 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
|
|
|
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:
-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
|
|
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
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- |