 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:21 AM 'Were abused as a child' I should have said there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:33 AM Peter, I thought my last post, covered more than homosexuality. It dealt with celibacy, and the different ways that priests could deal with it, which was a direct, but simple answer, to michaelr's question. To a priest, who took the vow of celibacy, all the ways I mentioned are a break of that vow, and therefor 'immoral' to him. The one with children is the cruelest of them all, but even in an adult affair, damage is done to both sides, consensual or not....wouldn't you say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: akenaton Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:52 AM Michael.... I think Sanity has answered your point very well...if rather bluntly. Being sexually frustrated does not in general terms cause heterosexuals to rape or abuse youths. As Sanity has pointed out there should be plenty of sexual outlets for a Catholic priest who wishes to avail himself of them. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning, and I do agree that abandoning the celibacy rule would help to stop this disgusting practice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: MartinRyan Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:16 AM It has to be repeatedly stressed that this report is not primarily about the abuse of children by priests. It is about the response of the institutional Irish church to its own detailed knowledge of that abuse. It is what the latter tells us about the nature of the Catholic church in Ireland that matters, ultimately. There is little doubt that the Irish church can survive the existence of child abusers in its ranks. The real question is whether it can survive the existence of POWER-abusers at its highest levels. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: ard mhacha Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:52 AM When the day arrives and we have our Priest`s sons playing mid-field for our local GAA team and their mother screaming blue-murder at the referee, then the Catholic church will have arrived in the real world. The name McTaggart means son of the priest, so some time ago this would have been possible. Please don`t forget the many other scandals regarding children and not connected with the Catholic church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 09 - 08:27 AM it doesn't do justice to the suffering of the women......" Peter Laban is right; to take it even further, making this a 'homosexual' issue is an insult to every abused child, not just the females. It is about the abuse of influence and the blatent neglect of children by church officers, from the highest the lowest. If it does have 'homosexuality' implications, as the pepetrators were all Christians, Catholics and clergymen, it follows logically that all Christians, Catholics and clergymen must be rearded with suspicion in future. It is to the credit of particiators of this thread (with the notable exception of our resident homophobes, who, to their credit, have not denied the description) it has not become a platform for homohobia. Joe asked how widespread the practice was. I don't know the numbers, but it has been announced in todays Irish Times that in the 6 Northern counties, which didn't fall under the remit of the Ryan Report, there are around 1,000 potential cases of abuse not investigated. How powerful the church has been was underlined here by a letter this morning in the I. T. which points out that when the Irish Constiution was drafted it was first submitted to the Vatican for approval before it was released to the people of Ireland - how powerful is that? "Jim started the thread quite clearly to take a kick at the Catholic Church (changed later to 'religion')" Have I lied about these events? Have I exaggerated them? Are they not fit topics for discussion? I raised them because they are outrageous; because they have filled our newspapers (front page and inside) since the Murphy report was released and because they were apparently not being discussed outside Ireland. SHOULD I NOT HAVE STARTED THIS THREAD? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: akenaton Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:43 AM An excellent post from Martin, there is no doubt that the cover-up was a very serious abuse of power. Each case of child abuse is personal to the priest who carried it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:48 AM "Each case of child abuse is personal to the priest who carried it out." No it isn't; it is the responsibility of the church, as is the cover-up carried out throughout the church from the Vatican down - this was made plain by the Murphy report. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Alice Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:57 AM Whether it happens in the Catholic church or some other institution that has power over its members, the point is that people use their position of power to get away with abusive and illegal behavior. Some organizations hold abusers accountable and turn them in to law enforcement. Some do not, which is what we are seeing in the investigations of the Catholic church. (Find "a nun" to seduce as the answer - are YOU KIDDING??? Seducing or raping someone who is not a child is not a solution to the problem! Adults can be victims of sex abuse, too! I'm shocked anyone would even suggest that as a solution.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:20 PM Why has tis thread been edited? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 09 - 02:28 PM Seems to have returned back to normal - I withdraw my question and apologise to whoever concerned Jim Carroll
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Penny S. Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:56 PM There was a radio programme on the BBC recently about the Catholic Church in Ireland, and the physical abuse, the industrial schools and the laundries, and a point made by a Catholic commentator was the extent to which the church there had been affected by the ideas of Calvinism (OK, Augustine of Hippoism) and saw people of certain backgrounds as not of the Elect, and therefore deserving of punishment. I think I've got that right. If people are not valued, that presumably makes them more likely to be victims of other abuse, as well. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: frogprince Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:10 PM Alice, I generally find that Guest from Sanity drives me up the wall. But in this case, you're reacting to something that was never said. GfS wasn't "recommending" that a priest break his vows in any of the listed ways, let alone "recommending" that a priest rape a nun or pressure her into sex. There have to be plenty of nuns who didn't realize that they would find the celibacy rule unbearable. I certainly won't argue with the observation that "elicit" sex between consenting adults is less harmful, and less reprehensible, than molestation of children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: frogprince Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:15 PM And I don't consider breaking an untenable man-made rule to be a sin in the eyes of God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Smokey. Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:09 PM Cynical heretic that I am, I find it very hard to believe that any, or many, of the male Catholic hierarchy are literally celibate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:43 PM Alice, First of all, ease up. The question was put to me, on 'priests dealing with celibacy'...now of course, if a priest is going to break his vow, these are the readily available alternatives. Personally, I don't anyone should break any vow they take, including marriage vows! Being as, according to what has been reported, many of the breaking of celibacy, has involved children...and the majority, are male children, which of course adds another twist....and, I was also, pointing that out. Personally, if a priest, or musician playing music, or anyone, who is fighting breaking any form of concentrated discipline, their mind already isn't where its supposed to be! That is certainly the case of a priest, who may make a vow, younger in life, without fully knowing what he is affirming. Actually, I could really get into a depthy post on that, and why they pick the victims they pick, but again, I would only do so, if somebody really wanted to know, because they care. I'm not into getting into a debate with someone, who knows nothing about the subject, and just wants to fight for fight's sake. I re-read Jim Carroll's first post again, just to make sure, we were going in the right direction, and I can see his frustration, as to where the thread was going...and it did appear to go more in a direction, that I don't think he was intending for it to go. That being said, there is a similarity in the make-up, of a young idealistic man, who focuses in on putting his natural instincts on hold, while he focuses on his idealisms(read:religious 'calling'), only to find, one day he grows up, and with these newly blossoming urges, he is somewhat at a loss, of having to deal with them. When later, he is a grown man, and now having to deal with these suppressed feelings, because he removed himself, in his youth, to pursue a life of celibacy, the disadvantage for him now, is that he 'missed' a lot of the 'normal' social skills and activities, that one 'normally' develops, when going through puberty, and into post adolescent maturity. Where did he 'leave off'?...when he was 'still a child'. Who does he target? Someone younger, who does not challenge him, or his 'prowess'...most likely, a child. Where does he talk to the child?...He appeals to his naivete, that often the older, projects into the child, as himself...when he, himself was a young idealistic child. The priest may 'appeal and exploit', the child, to his 'sense of being holy' or just use the 'fear of God', to keep his victim silent. The child now suppresses the acts, and/or the feelings he has about the acts, and continues to grow, into both puberty, and post adolescence...just like the perpetrator did. As the younger, now begins to deal with his guilt, conflicting with his own 'blossoming urges', he is now confronted with a 'new' conflict/tension which can become 'unbearable'. If he feels the conflict strong enough, he may open up, and that often evolves into going 'public' with it, which is 'why' so many wait for so long, and a great many of these cases, are made known, YEARS later. The fact that many have gone public with it, also has created an atmosphere, that many feel is 'safer' to expose this behavior sooner. Why young boys? Because that is the 'easiest familiarity' that the priest can appeal to, and manipulate. This is not altogether different, than what happens to young children who have a resentment(which becomes an 'emotional focus') toward one or the other parent of the same gender. When they spend years with that 'unforgiving resentment'...it becomes much akin to our young 'idealistic' candidate for the priesthood. (Use the model above). If I go on much further, all the 'wacksters' will come out of the woodwork with their 'genetic' rap, with is a bunch of hooey, anyway. So I'll leave it at that. Going back to our pedophile priest, being able to understand this, does not in anyway constitute rationalizing it away.,,or lessen the offense. It's just where it comes from. Is it the concept of celibacy? Not necessarily, if the one who takes the vow, is truly dedicated to that kind of work, that celibacy now becomes a tool of freedom, to perform it. Likewise, it can become a burden, for someone who really wasn't that 'ready' to make that kind of commitment, but rather may have been compelled by outside influences. Hope it made sense to you...but I think in fairness to Jim, an explanation may have been in order. Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:38 AM frogprince:"....Alice, I generally find that Guest from Sanity drives me up the wall...." Why drive up a wall....it's dangerous! Frogs have suction thingies that make hanging out on walls a snap! Thanks frogprince. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: VirginiaTam Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:16 AM Is it homosexuality that causes grown men to gratify themselves with young boys or is it merely predatory sexual desire for innocent children? Why the proclivity for boys over girls? Maybe because it was done to them, they need to avenge it. Males tend to externalise the horrible things that happen to them while women internalise. Do these men also prefer sexual experience with grown men? If not, then they are not homosexual. They are simply sexual predators fixated on a specific prey. A prey which is like they once were. Innocent and trusting young boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:25 AM "and it did appear to go more in a direction, that I don't think he was intending for it to go." I didn't 'intend it to go' in any direction; I was passing on information that apparently, judging from the silence on the subject, wasn't genarally available and being discussed elsewhere. I fully expected the homophobes to crawl out of the woodwork, and true to form, you obliged, but thankfully you haven't been able to hi-jack the thread for your own particular brand of bigotry. One of the biggest questions hanging over the affair is, what happens next? We have a situation where a large number of people have been exposed as having committed serious crimes - paedophilia, rape and physical and sexual abuse - on a massive scale and over a long period. What will the law do about this - prosecute - declare an amnesty - what (bearing in mind that one priest alone has been revealed to have raped 100 boys and 1 girl)? How does the heirarchy of the church stand in this matter? They have not only covered up serious crimes, but they have facilitated them by passing on the perpetrators to other parishes and, if the situation got out of hand, on to foreign missions where, apparently, it didn't matter tooo much how the clergy behaved. Surely these are serious crimes in themselves. The Bishop of Limerick was singled out in the Murphy report in particular for his behaviour in this respect, but so far, despite calls for his resignation from office, has decided (to date) that he can 'better serve by remaining bishop'. The enquiries were hampered on several occasions by the church's refusal to pass on relevant documents, claiming it to be a breach of privacy. Serial rape and abuse, collusion, obstructing the course of justice; these are not minor crimes. And the role of the state departments, the police, the politicians... What happens to the many officials and state reperesentatives who knew what was happening and did nothing? And then, the victims themselves , how are they to be recompensed, if at all? And the church's continuing role in education......? I don't belive the issues arising from this affair have even been addressed so far, let alone resolved. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:46 PM Jim Carroll:"..I fully expected the homophobes to crawl out of the woodwork, and true to form, you obliged, but thankfully you haven't been able to hi-jack the thread for your own particular brand of bigotry." Sounds like 'trolling' to me...nonetheless, if you read my post carefully, you will find NOTHING in there remotely resembling 'bigotry', matter of fact, a rather clear understanding, and explanation of the make-up of why, and how pedophile priests, arrive at that, and who, and how they choose their victims. I did not bash the Catholic Church, the priests, or homosexuals. And if I recall, that's what you asked for. May I suggest, growing up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:54 PM I was in the seminary in Milwaukee for eight years, and I'm part of an e-mail group of classmates. Milwaukee's archbishop, Timothy Dolan, was promoted to New York, so Milwaukee got a new guy - and my priest-classmates aren't thrilled. I get the distinct impression that most priests don't like most bishops. Priests are supposed to be spiritual leaders, and most of them put their hearts into their work and do the best they can. Bishops are a different breed. If you look at the resumes of bishops, you'll find that most of them went to Rome for training after college, while most parish priests went to local seminaries. Many bishops had almost no experience in parish work, and many have spent their entire lives in some sort of administrative position. They view the Catholic Church through organizational and financial and authoritarian perspectives, and the spiritual/pastoral concerns are secondary. The level of cluelessness among bishops is very high - although I must admit that there are some good ones. In confronting a case of child molestation, what would you expect from a bishop whose priorities are business and organizational? What would you expect from the chief executive of a health care organization that employed a doctor who was molesting patients? I'm not defending the four archbishops of Dublin. What they did was wrong, terribly wrong - but I AM trying to understand why they did it. I was employed in a parish under a priest who is a wonderful, compassionate pastor - but he is a horrible administrator and a terrible supervisor. The Catholic Church needs people with pastoral skills, which is a function I have filled in a couple of parishes as an employee and as a volunteer. BUT it also needs administrative people, in a pastoral organization where pastoral and organizational priorities often do not coincide. And though it's supposed to be a pastoral organization, it's the organizational interests that win out much of the time, since the bosses are the ones with the organizational priorities. So, it's a mess. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 09 - 03:49 AM "you will find NOTHING in there remotely resembling 'bigotry'," "As a rule, the Catholic clergy is not about homosexuality, but there ARE some bad apples in the bunch" Homosexual = not like me = bad; sounds like bigotry to me bro; if it waddles and quacks it's probably a duck. "and those who do that, either are, or become homosexuals,..." How does one 'become' a homosexual, do they have to fill in a form? I've always taken the view that homophobia is a sign of deep-seated insecurity in an individual's own sexuality - but there you go! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:46 AM Huh???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Smokey. Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:03 PM "I've always taken the view that homophobia is a sign of deep-seated insecurity in an individual's own sexuality" As is groundlessly imagining others to be homophobic. The 'bad apples' are child abusers first and foremost and that is what they should be punished for, particularly taking into consideration the abuse of their position of trust. They do not deserve a place in society, nor do the people who assisted and helped to cover their crimes. Were they not 'men of the cloth', they'd be rotting behind bars by now, and likely as not be receiving the punishment which they so richly deserve, while the screws turn a blind eye - just like the Bishops did. Rape is more about power than it is about sexuality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:52 PM Hats off to Smokey!! He's done his homework, and can, without bias comprehend what he reads!..You got it!!! I really could not figure how in the world Jim Carroll could arrive at the conclusion he came to, unless........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Smokey. Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM Let's try to avoid WW3... So far this has been an interesting and peaceful thread, it'd be nice if it remained so.. One factor so far overlooked is that a significant percentage of the abusers will be former victims of abuse, and a significant percentage of their victims will go on to be abusers. That cycle will have been going on for generations and will continue to do so unless it is somehow stopped. The cycle has to be broken; it's downright madness to provide the opportunity for one priest to abuse a hundred children, and knowingly doing that is about as evil as it gets. Pretending to be representing 'God' whilst committing these crimes doesn't even bear thinking about, and believing it is insane. Perhaps now more of it is being brought to light than ever before, we stand a chance of bringing about the demise of this social disease, or at least reducing it to a minimum. I certainly hope so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:54 AM Just in case it be thought that the church has in any way been chastened by the events brought to light by the Ryan and Murphy Reports and might have actually learnd any lesson; it is claimed in today's Irish Times that "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, directing them to report, solely and exclusively all matters pertaining to child abuse by their clergy, to the Vatican alone, and not to the civil authority. A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin." Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:17 AM That really is a stinker indeed, Jim. It is not universal that there is no shame — I have mentioned before on another thread our surprise in visting LA's beautiful new RC Cathedral 5 or so years ago, on finding a special prayer chapel dedicated to the victims of clerical child abuse. But this papal call for confidentiality is a real chiller. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:51 PM "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, etc." That seems to imply that he knows or assumes there is a lot that hasn't come to light yet. This is a case of too much power in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Building chapels and praying for the victims is an insult - in fact in effect it's little more than investing money in property (U.S.=real estate?) which should have been given to the victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Penny S. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:06 PM Jim, is that recent? That brings out my buried Lewesian anti-potpourriishness. Rooted in the suspicion that the Papacy regarded itself as over-riding the sovereignty of local governments. That members of the church should be instructed to be complicit in covering up a crime, and such a crime, beggars belief. Now if he were instructing church members not to collaborate with local laws of the sort established in Nazi Germany, or possibly about to be enacted in Uganda, that would be one thing. But to propose that crimes which the founder of the church clearly denounced should come under that sort of protection is incredible. Joe, your account of the separate tracks for bishops and priests explains much I have read here. In the Anglicans, the bishops arise from the priests. The admin is separate, as far as I can make out, with characters called Deans, and Archdeans, who have also risen from the parish levels, but are more to do with the fabric and finance, while the bishops do the pastoral stuff. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM "....too much power in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons." In the light of what has happened it would appear that 'the wrong people' are all to be found in the ranks of the church. This is a criminal matter, not a church one. All of this has to be regarded in the light of what is happening here at present. The Vatican has been aware of the situation for a long time and has hampered enquiries by ignoring correspondence. There are calls for a boycott of mass throughout Ireland, the dismissing of every church official who took part in the cover-up, the expulsion of the papal nuncio from Ireland and even a break from Rome altogether. The family of some of the victims of abuse have called for the dismissal of the Bishop there for his part in the affair as well as an enquiry into the diocese of Limerick similar to that just reported on in Dublin. I wonder why the phrase "stop digging" keep coming into my mind! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:24 PM Quite right Jim - it is 'criminal', in every sense of the word, and should be treated as such. I'm glad the Irish people are taking the blinkers off at last. They deserve better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:34 PM "Jim, is that recent?" Sorry Penny - missed yor queston. It came u in today's paper and was, as far as I know, referring to 2 recent letters. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MartinRyan Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM it is claimed in today's Irish Times that "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, directing them to report, solely and exclusively all matters pertaining to child abuse by their clergy, to the Vatican alone, and not to the civil authority. A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin." FWIW Depends what you mean by "recent" - and what you mean by "Pope". It was 2001 and he (the current Pope) wasn't Pope! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: akenaton Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:11 PM Jim never lets accuracy get in the way of a good line...:0) The church should be caned for the cover up...an attempted damage limitation excercise which went wrong. The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys Get your fuckin' heads straight! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: GUEST,beachcomber Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM The ironic thing is that the ancient Christian Church , in Ireland, to around the time of Norman invasion ,had clergy who had wives and families [Therefore a family name "MacanT'aggart" (spelling ?) as someone pointed out.] The earliest Christians also allowed a normal relationship between priests and women. The later pronouncement of the"celibacy"law probably gave rise to various illicit modes of satisfaction.If this rule became one that , in true Irish tradition, was honoured more in the breach than in the observance , one can see the roots of the Irish church's corruption. I know that this abuse is not exclusive to Irish Clergy but, the missionary zeal of Irish priests (and religious organisations) did help to spread catholicism did it not ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Lox Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:49 PM "A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin." What evuidence did the Irish Times provide to support this allegation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MartinRyan Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:21 PM lox My understanding is that the existence of the letters from Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the defence of the Faith ( as I think it's called) is not disputed. I suspect their use of Latin is quite routine. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Lox Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM A lack of dispute does not constitute the same thing as an admission. If you make an accusation against somebody they are under no obligation to acknowledge you in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Lox Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:46 PM Sorry Martin, I missed your post concerning the timeframe etc. Though i would still be curious to know if this "common knowledge" were ever substantiated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MartinRyan Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:01 PM lox A lack of dispute does not constitute the same thing as an admission. I never suggested otherwise. I simply stated the current reported position in Ireland, given that some of the comments in this thread display some ignorance of that position. If and when there is confirmation or otherwise of the claim, I will let you know. More generally, can I reiterate that the core of the PRESENT controversy is the response of the bishops to their own knowledge, over the years, of clerical abuse of children, homosexual and otherwise? To divert that focus to the indisputable horrors of the abuse itself only encourages the tendency of the hierarchy to deplore the abuse and apologise for their own "failure to deal with it". It was not a "failure" but a very successful, as far as it went, strategy to protect the church from "scandal". Until individual bishops face up to this, they - and a dwindling number of conservative Catholics - can wring their hands in anguish - and continue to protect a church which has seriously lost its moral way. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:38 PM "The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys. Get your fuckin' heads straight!" Why is that relevant, Akenaton? Priests get put in charge of boys and nuns get the girls (generally). Ironically they do that (partly) to lessen the opportunity for heterosexual abuse (or 'temptation'). That strategy worked, to some degree, but ultimately backfired in the form of a disproportionate amount of homosexual abuse. To the best of my knowledge, homosexuals don't abuse children any more than anyone else, and I don't see any moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual child abuse. Either way, most of the victims will end up screwed up and about a third of them will go on to be abusers themselves. Some will commit suicide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:53 AM "Jim never lets accuracy get in the way of a good line...:" I passed on the information word for word as I read it - if you know different, please explain, and please trying to score points on this horrendously sordid and tragic affair. "The church should be caned for the cover up" The church has been involved in a cover-up of major crimes and those involved should be treated as criminals. As a correspondent put it in the letters page of the I.T. yesterday, how would it be if a school was found to have paedophile teachers whose behaviour had been covered up by the senior staff; and then it was later discovered that these practices were common to the whole of the education system; would a 'caning' suffice for ALL the perpetrators, abusers and their accomplices? "The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys." Once again; if it is a 'homosexual' affair, it is also a clerical/Catholic/Christian/religious one. Do we treat clerics, Catholics, Christians, and the religiously inclined with the same suspicion and ascertain that they are never entrusted with the care of children again? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:56 AM Should read 'please stop trying to score points' Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Dec 09 - 04:08 AM Okay, since I was spending more time in the studio, instead of on here, I gather that some of you want to: 1. Beat up the church, 2. Overthrow the government for it 3. Deny homosexuality was a factor 4. Hang all priests 5. Argue stupid non-issues, instead of doing anything... ....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!! When you get the truth about it, ignore it, and bitch about, for the sake of bitching, how can an impartial observer come to any conclusion...except jeez there's a lot of bitching in here. Hope they play their guitars better than they make sense...betcha they can't even play with other musicians, because they argue and bitch about everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 05:00 AM "....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!" You can add this to the list of examples of your homophobia. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM "Hang all priests" As far as I can see, nobody has proposed any of the things on your list on this thread, though there is a letter in todays Irish Times, from an American, proposing that the death penalty be brought back in Ireland and applied to those who rape children - which is not far from what Akenaton declared his support for on the 'Death penalty for homosexuality' thread. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:48 PM "....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!" Now that does sound homophobic, though I haven't noticed any sign of 'gayness' here so far. Perhaps because I wasn't looking for it. It's nonsensical to blame homosexuality for what has happened. If it was common practice to put girls in the care of priests the overall level of abuse would be far higher. The problem is that the Catholic church knowingly supports mass child abuse and the Irish government colludes with the church to hide and perpetuate it. Some of those poor kids would have been grateful for a nice cosy gas-chamber. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: GUEST Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM One to follow up is something I heard in the last day or so, that 170.000.000 is to be paid out by the catholic church to victims of this abuse from I think a nuns fund. If this be the case to me it's an admission of guilt, and the lot of them should be sorted out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:39 PM I think Smokey might like to reassess the propriety of his 'nice cosy gas-chamber' formulation, tho I agree that the children's situation was indeed pitiable. |