of the dictats. It isn't illegal to have an abortion in most places, but sexual abuse is not only a breach of Church law but also, universally, a breach of secular law. As a supposed moral arbiter, the Church should have shouted every abuse from the rooftops, but it did the precise opposite.

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. Shoot.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 09:03 AM

Thaks Raggytash .... that's a gem

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 12:59 PM

Good one, Raggytash. That story has been told in many different ways over the years. Here's how it was told on the West Wing television series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

I wonder how "Dr." Laura Schlesinger reacted.

Here's a page on a West Wing fansite: http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/25letter.html

There's a rather lame born-again response (can't say I agree with it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhaVuaOI8ME

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:56 AM

Latest horror story, this time from Scotland:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bodies-hundreds-children-buried-mass-grave-lanarkshire-smyllum-park-catholic-orphanage-a7938716.html

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 12:05 PM

I see very litle interest in this discovery, particularly from the believers - I put it up in the Rees Mogg thread - no takers there either
With ongoing discoveries like these and the ethnic cleansing that is now taking place in Burma it seems the world needs to be following Ireland's example and asking exactly what power and influence religion should have in society
So far, it's won the homosexuals the right to be treated as human beings at long last
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 12:53 PM

Jim, please start another thread. I would like this one to remain as it is.

Thanks for the link Jack, I read the report yesterday but am operating on a android so putting links up is difficult. (well to me at least)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 03:13 PM

So far it has remained totally statice Raggy - that's why I hung on for as long as I did.
The two subjects aRe joined at the hip, but I will hang on until I see if anybody else bites
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:06 PM

Jim, the point I was, hopefully, trying to make was that although the situation for homosexuals and events in Burma are of grave concern, they are not pertinent to the abuse of children by representatives of the organised religions, be they of whatever faith they maintain they belong to.

And before anyone wades in I know it is just not catholics and just not christians, although they do seem to get a lot of press.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 17 - 03:39 AM

Fair enough Raggy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 12:27 AM

Jim Carroll wanted a response from "believers." My response: there's not enough information to make a comment.
I didn't see enough information in the Lanarkshire article to know it it was indeed another "horror story." Over the 120 years the institution was in operation, 400 children died and were buried in what was called a "mass grave." I don't know that burial in a mass grave is necessarily an abuse, and I don't know that a death rate of 3 or 4 a year is unusual. Yes, there were incidents of child abuse, but I suppose that a few such incidents might be expected in an institution that housed over 11,000 children over 120 years.
I was hit on the head with a golf club when I was 10 years old. I suffered a fairly serious injury, but I'm convinced the kid who hit me did it by accident.
Was it a "horror story"? I don't know. But I do feel sadness for those who died and those who suffered abuse, whether they were many or few. It's bad that any child has to grow up in an institution.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 03:21 AM

"I don't know that burial in a mass grave is necessarily an abuse,"
I agree Joe, but of the secret burial of so many children without public acknowledgement of their deaths and without identifying them isn't, it should be.
The finding of such graveyards in Ireland is now a common occurrence and, with the exception of Tuam, is still not being acted on.
Several years ago in Cork (I think), while an old convent was being demolished to make room for new development a mass grave containing many bodies of children and young people was discovered - there has been nothing in our newspapers since
If you don't have enough information on these things Joe, it is because it is being suppressed
It is quite likely that the Lanarkshire one will be followed up because it is in the U.K., but it's not happening in Ireland to the extent is should be.
I believe that all this is not unlinked to the present battle that is raging here by the church to retain the elevated position it has always held, a way of retaining credibility.
We now know that children and young people - even young "sinning" women were not treated well by the church right into the middle of the 20th century and beyond - from selling children, to physical abuse, virtual slavery, constant humiliation and degradation - to rape and sexual abuse on a wide scale.
This is not because your religion is evil, far from it - it is because those promoting it abused their positions.
Because of the Church's negatively aggressive reaction to being found out, it is your religion that has suffered and we now have a new generation of victims - the true believers who are turning away from the Church in droves, disillusioned.
I believe that all this happened because the church was given (or seized) power way beyond their qualifications and demanded a say in aspects of our lives that they had no understanding of - they became part of the toxic mix of politics and religion.
I hope, for the sake of all my Catholic friends and family, that it is not too late to sort this out without too much more damage to those people, but it's going to take an enormous effort on your part.
I've recently been involved in an argument where I discovered that one of your Popes nrecently compared homosexuality with "the destruction of the rainforests" - a wilfully vicious statement about a natural condition existence for a large minority of human beings.
In two issues current in Ireland at present, single-sex marriage and pregnancy termination, the church has issued threats of excommunication to those who supported them
It really doesn't auger well for the future - it is time to clean out your own augean stable and stop presenting yourselves as victims
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
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.

Can you imagine the outcry in Britain if the same approach was adopted for a thread discussing the Moslem abuse of children in northern England, where it is obvious it is only a small minority guilty of any offense?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 04:26 AM

"It is not only incorrect but insulting to an entire religion.It is not only incorrect but insulting to an entire religion.It is not only incorrect but insulting to an entire religion."
I don't believe it is insulting a religion that is guilty of what it is accused of Iains, but I agree that it is limiting to be only one form of religious abuse
On the other hand, Catholic abuse is the closest to home for us at the present time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 04:49 AM

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the thread title, it's fine to focus on a narrow issue for the simple reason that it is a current issue. Far too many threads have been spoiled by attempts at exoneration of misdeeds via the schoolyard argument that he does it too, Miss. We know that. But we ARE free to discuss it - somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 05:05 AM

More sensationalised stuff from Jim, the burials dated from 1860 till the orphanage was closed in around 1980, during that time infant mortality was rife amongst the whole population; there were several catastrophic flu epidemics, pneumonia was a common cause of infant death, the crowded dormitories would have been an effective breeding ground for infection...there was the scourge of TB right up until the 1960's

What are you trying to say Jim? that the children were deliberately killed by the nuns and thrown in a hole?

I have seen photo graphs of the interior of the orphanage filled with hundreds of children all looked well fed, well dressed and cared for.
As a mason, I have worked in old graveyards here in Scotland and the old stones of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries contain the names of whole families who died in infancy.

You are a nasty piece of work on these matters Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 05:19 AM

Orphanage pictures in this
article

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 05:31 AM

"You are a nasty piece of work on these matters Jim."
Telling the truth is only "nasty" to people trying to hide the truth
How about pointing out where I have actually distorted orr told lies about something instead of your usual cowardly personal attacks Ake
Where have I or has anybody said that the children were deliberately killed?
Why do you insist on making everything a personal vendetta (a rhetorical question - I know why)
A general request - will people pleasew not allow this toxic troll to spoil yet another thread by responding to his vitriol
Why is there never an adjudicator around when needed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 07:28 AM

Having all the children's bodies dumped in an unmarked pit while the staff all got well-tended gravestones with their names on says it all about who they valued. If they regarded the children as a garbage disposal problem you can safely assume that had consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 08:21 AM

I suggest that all who haven't seen the film Philomena, do so
In that case, the whereabouts of the sold child was deliberately withheld to prevent the mother, from whom the child was stolen from tracing his whwrebouts - when she finally did, he had died
An astronomical amount was demanded by the convert to put up a memorial in his memory
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 08:26 AM

"I don't know that burial in a mass grave is necessarily an abuse"

Well I'm certain that it's abuse. It is thoroughly disrespectful and it reveals that the children were regarded as being without value. Right, you can't groom a dead child or cause it emotional damage any more, but that lack of respect and that lack of valuing are both solid hallmarks of all child abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 09:22 AM

"I don't know that burial in a mass grave is necessarily an abuse"

"Well I'm certain that it's abuse"

What about the plague pits in England, or the burial pits of Skibbereen?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 09:39 AM

The plague pits happened because the country was overwhelmed by infectious corpses, brought about by an "act of God" that was not preventable. The children buried in mass graves did not all die at once and could each have been accorded decent, simple funerals. This is about why they were not. The circumstances in the other cases were not the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 09:51 AM

We can only judge what you mean by what you say. You should qualify broad brush statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 10:22 AM

My "broad brush statement" was my opinion, which I respectfully set alongside Joe Offer's. Oh, and I qualified it. Perhaps your computer has gone all dicky on you and truncated my post. So here it is again, with my qualification in bold:


"Well I'm certain that it's abuse. It is thoroughly disrespectful and it reveals that the children were regarded as being without value. Right, you can't groom a dead child or cause it emotional damage any more, but that lack of respect and that lack of valuing are both solid hallmarks of all child abusers."

Glad to clear that up for you. Alternatively, I suggest that, if you have nothing constructive to say, just keep quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 10:42 AM

Again I go back to the times in question. The majority of people at that time had no headstones, only the well off could afford them.
In Scottish Churchyards often you see a rough stone without inscription that was the resting place of the poor infant, the rough stone being wrought by the hands of the father.
My own family have no markers, three generations Lie buried in local churchyard and even I could not take you to the exact spot.

We forget so quickly....that's life........and times change!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 11:22 AM

The place closed in 1981.

The Church could well afford headstones then.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 11:40 AM

LITANY of UNREGISTERED DEATHS of CHILDREN IN CARE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 11:42 AM

The children did not die all in one go. To suggest that the Church couldn't afford a humble funeral in an individual grave, identifiable as such and with a record of the death and the location of the grave, is obscene, frankly. No one's asking for a mausoleum every time. We've seen enough mass graves at death camps, in Srebrenica, in Iraq, in Chechnya and elsewhere, to revolt even the most insensitive soul. Or so I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 11:43 AM

BABY BLACK MARKET
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 11:50 AM

In the Scottish orphanage all deaths were registered. The lack of a memorial stone is more a sign of the times these children lived through than "abuse".

As I have said before I and my classmates were regularly "belted" in the late 50's......do you think we should all start suing the education authorities.......get a bloody grip, shit happens, life goes on.

I really don't think you lot give a shit whether the kids got a headstone or not........its just another chance to kick Joe and religion in general!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 12:18 PM

You have the figures Ake - its not about headstones just persistent rape, violent abuse and secret burials
Neither is it about religiopn - believers were the victims
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 12:22 PM

BELTS OVER THE EAR
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 07:36 PM

Didn't work - try this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 03:29 AM

One more try
"get a bloody grip, "
BEING "BELTED IN CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/brutality-and-dire-conditions-in-climate-of-fear-1.766959
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 09:08 AM

The thread was so titled because of the opening post which referred to a specific example of catholic abuse.

Sadly that one example is one of many for that particular religion.

If you care to read other posts other religions are mentioned as the topic has broadened.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 09:41 AM

It's a valid topic in its own right. We shouldn't feel we have to bring other religions into this particular thread unless we want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 10:46 AM

I don't have any problem with the topic being widened to include abuse of any religious group.

The "leaders" of such groups tell the rest of us that such abuse is sinful.

If their colleagues then indulge in such abuse they should face the full weight of their fellow clergy and the full face of the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 12:32 PM

Raggytash says: "If their colleagues then indulge in such abuse they should face the full weight of their fellow clergy and the full face of the law."

Agreed, but I think that only the offenders should be punished, and not the entire group. Crime tends to drive people to hysteria and bigotry. I continue to believe that most people, including most Catholics and most Catholic clergy, are pretty good folks and are not guilty of any criminal offense merely by their membership in a particular group.

There is a very vocal group in my town that is outraged by crime that happens in the community. They seem to be convinced that most crime is committed by homeless people, and so the town must rid itself of all homeless people.

I think it is important that we respond to crime in a very rational manner, being careful to stick the the facts. The original post by raggytash in this thread says, "The report I read on the BBC News suggested a figure of 49 members of the clergy." The actual report from the BBC (quoted in full above) says this:

At least 547 young members of the Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir in Germany were subjected to physical and in some instances sexual abuse over a period of 60 years, a new report says.
The report accuses 49 members of the Catholic Church of carrying out the abuse between 1945 and the early 1990s.

It seems probable to me that most of those "49 members of the Catholic Church" were NOT clergy. I really do think that precise information is necessary when we are passing judgment in such matters. We humans tend to react to crime in irrational ways, making it far worse than it actually is.

Same with the "mass grave" issue. Early reports of the Tuam institution said that bodies of children were dumped into a refuse pit, but later reports showed that to be untrue. Residents of institutions are often buried without headstones when they die. There used to be a tuberculosis sanatorium next door to my home, and there's a graveyard there for patients who died. Most were buried in unmarked graves, usually identified only by a number. That's how they did it in those days.

Some clergy commit crimes. Some Jews commit crimes, Some Muslims commit crimes. Some homeless people commit crimes. But not all of them, and no individuals should feel obligated to apologize for crimes committed by other members of their group. That's a troublesome trend that has arisen lately, people demanding that Muslims speak out against acts of terrorism committed by other Muslims. If I didn't commit the crime, I should not be expected to atone for it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 01:39 PM

"Agreed, but I think that only the offenders should be punished, and not the entire group"
The church was aware this was going on and did nothing and in many cases actively covered it up so they are all "offenders" in this respect
Smythe's Bishop actually humiliated the parents of his victims when tey raised the issue
Two years ago, when an abusive high level clergyman gave a sermon and a victim raised his voice in protest at him being allowed to do so, he was physically thrown out of the building
I won't repeat the story of the Nuns who described their victims as "the sweepings of the street"
Some of your church have learned nothing, atoned for nothing, and refuse to acknowledge that their behaviour was evil
To scapegoat a few seems not enough to me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 05:15 PM

"To scapegoat a few seems not enough to me"
It would make more sense to differentiate between the offenders and offended in my opinion. To Punish the guilty and help the victims is a far more rational approach than hunting around for a bunch of scapegoats.
After all what is a scapegoat? a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency. Why would you want to find scapegoats anyway? It would be a total waste of time, resources and money and achieve zilch, apart from perverting the course of justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 05:55 PM

Jim Carroll says: The church was aware this was going on and did nothing and in many cases actively covered it up so they are all "offenders" in this respect

But that's not true, Jim. I know that from personal experience, and from discussions I've had with Irish-born priests and nuns.

When I was in the seminary in Milwaukee in 1967-68, we were subjected to rigorous psychological testing, and 9 of my classmates were removed because they were thought to be a bad risk. So, back in 1967, my diocese recognized that sexual abuse was a problem in the Catholic clergy, and they took serious steps to combat the problem. In the 1970s, the U.S. bishops built state-of-the-art residential centers for treatment of priests who had problems with addictions and sexual misconduct. Neither of these responses completely solved the problem, but they were honest, rigorous responses.

In the 1980s, I moved to the Sacramento diocese, at the time when that diocese was developing a system for responding to sexual abuse complaints that offered counseling and financial compensation with no questions asked, along with referral of offending priests to law enforcement for prosecution.

Dioceses all over the world have been trying all sorts of approaches to the sexual abuse problem since at least the 1960s. Yes, there were far too many bishops who buried their heads in the sand and denied and covered up this scandal, but the wrongdoers were NOT in the majority. Trouble is, the good efforts of people rarely get good news coverage.

So, yes, Jim, I think there needs to be a balanced, realistic, honest approach to this scandal that is targeted at the actual wrongdoers. I also think that positive efforts to prevent future abuse, are far more important than are efforts to recycle attacks on 50-yr-old crimes over and over again.

The physical and sexual abuse of children is still a serious problem in churches and in most facets of our society. Scapegoating past misconduct in churches serves to ignore the current problem which is still widespread throughout society.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 17 - 07:31 PM

It isn't really scapegoating though, is it, Joe. I don't doubt for a second that plenty of priests and bishops of good intent were trying to address the problem of sexual abuse as and when it reared its head. But this is about something far deeper than those day-to-day vicissitudes. It's about widespread institutional cover-ups. It's about the Church hierarchy denying the issue then covering it up by quietly shifting miscreants around. It's about allowing the perpetuation of the wrongdoing by dint of that kind of behaviour, priests being quietly moved to another location where they could carry on with the abuse. All done in the cause of preventing embarrassment for the Church and with very little to do with helping the victims of the abuse. That is what jars in the eyes of outsiders who see an institution which is supposed to follow the teachings of Christ seemingly doing the precise opposite. I was a member of the Church for decades and many of my family still are, and I hate to see this institution utterly failing - as an institution. Dealing with the issue so ineptly and so lacking in courage.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 17 - 03:00 AM

Steve Shaw says: It's about the Church hierarchy denying the issue then covering it up by quietly shifting miscreants around. It's about allowing the perpetuation of the wrongdoing by dint of that kind of behaviour, priests being quietly moved to another location where they could carry on with the abuse.

Yes, those things happened, and they are truly reason for outrage. And since a bishop is the sole authority in a diocese, one corrupt bishop can destroy an entire diocese. But it didn't happen everywhere, not even close to everywhere. But the crimes were so scandalous that when they happened, it appeared that they were happening everywhere.

And as I've said, people often get this impression of crime - that it is happening everywhere and constantly.

-Joe-















b

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 17 - 03:28 AM

"But it didn't happen everywhere"
This seems a bit of a concession on your part Joe, for which I am grateful
At one time it was "a few bad apples"
It happened often enough to have brought the Church to its knees here - not from outside attacks but from believers walking away and leaving empty churches - in my parent's time that would have been an unbelievably concept for Holy Ireland - I can remember as a young teenager being taken to mass in an Irish church by relatives and having to stand in the rain as there was no room inside.
No more
THe church needs to stand up to the consequences of its guilt - not just the behaviour of abusive priests and nuns, but the collusion that took place.
Some honest and humane Churchmen have - but those at the top of the tree have not
And all the time new revelations such as Scotland keep popping up and will continue too do so
Your friendly Irish priests can deny till they are blue in the face, but documentaries like Mea Maxima Culpa and the background of films like Philomena, Spotlight, Ballad of a Raggy Boy, The Magdalene Girls and many, many others tell a totally different story
This abuse was common, it was widely known about and hidden, and is was international
The real "rotten apples" in your church are the hierarch who continue to dismiss it and refuse to meet up to the consequences
So far, the Irish taxpayer has footed the financial bill for this offence - the Church has yet to pay its agreed share
One of the possible consequences of this is likely to be that those victims who decided to put all this behind them and not come forward will become tired of having their noses rubbed into what happened to them and demand reparation
Your Church will then have to start holding jumble-sales to pay for its very existence
You have never responded to this, but if this had happened in the, say, health service or the education system the entire structure of these organisations would have been tured on their heads to shake out the rats.
Your Church still refuses to even acknowledge the responsibility of itss action (or inaction)
Thast really doesn't auger well for the genuine Christians amongst you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 17 - 03:48 AM

These arguments are beginning to remind me of the old childrens' rhyme

"Ladybird, Ladybird, fly away home
Your house is on fire, your children are flown

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 17 - 04:01 AM

Not paid, Jim? The payments made by the Catholic Church have been in the hundreds of millions, bankrupting many dioceses.
The settlements and judgments have not yet been paid completely, Jim; but the amount paid already is mind-boggling. And the two most recent popes, Francis and Benedict, have acknowledged and publicly apologized for this abuse over and over again.
In the midst of your rhetoric, you lost track of the facts.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 17 - 05:13 AM

"The settlements and judgments have not yet been paid completely,"
My point exactly Joe - the world's weathiesy church refuses to meet its comminttments
Parished should never have been asked to donate - that's another way the hierarchy have dodged their resposibility
You acknowledged this long ago when you talked about the Vatican having to sell its paintings - now it's parishes going bust
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Sep 17 - 12:03 PM

And another "Beam me up, Scotty" from a pervert in trouble with the law:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/vatican-recall-priest-child-sexual-abuse-images-us-state-department-a7949871.html

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

From Jack's Post
"But instead he was withdrawn from the US and the Pope's investigators have now launched their own probe, seeking evidence from the US."
This reads suspiciously like exactly what happened to so many abusive priests when their behaviour became too obvious to ignore - it is the direct collusion of the hierarchy of the church in sexuual abuse
As far as I am concerned, it shows clearly that, far from acknowledging its sings and atoning for them the church continues to cover up and protect abuse by the clergy
How far does the church have to self-destruct before this insanity stops?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 17 - 10:36 AM

These were not "secret burials."
All the deaths were registered in the normal way.

The children's home would have had a limited budget and it was probably considered preferable to spend it on the living than on memorials for the dead.
No doubt they were buried with respect and tears in that communal grave.

Is there any evidence of malpractice here?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Sep 17 - 10:43 AM

They DID spend money on memorials - when the memorials were for the nuns.

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

"These were not "secret burials."
All the deaths were registered in the normal way."
Yes they were and no they were not - in that order Keith
That is the pint of the scandal - nobody knows who they were and why they died - more and more of these burial places are being discovered every day

"Last Easter, I asked the nuns at High Park to explain all of this. They chose not to respond to any of the 19 detailed questions I put to them.
Instead, earlier this week, they issued a statement claiming that the exhumation was carried out in order to provide the women with a permanent resting place. Their concern to respect the dead Magdalene women is no doubt touching. But might perhaps the Minister for Justice be concerned enough to investigate so many unexplained and unregistered deaths? And who will care enough to restore to these women the dignity of their real names – something the nuns stripped ruthlessly from them in life?"
DO THEY THINK WE'RE EEJITS?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 17 - 05:30 PM

Jim,
That is the pint of the scandal - nobody knows who they were and why they died

Then there is no scandal Jim, because the deaths are all registered.

Guardian,
"The institution, which looked after children from broken homes, opened in 1864 and closed in 1981. More than 11,000 children stayed at the orphanage over that period.
Records reveal that most of the deaths were due to natural causes, mainly from diseases such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy. About a third of the victims were under the age of five, and the majority of the deaths occurred between 1870 and 1930.
Former residents of the orphanage uncovered a burial plot containing the remains of a number of children at nearby St Mary's cemetery in 2003."
"An inquiry by BBC Radio 4's File on 4 and the Sunday Post newspaper examined death certificates in archives and found 402 children from Smyllum Park.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/10/smyllum-park-lanark-orphanage-catholic-nuns-children-mass-grave-allegedly

BBC,
"The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.
Analysis of the records show that a third of those who died were aged five or under. Very few of those who died, 24 in total, were aged over 15, and most of the deaths occurred between 1870 and 1930.
One of those believed to be buried there is Francis McColl. He died in 1961, aged 13; his death certificate indicates he died from a brain haemorrhage. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 17 - 06:42 PM

Keith
My point was a general one - there are now reports of hundreds of children in care without having been discovered
This from the link you have been given
More than 7,000 babies and children died in Ireland's mother and baby homes during the last century, new documents reveal.
But the real figure is likely to be much higher In some cases, babies who survived only a few hours were wrongly registered as stillborns to avoid registering the birth and the death.
"There were also at least 77 confirmed Stillbirths in Castlepollard above and beyond the 200 registered deaths. There will be hundreds of unregistered Stillbirths discovered in Tuam too above and beyond the 800 registered deaths.
This from an organisation researching the deaths
"Irregular burials and unmarked graves
We have consistently maintained that irregular, unregistered and unmarked burials were a hallmark of the institutional care system in 20th century Ireland, and we stress that Tuam is not an isolated case. Thus far we are aware that there may be similar unmarked graves at the sites of institutions run by the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary at Bessborough, Sean Ross Abbey and Castlepollard. Indeed, we are aware of over 180 institutions, agencies and individuals who were involved with Ireland's unmarried mothers and their children. Little is known of the conditions and practices – including burial practices and grave locations – of these institutions, most of which are not on the Commission's Terms of Reference. In addition, Conall O'Fatharta of the Irish Examiner has reported that 353 infants died at the Bessborough Mother and Baby Home between 1938 and 1944, and that the official death registrations and nuns' own records of deaths do not tally (with 80 fewer deaths recorded on the institution's books). A report supplied by the HSE to the McAleese Committee in 2012 (originally published by Conall O'Fatharta) expressed concerns that death records may have been falsified at Bessborough in order to facilitate 'clandestine adoption arrangements'."
THat from March, this year
It has already been established that bodies found aaaat Tuam were unregistered -
The Irish Minister for children has stated publicly that many of these deaths were not registerd
Why on earth do you defend these obscene atrocities - even after the Church has already admitted them
What kind of 'Christian' are you - what kind of 'human being' does that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 17 - 06:47 PM

You have been linked to the "unregistered deaths" report
Your technique is usually to refuse to respond to those reports and just repeat the same thing over and over again
Unless you have evidence that that report was false, please don't bother to deny it
Life really is too short to spend time responding to such idiocy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Sep 17 - 04:29 AM

There is no "unregistered deaths report" on this Scottish case.
There is no suggestion of any unregistered deaths there.
This is just another spurious attack on Catholicism.

Why on earth do you defend these obscene atrocities - even after the Church has already admitted them
I have not and do not defend any atrocity.
If I have, quote me doing it.
What kind of 'Christian' are you
Not a Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 03:58 AM

When this thread was reawakened as "another horror story" Joe said, "I didn't see enough information in the Lanarkshire article to know if it was indeed another "horror story."

It was not.

Jim, you replied, "I agree Joe, but of the secret burial of so many children without public acknowledgement of their deaths and without identifying them isn't, it should be."

There was full public acknowledgement of the deaths, identities and causes of deaths, and and no secrets.

Despite your attempts to construe this as "another horror story" both here and on the Mogg thread it was no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 04:30 AM

"Despite your attempts to construe this as "another horror story"
This was only reported recently - your linked article referred to "allegedly 400 corpses"
Until those corpses are exhumed, we have no idea how many there actually are and how they died - how an earth can we have such information is such a short time?
The majority of previous cases have shown that not registering deaths in these institutions took place but the practice was commonplace
In the case of Tuam, new collections of bodies were being found a year after the initial discovery
Because these occurrences constitute Christian atrocities, you rush to minimise them - as usual
Yu are quick enough to condemn entire communities, religions and religions on the actions of a few criminals - here you bend over backwards to defend Christian crimes that are beyond question and whose revelations ar bringing the church tumbling down around the ears of the believers and the criminal clergy alike
One of the greatest contributors to the present crisis in the Church today is the denial and evasion such as yours
There is no reason to believe that this latest discovery is different from any others - none whatever, yet yoiu will continue your denials like a rat with a rag
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 06:11 AM

By the way "Latest horror story, this time from Scotland:" was Jack Campin's not mine
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 06:23 AM

Jack started it here, and you immediately joined in having already raised the same issue on another thread.

There is no evidence or even any suggestion that anything untoward happened in Scotland.
We all know that lots of wicked and mad things like Tuam and Magdalene laundries happen in Ireland under Irish Catholicism.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 06:24 AM

Yu are quick enough to condemn entire communities, religions and religions on the actions of a few criminals

I never have nor would.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 09:28 AM

"implanted Muslims, Slaver travellers, brainwashed Irish children don't count as communities, races or religions then
You and your mates have persistently denigrated them all - and have been given examples of hour having done so, so please don't ask again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 10:57 AM

Re grooming gangs, if you look at that 6 year old thread you will see that I was at pains to stress repeatedly that religion played no part and that although one demographic was over-represented, only a "tiny minority" were involved.
Likewise the slavery issue.

Can I suggest you restrict your posts to the current issue and not try to make it about me or long forgotten threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 11:11 AM

Abuse of children by representatives of christian religions, in particular, is reported on a sickeningly regular basis. It is high time that the powers that pertain in these organisations not only recognised just how prevalent it is, but acted to ensure it does not and cannot occur in future.

Until such time as that happens I believe it is imperitive that it is discussed openly and widely.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 11:23 AM

"Re grooming gangs, if you look at that 6 year old thread you will see that I was at pains to stress repeatedly that religion played no part "
Doesn't matter Keiuth - it was Muslims that you targeted which refers to a religion
You weven dredged a centuries old myth regarding Mohammed having a child bride to underline your claim that Muslims were inclind to Paedophelia
"Likewise the slavery issue.
"You selected the behaviour of 8 criminals to claim Travellers were "over-represented"
That is using criminality to target an entire ethnic community.
"Can I suggest you restrict your posts to the current issue and not try to make it about me or long forgotten threads."
You mean "can you move away from the embarrassing bits and allow you to defend the actions of the Christian church?"
'Fraid not Keith
Raggy just said it all for me
Jim Carroll
You have persisted in defending these crimes - you desist from doing so (or prove that unregistered births were not common) and all this will go away - until it is needed next time
What have you been told about trying to manipulate treads when they become uncomfortable
"When will they ever learn" as Pete Segger used to sing

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: ollaimh
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 12:53 AM

joe had the same rationalizations for former ss officers. they were 26 year old young men who made a few mistakes. must be forgiven. forgive rape and murder, well ask those raped and murdered(or their families) first.

these are sex criminals, and even in the united states sex tort committers. its' unforgivable and those who defend them are unforgivable. this is evil folks.

the gnostic dualists were right. main stream christians have been fooled into wordhipping an ashura(a kind of devil) and calling it god(loterally or figuratively the effect is the same). that's why they do so much evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:47 AM

Doesn't matter Keiuth - it was Muslims that you targeted which refers to a religion

That is a lie Jim. Count how many times that I stated that it was nothing to do with Islam.

On slavery we looked at every reported case since the current laws were enacted. There was a clear over-representation which has since become even more pronounced.

Again Jim, please stop trying to make this about me, and stop dredging up years old debates that have no relevance to this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 04:23 AM

"You make idiotic and patently untrue statements that do not stand up to the most cursory examination when challenged. You then resort to insults and deflection to cover your tracks as you retreat"

Example of Carroll doing precisely the above on this thread:

Jim Carroll - 19 Sep 17 - 09:28 AM

"implanted Muslims, Slaver travellers, brainwashed Irish children don't count as communities, races or religions then

To which Keith A replied:

Keith A of Hertford - 19 Sep 17 - 10:57 AM

Re grooming gangs, if you look at that 6 year old thread you will see that I was at pains to stress repeatedly that religion played no part and that although one demographic was over-represented, only a "tiny minority" were involved.
Likewise the slavery issue.

Can I suggest you restrict your posts to the current issue and not try to make it about me or long forgotten threads.

Classic deflection on Carroll's part, with the added bonus that most of the threads he harks back to were closed, so his massive "Cut'n'Paste" inserts guarantee closure of the new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 04:54 AM

An ode for Jimmie, as we have a vaguely religious theme:

Matthew 7:3-5
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 05:51 AM

It's a pity you didn't also say that it was nothing to do with Pakistani culture too, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 06:07 AM

"An ode for Jimmie, as we have a vaguely religious theme:"
Still resorting to vacuous copycat bullying Iains
Does the trail of closed threads tell you nothing about your childish behaviour?
"Example of Carroll doing precisely the above on this thread:"
"Classic deflection on Carroll's part,"
You are now a team of kamikaze trolls hell bent on destroying this forum
Hopefully you will be regarded as such by other members
You're not even good at this - I'd stick to your rural idylls of an England of white-cland vigins dancing around Maypoles
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 06:16 AM

Steve,
It's a pity you didn't also say that it was nothing to do with Pakistani culture too, Keith.

I did not say that it was.
I did say that I knew nothing about the culture, and the suggestion that culture was to blame came not from me but from numerous well informed people who were all British Pakistanis or Left Wing politicians or both.

Now, enough about me.
Anything to say about the Lanarkshire burials?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 06:43 AM

Yes Keith, and you quoted them ad nauseam in your appeal to authority. "It must be true because these high-ups said it." What you always do, Keith. The vast, vast majority of Pakistani men are decent, hard-working, law-abiding individuals. A very tiny minority engaged in despicable criminal activity in the Rochdale area, just as tiny minorities of all sorts of people indulge in despicable criminal activities all over the place. But that wasn't good enough for you. You hunted around for quotes to perpetuate the smear. You pretend it isn't you, shrugging your shoulders saying, well you don't have to listen to me, listen to the big-knobs - they must be right.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 06:53 AM

"It must be true because these high-ups said it."

I would never say that.
I did not need to hunt around for quotes. They were widely reported and no-one was contradicting them. Read what was said at the time.

. The vast, vast majority of Pakistani men are decent, hard-working, law-abiding individuals

I know, and have always said so.

A very tiny minority engaged in despicable criminal activity in the Rochdale area,

I agree, and that applies to all those other towns and cities where this has been an issue.

But enough about me and enough about grooming gangs.
What about the subject of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 06:58 AM

"Anything to say about the Lanarkshire burials?"
You have already been given masses on the Lanarkshire burials which you choose to ignore
Anything to say on what has already been said?
The subject of this thread is " Catholic Abuse of Children" - not just Lanarkshire burials
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
Anything to say on them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 07:27 AM

This thread fell silent in August the last post being from Joe Offer on 21 Aug 17 - 12:59 PM. By that stage all chat about "Irish Catholic abuse of children" had been done to death.

The thread was reactivated in September the first post being from Jack Campin on 10 Sep 17 - 11:56 AM, where he was specifically address the reports about a mass grave being found containing the bodies of hundreds of children from the Smyllum Park Catholic Orphanage in Lanarkshire, Scotland.

With regard to and in relation to this discovery and Jack Campin's posted link we got this in response to a post from Joe Offer on the subject:

Jim Carroll - 13 Sep 17 - 03:21 AM

"I don't know that burial in a mass grave is necessarily an abuse," - [Joe Offer}

"I agree Joe, but of the secret burial of so many children without public acknowledgement of their deaths and without identifying them isn't, it should be."

In the case of the Smyllum Park Orphanage:

- There was nothing secret about the burials.
- The cause of death of each child was known, registered, recorded.
- The name of each child was known, registered and recorded.

Jim Carroll the purveyor of misinformation, misrepresentation and lies.

When called to account over these falsehoods he reverts to instances previously covered in the thread and attempts to say that that is what he was referring to in the post given above.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 08:32 AM

"Jim Carroll the purveyor of misinformation, misrepresentation and lies."
I do not tell lies – I have never told lies on this forum and you have never produced one single lie you have accused me of
In making this accusation you are obviously trying to wreck another thread in order to save face, as you have now done on several occasions
Please produce one singe lie have old on 5this subject – now will be a convenient time for you to do so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 08:49 AM

I refer you to my previous post:

Teribus - 20 Sep 17 - 07:27 AM

And to YOUR post:

Jim Carroll - 13 Sep 17 - 03:21 AM

"I don't know that burial in a mass grave is necessarily an abuse," - [Joe Offer}

"I agree Joe, but of the secret burial of so many children without public acknowledgement of their deaths and without identifying them isn't, it should be."

In the case of the Smyllum Park Orphanage:

- There was nothing secret about the burials.
- The cause of death of each child was known, registered, recorded.
- The name of each child was known, registered and recorded.

Jim Carroll the purveyor of misinformation, misrepresentation and lies. As far as the Smyllum Park Orphanage in Lanarkshire is concerned you lied, misinformed and misrepresented what had been discovered.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 09:13 AM

You have already had my response to this
The investigations into the Lanarkshire site is yet in its infancy and as there have been no exhumations carried out to date, there cannot possibly be a statement to say that all deaths were registered
The fact that the vast majority of cases have shown that unregistered deaths were common practice, there is no reason to believe that this will be any different
You really are going to have to do better than this pathetic claim of "lying"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 09:56 AM

Jim, the only allegation is that they were buried in an unmarked communal grave.
There is no suggestion of unregistered deaths. No exhumations are required.
Your claims were baseless.
Here is the story again. Read it this time!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/10/smyllum-park-lanark-orphanage-catholic-nuns-children-mass-grave-allegedly

"An inquiry by BBC Radio 4's File on 4 and the Sunday Post newspaper examined death certificates in archives and found 402 children from Smyllum Park."

"Records reveal that most of the deaths were due to natural causes, mainly from diseases such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy. About a third of the victims were under the age of five, and the majority of the deaths occurred between 1870 and 1930."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 11:57 AM

Can anyone on this forum interested in this topic, apart from Jom, tell me what they think a "secret burial" would entail.

Can anyone on this forum interested in this topic, apart from Jom, tell me what they think "without public knowledge" means.

Can anyone on this forum interested in this topic, apart from Jom, tell me what "without identifying them means

Now as far as those buried in the mass grave at Smyllum Park Orphanage go:

1: There was nothing secret about the burials. The grave was Known to have existed - so no secret burial involved.
2: The cause of death of each child was known, registered, recorded - so much for lack of public knowledge
3: The name of each child was known, registered and recorded - so much for them being unidentified

We are talking here about an institution that operated from 1864 until it closed 1981. In this time over 11,000 children lived there. Within that number over the course of those 117 years 402 children died and there are death certificates for every single one of them. In each case the cause of death was known and registered. They were buried in an unmarked pauper's grave - Just to get things into perspective - In the 21st Century, approximately 2,500 Scots per year are buried at Council expense in similar unmarked pauper's graves.

In the case of the childrens remains found in Tuam in the West of Ireland, they were not buried in what was known to be a mass pauper's grave, they were buried in what was commonly thought to be an old cesspit, there were no records detailing who was buried there, there were no causes of death officially recorded. The two cases are so far apart in every single detail that were it a distance it would be measured in "light years". Yet we have Jom yelling for exhumations and investigations - in the case of the Smyllum Park Orphanage - WHAT FOR??

Of course it could be the Jom "pay-back" thing and he is looking for the Catholic Church to pay for separate funerals and headstones. But in Jom's mathematics there is always only one-side to any equation. It would only be fair wouldn't it, that if the Catholic Church has to pay-out for separate funerals and headstones for 402 children then the people of Scotland would in turn have to recompense the Catholic Church for the costs of staff and resources related to the care, supervision, housing and food for all 11,000 orphans from 1864 until 1981.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 01:46 PM

Teribus, I certainly have no reason to give an endorsement of your conduct. You're high up on the list of problem posters. I won't shut the thread down yet, although other moderators may.
I'm going to delete several squabbling posts that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 01:58 PM

Not looking for any endorsement Joe - just simple honest discussion. If someone posts something or a view I hold a counter view to I feel as though I have a right to state my view - that surely is what free speech is about. If someone posts something that simply is not true then I will tell them so, explaining and providing substantiation for my view. If I post something that is untrue or incorrect my posting history shows that I acknowledge the error and apologise for making it. Great pity that a lot more people on this forum do not do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 02:04 PM

For Jimmie:
soupçon=a very small quantity of something. Get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 02:39 PM

"oupçon=a very small quantity of something. Get it?"
???????????????????????
"I'm going to delete several squabbling posts that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion."
Wonderful idea Joe - is there an chance you can continue to do so?
THat will clean up the atmosphere no end and no one else need suffer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:11 PM

If someone posts something or a view I hold a counter view to I feel as though I have a right to state my view

Absolutely spot on tezzer but that is not what you do is it? You may state your view but it is often lost in the bile you spew and the contempt you show for those who do oppose your view. You are the leader when it comes to abrasiveness and while others may try to emulate you they do not come close. If that is what you want to achieve, well done. But if you really want 'simple honest discussion' then you need to state your case simply and honestly without the rancour that usually surrounds it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:39 PM

I say the following as someone who is high up on the list of problem posters according to Joe Offer - In that case Gnome stick to addressing the content of the message not the messenger.

You and your pals treatment of posts by Keith A of Hertford on this forum over the last four years has been an absolute bloody disgrace that the Moderators seem to have turned a blind eye to.

" You may state your view but it is often lost in the bile you spew and the contempt you show for those who do oppose your view"

Exactly the same can be said of Shaw and Carroll - Any reason that you have never pulled them up on it? They have been paid like for like - but as you are all typical bullies you have shown that you can only dish it out - squeal like stuck pigs when the traffic is reversed. And in stating all of the above I have directly addressed points made in your post that was directed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:49 PM

No need to get yourself a persecution complex, Teribus. No-one here bar the mods has a clue who has been privately taken to task for their behaviour here by the moderator team. The thing is, you invited that public rebuke. Most of us are dealt with in private, and, believe you me, it's at least several of the people you refer to. You've hurt a lot of people here with your insults, and your acting all hurt today is unbecoming to say the least. Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 04:03 PM

The first line of your refutation (Exactly the same can be said of Shaw and Carroll - Any reason that you have never pulled them up on it? ) would have been an example of being simple and honest and I could have happily responded. The rest of your post was the bile and rancour I mentioned. I know I am no saint but I do try to treat people with respect. It is usually when they do something to lose that respect that I respond in kind. Doesn't always work but I do try. Maybe if you did the same you would get more respect yourself.

But we should not be discussing argument and discussion per se on a thread about something so important. I have had my say on that subject. If you feel you need to continue down that road feel free but it may be better to bring it up on a separate thread.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 05:52 PM

OK, so back to the topic of discussion.
My disagreement with many posters on both sides of many discussions at Mudcat is this: My belief is that on most issues, few if any people or groups are all right or all wrong. By the way, I think that this is brilliantly demonstrated in the Harry Potter series of books, which I think is an excellent treatise on morality and moral decisions. Heck, even Hogwarts has Slytherin. There is a wide spectrum of belief and conduct within every institution and every group of people - so if you issue a blanket condemnation of an individual or group or institution, you're most likely wrong.

In this discussion, there have been far too many blanket statements and condemnations, and far too much inaccurate information. I gather that in Europe, the general tendency is to consider physical and sexual abuse together as "abuse." In the U.S., the word "abuse" usually refers to physical and emotional abuse; and sexual abuse or molestation is considered separately. We use the same words, but there are different shades of meaning that can cause confusion.

In our parents' generation and before, there was far more tolerance of both physical and emotional abuse in the raising of children, both in families and in institutions. That tolerance of abuse also existed in the treatment of employees in the workplace, and in the treatment of offenders by law enforcement. There was less tolerance for sexual abuse, but even that was condoned in many situations. But harsh and abusive treatment was often almost viewed as a virtue, so that parents and teachers would not "spoil" children.

Since physical and emotional abuse were the rule of society for our ancestors, I think we need to consider that abuse in context, recognizing that was allowable and even praised in the past is not acceptable now and must be prevented in the future. Therefore, I think it is better in this case to concentrate on the present and future, and place less emphasis on the past - without ignoring or excusing it.

Sexual abuse is a different matter - it has always been unacceptable, and it should be punished with more severity. Still, I think it is very important that in our investigation of the misdeeds of the past, we do not forget the present or the future.

And on top of that, I think that it is important that we do not condemn or punish all members of a group for the misdeeds of the few. Many of the condemnations in this thread are so broad that they seek to condemn and restrict and punish many admirable and innocent people.

So, make the brush a little narrower, willya?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 07:14 PM

As for the shock about indigent children being buried in a mass grave, that seems to me to be much ado about nothing. Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind. Only rich people got gravestones or monuments.
As for me, I don't particularly care what happens to my body after I die. I'll leave that choice to my family. I think I'd like to be cremated and scattered in the woods near my home, but I want to make it clear that burial in a cemetery or a veteran's cemetery is ok with me, too. I don't even really care whether I have a religious funeral or not, as long as people have a good time and do some singing.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 08:13 PM

"Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind."
Not in the 'civilised West' Joe, and certainly not in Catholic Ireland, where ritual burial has been a psychological and spiritual necessity and had been part of Catholic life for as long as Catholicism has held sway here.
It is so important that there are only two crematoriums in the whole of Ireland - so important is it to undergo the correct process before they can be considered correctly dispatched 'to meet their maker'
We have finally managed to arrange that our remains will be donated to medical research, with a great deal of difficulty, so uncommon is a practice that is still largely frowned on and misunderstood
One of "the great silences" of Irish history has been The Irish Famine - one serious published work in a century and a half, and that was written by an Englishwoman.
Yet throughout Ireland, a major part of Irish folk memory has been the unmarked mass famine graves - the Irish were prepared to forget the horror of the Famine for all that time but not not the fact that the victims were deprived of a proper burial
Ireland is dotted with patches of 'hungry grass' where, if you cross them you are smitten with 'hunger pains' because they are unmarked Famine Graves.
Another major cause for concern are the 'Killeens'; the graveyards of newly born children who were refused a Christian burial because the priest wasn't on hand to bless administer last rites before their short lives were over.
Unless things are very different in your part of the world, I believe that your 'Hogwarts' reference is somewhat flippant - yet another excuse for the behaviour of your church..
The occurrence of unregistered deaths is a matter of legality, not religion
Couple these with the extreme brutality associated with these homes and you have what is described in the detective shows as 'a suspicious death'
"Keith A of Hertford"
Keith is an obsessive who has brought all his problems on this forum on himself - this thread being an example
His 'last man standing' approach and his obsession to 'win something' is the cause of all his problems, not the fault of those who argue his points, which are usually extremist to the most basic level.
If you are referring to Keith's health - it is hiw own choice to participate in these arguments - it would be patonising on our part to refuse to do so on these grounds
If you, he or anybody wants to hold a "I'll show you how ill I man if you'll do the same" bring it on!
I'm sick and tired of having my hole poked and pieces nipped out of by prostate over the last ten years, and don't get me started about the removals of suspected skin-cancer tissues from my face, or my sleep apnea tests, or my hearing problems....
I'm off to Galway in a couple for weeks a major operation - wish me luck girls.....!
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for bringing Keith up considering the self-harm he constantly inflicts on this forum - that is little more than emotional blackmail.
I hope Joe does not delete this before people have a chance to read it - then feel free Joe
I find it insulting that anybody should be expected to respond to such a despicable tactic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 12:52 AM

Nothing flippant about my "Hogwarts" reference at all, Jim. I think that the Harry Potter series is a very good study of the process of making and evaluating moral decisions. Its approach is far more rational and far less judgmental than yours.

How can you say there has been only "one serious published work in a century and a half" on the Irish Famine? A quick look at Amazon shows over 20 pages of book listings on the subject, and many of those appear to be serious works.

As for cremation, this link (click) indicates that there are at least five crematoriums in Ireland, instead of the two you speak of.

As for killeens (cillín), they are for babies who have died without baptism, not without the "last rites." Unbaptized babies are not members of the Church, so they do not receive a church burial. There is, however, no reason why they cannot be buried with prayer and respect. Seems to me that burial in a separate graveyard can serve to honor the special grief that comes with the death of a child who died in infancy. Pope Benedict declared over a decade ago that the mostly-forgotten concept of "limbo" was flawed theology, so the assumption then is that unbaptized infants go straight to heaven when they die.

So, with all the misinformation you give us, what are we supposed to be able to believe of what you have to say? Maybe you'd be better off spending less time condemning and more time researching.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 01:27 AM

"Hungry Grass"!!!! Whatever fairy-tale will we get next?

So Carroll has worked the thread round now to the Famine - It will the BDS campaign against Israel next by way of the Sabra/Shatila massacre (Mass graves involved there too only Carroll claims they aren't unmarked there is a bloody great sports stadium built over them which in it's clearance, construction, and two further extensive redevelopments did not even turn up so much as one single human bone fragment - Bit odd that for a supposed mass grave containing thousands of bodies)

Now why walking over a patch of grass should give people hunger pains I do not know. But it does follow along with the myth. Reality is the majority of people who died during what is referred to as "The Great Hunger" DID NOT DIE OF STARVATION - they died from diseases that at the time knew no cure, and they died in epidemic proportions so of course they were buried in mass graves as quickly as possible exactly as those who centuries before them had died from the Plague. Anybody wishing to check this can consult a few of the many books written on the subject over the past 160 years (Joe Offer can advise you on what to Google to find them).

No point at all in discussing with anyone whose main points in a discussion are downright lies. No point at all in discussing with anyone who when his lies are demonstrated to be lies refuses to acknowledge the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:21 AM

Joe, regarding the sexual abuse scandals( the Scottish asylum story is simply media hype), you say work with a smaller brush.
Concentrate on the perpetrators not the organisation as a whole you say, I agree, but when that has been attempted you are one of the first to step in and deny what seems to be patently obvious in terms of homosexuality in the priesthood.

Sometimes in real life you just have to bite the bullet, real life is not some fiction, where a happy ending is always assured.

If one is serious about getting to the root of a serous problem you need to leave your liberal sensibilities at the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:06 AM

"Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind."
Not in the 'civilised West' Joe, and certainly not in Catholic Ireland, where ritual burial has been a psychological and spiritual necessity and had been part of Catholic life for as long as Catholicism has held sway here."
The above is a bit of a misleading simplification. The right of burial does not automatically carry the right to erect a headstone or it's equivalent,and that is apart from suicides, bastards,paupers and unbaptized babies.

burial laws

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:35 AM

"How can you say there has been only "one serious published work in a century and a half"
Joe
The Famine ended in 1850 - between then and 1995, the150th anniversary of its beginning, there was only one comprehensive study of the Famine - 'The Great hunger' by Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith, and that was written in 1962
For political and possibly social reasons, the subject was avioded - "like the plague" so to speak!
Ireland needed and continues to need somewhere to send its constantly emigrating population and Britain is the first port of call, so why upset them by rubbing their noses in one of their great atrocities.
Even the centenary produced nothing
A combination of The Celtic Tiger and the century and a half anniversary opened the floodgates and produced the works you found on Amazon.
"As for cremation, this link (click) indicates that there are at least five crematoriums in Ireland, instead of the two you speak of."
I stand corrected Joe - all are relatively new,
Only Glasnevin existed when we moved here 18 years ago, the Cork one was till being fought over (I'm amused to see the address - the original application was for one in the ork town of "Ovens"
The rest all post-date that and are very recent - probably since the Clerical sex scandals hit the fan
"died without baptism, not without the "last rites."
Again, I stand corrected - still a heathen at heart
You appear to be defending these atrocities - they have always been regarded as offensive to the ordinary people - there have been recorded examples of children being secretly dug up from Killeens and reburied with their families
Interestingly, since the church's decline there has been a move to recognise the stigma of these monstrosities and acknowledge them as the injustice that they were
You will find no deliberate misinformation in my post, a piece of ignorance on religious jargon and a failure on my part to keep up with rapidly moving events in Ireland, that is all
Your explanation is yet another feeble excuse used by the church to justify injustice
"Hungry Grass"!!!! Whatever fairy-tale will we get next?"
I have explained what the term refers to - it is a superstition here regarding the famine which has a foundation in the fact that the whole Ireland is covered with unmarked graves holding the corpses of those who were not buried because 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.
Every culture on the planet has similar superstitions, so please don't make this another missile for your hatred of the Irish
"So Carroll has worked the thread round now to the Famine "
I worked this around to nothing - Joe raised the question of the importance of burial, I gave examples
If you cannot understand the relevance of beliefs such as this to explaining the importance that Catholics (not just the Irish ones) attach to the ritual of burial, then you are out of your depth in subjects such as this.
You want to revisit settled subjects like Sabra Shatila or the Famine to try and win back the territory you have long lost, feel free to re-open th relevant threads - don't clutter up this subject with it.
More "lies" and still no examples
"So Carroll has"
"Carroll claims "
You seem to have blown this one yet again and are left with only personal insults nad attempts at talking down to - good
Now perhaps you'll leave the stage and let those who are happy to discuss this subject do so with the degree of respect you are obviously unable to aspire to
Perhaps we can persuade Ake to take his antediluvian, homophobic hatred back to the sewer in which it should never have been dredged at the same time   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:45 AM

"The right of burial does not automatically carry the right to erect a headstone"
Nothing to do with headstones Iains - just the right of access to the "proper" procedure of burial embraced by ny culture
Both the burials under discussion and the Killeens did not meet up to those rights
Not "misleading simplification" but telling it as it is and is now widely recognised as wrong and sometimes, possibly criminal
I eally suggest you people need to read through what has happened in Ireland over the last decade or so and if you have any regard at all for your various religions, come to terms with it and learn.
The main victims nowadays are the traditional long-term believers who are having their lives torn apart by these revelations
I find that distressing if you do not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 04:10 AM

At the same time period of the great famine the highland clearances occurred.Prior to the clearances the highlands suffered from the last repeated famines on mainland Britain. Native peoples were being exterminated in numerous countries.People were dying as paupers in workhouses in the UK. Do you think the Irish are the only people to be victims? Am I a victim because I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth?
Jim, the only posts you make are totally negative. You miss no opportunity to denigrate the English while portraying the Irish as the forsaken people. Rights, wrongs, abuses have occurred throughout history. Get over it. For God's sake try and lighten up and shock us all by posting something happy. You cast doom and despondency over every thread you touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 04:31 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 08:13 PM

"Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind."
Not in the 'civilised West' Joe, and certainly not in Catholic Ireland, where ritual burial has been a psychological and spiritual necessity and had been part of Catholic life for as long as Catholicism has held sway here.

Until recently.
It seems the Roman Catholic church has accepted cremation since 1963. Maybe Ireland has yet to catch up. Here

I believe that past restrictions against cremation were more about keeping the body in one piece and in one place, ready for the resurrection. Organ donation, and the rise in the popularity of cremation, have affected this view. Wales is well advanced in this as we have Deemed consent. Unless you have registered your objection, it can be assumed that you wish your organs to be available for transplant after death.

Some might not think this a 'forward' move, but it removes the need to place oneself on a donors register.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 05:53 AM

"Do you think the Irish are the only people to be victims? "
Have I ever suggested they are?
The Clearances were as much an atrocity as was the handling of the famine but the comparison of natural disasters in other parts of the world is frankly ridiculous
At the time of both British events the British Empire was the wealthiest in the world with the ability to feed the starving Scots and Irish without even going to the bank
Not only did it not do so but it continued to ship food out of Ireland for profit and refuse to open the locked warehouses that contained enough food to feed the population for the duration of the Famine
Tenant families who were unable to pay rents because of the crop failure were evicted, turned out on the road and left homeless in their many thousands - some survived by scraping out shelters in the fields, others died by the roadsides
The alternatives offered to the Irish were emigrate or die - ethnic cleansing at best, but in fact genocide
In the last twenty years documented evidence has now been published which indicates that this was a deliberate policy on the part of the British to solve 'The Irish Question'
The man appointed to handle famine relief. Sir Charles Trevelyan, hated the Irish and described the Famine as "God's punishment" for their evil nature
He closed relief workhouses and forced those who could afford to, to buy food at market prices, (Laissez-faire)leaving those who couldn't under the care of woefully ill-equipped charities like the Quakers to bear the brunt of the burden
Protestant charities operated a "souper" system - "we'll feed you if you change your religion."
You spoiled your perfectly sensible question with your usually insulting innuendo and accusation - you really will never learn, will you?
I do not seek to "denigrate" the English - I condemn outright the murderous policies of its administrations, including those wielded against English working people
IThe only hatred I have seen expressed against the English i that by the contributors to this forum who describe its workers as layabouts not fit to be educated, its hospital patients as malingerers as bed-blockers, and its peple as a whole as potential itinerant labour if there is no work in their own place of residence
The hatred of the English people as proposed on this forum regularly as now reached racist proportions
Nigel
You are right of course - the Church reluctantly removed the ban on cremation in the early sixties - the position remained as I have described in Ireland until the Church began to lose its power following the cherical rape scandals
There are still only five crematoriums as Jowe pointed out three have emerged since the Clerical abuse scandal
THe church here is now attempting to prevent to scatter the ashes of the deceased over the sea or mountains, or any other place the deceased might have requested
They even do battle with the dead in their efforts to stay in control
Jim Carroll

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 06:41 AM

"I always maintained and stated that only a tiny minority were involved and still do"
Suggesting that all male Pakistanis are culturally implanted to have underage sex makes them all unexploded bombs in our midst ready to go off without warning
"we are all implanted by our culture"
The fact that you still maintain that Muslim culture is the cause of underage sex is the reason your opinion is still quoted and will continue to be while you hold that view
No Muslim has ever stated that view publicly, but many thousands have expressed fury at such a suggestion
You choose to accept the invented view of your mythical six and totally reject the opinions of the many thousands who claim that their culture has no influence on the actions of a few criminals – a pick-'n-mix to justify your own views
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 11:02 AM

I must say Jim you have a wondrous talent for totally missing the obvious interpretation of what people post and creating a stunning fabrication that only fits your warped view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 11:15 AM

"I must say Jim you have a wondrous talent for totally missing the obvious interpretation "
I must say you have an incredible knack of posting and saying precisely nothing
What are you8 trying to tell us - without the abuse if you can manage it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 11:36 AM

I'd love to know what "Muslim" culture is, or what is "Roman Catholic" culture. Can a religion practiced by millions spread all over the world have a culture.

As Keith A has correctly pointed out ad nauseam, and others have obtusely refused to accept is the "Implant" jibe that although six years old that keeps getting dredged up did not make any reference at all to the religion of those found guilty of mass grooming and sexual predation of underage white girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 12:21 PM

The "Church Hierarchy" did not sexually abuse mainly teenage boys and young men......adult males did.

If you are unable to put two and two together to make four about who and why these crimes were perpetrated you must have little comprehension of the subject.

You are simply desperate to shift the blame onto the organisation.
The only blame which can be affixed to the Catholic Church is in allowing such an over representation of homosexuals in the priesthood.
I homosexuality is recognised as a sin, why are ANY homosexuals allowed to be priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 01:06 PM

And now we have another display of Ake's Antediluvian hatred
Please don't use this thread as a platform - the victims of clerical rape have enough to cpe with as it is
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 01:42 PM

Rochdale Grooming Case - Who said what:

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, accused elders of the Pakistani community of "burying their heads in the sand" on the matter of sexual grooming. He said that of convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 87% were of British Pakistani men and it was a significant problem for that community. He said the actions of criminals who thought "white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused" were "bringing shame on our community."

Now no matter how long I look at that, no matter how many times I read it - I cannot see any mention of religion, I cannot see any reference to "Muslims" or "Islam" - Can anybody else?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 07:55 PM

Yes, Keith can. He did so this very day.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 08:14 PM

"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."

That was from Jim Carroll, as usual giving absolutely no way for the reader to identify what the hell he's quoting.

I think the Muslims (NOT friggin "Moslems", please) referred to were Pakistani. The proportion of Shia in Pakistan is somewhere around 20% (not properly reported because it can be dangerous to admit to it) and it's likely that is reflected in the Pakistani-Brtish population.

Shiism has a different problem. It's like Catholicism in that it has hierarchies of authority extending through several levels, though not to a single leader at the top; the Bektashi dervish order in particular has a very complex hierarchy (largely based on what they inherited from the Cathars). So it IS possible to blame the system. Which said, I can't actually recall any abuse scandals Shiites have been responsible for, though doubtless they've happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Sep 17 - 08:57 PM

Now that the thread title has opened to other 'cultures', this long term problem from Afghanistan

I've heard specifically from a friend who travelled in Afghanistan and told me about this years ago. I emphasize that this may not be related to Islam, and is interpreted in some quarters as 'anti-Islam' but is so ingrained in society there that is has become an issue in American Afghan cooperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 03:22 AM

"That was from Jim Carroll, as usual giving absolutely no way for the reader to identify what the hell he's quoting."
Totally unfair Jack - I usually take pains to provide actual links, though I do read a great deal and many of the arguments I put up are my own off the top of my head - not quotes.
These subjects interest me enough for me to know a little about them and not have to drag them up on the spot, as is the practice of some - I've even spoke publicly and written on some of them in the past.
I find myself doing that quite a lot nowadays.
Actually, it wasn't from me Jack, which was why I put it in quotations
I was quoting Iain's earlier posting in order to establish where he was going in this discussion - I'm still not much the wiser, though others seem to have decided this is an opportunity to reopen attacks the Muslim religion
Perhaps you should read what people put up more carefully Jack!
"I cannot see any mention of religion, "
Only by taking out of context and ignoring the thousands of acres of space that have been taken up quoting the Quran proving that to be the source of these crimes (still by a few criminals), can you possibly claim that this in not religious - of course it is, and always has been
One regular poster once put up for of the largest cut-'n-pastes this forum has ever seen, dating back to pre-Christian times and dredged up from some of the most extremist sites, setting out to show that Islam is a degenerate religion and has been the cause of terrorism and oppression for millennia   
The 'implant' quote appeared on the same thread.
As far as I'm concerned, the role of all religions, Christianity included, should be one of providing spiritual guidance to those who seek it voluntarily - once it exceeds those bounds it becomes intrusive, divisive, and eventually dangerous to the extent of being lethal - as it is now
What we are seeing here is a "my product is better than your product" battle for the religious high ground.
When it reaches that stage, a plague on all your houses
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 03:49 AM

This whole clerical sex abuse scandal is something that tears my heart asunder. There are several priests I've known and loved, including friends I attended seminary with for 8 years, who did these horrible things. There are two bishops I've known and loved, including my favorite professor, who did things that sure look to me like a coverup; and I don't understand it.

I can't defend it and I can't understand it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 04:01 AM

Every organisation seeks to protect itself, religious, political, or social. The perpetration is easy to understand....with the will.

Don't beat yourself up over this Joe, you are a good Christian as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 04:53 AM

Moslem/Muslim. Why the change?
bit of history

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 05:15 AM

Jim the point I was trying to make was that although the Catholic Church has ruled on Pederasty at least since the second century, other cultures under other religions have at least tacitly accepted/encouraged/condoned such practises. The prime example would be the Ottoman Empire and many other ancient cultures. The Catholic Church may have failed in stamping out the practise within their own clergy but their public condemnation of such abuse goes back centuries.
A similar level of condemnation in Islamic cultures is not so obvious.
Pederasty wikipedia
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

Some of your criticism of the way the Catholic Church handled abuse may be justified but it needs to be seen in a much wider context. Catholicism does not have the monopoly of black sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 06:39 AM

"Catholic Church has ruled on Pederasty"
Ruling on something is not a major issue unless it prevents something that is common practice, which I don't believe it is in any religious group - temproral laws have set age limits to sex which, I believe are quite adequate, if sometimes inflexible (they criminalise schoolchildren for 'doin' what comes naturally' without accepting the situation)
The same applies yto many of the 'Muslim abuse' cases' which happen between young people and are blown up to become Islamic trafficking
Gang culture in Britain, irrespective of race, includes the voluntary sharing of partners
I can remember young women of school age being referred to as 'the school bike' because she enjoyed sex.
If Christian ruling on pederasty was all there was, it wouldn't be in the situation it is today, but it extends far beyond that.
In the past the enjoyment of sex was outlawed, as was open discussion, education, contraception, termination, the size of families, what you wore - even where you sat in church.
The very natural (and enjoyable) act of sex was made a necessary evil - "the church won't stay out of our bedrooms" was a common complaint.
The main targets for the Church's fury were invariably the women - they were the ones forced to the humiliation of 'the cutty stool' while the men were envied for their conquests
Women who were seduces reluctantly or even raped, ended up in the Magdalene Laundries while the seducers and rapists were ignored.
I can only say to Joe that he really hasn't anything to worry abou as far as his religion is concernd
This has only ever been a religious issue by those who deliberately make it one - especially by those who defend what went on by accusing those who express our anger as attacking or hating Catholics - they are the ones who 'hate religion'
It is churchmen and women who did the damage and the church hierarchy who protected them and allowed them to do it - and continue to sit on the evidence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 07:26 AM

Jim, you are not addressing the salient points made by Iains, you are simply rambling and ranting by turns.
If you had taken the time to open Iains link, you may have discovered the history and meaning of pederasty. It pertains accurately to the sexual abuse which is being exposed in the priesthood.

Pederasty is totally different from the cruelty involved in the abuse of power which happens in many organisations not just religious ones

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 07:31 AM

The Muslim abuse cases were also different , as they were based on financial gain, more or less a business. The abusers and abused were certainly not of the same age ...or the same culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 08:20 AM

"Jim, you are not addressing the salient points made by Iains, you are simply rambling and ranting by turns."
You are the one who has made this religious Ake - now you are topping this off by being insulting as is your usual practice towards those who don't agree with you
Ive dealt with me feelings about pederasty - you respond as if I haven't - which adds dishonesty to your CV
Unless you are intending to actually argue your point, I suggest we leave it thare - I really have had enough of people like you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 10:18 AM

Clerical

ADJECTIVE: - concerned with or relating to work in an office, especially routine documentation and administrative tasks.

Didn't know that there were that many children around to abuse in offices and business premises.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 11:53 AM

"temproral laws have set age limits to sex which, I believe are quite adequate,"
I suggest you research the subject just a little!
Saudi has no minimum age and no one protests. If the country was just sand and no oil their repressive practises would lead to international outrage. But it is all very quiet! child brides and more recently-still just hot air no actionunicef
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/no-minimum-age-for-marriage-of-girls-grand-mufti-576044.html

And of course modern day slavery. One example a few years old linked below.
camel jockeys

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 12:23 PM

"I suggest you research the subject just a little!"
I'm talking about our own laws - we are not in a position to legislate on behalf of other countries.
Some of Britain's allies have an age limit as low as 14, in Mexico and the Philippines it is 12.
As far as slavery is concerned, a recent swoop in Britain has revealed a major problem in slavery.
Firms like Dell have been found to be producing computers produced in slave like conditions and some of our major clothing firms - Kellogg's, Unilever and Nestlé use child labour in their production of foods
WE don't have to go as far as Pakistani to find the results of slave labour – your local high street will do nicely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 04:14 PM

God bless all here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 17 - 04:37 PM

Bible » Ezra » Chapter 7 » Verse26

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 17 - 07:40 AM

Iains claims above that nobody is above the law. That adage is meant to control the powerful; but so often it is misused to oppress those who have no power and no resources. Here in the U.S., those in power use the adage to control the homeless and the immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 17 - 08:05 AM

The adage "No-one is above the law" means exactly what it says - a plain statement of fact - it was not meant to "control" any specific group.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 17 - 08:39 AM

"Travellers don't have the luxury of having their rubbish collected as the rest of us do because they are not allowed to stop anywhere and Councils refuse to collect is"

Neither do I, difference is that I take my rubbish to the local refuse collection/recycling facility, I don't just fly-tip it. I also do not take payment from others on the pretence of collecting rubbish for disposal and then just fly-tip it.

Did you collect any good fly-tipping songs?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 17 - 09:40 AM

If national laws do not protect significant minorities, as is the case with Travellers in Britain and Ireland, then they are duty bound as human beings to protect themselves and their families (lack of legal protection has reduced Traveller lifespan considerably here – go look it up),
Nazi Germany legally exterminated a quarter of a million European Roma because their laws allowed them to do so; to resist those laws would have been illegal by your argument (you people have argued the same logic for Trump's and Brexit's racism).
You have been given the cost of fly tipping in Britain – the main offenders are overwhelmingly the settled community – there are not enough Travellers on the planet to account for   worth of clean-up
Your position is now openly racist
As far as rubbish is concerned – travellers travel in small family groups and are no longer allowed to stop illegally with protection – it is at the Council's discretion and usually extends to around two weeks at most
It really isn't rocket science to work out that the rubbish piles in Iain's links could not be accounted for by general household waste
It has always been a practice of locals that, when Travellers are in the area, their sites are used to get rid of their rubbish
In the 1980s, social workers, with the backing of local police and two solicitors working pro-bono, had the oldest Traveller site in London, Garrett Lane, Wandsworth, (George Borrow's old stamping ground) officially inspected and it was found that 85% of the rubbish, including sofas, chairs, wall cupboards and two abandoned cars had been dumped by locals alongside the Travellers own waste.
The results were published in the Local Paper, The Wandsworth Borough News (no friend to Travellers) – we still have the cutting and have used it for articles and talks
Your arguments are now openly racist – which is where these arguments always should have been   
This is the type of hatred that fuels exterminations
Britain's Travellers are being legally ethnically cleansed – that is what you are supporting.
Jim Carroll
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/this-is-ethnic-cleansing-68786.html

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 17 - 10:33 AM

Getting back to the thread, I see the "liberals" got off the subject of pederasty pretty damned quick!!

Too close for comfort chaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 17 - 10:38 AM

"The adage "No-one is above the law" means exactly what it says - a plain statement of fact - it was not meant to "control" any specific group."
You can repeat this fascist adage as often as you like but it doesn't alte fact that Travellers are being ethnically cleansed and that is what you are supporting - it's known as the "Nuremberg -"we were only obeying orders" defence
"I think you are losing it!"
It's from the same source you quoted your "obey the law" quote, the difference being you were serious, I was showing how ludicrous putting forward a quote from a two thousand year old book of folk tales actually is
I have put forward my arguments based on my personal contact with Travellers over a long period
You have produced no counter-evidence, not even "made up Carroll shit", which means you are happ
y with what is happening to an entire British community
As I said - we are where we should have been at the beginning
You are a pair of ethnic cleansers
"got off the subject of pederasty pretty damned quick!!"
I see you continue to ignore what has actually been said about pedastry
Too close for comfort old chap?
Jim Carroll