BS: Catholic come all-ye

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM

This is all well and good, Mary, but your friend Andrew Sullivan didn't tell the whole story, and you have built your whole case on his fallacies. Ratzinger/Benedict did not protect the criminal priest in any way. The priest did his crime, and went to prison. He did not function as a priest after he was convicted.

What Ratzinger/Benedict failed to do, was to follow the schedule and specifications for laicization that Andrew Sullivan demands. Most of the time, laicization has little significance, because the person almost always has stopped functioning as a priest many years before the laicization is finalized. It is important that a sex offender priest has his "faculties" withdrawn by his bishop, so that he is no longer allowed to function as a priest.

But Andrew Sullivan has apparently defined laicization ("defrocking") as the Holy Grail of punishment for sex offender priests, and Mary Garvey apparently believes Mr. Sullivan and his putative expertise in canon law. If Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Garvey seek a Holy Grail, what they should seek is a criminal conviction and a prison sentence for the sex-offender priest. And in this case, the offender was sent to prison, and the issue of laicization is moot.

And Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Garvey are barking up the wrong tree.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 04:49 PM

I believe, but could be corrected, that the priest went to jail for 3 months. He also abused afterwards and was allowed to volunteer with children. Wrong tree? Perhaps. Right tree? Perhaps. I do not care if he is allowed to function as a priest or not. In many situations I would say let him, under full disclosure and supervision. The day will come when we will need every priest we can muster in WWIII or whatever.

I care if he is allowed to function as a child abuser or not. He was. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 04:56 PM

The document trail

Documents detailing efforts begun in the early 1980s by officials of the Catholic Church in California to support the petition of a convicted sex offender, the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, to leave the priesthood.

As Joe said
'It is important that a sex offender priest has his "faculties" withdrawn by his bishop, so that he is no longer allowed to function as a priest.'

which makes the final document dated May 11, 1988 from Maurine Behrend, in the Oakland Diocese's Youth Ministries Office all the more disturbing as she expresses her frustration that "a convicted child molester is currently the youth ministry coordinator at St. Joseph's Parish."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:23 PM

Well, Emma - I would suspect that the person was functioning as a lay volunteer member of a youth ministry team in 1988, and not as a priest. He committed his crimes between November of 1977 and May, 1978, and he ceased functioning as a priest in 1978.
Note the date the ex-priest was serving as a volunteer - 1988. Since about 2005, all but one Catholic diocese in the US has required the fingerprinting of all church employees, and of all volunteers who work with youth. I would hope this convicted criminal would not slip through the cracks nowadays, but it appears that he did - 22 years ago.

-Joe-

P.S. Emma and Mary Garvey are referring to the same case. It took me a little while to figure that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM

OK, I'm not trying to be accusatory here, but what I do wonder is, if you 'believe' in this Church, and also 'ignore' and advocate 'ignoring' the parts you don't like, or don't agree with, why not find another church?

The Episcopal Church is nearly the same as the Catholic, but more personal freedom as far as beliefs, more freedom for women, etc.

I just don't get the 'believe but ignore' part.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:43 PM

Mary, Kiesle was sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory.

When his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.
(see 'the document trail' above)

In his earliest letter to Ratzinger, Bishop John S.Cummins warned that returning Kiesle to ministry would cause more of a scandal than stripping him of his priestly powers.
He informed the Vatican that the priest took a leave of absence and met with a therapist and his probation officer during the three years.
It's not clear from the file where Kiesle lived during those years, but Cummins mentions temporary assignments in neighboring dioceses that never worked out.

Kiesle was ultimately laicized on Feb. 13, 1987 but continued to volunteer with children

After leaving the priesthood he married but was arrested and charged in 2002 with 13 counts of child molestation dating from from the 1970s.
All but two of these were thrown out after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California law extending the statute of limitations.

In 2004 he pleaded no contest to a felony for molesting a young girl in his Truckee home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.

Now aged now 63 he is a registered sex offender and his address islisted on the Megan's Law sex registry.

Bishop Cummins is now retired - he described the situation under the previous Pope as ....

"These things were slow and their idea of thoroughness was a little more than ours. We were in a situation that was hands-on, with personal reaction."

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: beeliner
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:57 PM

Kiesle was sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory.

I said three months in a previous post. Three years is correct. It still seems odd that an offense of that nature was regarded as a misdemeanor.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 05:57 PM

Because every institution and every organization has its faults, Sorcha. So, the choice is to work to fix the places you call your own, or to keep searching for some new place where somebody else has already done the housecleaning.

The Catholic Church is where I come from, and I've lived a good life as a Catholic. The faith it teaches is MY faith, a faith that has brought joy and meaning to my life. I don't like the way some Catholics interpret the faith, but I am not required to accept their interpretation. The Catholic Church has allowed me many opportunities to do what I think ought to be done in the area of serving the poor and the causes of social justice and civil rights and peace. It gives me a platform from which I have been able to teach and serve thousands of people over the years. I am appalled by the widespread child abuse and coverups, but those things are not an integral part of the Catholic Church; and much has been done to fix those problems in the US. And the child molestation and coverups are not as widespread and people seem to think. From 1950-2000 in my diocese for example, the molestations took place in ten to 15 of the 99 parishes in the diocese, and there were ten priests accused out of about 300. And in my diocese, the bishop didn't cover the offenses up.

I suppose I could be an Episcopalian or Lutheran or Unitarian or Methodist or Jew, and I do feel welcomed and comfortable in all of those denominations; but those religious aren't where I come from. The Catholic Church is my home. It has lots of problems, but it is MY home, and where I feel at home. So, I'll stay where I am and continue to work to fix the problems. The problems were horrible - but the vast majority of American Catholics were not affected by them.

Same thing goes for drunk driving. It is indeed a horrible problem - and some people, most scandalously law enforcement officers and politicians, have not been prosecuted for the drunk driving crimes they have committed. There are far too many drunk drivers in my county and some have caused death and serious industry. So, should I move to another county? If I stay here, does that mean I believe in drunk driving?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM

OK, I guess that sorta makes sense. And YES, I DO understand about the Blue Wall. It happens more often than the Public likes to think. I DO know about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 11:53 PM

We are commanded to be Catholics by our church. We didn't seek out a compatible faith. I would probably be a Druid or a Unitarian if we were allowed to do that. I believe people are assigned to religions, like Baptist or Muslim or whatever and must do their best as one of whatever. In my case, my mother was a Baptist, so I consider myself half Baptist/Protestant. I think it is not a good idea to mix religions unless both people are wishy washy or at least one is. I did not have the good part of Catholicism, and there are some fun, pleasant parts, because my mother interpreted everything through her hellfire and damnation Baptistism. I would be a much better Catholic if I had gotten it from both sides of my family, and had experienced the pleasanter parts of it. But to each his or her own. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:43 AM

Well, Mary, I'm sure many Catholic priests worth their salt would tell you to check out the Unitarians if you're unhappy as a Catholic. You'd find a lot of former Catholics there. You also might find a place that would welcome your singing of your wonderful songs.
Modern pagan groups also have much to offer.

I've spent time with both pagans and Unitarians, and I've enjoyed both.
I think God will be happier if you find a religion where you're happy. Life is too short to spend it bogged down in surroundings you hate.

Yes, I'm very happy as a Catholic, but I choose Catholic communities that I think are healthy and where I can feel comfortable. And people will tell you that I was instrumental in fixing a couple of parishes that were not very healthy at one time. One is where I got married, and one is where I am now - and I love both of those congregations.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 03:33 AM

Church of England for me if it's all the same to you - no raving queers for vicars!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:31 PM

"I believe people are assigned to religions, like Baptist or Muslim or whatever ..."

*I* believe that is just silly....(sorry, but I can't think of a circuitous way to say it.)

*I* was raised a Methodist, didn't feel 'right' there, tried being a Unitarian, and that was better, but still a sort of ritual and overlay that was not 'me'...so I quit...and don't belong to any particular group, and haven't for 45 years.
I am aware that being raised in a particular religious tradition can, especially if it was regular & rigorous, imprint certain habits and feelings on one's...'psyche'?...and that is what bothers me.   
   Having certain routines and beliefs deeply imprinted can easily deter a person from looking at alternatives and from recognizing various forms of reasoning.
   I DO see that, if one does choose to remain in the church one is used to and finds strength and comfort in its ideals, that working like Joe Offer does within the group can be both beneficial and satisfying. If more folks did it like Joe does, we'd not need to complain and worry about theological differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:34 PM

Who is it do you figure does the "assigning", Bill? Maybe its something like desks in kindergarten.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:47 PM

No Greg...I'm sure what she means is just what I expanded on: being born into a a group and having it become deeply part of us...I just didn't like the concept that suggests that we NOW have no control or say in the matter.

(well, I hope that's all that was meant. I hope there is no belief that some 'higher power' (even more powerful than kindergarten teachers) do it to us.)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 03:12 PM

We are commanded to be Catholics by our church.

Placing yourself as subordinate to any chain of merely human (and arguably often highly aberrant) managers is entirely your individual responsibility. Your right to leave is a sovereign one that cannot be gainsaid by temporal authority or church officials. A command channel with no-one agreeing to be commanded is much like a war which no-one shows up for.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Lox
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:05 PM

"Church of England for me if it's all the same to you - no raving queers for vicars!"

Monty Python would have disagreed ...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:48 PM

Well, there were people who taught that "outside the (Catholic) Church there is no salvation" (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), and I guess the teaching is still on the books - but even grade school in the 1950's, we were taught all sorts of exceptions and loopholes. Nowadays, even the conservative EWTN has mitigating information on its Website. There was an infamous but very popular Jesuit priest, Father Feeney, who preached a very rigid interpretation of this doctrine that bordered on hatefulness. In an act of delicious irony, the Catholic Church excommunicated Feeney for refusing to back down on his teaching. So, Feeney died "outside the Church."
But to this day, there are Catholics who insist Feeney was right.

I think Jesus saved everyone, bringing the generosity and abundance of divine love to all humanity - but that's my belief, and most of you know I'm a damn liberal.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: beeliner
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:01 PM

So, Feeney died "outside the Church

I seem to remember that the excommunication was lifted shortly before his death.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM

Yeah, I should have read the fine print. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953, but apparently reconciled with the Catholic Church in 1972 and was not required to recant his teachings. He died in 1978.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 09:50 AM

"Church of England for me if it's all the same to you - no raving queers for vicars!"
Wonder if they've got any raving homophobes - if so, you should feel at home
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 10:36 AM

Church of England for me if it's all the same to you - no raving queers for vicars!

I've known quite a few CofE/Anglican/Episcopalian priests over the years (in New Zealand, Scotland and England) and I'd estimate that more than half of them were gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Mooh
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:20 AM

Jack Campin said,
"I've known quite a few CofE/Anglican/Episcopalian priests over the years (in New Zealand, Scotland and England) and I'd estimate that more than half of them were gay."

Based on what?

I've known quite a few myself, starting with my father, many of his friends and colleagues, my parish priests, and many others from places I've visited. I suppose there may be some who might be gay, but half? I doubt it, and I see little evidence that it's even relevant.

I'd like to know what your evidence is.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 11:31 AM

I'd like to see the evidence that the Roman Catholic Clergy has a numerical superiority in pederasts over any other religious denomination or for that matter the population at large.

REAL evidence, not supposition or anecdotal.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 01:56 PM

Church of England for me if it's all the same to you - no raving queers for vicars!

I don't really think that comment was meant to be entirely serious, folks...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 02:16 PM

"REAL evidence, not supposition or anecdotal."
Try Ireland where the church is rapidly heading for burnout.
Two official reports leading to resignations of several bishops - not enough yet, but more to come. Evidence of not only large scale paedophilia stretching over several decades, but also of a culture of abuse within the church, where child-rapists were protected by the hierarchy, who not only did not report their criminal behaviour but moved the abusers on to other parishes to continue their abuse - oh, and then forced the victims into a vow of silence, forbidding them to speak about the atrocities committed against them, except to officers of the very church who facilitated the abuse,
It now turns out that the Catholic Church in Cyprus, Germany, Canada and Switzerland (at least) were at it as well - real enough for you - or maybe it's not just Catholics but a 'Christian' thing?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM

Nice anecdote, Jim, mow where's the evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 02:28 PM

Does anyone really think that if this is happening in Norway and the Netherlands that is not really happening in in far worse numbers in countries with greater social and economic problems? Places where there are practically public markets for child sex trade? Places where errant priests were sometimes sent to get rid of them? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 02:35 PM

"Does anyone really think that if this is happening in Norway and the Netherlands that is not really happening in in far worse numbers in countries with greater social and economic problems? Places where there are practically public markets for child sex trade?"

Using the RC Church's own logic, one would expect the behaviour to occur at least in the same statistical number in most areas(though one could suspect in greater numbers in some of the areas noted. That alone would justify the logic behind a belief that there are much more than reported yet....and it is likely the RC church knows of some of these, if not all that have not been made public. Thus the call to come clean and open the books, since many of these would be considered crimes in most if not all societies.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 02:43 PM

I've known quite a few CofE/Anglican/Episcopalian priests over the years (in New Zealand, Scotland and England) and I'd estimate that more than half of them were gay.
Based on what?

Based on them telling me. You can be a gay priest in the CofE (in the places I've lived, anyway) without anybody being very bothered about it. And that's been the case for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 03:31 PM

I would like to point out that in the Kiesle case that is the main subject of this thread, the molester/priest committed his crimes between November of 1977 and May, 1978, and he ceased functioning as a priest in August, 1978. He remained a priest until he was laicized in 1987, but was not allowed to function as a priest after 1978. His local bishop, John Cummins, took action and removed him from ministry as soon as the crimes were discovered. He was prosecuted for his crime. He received a suspended 3-year jail sentence and was on probation. Perhaps not the severe sentence he deserved, but that's a matter for the criminal justice system. Child molestation is one of the hardest crimes for a prosecutor to prove, so criminal charges are often settled by plea bargain, dismissed, or never filed. After his completion of probation, he was most likely forgotten - I'm afraid that happens a lot in a free society. And since he was a child molester, he continued to seek opportunities to have contact with children - by volunteering to work with youth groups.
But do note that in this case, the local bishop took action quickly and removed the priest from ministry. The fact that laicization took a long time, is moot - the man did not function as a priest after his bishop removed him from ministry.

The previous thread discussed the case of Lawrence C. Murphy, who served at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from 1950 to 1974. The Archbishop of Milwaukee forced Murphy to resign in 1974, because of allegations of sexual abuse of children at the school. After that, Murphy lived in a home his family owned in far northern Wisconsin. He was never given an official assignment as a priest after his removal in 1974, but he served occasionally as a vacation substitute, celebrating Mass at various churches in his area. There were no incidents of sexual misconduct reported after 1974. He died in 1998, still a priest - but never had a job as a priest after he was removed from employment in 1974. Again, the local bishop took action, and also referred the case to local law enforcement authorities, who did not file charges.

Most likely, both of these cases could have been handled better. Most likely, every criminal case could have been handled better. But the fact of the matter is that both of these cases were handled by church authorities, and the priest-molesters were removed from ministry.

But Andrew Sullivan and other reporters are out to get Rome, so they've set the standards higher. They seem to be using these two cases to attempt to prove that Rome wasn't doing its job. Even though these cases were handled locally and the priest/molesters were removed from ministry, Sullivan and the others now thing the case isn't complete until Rome puts its imprimatur on the whole thing by laicizing the offending priest with alacrity. It's like demanding that President Obama sign off on the sentence of every criminal in Tucumcari - and if Obama doesn't, then he's "soft on crime." If a priest is not allowed to function as a priest, laicization offers little benefit to anyone. The priest is still technically required to remain celibate and to obey his bishop in clerical matters, so laicization allows him to get married in the Catholic Church and to function in the Catholic Church as a lay person. The unlaicized priest who is not allowed to function as a priest, is somewhat of a pariah in the Catholic Church. Seems to me, that Mr. Sullivan should prefer the criminal priest to remain a pariah. But yes, punitive laicization is a clear sign that Rome disapproves of child molestation. It just seems to me that it misses the point. The main things are to remove the priest-molester from ministry and to refer him to criminal prosecution. If the local bishop has done that, then I think he's done his duty. And if the bishop has done what he's supposed to do, there's no need for Rome to do anything further.

It's true that Catholic neoconservatives contend that the only true authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope, so they don't completely trust any decision that hasn't been made in Rome. But that isn't the way the Catholic Church is supposed to work. The Pope is "primus inter pares" (first among equals); but in most situations, the buck is supposed to stop at the desk of the local bishop. If the local bishop fails to handle an incident of child abuse or molestation, that's another matter. If Mr. Sullivan has his way, then Rome will be involved in every such case - thus furthering the "cult of the pope" and limiting the autonomy of local dioceses. No, thank you, Mr. Sullivan - I prefer that Rome keeps its grimy political hands out of the day-to-day activities of my parish and my diocese. And I'm mad as hell that Rome has rejected the American translations of prayers Americans use at Mass, and that Rome is investigating women religious (nuns) in the U.S.

The crimes against children in the Catholic Church and the subsequent coverups were a horrible thing. But as I've said before, the vast majority of parishes had no such crimes, and the vast majority of bishops did not cover up the crimes that happened in their dioceses. Please remember that the number of priest-molesters was about five percent. I have no data on the number of bishops who covered up crimes - but I suspect the number is far lower than people might think.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:26 PM

There was a fifteen million dollar settlement in Eastern Canada, paid
out to sexual abuse victims by priests, and the parishoners were told
that the money would come from the collection plates.
The parishoners in that area think that the Vatican should be paying
that money, but they won't.
The bishop of that diocese was then charged of possession and trafficking child pornography, and is now being charged of sexual abuse.

The Catholic Church is in real trouble, because this scandal has taken
place in several countries, and people are now leaving the church
because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:28 PM

I think Jesus saved everyone

If Bonzo's saved, I don't want to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:31 PM

The serious fault has been where there has been a failure to stop child abusers having continued opportunities to abuse, and that is a terrible fault. It seems to have arisen primarily out of attempts to avoid scandal.

However in itself seeking to deal with this kind of thing out of public view is not an unreasonable thing to do - the failure lay in doing so in ways that did not recognise that the absolute priority has to be the welfare of the children involved.

I think it's reasonable to hope that that isn't going to happen these days. Here's a quote from a typical contemporary diocesean policy: "The diocese confirms that in matters of the alleged abuse of children the 'Paramount Principle' will be maintained, that is the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the protection of children.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:44 PM

and the vast majority of bishops did not cover up the crimes that happened in their dioceses.

Is this really true? I am under the impression that exactly the opposite was true. Is there any example of any bishop who went to the police first? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM

Joe, I posted the link to the 'document trail' to demonstrate that the local bishop and clergy had indeed handled the situation with the convicted Kiesle 'correctly'; although, retrospectively, it may have been better to have approached this as a referral of "graviora delicta" rather than a request for laicization from Kiesle himself
However we are not made aware of any supporting material about the criminal case so it's not possible to claim a Vatican 'cover up' in any form in this case just a resistance to 'release' a young priest.


The only thing I disagree with you about that is that is a 'moot point' as the case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins during which California church officials wrote to Ratzinger at least three times to check on the status of Kiesle's case and he returned to suburban Pinole (where he had served as associate pastor from 1972 to 1975) in 1985 to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, even though it appears apparent that he was not actually functioning as a priest at this time but was also not a member of the laiety either!

It was two more years before Kiesle was removed from the priesthood

The Catholic Church, because of its size, has much in common with the largest super tanker and appears to be unable to react with any alacrity or, it would appear, identification with the local situation even, in the time that it took to deal with the communications - it is maybe here that changes also need to be made.


Joe, I have respect for people who continue to fight for what they believe in within an organization - I myself attempted this for several years too although, in my case, to no avail except some personal distress. and disillusionment.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 05:22 PM

"Evidence...."
The evidence is in two official reports published and accepted both by the church and the Irish State. Try googling The Ryan and Murphy reports, then Letterfrack and Ferns Industrial schools, that'll give you a head start. There are other investigatiions in the offing in diocese not yet investigated, not to mention the behaviour of those who had charge of the young women in the Magdalene Laundries who were sexually and physically abused while under their 'protection'. Then there's Canada, Cyprus, Germany and Switzerland to hit the fan yet.
The Pope has yet to answer charges of collusion in the German abuses - but, of course - he won't.
The only question hanging over the whole affair is why the abusers and their accomplices haven't been banged up for their crimes and the real mystery is why the Catholic Church is allowed anywhere near children given the atrocities committed by the clergy.
I do hope you enjoyed your trip to The Planet Zog - you obviously haven't spent too much time on this one over the last couple of years!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM

Click here for the database of bishop-accountability.org. This is an organization that is very critical of the bishops' handling of the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the U.S. This database attempts to keep track of all the accusations against priests in the US, and their handling and disposition.
As you can see, there are lots of instances where the cases were horribly mishandled. BUT you will also see that most of the time, the bishops did deal with the cases, and did not cover them up. Many, many cases were referred to law enforcement authorities for prosecution, and many of these molesters were convicted of criminal offenses. There were coverups, but the coverups were relatively rare.
There is no excuse for the crimes and coverups that did occur - but it is important to remember that, as with any crime, the vast majority of people did not participate in the crime in any way. It's easy to get a distorted view of crime from the newspapers, and some people live in constant fear of crime because of what they read.
Politicians are constantly accusing each other of being "soft on crime" - but the fact of the matter is that almost nobody approves of crime. Different people deal with crime in different ways. It IS a serious problem, but life goes on despite it.
The sex crimes in the Catholic Church ARE a serious problem - but those crimes are no reason for people to stop feeding the hungry and visiting the sick and burying the dead. Life goes on, despite crime. And most people, aren't criminals.

Jim Carroll, with his usual dramatic flair, says, "the real mystery is why the Catholic Church is allowed anywhere near children given the atrocities committed by the clergy." Following Jim's flawless logic, I suppose one could also say, "the real mystery is why adult males are allowed anywhere near children given the atrocities committed by adult males." The percentage of adult males committing crimes against children, is about the same as the percentage of Catholic priests committing those crimes - even in Ireland.

Now, Jim, let me make it clear that I do not approve of crimes against children in any way. I just think it is unfair to suspect every priest or every member of any class* of such crimes. If the crimes are committed, then prosecute the criminals - not their families, not their neighbors, and not their religious affiliations.

-Joe Offer-


*class: any group of people having some characteristic in common. This word is sometimes used to refer to social and economic classes, but that is not the only meaning of the word.

Emma - your "document trail" referred to the same case for which Mary Garvey condemns the Pope. I was referring to Mary's comments, not to yours. It may be that the Pope was guilty of wrongdoing in connection with the child abuse and molestation - that has yet to be proved.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: GUEST,MG
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:10 PM

Adult males should not be alone with children. Neither should adult females, some of whom are monsters. Everyone pretty much knows that. For their own protection as well as that of children.

And here is a story about my theology or philosophy professor at my Alma Mater, Seattle University..Father Toulouse.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:34 PM

Jim Carroll:

The situation you cite in Ireland - if factual- doesn't answer the questions I asked. Try again.

Mary:

Does anyone really think that if this is happening in Norway and the Netherlands that is not really happening ......I am under the impression.....

To hell with your "impressions" & what you, and others, subjectively suppose- what can you document?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:41 PM

Adult males should not be alone with children. Neither should adult females

Presumably children shouldn't be alone with other children either, given some of the stuff that can happen.

Groups of people can do pretty awful stuiff too.

Maybe if everyone avoids being in anybody else's company at anytime, that would be best.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 06:47 PM

There was an Isaac Asimov story about that -- the planet where everybody lived miles from the next person, and they talked by the 1950s equivalent of Skype™ video. Seemed an unfortunate place. But no doubt safer than here. Although the novel was about a murder on said planet, so maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 05:46 AM

"The situation you cite in Ireland - if factual- doesn't answer the questions I asked. Try again."
The situation in Ireland is most certainly factual - and becoming more so as further information is winkled out.
Is there any proof that The Catholic church is the worst? It is the one that has been examined and found very much wanting; if it is not the worst then a question-mark has been placed over all religions - which is fine by me. The behaviour of the Catholic clergy (as a whole) is horrific enough to condemn it to its own hell - even if it continues to evade earthly justice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM

The situation in Ireland is factual, all right. Plenty of proof out there if you care to look.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:36 AM

"the vast majority of parishes had no such crimes, and the vast majority of bishops did not cover up the crimes that happened in their dioceses. Please remember that the number of priest-molesters was about five percent. I have no data on the number of bishops who covered up crimes - but I suspect the number is far lower than people might think".

Where is the proof of all that?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 08:05 AM

Five percent Joe - where did that come from? I get a little tired in pointing out the extent and time limits of the two enquiries held so far.
As far as the cover-up - that extended from fellow priests to, directly, at least three Popes.
It wasn't just a few abuses but a whole culture of abuse - accepted and covered up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:18 AM

PS - Even if I accepted the five percent figure, which I don't, or not without some proof to back it up, considering the size of the Catholic Church that's a lot of abuse by a lot of people.
Jim Carrill

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:40 AM

Ya gonna get around to addressing my questions with factual information any time soon, Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Mooh
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:57 AM

I've known quite a few CofE/Anglican/Episcopalian priests over the years (in New Zealand, Scotland and England) and I'd estimate that more than half of them were gay.
Based on what?

Based on them telling me. You can be a gay priest in the CofE (in the places I've lived, anyway) without anybody being very bothered about it. And that's been the case for decades.

Seems like a high percentage to me, but I'll take your word for it.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 12:26 PM

"Ya gonna get around to addressing my questions with factual information any time soon, Jim? "
What 'factual' information are you looking for? The habitual rapes and sexual abuse is a matter of record - see the Murphy and the Ryan reports (I suggest you let your own fingers do the walking on that one) but to give you a hand www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/ .
If you are suggesting that other churches exceeded the Catholic score - fine by me - why aren't they banged up as the RC perpetrators should be?
What is your point - that none of it happened, or it was ok that it did because other churches were at it as well?
Jim Carroll
PS - Failing to find an concise summary of the report - here is the nearest bite-size one I could come up with.

'Endemic' rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care, inquiry finds
Beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children, Ryan report states

Rape and sexual molestation were "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages, a report revealed today.
The nine-year investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades terrorised thousands of boys and girls in the Irish Republic, while government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rape and humiliation.
The high court judge Sean Ryan today unveiled the 2,600-page final report of Ireland's commission into child abuse, which drew on testimony from thousands of former inmates and officials from more than 250 church-run institutions. Police were called to the news conference amid angry scenes as victims were prevented from attending.
More than 30,000 children deemed to be petty thieves, truants or from dysfunctional families – a category that often included unmarried mothers – were sent to Ireland's austere network of industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages and hostels from the 1930s until the last facilities shut in the 1990s.
The findings prompted the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, to say that it took "courage" for those clergy involved in child sex abuse to confront their actions. In an interview to be broadcast tonight on ITV News at Ten, he said: "I think of those in religious orders and some of the clergy in Dublin who have to face these facts from their past which instinctively and quite naturally they'd rather not look at. That takes courage, and also we shouldn't forget that this account today will also overshadow all of the good that they also did."
The Irish Survivors of Child Abuse (Isoca), an organisation set up to help victims, condemned the newly appointed head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales for his remarks.
"Rubbish is too kind of word for what the archbishop has said. I believe I have heard this kind of twaddle uttered by politicians in Ireland like Bertie Ahern, the former prime minister. It is the verbiage of un-reason and it leaves me cold. What the Archbishop really has to do is take a long hard look at the character and nature of the people he is talking about and ask himself if they are capable of being good," said Patrick Walsh.
The report found that molestation and rape were "endemic" in boys' facilities, chiefly run by the Christian Brothers order, and supervisors pursued policies that increased the danger. Girls supervised by orders of nuns, chiefly the Sisters of Mercy, suffered much less sexual abuse but instead endured frequent assaults and humiliation designed to make them feel worthless.
"In some schools a high level of ritualised beating was routine ... Girls were struck with implements designed to maximise pain and were struck on all parts of the body," the report said. "Personal and family denigration was widespread."
The report concluded that when confronted with evidence of sex abuse, religious authorities responded by transferring offenders to another location, where in many instances they were free to abuse again.
"There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse," the report said. "The safety of children in general was not a consideration."
The Catholic church had been steeling itself for the report, which was repeatedly delayed by church lawsuits, missing documentation and alleged government obstruction.
The Christian Brothers delayed the investigation for more than a year with a lawsuit that successfully defended their members' right to anonymity in all references in the report, even in cases in which individual Christian Brothers had been convicted of sexual and physical attacks on children.
The church had already been under fire over the sexual misbehaviour of several priests in various Irish parishes. The commission's experts have sought to produce a comprehensive portrait of sexual, physical and emotional damage inflicted on the child victims. The thousands of survivors said they had no safe way to tell their stories until the investigation began because much of Irish Catholic society regarded them as liars.
Isoca today said it was now up to the Vatican to investigate its religious orders in the republic.
John Kelly, the Isoca co-ordinator in Dublin, said: "Now that the Ryan [Laffoy] commission is finished, we call upon ... Pope Benedict XVI to convene a special consistory court to fully investigate the activities of the Catholic religious orders in Ireland.
"Amongst other things, such a court could establish the whereabouts of Irish state assets that were misappropriated over many years by the religious orders and make restitution to the Irish state exchequer."
During the commission's investigations, oral evidence was collected from more than 1,000 people, mainly aged from their 50s to 70s.
Several hundred travelled back to Ireland from the US and Australia to describe their childhood of terror and intimidation.
One victim, John Walsh, of Isoca, called the report a hatchet job that left open wounds gaping. "The little comfort we have is the knowledge that it vindicated the victims who were raped and sexually abused," he said.
"I'm very angry, very bitter, and feel cheated and deceived. I would have never opened my wounds if I'd known this was going to be the end result. It has devastated me and will devastate most victims because there is no criminal proceedings and no accountability whatsoever."
The commission's original judge, Mary Laffoy, resigned from her post in 2003 over claims that the Irish department of education – which was in charge of inspecting the orphanages and industrial schools – was refusing to hand over documents to her.