BS: Clerical Abuse of Children

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: 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 - 11:43 AM

BABY BLACK MARKET
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 - 11:40 AM

LITANY of UNREGISTERED DEATHS of CHILDREN IN CARE
Jim Carroll

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 09:22 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 17 - 05:19 AM

Orphanage pictures in this
article

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 12 Sep 17 - 03:39 AM

Fair enough Raggy
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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 21 Aug 17 - 09:03 AM

Thaks Raggytash .... that's a gem

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:32 AM

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

Article