 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Feb 16 - 03:18 AM "Sinn Fein/IRA" Much of this dates back to the campaign carried out by Ireland's leading parties a year or so ago to check the rise in popularity of Sinn Fein among the electorate, Up to the revelations of mass clerical abuse in Ireland, Irish politicians and the establishment were aware of what was happening and did nothing to stop clerical abuse - that's what happens when religion and politics become inseparable. Britain has also had several cases of politicians and members of The Establishment getting away with accusations of abuse - politicians tend to look after their own and their parties - that's politics for you. Just come back from seeing the remarkable new film 'Spotlight' set around the exposure of clerical abuse in Boston by the Boston Globe - every bit as essential as Mea Culpa. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 16 - 12:44 AM The first moment when an arbitrary datum is thrown into a problem or a sdolution, the issue represented by that problem or solution becomes more complex and less solveable. This issue has been wildly complicated by (a)Authoritarian doctrine such as papal or biblical decrees introducing data that do not align or make sense (b) arbitrariness such as codes of rightness and wrongness based not on native ethics but on authority (c) Data which when looked for is not found to exist. So it is little wonder that the situation looks complex and hard to understand. There is a set of data which derives from natural physical and /or spiritual laws. Departures from natural laws breeds complexity and impenetrability in problems and solutions. The rest is left ads an exercise to the student seeking understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Feb 16 - 12:29 AM there are several things going on right now. first of all the pope wants us to be nice to lutherans. fine. i will do that and throw in some unitarians. there is the peter saunders case. there is the irish priest in florida who went to the police about an indian priest who showed child pornography to a teen. bishop says he is a liar and mentally ill and the diocese went to the police first. i will say the priest seemed to cross police boundaries by doing his own investigation first it seems..then there is the handicapped seminarian whom the fbi caught trying to buy or adopt a mexican baby for the purpose of raping her. have we heard one word from the pope or a bishop ..other than the one who called the irish priest a liar..or a cardinal..not that i have come across. there is stuff going on in guam, chile, germany. it is all totally sick and corrupt and rotten to the core. oh i did assemble the cd and did get it out to some survivors but not enough..how can i getit on internet so i can just give them a link... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 06 Feb 16 - 07:04 PM Peter Saunders is somebody inside the church with guts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35514071 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Oct 14 - 07:54 PM Would you classify This as abuse?? Not exactly 'clerical'...but clearly political...for a T shirt company... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Oct 14 - 11:30 AM Sinn Fein/IRA are accused of the same behaviour they were so outraged by in the Catholic Church. Irish Times yesterday. "There were tense exchanges in the Dáil when the Taoiseach turned Leaders' Questions back on Adams, challenging him to confirm if he knew if Cahill had been required to attend in a room with three men and her abuser. He also asked Adams if he was aware of people being moved to the Republic, having been involved in sexual abuse in the North. An angry Adams denied the "allegations that have been made about me and about Sinn Féin members who assure me that all they did, in their engagements, conversations and their work with Maíria Cahill, was to help her". Later, in a statement, Adams apologised to victims of abuse who were let down or failed by the IRA's inability to resolve these issues. He said those who wish to should report complaints to the appropriate authorities, North or South." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 27 Jun 12 - 03:40 PM here is an article I came upon...mostly about how they sent Jesuit pedophiles to Alaska. I was familiar with Father Toulouse... http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 27 Jun 12 - 03:11 PM There are too many scandals to prop up any more. Note how quickly a bishop cavorting on a beach (not that that is in itself a scandal) is gone compared to those who covered up, enabled, possibly practiced child abuse themselves...we need to really really understand what is going on and it is endemic and very very protected. Why? How did it get to be a protected activity? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 27 Jun 12 - 11:22 AM the attempt to bankrupt snap will back fire and make even more people thing ther bishops council is stafed by evil men, monsignior lynn was just convicted of child endangermanr in pennslyvannia.he covered up priestly abuse and sent them to new parrishes with no warning, his defense was the cardinal made him do it. the eichmann defense. the lynn conviction is hopefully the neginning of the end. there are similar investigations going on in many states and other countries. after a few dozen enablers go to jail maybe they will take the issue seriously. the cstholic church has proved it will not govern itself so it's up tp others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 26 Jun 12 - 09:34 PM Meanwhile: if you're a bishop and get caught snogging a woman on a beach, you're out of a job in a week: the sacking of Bishop Bargallo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 21 Mar 12 - 11:22 PM The truth has to come out and those who try to stop it will have to face their maker same as the rest of us...I would not want to be in their place on judgement day. I have two songs about this I think in DT and maybe further up this thread..one is called Boston Grandmother I think to tune of Boston Burglar and one is Boys of Mount Cashel. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST Date: 21 Mar 12 - 07:33 PM The latest atrocity is the orchestrated attempt by the bishops to bankrupt the leading victims advocate group, SNAP. They seek nothing more than to silence victims and to put them in fear of coming together or of working together for justice. Shameful! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Mar 12 - 09:17 PM I probably said it before..know I have..but remember the handsome Cuban priest..Father Cutie I think his name really was..he had a TV and/or radio show..fell in love, frolicked on the beach with a woman..it took the Vatican about 3 days to get rid of him..how long does it take to get rid of someone abusing boys? Or girls? Decades? What is going on? I know it is not just the priests...it is the parents who raised them on orders from on high...a sick culture combined with poverty combined with threats of damnation and belief that somehow someone in authority must know what they are doing...I was raised to be this way..hopefully I escaped it..but a combination of a religiously narcisstic mother and a sick institution..plus we had a notorious priest in our parish..it is not hard at all for me to see how these priests are produced. But I can not understand why they are or were kept in places they could keep on offending..who creates the bishops? Who created this pope? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 20 Mar 12 - 07:50 PM Think the bottom of the barrel has been scraped? ... think again. The Catholic Church in the Netherlands got boys castrated for going to to the police about being raped: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17453849 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:08 PM The saga continues. Pope Benedict has now, in a move that is seen as a slap on the wrist of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin who called for accountability, rejected the resignation of Bishops Raymond Field and Eamonn Walsh. Both men tendered their resignation in the wake of the Murphy report. Report in The Irish Times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:01 PM Interesting letter in the Irish Times on the subject last week, summarised; "Given the revelations of child abuse - why on earth should any sensible woman WANT to be a priest?" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Jul 10 - 02:44 PM It does seem a little perplexing that they can slough off all those awful things, barely acknowledge the Inquisition etc., and get apoplectic about bishops ordaining women..big story in Oregonian today about women priests. Sinead O'Connor was ordained some time ago. It is not a particular ax I have to grind with the church whether women are ordained or not, but it is very important to some people. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Amos Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:16 AM It is curious how these hierarchical, paternalistic, abusive structures emerge from the chaos of human society, corral their share of minions, and harness their energies, for better or worse, into perpetuating the hierarchy and the authority. Monarchies, Popery, professorships in large universities, and military hierarchies have similar patterns. Of course, some of these organizations have used their combined resources to do some good things, but the salient ugly accomplishments--child abuse, wars, crusades, inter-group hatreds--definitely seem to outweigh the grandiose accomplishments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 09:55 AM The LAURIE GOODSTEIN and DAVID M. HALBFINGER articles referred to in the link I provided below. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16vatican.html?ref=laurie_goodstein http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02pope.html?ref=laurie_goodstein |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 09:49 AM Vatican equates pedophilia with the ordination of women? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM I dunno, Jack. I can't find much information corroborating the Liebreich book, other than an endorsements at ianpaisley.org and similar anti-Catholic Websites. Amazon cites Liebreich's credentials:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Jul 10 - 01:14 PM I came across this book today: Karen Liebreich: Fallen Order Describes how a similar crisis arose in the 17th century and how the Church dealt with it then (not very well). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jul 10 - 01:05 AM ollaimh says: i would like to remind people that child molestation is criminal and evil. that covering up and protecting child molestors is criminal and evil
ollaimh also says: and further that caling the victums bigots is almost as evil
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 06 Jul 10 - 08:43 PM i noticed that this year the papal state police and the italian police didn't arrest the canadian natves and natives friends during their protest for the return of their dead childrens remains. they have been asking for the return of theirdead childrens remains for years and in the last fewyears they were arrested every year. i guess that the italian press are noticing and the vatican realizes that they can't fight on all fronts at once. at least fifty thousand native children died of preventable diseases in residential schools, with death rate of about fifty per cent. the school senior inspector a dr bryce called the situation "criminal" and he was duly drummed from the civil service. amazingly then church authorities sasy they don't know what happened to these children who were their legal wards. the canadian group performed an exorcismin st peters square as they do every year.first time they were not arrested. i can't imagine the wickedness and evil of people who won't even give the dead chldren back to their relatives for burrial, and have no cemetaries of their own. i'm told the situation is similar in the united states but we know the children were forced into these schools and never returned, fifty thousand at least, possibly three times that, no one responsible thought it mattered to count natives. but then these natives are probably bigots |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Greg B Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM I would commend to you the following charity: http://www.road-to-recovery.org/ Two of my priest friends founded it. Both have been tireless advocates for survivors. One, Rev. Bob Hoatson is a survivor of abuse by Catholic Clergy. Both have gotten into considerable hot water. They are dedicated to giving direct and material help to survivors of abuse by clergy and religous who are in need. They'll pay the rent--- drive them to appointments, help them find therapy or legal representation. Whatever is needed at the time. Believe me, their view of the whole situation is much more aligned with those who've been accused, here and elsewhere, of being 'bigoted' or 'anti-Catholic/anti-Christian/anti-Religion.' And they're priests. One in "good standing" the other suspended because he dared to sue his own diocese for the abuses he suffered and for their conspiracy to cover it up and to destroy him because he told the truth. But they're doing good, direct, work with survivors in need. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 06 Jul 10 - 02:09 PM and what was the comment about trolls about ? akenaton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 06 Jul 10 - 02:04 PM i would like to remind people that child molestation is criminal and evil. that covering up and protecting child molestors is criminal and evil and further that caling the victums bigots is almost as evil the catholic church has covered up these abuses in every country they operate in. if they ever want a claim to spiritual authority they have to stop blaming the victums( a priest in nova scotia recently said again the milestors are often seduced-amazing). and start bringing criminal charges and opening all records to the public authorities. the last will never be done , unfortunately. t this day the catholic church withholds their own evidence of abuses from the civil authorities. this is criminal and evil. just because the powerfull can get away with flouting the law, does not make it right to do so |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 Jul 10 - 10:35 AM Pope launches team to 're-evangelise' the West http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/7861377/Pope-launches-team-to-re-evangelise-the-West.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:03 AM Where's all the brave troll hunters today then? Is it only those who disagree with our particular views who qualify as "trolls"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 03 Jul 10 - 10:21 PM one more point, the rral delusions of the enablers and apologists are revealed by their thought that people are attacking the catholic church(and other churcjes), they are not, they are defending themselves. the powerfull usually get away with any behavior towards the weal poor disenfranchised and young , but occasionally the above victums rise up and resist. in greater and greater numbers. it can be ugly. the abused are often warped and permanently traumatized by the abuse and oppression but when they resist the real face of the abusive appears. its the power full who are bing discriminated aginst, its the empires that are being abused. in fact poor weak yong and disenfranchised people are resisting their oppression. an oppression that has gone on for centuries and towards the hundreds of thousands. its hard to see things from the point of view of the disenfranchised but that is the essential message of christ. take on the sins of the world. accept responsibility , accept the suffering. don't demonize the resisters who are just defending themselves from the in excusable |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 03 Jul 10 - 09:38 PM the people who are expressing their anger at the catholic church are not bigots. in fact joe your stated efforts to deal with the problems seem to me to have been a total failure due to your delusional thinking. the catholic church(along with otherts) has engaged in genocide and physical and sexual abuse on a mass scale in many countries with almost np attempt to discipline this behavior untill outside authorities have forced them to respond. the suffering of the victus makes them very vunerable to attacks like joes unwarranted accusations of bigotry. the real bigots are the racisists and sexists and autority abusers in the catholic church and if you don't see that you are the problem joe. catholics with their heads in the sand. as i said i saw a public discussion in ontario by catholics saying they have to stop talking for three year and listen, listen listen. you are excusing and enabling genocide sexual perversion and you accusations and response couldn't be more despicable nor more fundamentally evil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 May 10 - 08:16 PM I suppose I meant whoever sends the instructions out telling bishops to keep quiet about reported cases of child abuse, etc. My point, mostly in answer to mg's post, was that in my opinion ordinary innocent Catholics should not feel they are in any way to blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 25 May 10 - 06:49 PM Well, the bishops are the hierarchy. The bureaucracy in Rome is the Curia - but they are supposed to be subordinate to the bishops. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 May 10 - 01:29 PM It looks to me like the church hierarchy enabled and instructed instructed the bishops to do the covering up. It's quite possible that even some of the offending priests were not aware of that at the time. In theory, we elect (and pay) governments and local authorities to be responsible for the supervision of the offending establishments. We pay dearly for a justice system to deal with those who slip through the net. We give up a slice of our freedom for these things. Whilst I can appreciate, in Christian terms, why the church would pray for the perpetrators and facilitators, the view from the outside seems to be that they are merely praying for themselves and the church. It should be a strictly private thing, confined to the the mind of the individual doing the praying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 25 May 10 - 05:06 AM I don't know...keep them separate but we have all enabled the bishops to do what they do by our passivity and fear. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 25 May 10 - 03:04 AM "praying for both the victims and the perpetrators of crime." That's fine, but not in the exact same breath because it implies a parity between the victim and the perpetrator. A Priest might feel that both need prayers equally. Strictly in terms of *spiritual* ministering - if there is any power of intercession - they might be right at that after all it's the abuser (and those who enabled him) who has corrupted himself spiritually. But to do so publicly rubs salt in the wound for the abused. Prayers for perpetrators can be done separately or not publicly at all. In fact I'd say prayers for the Catholic Priests and Bishops who enabled them, is an internal Church matter. It aught not be for the congregation to spiritually minister to the Church and its sins IMO, but the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 May 10 - 12:43 AM It's gone very quiet all of a sudden around here.. Must be the weather or something.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 24 May 10 - 08:54 PM In the U.S., there are two organizations who have proven their credibility in representing victims in the child molestation scandal:
Oh....and click here to access the page on the Frontline television program called The Hand of God, priest sexual abuse from the victim's point of view. The question of how to show sympathy to victims of sexual abuse is a tough one. I have had several situations, mostly in my work as a government investigator, when somebody has revealed being a victim of a sexual offense. I found it hard to know what to say, until I figured out that all they wanted me to do was listen. So, I learned to listen, and to ask questions that enabled the person to say more. It was a funny feeling, being a government investigator doing exactly was I was supposed to be doing for my employer, and yet being able to help victims of crimes by just listening sympathetically. I know of Catholic dioceses that have had "reconciliation and healing" gatherings for victims of priest sexual abuse. These gatherings were well-received. Another tough question was brought up above - praying for both the victims and the perpetrators of crime. Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) struggled with that problem in her death row ministry in Louisiana. She didn't find any easy answers, but she continued to minister to inmates and then began to also minister to their victims. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 24 May 10 - 07:54 PM Correction, their sort-code seems to be wrong. I've emailed them for some details. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 24 May 10 - 07:36 PM Oh well, do it yourself, Smokey. Here we go: The Alliance Victim Support Group I've just transferred my donation - who's next? How to donate. As we say in these parts, 'put yer brass where yer gobs are'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 24 May 10 - 05:52 PM Good songs, Bob & MG. These victims need moral and financial support to fight their court battles. Does anyone know the name or have any contact details of the people/charity/group in Ireland who are organising that? There are plenty more battles to be fought in Ireland and elsewhere yet, and these poor sods need to know that there are people out here who actually care enough to do more than just shout on internet forums. They are up against one of the most powerful organisations in the world, don't forget. I don't care if you're Catholics, Methodists Buddhists, devil worshippers or cheese-fanciers: - Get your hands in your pockets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bob the Postman Date: 24 May 10 - 09:20 AM Check out the song in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 24 May 10 - 02:07 AM I just found out about a song by a Hanrahan who sang with Ronnie Drew. In The garden of roses Where you came by Beautiful roses The eyes of a child In Your secret desire You cut it all down Now petals lay scattered on tainted ground in the garden of roses beautiful roses how your temple has fallen The walls cave in we witness the sanctum in their evil sin but a river once frozen deep in the mind flows on like a river should in the eyes of a child in a garden of roses beautiful roses in the garden of roses where you came by In the Garden of Roses beautiful roses In the Garden of Roses A river once frozen Down deep in the mind Flows on like a river should In the eyes of a child In the garden of roses Beautiful roses In the garden of roses Beautiful roses |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 May 10 - 09:31 PM Another possible idea might be some sort of mp3 download site where members can upload tracks they want to contribute, or pay a bit per track to download, the proceeds going directly to the charity. That could also serve (at the very least) as a sort of music-exchange for Mudcatters to be able to hear each other's stuff, and with a far greater choice of material. It might generate more than selling a CD, and with much less capital outlay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 May 10 - 07:57 PM We should have a really beautiful Latin hymn..Panis Angelicus as sung by local Catholics..not the tune others sing..and maybe the Memorare. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 07:14 PM A great idea |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 May 10 - 07:12 PM It should be in several languages I would think..English, German, Gaelic, one of the African ones, Spanish and Tagalog at the very least. I was thinking something more along the lines of giving the survivors a CD or being able to download but a contribution for others to buy would not be a bad idea. I don't know what kind of songs would be appropriate either...some angry, some comforting I would think. I know a beautiful one..well, a bit of it, about the abuse of a baby..my Dancing Darling...doesn't specify what the abuse was. Are there many songs? I know of mine, to the tune of Boston Burglar, and it seems Sinead O'connor might have one but I really don't know of any. l mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 May 10 - 06:29 PM Maybe we should make a free CD for people who were abused. mg What a truly noble thought, mg. Might I suggest a fund-raiser-compilation, marketed via Mudcat, all profits to one or more of the independent victim support charities? As a gesture to the victims, I would also suggest all contributions should be anonymous in order to demonstrate that no self-promotion is involved and that the aim is publicity for the victims as a whole and not the individual artists. However, I am willing to contribute on any basis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 May 10 - 05:09 PM Regarding sympathy, I would have thought that a fair number of victims would be embarrassed by 'one to one' sympathy, particularly from a stranger. It must have been tremendously hard for some of those victims to come forward as they did, and I'm sure they were doing it for justice and to expose the system that did it to them, with a view to preventing further abuses and promoting a wider recognition of what has been a lesser-known aspect of the Catholic church. I doubt very much if a desire for sympathy entered into it. Perhaps a good job really, considering some of the more hurtful stuff that has been said by representatives of the church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 09:28 AM As to celebacy, it is very accurate that this alone did not make child sex abusers. However, I suggest that limiting full representation of all sectors of the population into the most important part of the church, including the RC hierarchy, played a big part in creating the climate where child sex abusers got into the church and did their criminal acts throughout many years.If many people alike Joe O had felt at home and became priests...and could have began to influence the RC hierarchy and it s thinking....I suspect this church would not be in the same situation where it is today. A seed can fall on a rock and not germinate. But, if the right conditions eist, the seed, good or bad trives, grows and spreads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 09:19 AM A qurestion that remains unanswered, on a Global scale is, "if well intentioned and non abusing priests, bishops, cadrinals and other church officials had much sympathy for victims, why was there not an outcry (public and otherwise)and real outreach to victims throughout the many years?" The same question could be asked for the faithful...and I am talking about Globally, not just in the USA, nor in one parish or locale? I understand that many folks are concerned about the financial impacts at a local level. What I have seen is a public statement of disgust at the abusers, and genuine frustration with the RC leadership, as the cases broadened. I have also heard of prayers fpor the victims and the abusers during the same service. If a serial killer was offered the same public prayers at the same time as their victims, just how right would that seem to victims families? To me, disgust with church officials and abusers is not the same as genuine sympathy (in action) for the victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 10 - 05:58 AM Sorry that should read "Victims of Brendan Smyth - far too many for them all to sue him! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 10 - 05:54 AM Update on above. The victims of Brendan Smyth are suing Cardinal Brady who has, up to now refused to resign from his position as Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. Brady was aware of complaints against Smyth as early as 1975, but did not report them to the police. Two of the victims were sworn to silence by Brady, and Smyth went on to abuse children for another twenty (not ten, as I originally wrote) years. It has been estimated that about 100 children might have been saved from abuse had Brady taken action at the beginning. A case in which Brady is being sued in his personal capacity by another woman abused by Smyth is currently before the courts. Meanwhile, John Ayres, who is today on his seventh day of hunger strike outside the bishop's palace in Dublin to demand a criminal investigation into the Catholic Church will tomorrow be joined by Kevin Flanagan, whose brother was abused. Not too much murkiness over here! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 10 - 04:32 AM "But after that, it gets murky" No it does not. Priests raped children - a fact established beyond any doubt, and we all have an attitude to this. Non-abusive priests were aware that fellow priests were raping children and did nothing about it - a fact established beyond any doubt; some of them have admitted to this and described the behaviour of their collegues as 'eccentric' or 'odd'. When clerical superiors heard of the abuses they ordered that the cases should be dealt with within the church and should not be reported to the authorities - a fact established beyond any doubt that lies at the heart of the present troubles the Catholic Church is experiencing at the present time. A couple of Bishops who were directly involved in this have resigned; others have refused to do so. Some abusive clerics underwent a period of treatment and were returned to positions where they continued their abusing - a fact established beyond any doubt. In spite of the advice of a therapst that "he should never be allowed to work with children", one of the worst abusers, Brendan Smyth was returned to office and continued to abuse children for a further ten years. The cover-up and allowed continuence of the abuses implicates the whole of the church from the Pope down. He, as a cardinal, signed a document saying that abuses had to be dealt with within the church because "The effects on the Universal Church and THE ABUSER HIMSELF" had to be taken into consideration". Murkiness???. I asked if you would take the same stance if these events had taken place within The Health or The Education Service - you still have not replied, which is answer enough for me. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 23 May 10 - 04:28 AM Nobody in his right mind "knowingly harbor(s) criminals who rape children," if you put it in those words. But you can take what actually happened and put a bit of "spin" on it, and make it sound really bad. And the result is that you can justify characterizing the other person as a demon Where is the spin in the way the Norbetine order sheltered Breandan Smyth and put him to work as a councellor of young children Joe ? I've found that nuns are in the forefront of people who have dealt directly and sympathetically with victims Again Joe, individual members of the clergy are no doubt sympathetic to the victims of abuse. But how do you look upon the nuns who wore their corporate hat when they hammered out a deal with the Irish Government about compensation for the victims of abuse suffered in the Industrial Schools? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 10 - 03:02 AM I may have said that a bit unclearly, Crow Sister. My intention was to say that sympathy is far better expressed face-to-face, than it is in press releases. Surely you'd agree with that. Sympathy that is expressed only in press releases, smacks of insincerity. One suspects that such expressions of sympathy were written by attorneys. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 23 May 10 - 02:46 AM "But this kind of sympathy is best expressed one-to-one, and it's best not reported in the press." That's your opinion, and I believe that you are very wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 10 - 02:30 AM A seminary classmate, now a priest, sent me this article from the Boston Globe (click for full article) Celibacy and the Catholic priest By James Carroll | May 16, 2010 Like all Catholics, I gratefully depend on the faithful ministry of the many good priests who serve the church. Yet I offer a broad critique of something central to their lives and identities the rule of celibacy. I write from inside the question, having lived as a celibate seminarian and priest for more than a decade in my youth. Yet when I left the priesthood in 1974, I was more conscious of vowed obedience as the pressing issue than celibacy. I wanted to be a writer, which required a free play of the mind that seemed impossible in the life of orders. But now I see how imposed sexlessness and restrictive authority are mutually reinforcing. Power was the issue. Ironically, in the Bing Crosby glory days, celibacy seemed to convey another kind of power. It was essential to the mystique that set priests apart from other clergy, the Roman collar an open sesame! to respect and status. From a secular perspective, the celibate man or, in the case of nuns, woman made an impression simply by sexual unavailability. But from a religious perspective, the impact came from celibacy's character as an all-or-nothing bet on the existence of God. The Catholic clergy lived in absolutism, which carried a magnetic pull. The magnet is dead. What I only intuited 35 years ago has become an open conviction shared by many: celibacy cuts to the heart of what is wrong in the Catholic Church today. Despite denials from Rome, there will be no halting, much less recovering from, the mass destruction of the priest sex abuse scandal without reforms centered on the abandonment of celibacy as a near-universal prerequisite for ordination to the Latin-rite priesthood. (Near universal because married Episcopal priests who convert are exempt from the requirement. Latin rite because Catholic priests of the Eastern rites are allowed to marry.) No, celibacy does not cause the sex abuse of minors, and yes, abusers of children come from many walks of life. Indeed, most abuse occurs within families or circles of close acquaintance. But the Catholic scandal has laid bare an essential pathology that is unique to the culture of clericalism, and mandatory celibacy is essential to it. Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality, such all-too-common characteristics of today's Catholic clergy are directly tied to the inhuman asexuality that is put before them as an ideal. A special problem arises when, on the one hand, homosexuality is demonized as a matter of doctrine, while, on the other, the banishment of women leaves the priest living in a homophilic world. In some men, both straight and gay, the stresses of such contradiction lead to irrepressible urges that can be indulged only by exploitation of the vulnerable and available, objects of desire who in many cases are boys, whether prepubescent or adolescent. Now we know....(continued) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 May 10 - 01:56 AM Maybe we should make a free CD for people who were abused. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 12:49 AM A few years ago, the Boston Globe decided to reach out to those abused by priests(some who called in reported it to officials, some did not) and they reached a significant number, who shared their experiences with staff. Just how many churches or RC faithful groups or individuals reach out like this to victims, to fellow abused RC members...as they do to the homeless, sick and poor? If few, why so? Many of these folks (who were or are RCs) cannot be healed by money, publicity, or a hollow appology from Bishops or the pope. However, I believe firmly they can move toward healing with support from those inside the RC church who can reach out to them to listen, to understand, and to reaffirm that they are not at fault (for the abuse or the resulting impact on the RV church) and they have a home within the RC church and with God. A close friend of mine was abused by a priest as a child.He pushed the painful memories to the back of his mind for 40 years and had a happy family with children (and a loyal RC member). I did not know this at the time. However, later in life he became obsessed with the memories, and was sure he was destined for hell because of it. This led to depression, marrage break up, suicide attempts, mental institution hospitalization for years, shock treatment, followed by a loss of memories and years of medications and recovery. He died early, at 55. I firmly believe it was because of the hell he lived on Earth for the last 15 years of his life, because of this childhood abuse. "The experience of having been shunned made many victims and their families even more willing to speak with us, because they were so angry and disappointed and disillusioned as a result of their poor treatment by the church. Then, after our stories began to run, many victims grew even angier, because they realized that the betrayal they had experienced was not an isolated event. If you had wondered whether the ostracism some victims and their families experienced made them reluctant to speak to us, I would say that was not the case; in fact, it made them more eager to share the indignities they had suffered". http://dartcenter.org/content/abuse-in-catholic-church |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 May 10 - 12:33 AM I think the rank and file catholics are sympathetic. But we still have bozos running around like the papal nuncio in D.C. badmouthing an abuse survivor on the streets. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 10 - 12:12 AM Thanks, Ed. I'll open my eyes (and heart) a little wider. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 11:50 PM "But many Catholics (myself included) don't know any victims of these crimes, so it's hard for us to give sympathy where it's due" Have you sought them out..they are not that hard to find. Try some of the many church abuse support groups. It was not hard for me to find quite a few. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 10:40 PM The point is the RC church and the faithful have had very little sympathy for the victims Oh, no, Ed, that's just not true. But this kind of sympathy is best expressed one-to-one, and it's best not reported in the press. I've found that nuns are in the forefront of people who have dealt directly and sympathetically with victims. Priests and bishops can't do it, because the victims don't trust them - and rightly so. If you talk to Catholics privately, you will find that most are very concerned about the victims of this humiliating, demeaning crime. You will find very few that deny the crimes, and almost none that are unsympathetic. But many Catholics (myself included) don't know any victims of these crimes, so it's hard for us to give sympathy where it's due. If you want to say something like that, you should furnish proof. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 10:27 PM "But in all the rhetoric that has been thrown about in this situation, very little has been said in sympathy with the victims. Very little has been done to explore ways to heal the harm done to the victims. The rhetoric is directed at "the Church," and is meant to destroy "the Church." Our primary response to this crisis should be to heal the harm that was done and to prevent it from happening again. But no, that's not what's happening. It's an opportunity for those who want to attack the entire Catholic Church, for real and imagined offenses. The victims get forgotten in all this" The point is the RC church and the faithful have had very little sympathy for the victims, nor have they reached out through the many years to try and identify and heal the victims. The attention has mainly been on protecting the church and its chosen ones. For many Years the priority of the RC church was on protecting, hiding, moving, and promoting the priest criminals, and most suspect many are still inside as there has been little attention to identify these folks inside, or let those from the outside in to find them. The victims were ignored, doubted, forgotten, shoved aside, threatened, minimized, given the run around, blamed for contributing to the abuse, refused information until they banded together to seek redress in the courts and in the public eye. Oh yes, there was recently a few hollow words of appology...unfortunately, much too late to matter to anyone but the faithful (grasping on to every hollow gesture as being significant) and those with blinders on who look mostly at their local situation, in their own church and pew. And, then there are those who cannot get beyond the money paid to punish this tarnished vision of the past and see the real harm caused to the victims. Their real bitterness towards the victims is easy to see. The victims are not the enemy of the catholic church, regardless of the amount of the settlements, nor the impacts on the local churches. The enemy of the roman catholic church are many in positions of power in the inside. The faithful are merely their caretakers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 10:25 PM It's the victims who don't come forward we really have to worry about, but what can be said in sympathy with any of them which would actually do them any good? That sort of horror is virtually impossible to imagine without experiencing it. Anyone in their right mind will feel sympathy for them, and it's impossible to forget them. I imagine that most of them would like to see effective preventative measures being implemented. If I'm not mistaken, the only direct preventative measures suggested on this thread have been by non-Catholics. Absolutely no judgement intended on anyone here, but I couldn't help noticing. As for destroying the Catholic church, no. Mainly because what replaced it could so easily be worse. I would, however, like to see it rendered harmless. Its political and financial power is greater than I can comfortably accept, and on those terms I regard it as a very real potential danger and one that is capable of encroaching on my existence. It's bad enough that governments can do that, but a 'religion'? Sorry, but that's unacceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 09:33 PM Exactly what I mean, Smokey. Nobody would dare dispute the fact that there were priests who raped and molested children. That happened. It's a terrible, unavoidable truth. But after that, it gets murky. If you want to squeeze money out of people who didn't commit the crime and had nothing to do with the crime, then you have to put "spin" on what happened. You use phrases like knowingly harbored criminals who rape children, even though you really don't have evidence to back that up. You use language that makes it sound like the offense was universal, even though the actual evidence points to a few people who were guilty and a lot of people who simply bungled the matter. But if you keep using that phrase, "raped and molested children," it get burned into people's minds and they forget all about a sense of proportion and reality. So, a smidgen of reality becomes a universal truth. And the individuals who committed the crimes become representative of the entire group. Now, in all this, I do not mean to downplay the harm that was done to the children who were abused and molested. This was a terrible thing, and it happened to far too many children. If it happened to just one child, it still would have been horrible and inexcusable. I am outraged by the molestation and abuse of children that took place in the Catholic Church, and by the bishops who tried to evade their share of responsibility and cover this up. But in all the rhetoric that has been thrown about in this situation, very little has been said in sympathy with the victims. Very little has been done to explore ways to heal the harm done to the victims. The rhetoric is directed at "the Church," and is meant to destroy "the Church." Our primary response to this crisis should be to heal the harm that was done and to prevent it from happening again. But no, that's not what's happening. It's an opportunity for those who want to attack the entire Catholic Church, for real and imagined offenses. The victims get forgotten in all this. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 08:20 PM Spin? It's quite difficult to make the raping of children by clergymen sound any worse than it is. Or did they perhaps do it more nicely than is generally reported? I certainly don't need to justify characterising these people as 'demons'. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve the oxygen they consume. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 06:36 PM Well, Peter, as I said about how we demonize people: We find a fault in them that we don't have and then we state that fault in a way that makes it really sound outrageous. Nobody in his right mind "knowingly harbor(s) criminals who rape children," if you put it in those words. But you can take what actually happened and put a bit of "spin" on it, and make it sound really bad. And the result is that you can justify characterizing the other person as a demon. Most of the time, people do things for what they see as valid reasons. Their reasons may actually have no validity and what they do may be "objectively wrong" - but most of the time, they don't see it that way. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 May 10 - 06:14 PM not many of us have "knowingly harbored criminals who rape children." Probably none of us, in fact. But Joe, the point of this thread, or at least one of it's points, is that the Church has. Not 'the Catholics' but the church as an institution has and most likely still does. It certainly is still trying to squirm itself out of taking full responsibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 05:55 PM You're right, Crow Sister, not many of us have "knowingly harbored criminals who rape children." Probably none of us, in fact. And that's how we demonize people. We find a fault in them that we don't have and then we state that fault in a way that makes it really sound outrageous, and then we can prove that we're wonderful and the other people are horrible. And it we make enough noise and sound righteous enough, maybe people won't notice our faults. But as long as we continue to demonize people, we cannot work with them to make the world a better place. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 May 10 - 05:07 PM my experience of the Catholic Church in Ireland was only one week, and I did find it quite oppressive I don't think you can get any sort of any country or place and the subtleties of how a society works in a week, Joe. It would take several years of being part of the community before you start getting a feel for the undercurrents. Ireland may well be have the worst record for clerical abuse but do be too certain there will be a lot of places that will come close to it. The recent revelations of abuse in the Netherlands, Germany and other European countries are a good indication we haven't seen the end of it all by far. There was an article in one of the papers recently that showed there were an awful high percentage of (European and US) priests that had allegations of abuse made against them stationed in Mexico, a country where paedophilia is apparently not punishable by law. Now how do you think that came about? Yet more allegations of the church sheltering known abusers were flying. It does make you wonder if we can really say it's all in the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 22 May 10 - 04:58 PM "But we all screw up. Remember that." Yeah, we all 'screw up' Joe. But hands up how many of us have knowingly harbored criminals who rape children.. Anyone here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 04:49 PM Well, Bonnie, my experience of the Catholic Church in Ireland was only one week, and I did find it quite oppressive. No doubt, if I were living in Ireland, many in the Catholic Church would consider me a "troublemaker" - that's what many think of me here. I think the next two years will show that the Catholic Church of Ireland was the location of the worst of the sexual and physical abuse - although it happened all over the world, and far too often. I realize that it's hard for all of you to argue with me - and it's hard for people opposing child abuse and molestation to argue with almost any Catholic - because we agree with you. And Catholic priests, bishops, and nuns generally agree with you. When trying to oppose people who basically agree with them, those who are really angry have to do things like disrupting Easter Sunday Mass, as Jim described. The ploy is to manipulate a normally-sympathetic group of people into responding negatively, so you can then "prove" how insensitive and callous the people are - so you then have cause to express outrage at them, just as Jim did. The same ploy happened in my town when the priest-Congressman Robert Drinan spoke, as I described above. Drinan's presence and the sermon he preached had nothing to do with abortion, but the anti-abortion demonstrators heckled him and disrupted the Mass nonetheless, and then expressed outrage when "liberal" Catholics responded negatively. There are some bishops still trying to cover their tracks and evade responsibility for coverups - we saw good evidence of their fancy footwork at Easter. But nobody's covering up child molesters and abusers in the Catholic Church any more - even in Ireland, coverups don't work; and even the stupidest bishop knows that by now. There never has been any sympathy for child molesters and abusers in the Catholic Church. That sort of conduct has no rational connection to Catholic teaching. HOWEVER, the coverups took place because people didn't believe accusations, or because they were afraid that exposure of the crimes would weaken the power of the hierarchy that failed to control the criminal conduct. And you're not going to like this, but I think it's true: there may have been a legitimate reason to fear that exposure of these crimes would cause hysteria and overreaction. The trouble is, the coverups have caused a far worse reaction. There's no question now that the problem should have been dealt with quickly and severely right at the start. And I suppose this isn't a popular thing to say, either, but the fact of the matter is that many, many cases of sexual molestation in the U.S. were handled and compensated generously at the time they were reported. They may not have been handled according to somebody's specifications, but they were handled in good faith. And with the outrage in the first years of this millennium, most of those victims were compensated a second time. It just doesn't make sense to support people who molest and abuse children. No person in his right mind would do such a thing. For the most part, we human beings want to do what's good and right. Unfortunately, it's hard for us to believe that other human beings also want to do what's good and right - so our natural tendency is to demonize those who are different from ourselves. The Catholic Church made a horrible mess of this abuse and molestation scandal, and it still isn't doing a good job of handling it. But the Catholic Church isn't demonic, and most of the people who screwed up aren't demonic. They just screwed up, and now they will have to pay a huge price for their misdeeds. But we all screw up. Remember that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 22 May 10 - 04:12 PM We haven't heard much from the fathers..whose tendencies I think would be to go after whoever molested one of their children. Are there reports of fathers going after the molestors? Must be some..not ever kid kept quiet and some had to have been believed. l mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 03:59 PM Or even 'principle'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 03:42 PM "most of these crimes took place many years ago." As I've pointed out before, so did most of everything else. You ask: "now what?" - some mention of prevention, perhaps? We've seen a few half-hearted 'apologies' and niggardly gestures of compensation, but no talk of actually preventing the inevitable current and future abuse. It won't just go away because a few have got caught at it. The majority of past offences will go unpunished simply through lack of the conclusive evidence required for prosecution, and that sends out a clear message to any current and future abusers. Clearly visible and stringent preventative measures need to be implemented, inspected by independent non-Catholic bodies and rigidly enforced, and if those measures should encroach on the lives of others, they should perhaps consider how they would feel about their own children being raped and beaten. It's a very small price to pay, and no decent human would begrudge it. As for those caught and prosecuted, they should incur the strictest sentences possible as an example to others, and any compensation should be found by the church, the amount being an effective punishment to the church for knowingly facilitating such abuse. That might serve as a warning to other churches or religions or organisations where, undoubtedly, similar things are happening albeit perhaps on a smaller and less organised scale. Call me obsessed by all means, but to refer to your comments about what is sacred to us, I have two small sons whom I would stop at nothing to protect, and whenever I hear of examples of the abuse we are discussing I think of them and feel like weeping. That is what 'sacred' means to me personally, and I have to say I find it slightly offensive to see that instinct compared to someone's religious ideals. I don't much care what people 'believe', but surely the protection of children is a more sacred principal than any of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 01:11 PM Joe, I don't think you fully appreciate the degree of oppression that Ireland has suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church. I'm not even sure a lot of Irish people do either, such is its efficacy. Much of it has been dressed up as politics and hidden behind other issues, and that is mostly what the rest of the world has seen, particularly the USA. You might not like the way Jim puts it across, but his view of the situation is quite right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 May 10 - 12:55 PM "Yes, we do have some frightened idiot bishops who are still trying to evade the blame" Moving on from 'a few perverts' to 'some idiot bishops' only compounds your denial of what took/is taking place. It was the church, from the Vatican down that took part in the cover-up - it was a corporate crime Joe. "it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed with crime" I'm not obsessed with crime; I and many more of us in Ireland are outraged at child abusers and their accomplices refusing to admit to their crimes, let alone being made face the consequences. We are also outraged at the idea that an organisation that has covered up and facilitated child abuse should continue to have access to the body and minds of children. If that is obsessive - guilty as charged. Jim carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 07:48 AM And, in Brazil: SAO PAULO — A court has ordered the arrest of a Polish priest suspected of sexually abusing a teenager in a Rio de Janeiro suburb and turning his parish home into what the judge described as an "erotic dungeon" for sex with adolescents, authorities said Friday. State prosecutors have accused Marcin Michael Strachanowski, 44, of handcuffing the 16-year-old former altar boy to a bed three years ago in the parish house where the priest lived and threatening to kill the youth if he spoke of the abuse. "I already know the flowers I will place on your coffin," Strachanowski warned, according to prosecutors. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6T2FZuW588xFahgyr8KUJFK1TJAD9FRIKMO0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 07:45 AM Italy bishop testifies in priest sex abuse case "He said he didn't know whether Italian law required him as bishop to inform police about suspected abuse" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_church_abuse UK prayers: "From this prayer we do not exclude those who have committed these sins of abuse. (Catholic Bishops' Conference) "Rather than just saying we acknowledge all the past mistakes, the Church can draw a line under this by accepting liability, meeting the survivors and settling their claims. "It is not about becoming rich, it is about restorative justice." (Anne Lawrence, chairwoman of the Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors (MACSAS) support group) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8695069.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 05:18 AM Jim, I don't trust the word of the Catholic Church to any degree, either. Since the decree on birth control in 1968, I haven't trusted the Vatican or the bishops, or the pope. But life goes on, and my faith is not in the Vatican or the bishops or the pope. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 May 10 - 05:07 AM As you said yourself, Joe, it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 05:00 AM And yes, Bonnie, if everyone in Ireland knew that this abuse was happening and nobody did anything about it, then everybody has at least some share of responsibility - whether or not they remained Catholic. There is an aspect of community responsibility for injustice that exists within that community. In Ireland, all who committed the crimes were Irish Catholics. They had Irish Catholic parents, and they had Irish Catholic brothers and sisters - and almost all their victims were Irish Catholics, too. They weren't from Rome. They weren't from America. They were Irish. No, maybe that's not what happened. Maybe the children were abused and nobody knew anything about it but the victims and the abusers and their superiors. But it's my understanding that the deplorable situations described in the Ryan report were known at the time they were happening - that the police and the government and the press knew about these crimes and did nothing. This does not absolve the Catholic Church - but it does seem to me that others had a share in the responsibility. No, I have never said that any aspect of this scandal should be swept under the table. I do wonder how Irish people can transfer the blame to Rome or other places, when it's clear that those who committed the crimes were born and bred in Ireland. I suppose you think we American Catholics should pay for the Irish scandal, too, when we've already paid a couple billion for our own scandal. Of course, crime is wrong - and we should all get on our white horses and spend our entire lives fighting crime. And if we don't join the anti-crime bandwagon and become part of the obsession, then I suppose the obsessives are right in whatever it is they want to accuse us of. And of course, if we step away from our obsession for a moment and look in a mirror, we might find that we ourselves have faults. Then what? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 May 10 - 04:41 AM Well, obviously, just forget about it, sweep it under the carpet and move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 04:40 AM Bonnie, most of these crimes took place many years ago. They were horrible things. They shouldn't have happened. But they did. Now what? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 May 10 - 04:34 AM JIM is obsessed ????????? ...it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed with crime That was a cheap shot, Joe. We're not supposed to post personal attacks, remember? Jim isn't the one who needs to get a grip. And stop being so patronising. This issue isn't going to go away just because you so clearly want it to. Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few, that's bigotry You mean like blaming the entire population of Ireland for the actions of "a few" perverts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 04:19 AM Yes, Jim, you're right - but life goes on anyhow. Hold on, Jim. The Pope will go to Ireland sooner or later, and I'm sure he'll apologize. But then what? What's this about "making excuses"? There is no excuse, and nobody is making excuses. Yes, we do have some frightened idiot bishops who are still trying to evade the blame; but by and large the problem has been acknowledged and much has been done to make reparations. No, it isn't over yet. But it's well on its way to a conclusion. What's left is to assess the damage and go on. Yes, there will have to be compensation - but in most cases, the damage was done years ago, and no amount of compensation will heal the damage done. All we can do is go on. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 May 10 - 03:50 AM "then it is an abomination to interfere with a demonstration that interrupts worship" And it is not an abomination for somebody who name has been linked with child abuse to take Easter Mass - funny thing religion! "The pope met with sexual abuse victims in the U.S." The Pope has all but ignored the abused in Ireland - his actions regarding this has been limited to calling a conference on damage limitation (to the church) "Jim, you're obsessed." Am I Joe; are the people who are clamouring that your church be made to answer for their crimes? Is the fact that the church's behaviour on this matter is criticised on almost a daily basis in our national press an obsession. Is the fact that the church is having to hang on to the right to educate children by the fingernails due to obsession. Is the fact that lifelong Catholics here are now looking sideways at clergymen over a certain age and asking themselves "I wonder if he was at it with the children". I would rather regard it as an obsession to continue making excuses for a religion that has allowed large-scale and long-term child abuse (which has in the past included blaming the victims families). Why do you think that 32% of the population of Ireland no longer trust the word of the church to any degree? Add the don't knows to that figure and you have an organisation in massive decline here. But it's none of my business - it's your church. Yes Joe, life does go on - even the lives that have been ruined and tainted by the actions of the church and the future lives that will be effected by the knock-on nature of abuse - or don't you believe abuse begets abuse? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 10 - 09:51 PM Yeah, Jim, Easter Sunday Mass should be for demonstrations, not worship. If the cause is worthy, then it is an abomination to interfere with a demonstration that interrupts worship. We had people who thought that at our cathedral when Robert Drinan, Jesuit priest and Congressman, was supposed to preach at Mass. They decided it was more important to demonstrate against abortion and heckle the priest as he spoke, because he belonged to a Congress that voted for abortion funding. Before and after Mass, they were standing outside church with buckets of baby dolls drenched in blood. But of course, their cause was important, so it was right for them to interrupt worship and wrong for anybody to try to control them. Bullshit. The pope met with sexual abuse victims in the U.S. and Malta and apologized to them directly, and there have been other apologies from him and other bishops. As I said you cannot apologize enough - but there HAVE been a good number of apologies. For the most part, damages were paid to the victims because they suffered damaged, not to shut them up. But yes, when they received payment, they stopped demanding it. Jim, you're obsessed. I completely agree with you that crime is a bad thing, and that pedophilia in a church is a horrible thing. But life goes on, and it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed with crime. Get a grip. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 May 10 - 08:33 PM No Joe, there have been no apologies, and no acceptences of guilt - it is exactly as Archbishop Martin said - it has been handled by the heirarchy as something that has nothing whatever to do with them. What can you do? You can stop passing it off as the actions of 'a few bad apples' and recognise it for what it is/was - a church having assisted in the abuse of children and now betraying the trust of the faithful - a culture of abuse within the church, still going strong, it would appear. Paedophiles can be found in any organisation, but if that organisation protects them and allows them to continue abusing, that has to be faced up to and dealt with fully and openly - this has yet to happen. Paying off victims to buy their silence is not acceptible. One of the more unpleasant incidents connected with all this took place at Easter, when one of the victims decided to make a protest at a service led by one of those accused of covering up. She was booed and barracked by the congregation who told her she ought to be ashamed of herself - a victim continuing to be abused by hostile Catholics indifferent to her suffering - shame on them! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 May 10 - 07:00 PM A very compelling interview of David Clohessy is the National Director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. http://jjromo.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/an-interview-with-david-clohessy/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 May 10 - 06:36 PM A multitude of Australian cases of sex abuse listed on the Broken Rites web site: http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 10 - 05:02 PM Well, Jim, I usually don't use screaming as a tactic for dealing with problems. I find it ineffective. Screaming helps the people on "your side" know that you're one of them, but it does very little to resolve the problem that the people on the "other side" are causing. There have been apologies - lots of them, some directly from the pope to victims, in face-to-face meetings. There have been huge reparation payments that have made almost all of the U.S. victims into millionaires, and I suppose the same will happen in Europe. But no amount of apology and no amount of monetary reparation will ever be adequate, will ever undo the harm that was done. I admit that I was appalled at the spate of denials and blame-shifting that several Vatican and European bishops attempted this Easter. It was very embarrassing, and one would think these bishops would have learned by now that blame-shifting is no longer believable. I did note that the Pope did not take part in this silliness; and that he did say words of apology on a number of occasions at Easter, while his minions were still desperately trying to shift the blame. One would think that the European hierarchy would have learned a lesson from the experience of the American bishops, but apparently they didn't. So, Jim, what is it that I am supposed to do about all this? I work in the day-to-day operations of a Catholic parish, mostly as a religion teacher. I have always spoken the truth in classes I have taught; and I have regularly challenged speakers in classes I have attended, when I believe they are not speaking the truth. I haven't whitewashed the child abuse and molestation scandal in any way - in classes I teach, or in messages I post here. You may disagree and say that my messages join in the coverup, but take another look and I think you'll see that I have always tried to be truthful and fair. So, Jim, what is it I am supposed to do? Stop teaching religion and serving the poor and change my entire religious focus to the abuse crisis? This sort of thing goes on in the politics of every community, not just the Catholic Church. Crime is a horrible thing, and every community has far too much crime. Some people seem to focus their entire lives on the horror of crime, and they condemn anyone who does not seem to share that horror at what they consider to be an adequate level. Accusing opponents of being "soft on crime" seems to be a mantra of the far right in the United States. What is an appropriate response to crime? If I don't demand that every criminal dies a horrible death, am I "soft on crime"? I live in a community where some people think I'm evil because I vocally oppose capital punishment. Get this straight: I think criminals should be prosecuted and punished, and religious people who molest or abuse children are most certainly criminals. I think reasonable measures should be taken to prevent crime, as long as those measures are not so severe that they paralyze the actions of people who are not criminals. Crime is a bad thing, and dealing with it is a difficult problem. If we become obsessed with it, we allow crime and the fear of crime to destroy us. Somehow, we have to develop rational methods of dealing with crime without allowing those very methods to paralyze us as a society. And yes, crime exists in the Catholic Church, and has existed in the Catholic Church through all of history. Catholics have to deal with it and control it without allowing themselves to be destroyed by their own controls. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 May 10 - 06:36 AM "Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few," Once again you are evading the issue of what has happened and is still happening Joe. Yes, a few clerics abused children (we don't know how 'few' yet; this week another 190 cases of abuse have been revealed in Ireland, dating as far back as 1950). The condemnation of this that has rightly followed these revelations is not aimed at all Catholics, but, firstly at the abusers, then at the own Church's reaction to these abuses; some of the sharpest critics of the behaviour of the church here at present have been practicing Catholics. The church, as an organisation, hid the abuses and allowed the abusers to continue raping children, bullying the victims into silence with spiritual blackmail - it became an complicit to crimes, before and after the fact. Apart from a few bland murmerings of sympathy, at no time has the church (as an organisation) taken any responsibility for the abuses carried out on children under their care and it's own failure to act on the abuses, either in preventing them or bringing the abusers to justice. While this continues to happen the ordinary, good Catholics and the non-abusive clergy will be caught in the crossfire and will have become victims themselves. Why aren't you screaming this message from the rooftops rather than persistantly putting the whole affair down to a few bad apples? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 10 - 12:25 AM If you search Mudcat for the term "imaginary friend," you will see that the phrase has been used dozens of times and become almost a mantra for those who want to ridicule the Christian faith. And in using the term, the posters generally class all Christians with the extreme fundamentalists, holding all up to the same ridicule. Well, many Christians far more sophisticated in their thinking. They are often quite familiar with Joseph Campbell and his Power of Myth work, and they accept it or at least respect the idea that there is a strong element of myth in religious faith - and yet they remain believers. Most of us hold something sacred - and I think that much of what we deem sacred is that which we do not completely understand, what Kierkegaard terms "mystery." The haughtiness of rationalism ignores the mystery of that which we cannot understand - and I think that haughtiness brought about much of the social and ecological damage wrought by the industrial revolution and carried on throughout the twentieth century. Religious thought and practice is one way to explore mystery, but there are also non-religions ways. What we hold sacred, is part of who we are. Perhaps we hold our parents or grandparents sacred, or home, or a special tree, or our marriage. Perhaps it's the work of a particular author, or a work of art, or a special place in nature. For Catholics, the Eucharist and Jesus Christ are sacred; for Protestants, Christ and the Bible; for Jews, the Torah and the Exodus story; for Muslims, the Holy Koran and Mohammed; for Buddhists, statues of the Buddha. All of these sacred things and people and events lead us into a deeper and more appreciative understanding of the mysteries of life. If they are truly sacred, these sacred things are not imposed upon us - they are a real part of who we are. And if others attack that which is sacred to us, they attack us. I've followed the child abuse and molestation crisis in the Catholic Church since the very beginning, long before it hit the general press. And I am outraged at what has happened. I felt betrayed by Pope Paul VI by his refusal to accept birth control in 1968, and the authorities of the Catholic Church have done one outrageous thing after another since then - silencing of theologians, punishing priests and nuns for ministering to gays and lesbians, trying to make an "infallible" statement that women can never become priests, ridiculous grandstanding on the issue of abortion, and on and on and on. By 1995, thirty years after Vatican II, the hierarchy had very little credibility among thinking Catholics. And then the sex abuse crisis hit, and the hierarchy dealt with it abominably. Since 1968, I have had no reason to have any shred of respect for authority within the Catholic Church - and because of this, "authority" is completely outside my religious vocabulary. But I still have my Catholic faith, and it is still sacred to me - even though it is administered by dottering old men who are horribly flawed and oftentimes outright corrupt. But still, my faith is sacred to me, and my life of faith has been a good one. So, when you criticize, criticize the corruption and the crime and and all that is bad within the Catholic Church (and there is a lot) - but remember that there is still an essence of the Catholic faith that lies very deep in the hearts of Catholic people, and that essence is good and sacred. Please respect whatever it is that people hold to be sacred - because if you don't, you fail to respect the people themselves. And if you don't understand something that is sacred to somebody, leave it be - don't try to explain it away or hold it up to ridicule. -Joe- Oh, and you may want to Click here for a series of very honest articles in the National Catholic Reporter that are very critical of the child molestation and abuse scandal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 20 May 10 - 08:01 PM An interesting article: http://tor.id.au/article.php/20100519025842292?query= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 20 May 10 - 07:49 PM I found the "imaginary friend" posts of a while back to be particularly bigoted. Just the one, and I did point out that it was no more than my personal opinion. We all have those. As Akenaton rightly pointed out, I was ranting. Bigotry is when you believe all other opinions to be inferior and/or are intolerant of them. I read yours with interest, agree with a lot of what you say and try to respect that with which I don't agree. I maintain that your accusation of bigotry is unfounded, but I apologise for the offence caused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 20 May 10 - 07:06 PM Well, as I said before: Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few, that's bigotry. And yes, that happens frequently here. Certainly, it's not in every message and it's not expressed by every Mudcatter, but there certainly IS a lot of bigotry here, and it often overwhelms attempts to discuss issues rationally. There is plenty of valid criticism, and I have no quarrel with that whatsoever. Almost countless incidents of sexual and physical abuse of children took place in the Catholic Church, and that is indeed worthy of criticism and serious, probing discussion. I was critical of Catholic handling of child molestation as far back as 1985, maybe earlier. But I question the criticism when it strays from the facts and the actual misconduct that took place and drifts into accusations that have little or no factual basis, or when it results in broad generalizations, or when it ridicules my religious faith. I found the "imaginary friend" posts of a while back to be particularly bigoted. ollaimh, if you want to criticize what I say, that's fine - but point to an actual statement I made and THEN discuss it. I have said many times that I agree with most of the criticism posted here, and there are very few incidents discussed here that I deny. What you've said about me so far is just a damn insult, because you have not given any factual basis for your accusations. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 20 May 10 - 11:14 AM the critics of the catholic church are not bigots joe, the continuing attack on the abused is despicable and the organization id clearly immoral not amoral.. we had decades of scandal in eastern canada leading to recent settlements. at every stage the catholic authorities covvered everything up. the bishop of antigonish , back in the seventies , published an article in the local newspaper complianing, amomg other things, that little girls try to seduce priests. he reamined there untill several of his priests were finally convicted of criminal offenses. after he had covered up many earlier ones. unbelievable conduct for a bishop and unbelievable conduct by his superiors when many complained about his artiilce and attitudes. the whole organization is corrupt and evil, and desparately needs yearts or LISTENING, and an independant truth and reconcilliation commission. and especially with the murder of about fifty thousand native children. never reported nor recorded in church records , they just didn\t return and the church still won\t reveal where the bodies are. the canadian government kept records separately but also destroyed them , realizing that they might be a problem someday. lucikily the university of british columbia kept copies in their historical archives. the churches(the anglican and united church of canadas also were involved in these residential schools)and the government threatened to sue for the records.. to their credit ubc sent copies to dozens of universities all over the wolrd. they said they are not in the business of destroying historical documents. the churches always claimed that the government asked them to do all this. but those records showed that they petitioned the government for decades to get power over natives. including judicial power. they routinely criminally charged the pagans and fined them by taking their land. these churches still hold thousands of acres of illegally gotten native land or sold it to cronies for a pitance in return for donations or government influence. this has all been publishes and no libel or slander siuts ahve come from the churches--they know well they will be cross examined in open court. these churches denied native children health care and death rates of fifty per cent resulted. this happened up to the mid to late seventies. they routinely put the children infected with smallpox and tuberculosis in dorms with the un infected. of course they all get the illnesses. the superintendent dr bryce said the care was "criminl" and they hounded him from government service and eventually from the medical profession. at every stage the churches used their power to avoid responsibility for sexual abuse and murder. i used to see the native kids get off the school buss with dozens of black and blue bruises. time for catholics to shut up and listen listen listem for years. and make attonement to natives rtather than fight the claims at every turn. they still haven\t returned the bodies. these churches are immoral. if they want to regain any claim to morallity they need to attone on a very massive form, and at the very least nstop calling the critics bigots |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 May 10 - 07:04 AM Another link to the court case: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-17-vatican-abuse-defense_N.htm?csp=34 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 May 10 - 06:51 AM In it's attempts to avoid any responsibility for the RC priest crimes, and protect the Vatican (not the RC church or faith) it makes me wonder..."Is the Poep Catholic"? I expect this tactic could be the next legal defense, if all other avoidance measures fail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 May 10 - 06:42 AM "Integrity is a precious possession. It is a virtue that no one can take from you—you must give it away" More double-talk by the Vatican: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH9I3NH568g_9CE-MMStuwZ3jgfAD9FPA7RO0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 09:13 PM I'm also supposed to resign from Mudcat, for some reason... Well, you can kiss goodbye to the fast cars, loose women and high living then. Just try to remember to come back and repond after your three years of listening. (To your victims??) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 18 May 10 - 08:51 PM An interesting perspective on integrity, institutions and on churches. http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/035/Institutional%20Ethics%20-%20An%20Oxymoron%20By%20Joe%20Trull_035_02_.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 08:42 PM Well, I agree with the listening part, which I think is very necessary; but I'm also supposed to resign from Mudcat, for some reason... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 08:31 PM I don't see any good people being attacked; they aren't the problem. Criticism of Catholicism isn't condemnation of all Catholics, though I suppose I can see how it might seem that way sometimes. I'm sure that's rarely the intention on here, although such an emotive subject is almost bound to elicit gut reactions now and again. Read the post from ollaimh at 12:44 and tell my why I shouldn't take it personally.... Because it's not worth it, and life's too short. I hereby absolve you from three years of listening, however grammatically incorrect that might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 07:28 PM Well, Smokey, I'm not just an observer. I'm in the middle of it. Being Catholic is part of who I am - and it is a good part of who I am, just as the peace movement and the civil rights movement were part of the identity of those who participated. So, yes, I do take it personally. I am appalled that such a thing could happen in my church. I have always been in the "loyal opposition" of the Catholic Church, criticizing countless things - but it has always been MY church. But this isn't a quarrel about women priests or birth control or divorce and remarriage or a thousand other important issues I have debated - this is about a systemic failure. And the leaders of the Catholic Church are responding in ways that are, for the most part, both appalling and incredibly stupid. I never had much faith in the bureaucracy of the Vatican before, but the response of the last six weeks has been outrageous. And still despite all that, most of what I directly experience in the Catholic Church is very good, and most of the people I directly encounter in the Catholic Church are very good. So, how do I balance all that out? And although I totally acknowledge the sex abuse scandal, how do I respond when good people are attacked along with the bad? And yes, I do feel that there are very few people here who have a real understanding of religious faith of the non-fundamentalist variety. It's not a matter of authority or obligation, it's not a matter of doing something you're supposed to do, it's not a matter of passing judgment on anyone - it's part of who you are. -Joe- P.S. Read the post from ollaimh at 12:44 and tell my why I shouldn't take it personally.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 06:16 PM With respect, maybe you should try to take it a little less personally, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 05:48 PM Gee, ollaimh, I think I AM pretty calm in this discussion. I don't deny that that there has been abuse and sexual molestation of children in the Catholic Church, and I don't deny that many of those in authority have covered up crimes or at least have responded to the crimes with appalling ineptitude. It is a scandal, and it is indeed a horrible scandal. Many who should be prosecuted and imprisoned for these crimes have not been prosecuted, and that is wrong. The scandal hit first here in the United States, and we went through the embarrassing stage of "official" denial that the Catholic Church in Europe is now going through. As you can see on this page, the bishops of the United States met in 2002 and commissioned a third-party study of the scandal. The U.S. bishops also instituted a system of strict controls intended to prevent future sexual molestation of children. It wasn't a perfect response and it was far too late, but it was a good and strong response. By 2005, the number of new reports of molestation had dwindled, and generous settlements were paid to most victims within a year or two after that. We still get waves of press reports of sexual abuse cases in the U.S. Catholic Church, but most of these reports pertain to abuses that were reported and compensated years ago. No, we still haven't heard of all the incidents of abuse in the United States. I'm still shaken by a new report I heard last week that I haven't seen in the press. This report, which was "deemed credible" by church authorities, was against a now-deceased priest I knew and liked when I was in the seminary in high school and college. But most of the U.S. incidents have been reported and dealt with. Many of the victims were given generous settlements decades ago, when the "going price" of a settlement was $25,000 to $40,000. Many of those victims received additional payments in recent years, at the "going price" of a million dollars. The US cases reported in the press now, are generally cases that were reported and handled and compensated thirty years ago - but now the press questions whether the response was fast enough and generous enough and whatnot. In the US, the response has now taken place. Now is the time for study and for rational discussion, to find out why the problem happened, how church authorities should have responded, and how to prevent the problem can be prevented in the future. The press has done its job - over a number of years, it has exposed the problem, in all its ugliness. In the Catholic Church in United States, now is the time for study and for healing. The scandal was first exposed in Ireland much more recently, maybe only in the last 2-3 years, and I'm sure that there will be many more reports of abuses. And within the last year, the scandal has come to a head in Great Britain and the European Continent. The "denial" stage hasn't ended in Europe. At Easter, there was a barrage of statements from highly-placed church officials, attempting to downplay the scandal or shift the blame. I heard a number of bishops and cardinals make statements that were incredibly insensitive, incredibly stupid, or both. One wonders where they got the nerve to say outrageous things like that. You'd think they would have learned from the scandal in the US, and that they would have developed a rational and sensitive way of responding by now. But no, several European bishops said outrageous things at Easter, and I can't figure out WHAT they were thinking. Maybe their irrational Easter responses are a good thing - maybe it's an indication that the guilty ones are scared shitless, as well they should be. The shit has hit the fan in the European Catholic Church, and the next few years aren't going to be pretty. OK, so I'm a seminary-trained Catholic lay leader and teacher, and I've worked in the Catholic Church all my life. For the past ten years, I have worked in a women's center run by Catholic nuns, and it's a wonderful place. The parishes I have belonged to have generally been quite good - and when they had problems, I worked hard to solve them. So, what do I do now, in the midst of all this? Do I stop working for the poor? Do I stop going to church? I acknowledge the bad in the Catholic Church and I deplore it, and I have worked against it for years and put up with abuse from Catholics who call me "unfaithful" for raising questions and objections. What am I supposed to do now? Stop everything, and throw out all the good I've known in the Catholic Church, along with the bad? I have been aware of the problem of priests abusing children for thirty years, and I first became involved in working to resolve the problem in about 1985. Now, after all this time, I see that there is now an international wave of outrage against the child abuse and molestation. But, as often happens, the outrage comes like buckshot, and is directed even at those who worked to solve the problem thirty to fifty years ago. The same thing happened to black and white people who worked in the early years of the Civil Rights movement in the US - white civil rights volunteers were condemned because they were white, and early black civil rights leaders were condemned as "Uncle Toms" because they preached tolerance and nonviolence. Americans were condemned as a nation during the George Bush administration, even though more than half the voters cast their vote against Bush in 2000. Americans were condemned for the Vietnam War, forgetting all the dedicated American people who worked so hard and so long to oppose the war. Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few, that's bigotry. And yes, that happens frequently here. Certainly, it's not in every message and it's not expressed by every Mudcatter, but there certainly IS a lot of bigotry here, and it often overwhelms attempts to discuss issues rationally. And that all I'm asking for, a rational discussion, one that argues from the facts and gives credit where credit is due. I seek a discussion that actually attempts to understand and resolve the problem, rather that just wildly firing the shotgun of blame. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 03:17 PM "A 2001 report by the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada documents the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the federal government in the deaths of more than 50,000 Native children in the Canadian residential school system. The report says church officials killed children by beating, poisoning, electric shock, starvation, prolonged exposure to sub-zero cold while naked, and medical experimentation, including the removal of organs and radiation exposure. In 1928 Alberta passed legislation allowing school officials to forcibly sterilize Native girls; British Columbia followed suit in 1933. There is no accurate toll of forced sterilizations because hospital staff destroyed records in 1995 after police launched an investigation. But according to the testimony of a nurse in Alberta, doctors sterilized entire groups of Native children when they reached puberty. The report also says that Canadian clergy, police, and business and government officials "rented out" children from residential schools to pedophile rings. The consequences of sexual abuse can be devastating. "Of the first 29 men who publicly disclosed sexual abuse in Canadian residential schools, 22 committed suicide," says Gerry Oleman, a counselor to residential school survivors in British Columbia." From Amnesty Magazine. Read and weep. Christianity has a lot to answer for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,ollaimh Date: 18 May 10 - 02:06 PM ps to jim campin. yes many countries have a higher age of consent for people in positions of authority. the age of consent in canada is 21 if the under 21 year old is having sex with a person in authority, including employer, supervisor, teacher and yes preist or other religious leader. many american states have the same kind of provisions, because people in authority should not be using their postion to get sex from even young people who are not minors. i repeat that no one should be attacking the abused . its time for catholics to listen, for a very long time and not talk. a genuine truth and reconcilliation commission would be good, run by non catholic authorities, preferable world wide, not just for sexual abuse but also for the tens of thousands of native children who were denied normal health care and died in residential schools. inspector general bryce said in canada in 1907 that the condiditons were"criminal" for native children. he was dismissed from his job and had his medical licence taken away. thats how evil the system of churches and governments have been and remain. they are just a little more sophisticated now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 18 May 10 - 12:44 PM wow joe clam down. people from many areas and backgrounds have every right to criticize the catholic church on child abbuse. the rc has a long history of cover ups and no history of real punishment for offenders unless proven in criminal court. there are in fact many helpfull solutions. i don't think celibacy is the issue, the ussue is the church has never had an arms length oversight group that can dispense discipline. everything has been kept internal--a recipie for corruption. if all accusations were automatically refered with all documentation to an out side arms length authority then things would be properly investigated , greatly reducing cover up and abuse, and speedily ejecting abusers instead of protecting them for decdades. a group that holds such great moral authority over its members has an obligation to do this if it wants to be considered fair. more important to me is the undiscussed deaths of aproximately half the children in native residential schools run all over north america with the participating churches destroying all records they can. get real joe the catholic church has consistently covered up and destroyed the records of abuse.as a result catholics and the church have absolutely no right to attack the critics--they have an obligation to LISTEN for years and years. i know canadian catholics who have good solutions. like a three year period of attoinment is being proposed where the church is required to LISTEN to the abused and the critics without responding. then a three year internal meditation on how to deal with things properly.and of course an artms length abuse investigatory body. but joe with you insistence that it is bigotry to criticize i think its time for you to step down from mudcat. you have to try to maintain some objecytivity. the catholic and several other churches have participated in genocide against canadian natives and have avoided almost all responsibility. you should try the three yrears of listening before you repond again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 18 May 10 - 09:05 AM Most of the tourists heading that way when I was in Mostar were Polish - seems like Polish Catholicism is the least critical variety on earth. Medjugorje is also very popular among Irish pilgrims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 18 May 10 - 08:25 AM Janz's article was pretty insightful. I hadn't realized Medjugorje was so dissociated from the Vatican - seems to be about as Christian as the Loch Ness Monster. (Most of the tourists heading that way when I was in Mostar were Polish - seems like Polish Catholicism is the least critical variety on earth). The fact that the Franciscans are running Medjugorje (despite having no official sanction) comes as no surprise. Their history in Croatia has been utterly ghoulish. There may be a (somewhat feeble) case to be made for Archbishop Stepinac's behaviour under the Nazis, but the Croatian Franciscans were war criminals of the most appallingly sadistic brutality known from anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 02:08 AM Hi, Jack- I hadn't heard the political implications of the Medjugorje shrine. I had wondered why the Vatican withheld approval from the shrine, but all I've read was that the Vatican said the apparitions were "not authentic." I had also heard that the Vatican has made efforts to distance itself from Croatian fascism (but short of an outright condemnation), but I hadn't made a connection between the two. I have seen no reason why the Catholic Church and John Paul II should be blamed for the Croatian atrocities, although it's clear that Croatian clergy have been involved. I know of no indication that the Vatican or John Paul was involved or gave approval or support. Medjugorje is very popular with the pious types in the Catholic Church, and they have tried all sorts of verbal gymnastics to attempt to say that the Vatican "didn't really" withhold approval. Click here for a pretty balanced article from Christian Century by Dr. Denis Janz, associate professor of historical theology at Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana. The article was written in 1987, before the wars that plagued the area in the 1990s. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 17 May 10 - 05:55 PM Two quotes from the same article, posted above by Ed: "The Vatican has been mired in scandal amid hundreds of reports in Europe, the United States and elsewhere of priests who raped and molested children while bishops and Vatican officials turned a blind eye. Benedict's own handling of cases has also come under fire." "Luca Colussi, from the farmers' union Coldiretti, said abuse allegations must be fully investigated. 'But as far we're concerned, our members will always remain close to the Pope as we share the same values.'" Well, it made me laugh, but maybe a warped sense of humour is required.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 17 May 10 - 04:51 PM "The Vatican and the Holy Father are not bound by this national jurisdiction, both as head of state and as the head of the Church," Ciro Benedettini, vice-head of the Vatican press office told AFP. Comment: At least BP is taking the responsibility of paying for the cost of damages made by folks acting on it's behalf and recognises it is bound by laws of the state it operates in. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Vatican+present+legal+defense+Kentucky+abuse+case/3038996/story.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 17 May 10 - 04:43 PM "We want to show our solidarity to the pope and transmit the message that single individuals make mistakes but institutions, faith and religion cannot be questioned," Alemanno told Associated Press Television News. "We will not allow this." Rome's center-right Mayor Gianni Alemanno http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_pope |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 17 May 10 - 04:37 AM Joe's comments about Fatima as a fascist rallying point reminded me of what's happened at Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which has similarly become a pilgrimage site as a result of a series of "visions". I was in Mostar (the nearest city to Medjugorje) in the last couple of weeks. Probably related to Medjugorje is the enormous Rio-type concrete cross someone recently put up on the top of the hill obove Mostar. It's sited at the exact point where the Croatian Catholic fascists placed their artillery to blast the city to pieces, with thousands of deaths, in the early 1990s. The whole Medjugorje cult was fake mysticism intended to rally Catholics around the Croatian fascist cause (i.e. the expropriation of half of Bosnia). It's one of the biggest Catholic pilgrimage sites in Europe. I think the moral is that if Catholic kids start having officially-approved visions anywhere in your neighbourhood, it's time to make sure your anti-aircraft guns have enough ammo. A lot of what the Catholic Church did under John Paul II was far worse than raping a few kids, but because mass murder of Muslims and socialists doesn't trigger approved moral outrage under the capitalist sustem in the way that sexual deviance does, it looks like nobody's going to be held to account for it, least of all Wojtyla, the genocidal shit in charge of it all. I thought about going to Medjugorje but decided anything with associations that violent and depressing was a bit much for a holiday. Instead I went to Blagaj, a few miles out of Mostar in the other direction, and by pure fluke hit their annual Muslim festival (around Mevlud, the birthday of Mohammed). There were about 20,000 people there, mainly for the street fair (stalls selling roast meat, Muslim kitsch souvenirs, wooden toys and cheap underwear). The most violent thing about it was a chance to ride on the dodgems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 May 10 - 04:06 AM Things seem to have moved on somewhat in Ireland. The church is now fighting tooth-and-nail to retain its grip on education and has been forced to concede (totally unprecedented to my knowledge) that it may be "inappropriate in certain circumstances" to have a Catholic monopoly in Irish schools. Yet still the church seems not to have got the message. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin made a couragous speech condemning the abuse and the way it has been handled, speaking of dark forces within the church "that would prefer that the truth did not emerge", and about "signs of a rejection of a sense of responsibility for what had happened". He suggested that child protection regulations were "not being rigourously followed" and that church academics and publicists are retrospectively analysing the "catastrophe" of child abuse "as if they were totally extraneous to the scandal". His outspoken stance has led to either hostility or complete silence from his fellow clerics. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 17 May 10 - 01:06 AM Yeah, I'll bet that links to the photo caused a huge amount of traffic, and that may have crashed the church's Website. That's probably why they took the picture down. Can't say I like 1950s-1960s stained glass like that. I prefer more traditional art on stained glass - or go completely the other way with something like Chagall. An excellent example of Chagall's stained glass is the Union Church of Pocantico Hills in the Hudson River Valley. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: JohnInKansas Date: 16 May 10 - 09:42 PM Joe - I've only seen about three of the emails, and none of them described a source. (I don't get much of that sort of junk mail, so three is a whole lot for a single subject for me.) Of course I couldn't link to an email so that others could see it, so I had to do a web search. Using the "Time to Replace the Church Window" search line immediately popped up a good dozen web pages where the image is posted, none of which - so far as I could tell - actually included the search term. It must be "associated" with the phrase by some other means. Since Google results are ranked almost entirely by "popularity" the number of hits on the first page or two of results probably indicates very wide recent circulation. As I hope was clear, my opinion is just that it's really a shame that something with a simple, clear, reverent meaning has been warped into a "popular" derogatory bit of not-very-funny "humor." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 16 May 10 - 04:42 AM Aw, I think it's an Anglican window, John. Catholic clergy don't wear cassock and surplice for confirmation (they wear full vestments). Otherwise, the ritual is the same. In fact, I think I found the source of the photo - St. James Episcopal Church on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. You will note that photo number 10, confirmation, is missing. Gee, I've never noticed that church, and I must have driven past it a hundred times. I like the architecture of Wilshire Boulevard, and take that route whenever I can - I never take the Santa Monica freeway, because the surrounding area is so interesting. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: JohnInKansas Date: 16 May 10 - 02:33 AM I tried to scan the rest of the thread to make sure this hasn't been posted previously. If it has, I apologize. Pictures like the one linked have been making the rounds in email (mostly chain) letters that are quite obviously in poor taste, but perhaps the "popularity" of the joke should be of interest as a reflection of "public mood" or something(?). What struck me is that something that once inspired an intended reverence is now passed around as a rather sick joke. The world views the church differently than it did a few years ago, and the shift in views appears among the irreligious, those of other faiths, and those who continue to consider themselves part of it. Time to Replace the Church Window? (View at your own risk.) Usually accompanied by the comment: "It probably seemed like a good idea at the time." While I'm sure that the image will be offensive to many with the comments being applied, I would urge an effort to see it as it was originally intended, before – or while – also reflecting on the meaning being applied by recent emailers. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 15 May 10 - 10:24 AM A statement from the pope yesterday: "... attacks against the pope or the church do not only come from outside; rather the sufferings of the church come from within, from the sins that exist in the church. This too has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: the greatest persecution of the church does not come from enemies on the outside, but is born from the sin within the church, the church therefore has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the need for justice. "Forgiveness is not a substitute for justice. In one word we have to relearn these essentials: conversion, prayer, penance, and the theological virtues." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/14/2899738.htm?site=thedrum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 13 May 10 - 10:31 PM Things are moving in a positive direction. The world is going after Sodano who is somewhere between stupid and evil...I can't place him exactly on a multidimensional scale. New York Times took him on today I think. I hope Maureen Dowd takes him on as her personal cause. The pope has proclaimed that the church is persecuted..by sin this time..not by homosexuals or the media or the Pepsi Generation aka Woodstock. He has not exactly said that the church was the persecutors. First Sodano should go, by hook or by crook, and he will not go easy, then Law, then I think the pope should do the right thing and resign. And Pope John Paul should not be canonized, and that makes me sad because I liked him. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: olddude Date: 13 May 10 - 10:18 PM The pope is out of touch with reality and I am catholic. I question his leadership, even his morality ... the church anymore is in a state of chaos I think... Until some serious steps are taking and some evil people end up in jail I am staying away for awhile. I find myself closer to my faith and to God fishing and being with nature then I do there anymore. It is quite sad actually. Yes there are good people very good people and there are bad people very bad people but far too many bad people lately are ending up in the church and that is a failure of the leadership. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 13 May 10 - 10:06 PM "Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday called abortion and same-sex marriage some of the most "insidious and dangerous"threats facing the world today" Wow, considering all the evil and issues in the world today, this stement proves to me this man is out of touch. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/13/13933996.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 10 May 10 - 04:23 PM Catholic bishops who shelter abusers go unpunished: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1253818&srvc=rss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 10 May 10 - 04:00 PM Axis of Logic http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59789.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 10 May 10 - 02:03 AM I went to Fatima (in Portugal) a couple of years ago. I was very wary because of the whole hysterical anti-Communist song-and-dance that goes with it, and the "three secrets" told to the 3 children of Fatima who received the "apparitions" of the Virgin Mary in 1917. I was surprised that the shrine didn't display the almost militaristic religious practices I've come to associate with Fatima. The only militaristic thing I saw was an aspect of the evening candlelight procession. The procession was led by a uniformed soldier carrying a neon cross. Two-thirds of the way back was the Eucharist displayed in a monstrance that was carried by a priest. Eight soldiers in various uniforms carried a canopy over the Eucharist/monstrance. I have wondered if Fatima's message of anti-Communism had anything to do with the Fascist government that ran Portugal for most of the 20th century, but I haven't been able to make a connection there. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 09 May 10 - 09:23 PM The Pope will travel to Portugal this week amid hopes that he might shed light on one of the Catholic Church's most intriguing mysteries – the so-called Third Secret of Fatima By Nick Squires in Rome Published: 10:50PM BST 09 May 2010 During his four day visit, Benedict XVI will pray at the shrine of Fatima, one of the best known centres of Catholic pilgrimage in the world and the focus of endless conspiracy theories and Doomsday predictions. Its cult is founded on the belief that three shepherd children witnessed a series of apparitions and prophecies of the Virgin Mary in 1917. The third secret was only disclosed by the Vatican in 2000 and was said to have foretold the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II by a Turkish gunman in 1981. There has been intense speculation ever since that the Vatican withheld part of the secret, which is said to have concerned the Satanic infiltration of the Catholic Church, the rise of an anti-Pope or even nuclear Armageddon. The Holy See claims that it has released the full text of the secret and that it is holding nothing back, but many Catholics are not convinced. Benedict is one of the world's leading authorities on the mystery because as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he was elected Pope in 2005, he was responsible for developing the Vatican's official position on the miracle of Fatima and wrote a scholarly interpretation of the Third Secret. Benedict's visit is heavy with symbolism. He will be in Fatima on May 13 – the same day, in 1917, that the Madonna supposedly first appeared to the children. It is also the date on which Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca came close to killing John Paul II after shooting him in St Peter's Square. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 09 May 10 - 09:07 PM I can't recheck the article but come to think of it there was talk of something about the third secret of Fatima and I am not sure if it was related to Cardinal Sodano or not..but he does not sound like a good Vicar of the Church to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 09 May 10 - 08:22 PM People pretending to be RC, to get work...Only in Canada, you say? http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100509/Turning-Catholic-100509/20100509/?hub=TorontoNewHome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 09 May 10 - 08:19 PM Any idea what the secret may be, if still a secret, that is? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7701579/Popes-visit-to-Portgual-may-shed-light-on-Third-S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 09 May 10 - 07:44 PM Good. They are naming names and this one has been very suspiciously involved in things. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0510/1224270048664.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 May 10 - 09:42 PM Sorry, ake, but your sacred "conservative" point of view is bound up in legalism and prejudice. Common sense*, which is by far the best moral arbiter, has very little to do with it. Oh, and contrary to common belief, we liberals are generally quite well-mannered and well-behaved. -Joe- *And to my mind, "common sense" and "conscience" are more-or-less the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 08 May 10 - 07:41 AM "sexual orientations" which are against the current law" Which laws and where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 May 10 - 03:12 AM And the push goes on to turn this thread from one on child abuse to for-and-against homosexuality - again. Attacks on children are not homosexual, they are paedophilic. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 08 May 10 - 02:34 AM Please!! Do you really regard that as "objective" It is simply a screed of "liberal" propaganda, all pros and no cons. Not a word about health figures, promiscuity rates, life expectancy etc? The whole article is extremely biased against the conservative view, without putting forward any real evidence to back up what they say, other that everyone should be "equal" regardless of behaviour. They conveniently leave out any "sexual orientations" which are against the current law......completely biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 May 10 - 01:54 AM I'm really impressed with that religious tolerance Website, Ed. It seems to have a very reasonable, balanced approach - and it refrains from screaming. I'm glad you pointed it out to us. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 May 10 - 06:36 PM Interesting articlew, if you fish around the site, there may be more: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex4.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 May 10 - 02:47 PM "Jim....I have no way of knowing whether or not young people have been infected." No, you haven't - this has not stopped you making your unsupported pronouncements up to now. There have been no reports of abuse victims contacting aids from their abusers, which rather puts your pronouncement of predatory, disease riddled homosexuals infiltrating the priesthood in order to have their wicked way with children into context - doesn't it? If any good can be said to have come out of this sordid mess, it is the fact that it has thrown the church, its influence and its teachings into the public gaze. One thing is for certain; it will never again attain the position of power it once held and abused. This thoughtful piece which appeared in this mornings Irish Times would have been unthinkable not too long ago. Jim Carroll TIME TO DITCH ARCHAIC IDEAS ON HOMOSEXUALITY Scientific research into gender attraction and general social evolution removes any excuse for depriving gay people of open and fulfilled lives Homosexuality is caused by eating chickens, according to the Bolivian president {The Irish Times, April 22nd). Or is it the fault of domineering mothers and weak fathers according to the reparative therapists {The Irish Times, April 21st)? Then there is the "I'm told" connection between homosexuality and paedophilia according to Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Bertone {The Irish Times, April 13th). With so many opinions and confusions about an integral part of the human condition, it is no wonder any sexual orientation not subscribing to the majority experience can become a target for misunderstandings and even fears. Consequently, "gay" becomes used as a pejorative taunt by children. So, in separating the wheat from the chaff, what are the known facts? Human sexuality is an extremely complex phenomenon since it involves more than just biological urges. Multiple variables influence the expression of all human sexuality, not least our sociological, cultural and religious experiences and beliefs. However, our emotional attractions do have an underlying inner sense that points that biological drive consistently in one direction. As so often happens with research questions, science grapples with the "nature versus nurture" bases for human behaviour. Psychoanalytic theories postulated parental relationships as a possible cause of male homosexuality, with emotionally distant fathers and overprotective mothers. However, the opposite appears more likely. Fathers can tend to distance themselves from sons who do not fully meet their criteria for maleness and mothers are likely to be protective of such sons. Social learning theory and its correlates, classical and operant conditioning or behaviour modification, can have an effect on certain sexual behaviours and even fantasies, but not on sexual preference. In the 1950s, these theories were taken to the extreme with aversion/shock therapies but with poor results. The seduction theory assumes early homosexual experiences will predispose a boy to develop a gay orientation. Studies reveal boys who have same-sex experiences knew of their inclinations before experiencing such activities. An example is one by Daewood (2000) in which he surveyed 37 gay sibling pairs: two-thirds did not engage in any mutual sexual behaviours and the average age for becoming aware of their same-sex feelings was 11, but the average age for discovering that the other brother was gay was 21. These findings are similar to a recent Irish survey (2009) that found the average age of awareness was 12 but public coming out was not until about 19. Serious scientific research is currently focusing more on biological processes in the prenatal stages. While there has been a concerted effort to identify a "gay gene", it appears genetics contributes less than half of the variance and the genes responsible for sexual orientation actually affect the brain's chemistry and the brain's response to that chemistry rather than directly mediate the orientation itself. While the research is much more complicated than these brief descriptions, the conclusions of the bulk of this peer-reviewed research is that sexual orientation is decided well before conscious choices are possible and the resulting orientation, whatever the direction, is irreversible. Whatever one's choice of lifestyle based upon beliefs, culture and psychological wellbeing, sexual preference or attraction is ingrained. If the emerging knowledge has merit - and there is sufficient evidence to accept it does - I believe the academic debates are no longer relevant. What is relevant is focusing on how our gay citizens can develop to their fullest potential, which can only happen in the context of human interactions and relationships. An integral and basic aspect of these interactions revolves around that universal, all-engulfing, romantically inspired, electrifying shiver that, despite neuropsychological studies, remains more in the poet's corner - the emotion of love. Our society can no longer deny expression and fulfilment of such a core element as love to over 5 per cent of its population when all heterosexual couples can openly and without fear or shame avow commitment to each other. So, how are we supporting our gay youth to become psychologically autonomous individuals free to express their most basic needs for acceptance and approval if they must overcome more hurdles than the average teen? And for those where the hurdles are too insurmountable, how can those gay adolescents experience and learn about relationships if they have to keep their emerging identity hidden in a deceptive game of pretending to be someone they are not? The recent RTE documentary Growing up Gay in Ireland demonstrated the confusions and struggles gay youth must endure with family and peers just to find some place within themselves to develop an individuated, autonomous and confident sense of identity. Watching it, I was reminded of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Those who have read the novel will remember that Huck was running away from an oppressive 19th-century American society along with Jim, a runaway Negro slave, as they discovered the world by rafting down the Mississippi river. The central dramatic moment in the novel is when Huck is faced with a dilemma. Should he do the "right" thing as he would have been taught in Sunday school and turn his friend Jim into the authorities, or not betray their friendship but break the law and thus be forever damned to hell? Despite the laws and cultural beliefs of the time and the innocent belief he would be damned for all eternity, Huck's decision (to use his own words) was "Alright then, I'll go to Hell!" Huck was able to access a deep inner sense that there could be only one truly humane choice, regardless of the personal consequences, and that was the idea of friendship. Thus, the naive boy became the autonomous man. In our society today, at least 5 per cent of our youth are faced with a very similar dilemma between an inner sense of self as gay and trying to fit in with the majority of their peers. Facing the prospect of loneliness, it is no surprise that suicide is more common among gay youth. Unlike Huck, they do not all have the courage or the confidence in themselves to swim against the current. Ireland is changing rapidly in awareness and acceptance of sexual orientation differences. Cardinal Bertone's recent inept comment was a non-runner for debate since most informed people today do not accept such nonsense. A 2009 circular from the Department of Education encourages schools to be more proactive in dealing with homophobia. However, a 2009 survey sample of parents across 120 Irish schools conducted by the University of Limerick noted the majority believe homophobia is still strong in many schools and that gay issues should be on the curriculum. So there is much more our society needs to do. There are many who would still believe they are destined for hell because they are gay. As one of the girls in the RTE documentary stated, it already felt like she was in hell with regard to school bullying. So, with the current state of our knowledge, it is time to reconsider our attitudes and personal biases and to reassess those beliefs which may be archaic, ineffective, non-relevant and inhumane. It is time for parents to continue to educate themselves to the facts and convey via modelling and discussion with their own children to fully respect differences. We must free up all our youth, and all our citizens for that matter, to become and experience and express who they are to their fullest potential. Or maybe we should just quit eating chicken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 07 May 10 - 03:01 AM Jim....I have no way of knowing whether or not young people have been infected. I only print what is documented or what I have witnessed....I allow people to draw their own conclusions. If I have failed to answer any of your questions, I can only assume that they have been more inane than your usual verbiage. Even I, tire of making the same point over and over again, just because you adopt the pretence of not understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 May 10 - 06:26 PM I try to stay away from a legalistic approach to teaching both religion and morality. It's too easy to get boxed into absolutes that way, and both religion and morality are not exact sciences. Ed's link to the article on Buddhist views on homosexuality, makes a lot of sense. Here's an excerpt:
Some people tell me that I'm "not really Catholic" or "not really Christian" because I refuse to take a legalistic approach to morality. I think Jesus Christ (and Thomas Aquinas) would agree with my more compassionate approach. I don't reject "the rules" - they are an important part of making moral decisions, but they are not the only proper guide to what's right and wrong. It's important to weigh the factors. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 May 10 - 05:49 PM I don't know anything about the source of this document...but, I found it on a quest to determine Buddhist views on homosexuality:http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 10 - 05:33 PM "Roman Catholic priests have the highest rate of hiv infection of any occupation." If this is in any way true, and if, as you have persistently claimed. the asssault on the children were by homosexuals, do you have any examples of the victims having contacted aids from their abusers - if not, why not? I suppose I will have to add this to my quite considerable list of unanswered questions to you. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 May 10 - 05:03 PM Does the celibacy rule cover masturbation? Good question. I never bothered to think of it, since the Catholic Church considers masturbation to be immoral (read: "against the rules") for everyone. Wikipedia has quite an article on clerical celibacy - noting that there is a chance of inaccuracy in Wikipedia entries, I have to say this article looks good. But anyhow, masturbation is one of those things that isn't talked about - kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. It warrants a paragraph (2352) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where it is referred to as "an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." A priest I trust says it's the sin he hears most often in confession. He didn't say more, but I got the impression he wished people could find more important sins to confess. But in answer to your question, priests and nuns are supposed to be exemplary in the practice of the virtue of chastity, and refraining from masturbation and other "impure" things falls under that category, rather than under the category of celibacy. What do I think of it? Well, I don't think of masturbation as sinful, but it's not something I'd go around recommending as a beneficial spiritual practice - but it's something people do as a normal course of nature, and I see no reason to condemn it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 06 May 10 - 04:08 PM Bonnie....."Sexually assaulting someone weaker - whether children, women, or the feeble-minded - is the real evil, whatever the combination of genders. Lying and seeking to cover it up compound the iniquity. These are the real matters which need to be addressed" I agree fully with what you say, but if we are properly to address this problem it is important to understand exactly who is committing these crimes and why they are committing them. It is also important to discover why this behaviour (the sexual abuse of boys and youths by men), is largely confined to the priesthood of the Catholic Church. By turning a blind eye to the reasons behind the abuse, we do not serve our young people, in the same way as in ignoring homosexual hiv and life expectancy figures we do not serve homosexuals. Roman Catholic priests have the highest rate of hiv infection of any occupation......ARTICLE HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 May 10 - 03:58 PM And, I once heard that 76.2% of the people make up statistics to prove a point....or was it 74.3? :) You know,most statistics "don't impress me much". (I guess I have gotten this accross in some of my posts). I respect research...but, I take fuzzy, biased (funded by an interest group) or non peer reviewed research, much like I take opinion and theories from any vested viewpoint...as just what they are, and then I add a quite a few grains of salt, to balance it out. One persons guess is often just as good as the next persons, regardless of the degree of personal experience they bring forward to boost legitimacy. We all can be right in our guesses and we all can also be wrong, regardless of who we hang out with. I have posted links from many different perspectives, some that make sense, some that don't hold water under close examination. I do it to add perspective and stimulate discussion and hopefully to move this puzzling issue a bit forward. We likely won't solve the problem (and even if we did, who would listen)...but, most of us feel a degree of concern over it(and yes, even emotion...which like others, I get caught up on at times),though we may differ as to our views on many related matters. On most of these matters, I can honestly say, I don't know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 May 10 - 03:55 PM I'd say people are pretty good 90% of the time - they're seldom completely one or the other. Sexuality can be a bit like that too, given the right circumstances. Nothing is black-and-white. Does the celibacy rule cover masturbation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 May 10 - 03:26 PM Hi, Ed - I wouldn't say Catholics "just do what they want to do (birth control etc.) and ignore most of what the Vatican says." My observation is that they do what they think is right - there's a difference. As for the percentage of priests who have a homosexual orientation, you takes your pick on the number. This page (click) seems to give a pretty good summary on the information, and the numbers run from 10 to 50 percent. My guess is about 30%, and I'd guess that under 10 percent have been active homosexuals. I'd also guess that the number of priests who are celibate is more like 80% - but I imagine some of those 80 percent have had sex a few times. Most priests take the vow of celibacy quite seriously - even though they may not like it. I suppose I tend to look on the positive side of things, because that's my nature. My experience in life tells me that 90 percent of people are pretty good folks. My experience of Mudcat tells me about 90 percent of Mudcatters are pretty good folks, maybe even 95%. And I'd guess the same percentage for priests, and for Catholics in general. We humans aren't as bad a race as some people think. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 10 - 02:55 PM "It's a seperate issue" Not in the terms it has been set out by akenaton. As you rightly say, it has no relevence to this particular topic, yet, despite this, he has used four seperate threads on clerical child abuse to promote his particicular brand of homophobia He does this in the form of pronouncements - making unqualified statements and then ignoring requests to back them up. He claims to have no axe to grind with homosexuality, yet has attempted time and again to portray them as disease-carrying perverts with no control over their perversions. He hasn't the bottle to open a thread devoted to his own particular perversion, but rather, chooses threads on abused children to put his message across. He has referred to those of us who have expressed our disgust at clerical sex abuse as 'reliphobes', and those of us who have objected to his persistent bigotry have been called 'snide'. He has claimed to be a non-christian, yet he has sprung to the defence of a heirarchy which hid and facilitated child abuse for decades. As you say - it's a seperate issue. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 06 May 10 - 01:38 PM Not saying it's not important, Jim - just saying it's a separate issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 10 - 01:07 PM " These are the real matters which need to be addressed. " You have to be joking Bonnie - this obsessive is not going to give up his homophobic platform even if it is built on the backs of abused children. Akenaton, Once again, the perpetrators of these abuses were paedophiles, not homosexuals - if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it, but not on a thread on clerical abuse against children. I would have thought they had been 'used' enough without your capitalising on their suffering to get over your homophobic message. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 06 May 10 - 09:03 AM Bonnie, Maybe we should just let the boys step outside. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 06 May 10 - 03:45 AM WHO CARES who's straight and who's gay? It's a side-issue. Sexually assaulting someone weaker - whether children, women, or the feeble-minded - is the real evil, whatever the combination of genders. Lying and seeking to cover it up compound the iniquity. These are the real matters which need to be addressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 02:53 AM And concocted statistics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 06 May 10 - 02:10 AM I agree that opportunity is obviously a factor here Smokey, but it still leaves us with the inconvenient issue of sexual orientation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 05 May 10 - 05:31 PM "Up to" 50%? Quite correct, when read carefully.. Indeed, it could be "up to" 99%. Perhaps "a disproportionately high number" might be more accurate? The actual proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood shouldn't really be a problem though. I think the root of the problem is the nature of the job itself and the opportunities and temptations it presents. It should also be remembered that not all homosexuals are of a predatory nature, and about half(?) of them are inclined to be 'feminine' in nature. Admittedly that is a gross oversimplification of homosexuality, but approximately right enough to make my point, which is that if it was simply the presence of homosexuality in the priesthood which was causing the abuse, there would be far less of it than there obviously is. The job attracts perverts of the worst kind, and that appears to have been the case for at least a thousand years. I find it very odd that in all that time, nothing effective has been done by the RCC to prevent it. Dealing with individual cases is all well and good, on the rare occasions it happens, but it's a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 May 10 - 05:17 PM Not all conservatism is bad Joe and as I have said previously, in the church a large measure of conservatism is an absolute necessity. The church should be a defender of traditional values and never allow itself to be silenced by whatever is morally in fashion. People like Maciel are not "the Church" they are an aberration which should be stamped out in the strongest possible terms. The Church should forget about sickening, meaningless apologies for crimes it did not commit and offer up the real criminals to the secular courts. If we really wanted an answer to why this abuse happened(which we dont), we would make every person convicted of sexual abuse against minors take a sexual orientation test.....will that happen?...never! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 May 10 - 07:01 AM "Up to 50% of priests and seminarians are homosexual(2% in the real world)" Where did this number came from, sources please. If in the unlikely case that the number proposed were true, the connection to RC child sexual abuse (who cares what term folks call it, and for whatever reason, they were still children and they were still sexually abused) does not seem to backed up by peer reviewed (aka unbiased) research, or sound logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 May 10 - 06:24 AM I refer to the attachment in my last post, under "Nuns as sexual victims get little notice" If one excludes the priest who sexually abused children, those who abused nuns and other employees, and separate out those who has sex of some type with parishoners and others...(and those who are not domain masters) I would be surprised in any significant number practice celibacy anyway. I suspect it is as Joe O often says as to the faithful...they just do what they want to do (birth control etc.) and ignore most of what the Vatican says anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 May 10 - 04:08 AM
Yes, and the downfall of that bastard Maciel was a good, strong blow to Catholic conservatives. Let's hope a few more pieces fall in that house of cards. I'm tired of all their attacks of the progress made by Vatican II. I'm tired of their smug moralism, their drive to silence all who disagree with them, their clamoring for a return to regimentation and authoritarianism and prejudice. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 May 10 - 03:09 AM It is amazing the contortions some people get into, trying to avoid eye contact with the "elephant". Up to 50% of priests and seminarians are homosexual(2% in the real world). The mass of Clerical sexual abuse is not "paedophilia" but sexual abuse by men against teenage boys and youths. To say abusers in these circumstances are not motivated by sexual preference is just suspension of reason. As intelligent people, you should all be ashamed of yourselves...(I make an exception for Smokey) :0) The reason the problem is not being investigated on these grounds, is that the "liberal" media are just waiting round the corner with their hatchets....the thought police are winning! The breaking of the church as the last bastion of "conservatism" is the agenda and this battle will be of great importance to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 10:32 PM The overlooked:http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/female_victims_index.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 10:26 PM More statistics...for what purpose, I am unsure. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004094-503544.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 09:32 PM I suspect there are many people who are attracted to children sexually, but would never offend or abuse...its likely difficult ot separate them out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 04 May 10 - 09:17 PM I think it might be very easy to predict at least which people are attracted to children by some fairly standard physiological testing. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 08:30 PM I seriously doubt whether many priests are literally celibate at all, although the only way to actually find out would be to ask them, which would be rather futile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 08:09 PM And, is it also reasonable to assume that many who one may feel, or even state they are celibate (at fear of losing a job or status) are not celebate at all? And, is it not reasonable to speculate (though I caution against using a statistic) that some priests may have a different meaning of what being celibate really is, as the former Bishop (I earlier linked to) seemed to find in his experience in the RC church. I recall former USA President Clinton had a number of definitions on what sexual acts "having sex with a woman" included:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 08:02 PM Smokey, unfortunately, that seems to be how child molesters are found. As far as I can tell, there is no way to predict that a person is going to be a child molester. The people you'd least suspect, are the most successful child molesters. It's only after the crime, that you know a person is a child molester. Exactly my point, Joe, of course I don't have contrary evidence. Hence my stance on removal of opportunities being the most effective way to prevent abuse. I think abusers or potential abusers are attracted to the job because of the opportunities and cover it provides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 10 - 07:32 PM Smokey, unfortunately, that seems to be how child molesters are found. As far as I can tell, there is no way to predict that a person is going to be a child molester. The people you'd least suspect, are the most successful child molesters. It's only after the crime, that you know a person is a child molester. Do you have evidence to the contrary? So, what do we do, line up our favorite prejudices, and list them as causes for child molestation? The Vatican and others did that with homosexuality, and rightly fell flat on their faces. I suppose you could say that people who work with children are the most likely to be child molesters - but do they molest because they work with children, or do they seek out such jobs because they seek an opportunity to molest, or does the opportunity cause them to become molesters? I think it's none of the three. The percentage of molesters in any group or class is so small, then being part of a group or class is not a valid predictor. And that includes celibacy. Only a small number of celibates molest children (and for that matter, if they molest, then they are no longer celibate, are they?) -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 06:27 PM The RCC's method of detecting child abusers seems to be to give them access to a lot of children and see if anyone complains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 06:06 PM Smokey That is the problem with this issue. On one side the RC defenders say no one knows how to detect, deal with or cure child sex offenders. But, in the defense some quote exact statistical numbers (as if there is any way to deduce they are anywhere accurate)and rule out so blatenly throries of the real numbers in the ranks, what makes them tick and are so sure they have 'em all coraled up somewhere(with little change in the institution or people that condoned or ignored it, or understanding what may have encouraged it) so it will never (or, is so less likely to, occur again). It is clearly in the past. Yea, right! It may be good for PR and to console the faithful (who want to believe), but not so good for good old common sense. That's why so many folks don't buy into it....and it does not go away. It's not the media slant, or anti RC folks...its because of old good old common sense....it simply does not pass the good ols "smell test". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 05:11 PM I don't see how anyone could possibly know that.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 04:10 PM In other words (the article says) that if a priest is not a child sex abuser, than he is celibate and has no issues with being so...a likely story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 03:32 PM I can't see a connection between celibacy and child abuse, but I can see how the existence of the rule might provide some cover for anyone with unconventional tastes, as does priesthood in general. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 06:31 AM "Celibacy can indeed be a challenge but the vast majority of sexual abuse is not committed by celibates," says Ms Smith. "We found 4% [of priests] involved in child abuse - that means for 96% celibacy did not present a challenge in terms of child abuse." From the study cited, there is absolutely no locical behind this statement that I can see. This was a comment from a recent story in the BBC. It is an example of folks defending a topic by twisting statistics around to support a conclusion they have already made. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8654789.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 03 May 10 - 11:21 PM "I have more respect for the Dalai Lama than I have had for any pope since John XXIII" Quote, Joe O. ....and still true today. But to Benedict/Ratzinger's credit, I have to say that it appears it was Ratzinger who initiated investigation of the infamous Fr. Maciel, despite the fact that Maciel was one of John Paul II's favorites. Maciel was a molester, a morphine addict, a philanderer and father of several illegitimate children, and founder of an ultraconservative religious order. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 03 May 10 - 07:36 PM The reverse side also has a reverse side |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 10 - 03:41 PM That is more a Protestant thing. Well, I heard a great sermon yesterday...a very old, possibly senile priest...rambled on and on and then burst into clarity and said not to use our cellphones when driving. That made sense. I understand sermons like that. THere was another one in Newfoundland that made sense..it was St. Patrick's Day and I followed the parade into church..where there were lots of school boys...and the priest told the boys not to make fun of the old people. That I understood. Now I have 2 sermons I understood. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 May 10 - 03:01 PM mg.Guest; Do you know you've just posted message number 666 - symbolic or what? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 10 - 01:09 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/europe/03maciel.html?hp=&pagewanted=all And that is just horse pucky that Ratzinger could not have done anything. He could have spoken out and told the truth..maybe lost his cardinalship but kept his soul. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 May 10 - 05:18 AM Following the survey which revealed that 32% of the population of Ireland has 'no trust at all in the Church', it seems that their role in education is now under scrutiny. Could be one of the positive things to have been raised by the asbuse inquiries. If mistrust is here, can non-denominational schools be far behind? Jim Carroll RELIGIOUS CONTROL OF SCHOOLS A VERY FRAUGHT ISSUE The issue of religious control of schools is "very fraught" and will pose difficult challenges for the Government, Minister for Education Mary Coughlan has been warned by her department. In briefing material which was prepared for the newly appointed Minister last March, Ms Coughlan was told of growing calls for a secular and less segregated system of education. However, officials also said demand for Catholic schools remained strong, with fresh requests for new Catholic secondary schools in parts of the country where there had been an increase in population. The latest figures show the Catholic Church is the patron of more than 90 per cent of primary schools in the State. The church is also the dominant force at second level, controlling more than 400 of the 700 second-level schools. The debate over the church's control of schools was heightened following the publication of the Ryan and Murphy reports last year into the abuse of children in its care. "The whole issue of school patronage in a changing landscape is a very fraught one," the briefing material says. "We are in a very difficult space of how we can reconcile conflicting objectives: the traditional rights of different religious groupings to have their own State funded schools, rights of those who want secular education, desirability of inclusive schooling and the need to avoid segregated schooling. "This is all against a landscape where education provision reflects the historic dominance of Catholic education." While the department has recognised growing numbers of secular schools at both primary and secondary level in recent years, it says there is widespread demand for a greater diversity of schools. These conflicting objectives are even more acute at second level, according to officials. "The desire by Educate Together to be recognised for new second-level schools and the request for new Catholic schools possess difficult questions about the framework for recognising new second-level schools," according to the briefing material, which was released under the Freedom of Information Act. The department has been holding private talks with the church over the patronage of schools. Batt O'Keeffe, Ms Coughlan's predecessor as minister at the department, has said that nothing would change in the patronage of church-run schools without the full and prior consultation of local communities. This process could involve holding plebiscites to test local views, while discussions would also have to take place with alter¬native patrons. The multi-denominational group Educate Together has been mentioned as one body which could take over management of the schools. Local vocational education committees could also have a crucial role. Two new State-run community primary schools have been estab¬lished on a pilot basis under the umbrella of the Dublin Vocational Education Committee (VEC). communities. This process could involve holding plebiscites to test local views, while discussions would also have to take place with alternative patrons. The multi-denominational group Educate Together has been mentioned as one body which could take over management of the schools. Local vocational education com¬mittees could also have a crucial role Two new State-run community primary schools have been established on a pilot basis under the umbrella of the Dublin Vocational Education Committee (VEC). Senior figures have sent out mixed messages about the church's patronage of both primary and secondary schools in recent months. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin has acknowledged that the church is over-represented in primary education. However, Cardinal Sean Brady has issued a staunch defence of the church's continued role in education. Cardinal Brady has said that if parents wanted to send their children to a Catholic school, then the school should have the right to Government funding if it complied with the State curriculum. Irish Times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 02 May 10 - 03:23 PM "I have more respect for the Dalai Lama than I have had for any pope since John XXIII" Quote, Joe O. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Amos Date: 02 May 10 - 12:58 PM An inspiring defense of the real Catholic Church, far removed from the highjinks of Popery. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 May 10 - 08:13 PM Also, I regularly highlight and [ctrl]C - but when the window appears with the title un-highlighted, I ASS-U-ME that my post has taken, but sometimes someone ELSE has also just posted... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 May 10 - 08:08 PM I just couldn't be bothered trying to recreate it and my mind had already moved onto writing other posts on other threads, no 'attack' intended, Joe. I may recall most of it much later. "If you highlight [CTRL-A] and save [CTRL-S] your messages before you submit them, you can easily rectify the problem. If you didn't do that, try the BACK button on your browser" Works ONLY if you use a single tab on Firefox all the time. If you press 'send' and close the window which now just shows you the thread list, then open another new thread in a new tab (I often run down the list and open several new tabs at once) to post in, it's gone forever, and can not be got back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 07:42 PM Huh? I just checked, and there are no deleted posts in this thread - but half the time, I'm not sure what you're talking about, foolestroupe... Maybe you had a post that didn't "take" for technical reasons, but I can't quite understand what you're saying. Perhaps, you should try to be more clear in your expression.. I wish people would stop alleging that their posts have been deleted. It makes others suspicious, and we moderators haven't done anything to give cause for such suspicion. If you're logged in, it's very unlikely that your post has been deleted unless it is a direct personal attack against another Mudcatter. If it disappears right when you post it, it's most likely a technical problem. If you highlight [CTRL-A] and save [CTRL-S] your messages before you submit them, you can easily rectify the problem. If you didn't do that, try the BACK button on your browser - but chances are that if you didn't save a lost message before posting, it's lost forever (but that it hasn't been deleted). If you are a Guest here, then every message you post will be reviewed, and any Guest post that has even a whiff of animosity, is likely to be deleted. The lesson? Register as a Mudcatter, and log in. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 May 10 - 07:14 PM Post just made about why people feel happy in many social groupings now missing/deleted.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 06:09 PM A lot of the nuns prior to Vatican II were angry, unhappy women who felt they had been pushed into the convent by family and other pressures, but it's very rare to see American nuns like that today. Some Catholic men became priests because of similar family pressure, especially in Ireland - but not as many as the nuns. But things have changed. For the most part, modern American nuns are strong, courageous women who are doing exactly what they believe they should be doing. Sister Judy, whom I affectionately refer to as "my boss," has been a nun for fifty years and has worked with the poor and homeless for over twenty years. She took two years off to work in Africa with refugees from Rwanda. She is a vivacious, attractive, intelligent woman. She loves men, and men fall all over themselves doing things for Sister Judy, and she loves it. She does what she does, because that's what she has chosen to do, not because she was ordered to do so by her superiors. She depends on her religious community for moral and emotional (and some financial) support - not for direction. Her religious community is her family that sustains her, not an organization that regulates her life. And because of complaints about this un-"orthodox" lifestyle of American nuns, the Vatican is investigating all the communities of nuns in the United States. Several months ago, a group of five Dominican nuns attended Sunday Mass in our parish. I talked with them afterwards. Their province is in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the province has been in existence about five years. They told me, "We are faithful nuns who wear the habit." I wanted to ask them if my friend Sister Judy, who has been a nun for fifty years and does NOT wear a habit, is any less faithful. But for once, I decided to hold my tongue. These new Dominicans have many young women joining their community, and Sister Judy's order has ONE woman in "formation," preparing to become a member. I wonder why the neoconservative orders are so popular, and the reformed traditional orders like Sister Judy's have so few new members. I do have to admit that the neoconservative nuns and priests do seem very happy. I may not agree with what they're doing, but it's clear that they're doing what they want to do. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 01 May 10 - 04:32 PM I think we also have to look at the factor of anger..anger at being stuck in some dirty, run-down orphanage with sickly, unhappy children perhaps...anger at somehow being browbeaten into a vocation that was not really yours...anger at having to deal with adolescents all day long...at being deprived of much adult company..certainly that of women. I don't know. It is just something to think about. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 04:12 PM Well, for most of my life, I have been disgusted with the administration of the Catholic Church. John XXIII (1958-1963) is the only recent pope I can think of, who was truly exemplary. Most of the time, I have thought of the upper structure of the Catholic Church as a "necessary evil," but certainly not what it should be. My Sacramento diocese had a wonderful bishop from 1979-1993, and an excellent auxiliary bishop 1997-2006, so we've had it pretty good. The neighboring diocese, Santa Rosa, had a bishop who was horribly mismanaging church money while having an affair with a priest and covering up sexual abuse. You can imagine that the experience of Catholics in that diocese was quite different from mine, although even that diocese had parishes that were healthy. As I've said before, local parishes are quite autonomous. If a group of lay people get together and insist on having a healthy parish, they can usually accomplish it - even though the diocesan structure may be corrupt, and even though Rome has often been just as corrupt. Religious faith rests within individuals, never within structures. The structure can codify and publish things, but it never be the home of faith. Yes, I've known a few priests who have unrealistic ideas about sex, but most are far more realistic than a lot of lay men (religious and nonreligious) that I've met. If they're halfway decent people and halfway decent priests, they've heard it all; and they've come to a broader understanding that a lot of lay men have [personally, I think that most women have a far more realistic view of sex than most men have, but that's a matter for another thread]. I can't say I've ever known a priest who'd think that sex with a woman would be a worse sin than sex with a man or with a child. There is much written in official Catholic Church documents about the holiness of sex between a man and wife - and nothing approving any sort of sex outside of marriage. Catholic taboos against sex between men are strong enough that the Catholic Church can rightly be called "homophobic" as an institution. And yes, there are strong Catholic taboos against sex with children. Yeah, I'm sure that molesting priests have all sorts of strange thinking that rationalizes their conduct, and I'm sure that some may think they're not breaking their vows of celibacy - but you have to realize that child molesters are sexual perverts, and it follows that their thinking is going to be perverted. We humans are very good at rationalizing whatever it is that we want to do. I think that most people who do wrong, are very convinced that they're doing right. Sometimes I think we're less sure of ourselves when what we're doing actually is the right thing to do. Maybe that's when we rationalize something, we really work hard at constructing that rationalization and destroying our self-doubt. Maybe that's why the worst of the bishops are so sure of themselves. Religion can be the ultimate tool of rationalization - if we believe we have God on our side, how can we be wrong? And when that rationalization is institutionalized, the results can be deadly - as we have seen, time and time again. And that's why I have little respect for the institutional structure of the Catholic Church. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 May 10 - 03:20 PM Whoops - another candidate for our typo guardian - should delete "screams that Dukes would have been" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 May 10 - 03:17 PM Just in case you think it's just a few of us with axes to grind and that we are making it all up. One interesting aspect of this is that ten years ago there would be screams that Dukes would have been screams for Dukes' head on a plate - let's see what happens. Jim Carroll SERVING CATHOLIC BISHOPS SHOULD ALL RESIGN ANGLO IRISH Bank chairman Alan Dukes last night called for all current Irish Catholic bishops to resign. At the annual Burren Law School in Ballyvaughan, Co Clare, Mr Dukes called for a Ryan-type inquiry to be carried out in every diocese. In the opening address of the school, themed "Power - its Uses and Abuses", Mr Dukes heavily criticised the Irish regulatory authorities that presided over the boom and subsequent bust, claiming they had abused the power given to them. Mr Dukes said: "In both the financial sector and the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and elsewhere, we have witnessed an abuse of power by those in direct contact with the public, and failure by the relevant regulatory or controlling authorities to take action to remedy the abuses. This failure in itself constituted an abuse of power." Mr Dukes said measures were now being taken in the financial sector to remedy past failures and that "analogous measures are needed in the Roman Catholic Church". He pointed out that in all the major banks, top level personnel have been replaced and that an inquiry into the origins and causes of the banking crisis is under way. "We have in place a new governor of the Central Bank and a new Financial Regulator. A Central Bank reform Bill has been published and new legislation on banking governance is in preparation." Calling for similar measures in the Catholic Church, Mr Dukes said that along with all bishops resigning and a Ryan-type inquiry in each diocese, there should be transparent criteria for assessment of the suitability of candidates for bishop, and that a new set of diocesan governance practices should be drawn up. Mr Dukes remarked that "bishops themselves seem to be even less ready to step down in the face of systematic failure than are chairmen of banks". Mr Dukes said the Vatican's response to clerical sex abuse was to conceal abuse and abusers in order to maintain a facade, rather than ensure that those whom it appointed to take charge of dioceses carried out their duty of care in a proper manner. In staunch criticism of the previous Irish regulatory regime, Mr Dukes said that the "regulatory authorities abused the power given to them by legislation by simply failing to use it in the face of clear failings on the part of market operators"....... IRISH TIMES 1.5.10. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 01:52 PM MG I raised this general possibility in another thread. Joe O stated the following, in response: "I can't agree with much of what you say about the thinking of "the church" on the matter of sexuality. Homosexual sex and sex with children is certainly not considered "less sinful" than sex with a woman". To be fair, maybe he was referring to RC Church organization thinking, not priests? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 01 May 10 - 01:33 PM That is what I have been saying. The true sin would be with a woman. In their minds...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 09:11 AM Priests think abuse 'doesn't break celibacy'—ex-bishop Agence France-Presse 04/29/2010 SYDNEY—Some pedophile priests believe molesting children does not breach their vow of celibacy, a retired Australian Catholic bishop said in a magazine interview. Geoffrey Robinson, former auxiliary bishop of Sydney, told The Australian Women's Weekly he had made the observation during years of work with victims of child abuse within the church. "We've met it often enough to see it as a factor. That's what the vow of celibacy refers to, being married. If it's not an adult woman, then somehow they're not breaking their vow," the 72-year-old said. Robinson, who was abused as a child, although not by a priest, has previously criticized the handling of pedophilia cases by the church, which is facing a growing crisis over the issue. In his 2007 book, "Confronting Power and Sex In The Catholic Church," he also hit out at compulsory celibacy, which the Vatican's number two last week said was a "positive tradition" but "not untouchable." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 07:58 AM The more I read about sexual abuse in the RC church and the complicity of the organized structure...the popes, the cardinals, the bishops...the more I ask the question to myself is this church structure worth saving (not to be confused with the question "is the RC faith worth saving"). Joe has posted in praise of good points on "the real RC church" which seems to be a local parish organization fueled by the local faithful, versus the Bishop and Vatican organizational structure. It takes me back to the Sinead interview...in which she seems to say that the organized structure (Vatican, Bishops etc) is rotten and the only way for it to be fixed is for the faithful to take back the RC church from those who have led it to the dismal state it is in today. But, to me, what Joe seems to have posted (if you separate out some of the odd internal RC circular arguments and defensive stuff) seems to be in line with what Sinead and others have said ...Since the Organization seems to have a tight hold on the reigns, with little actual power (organizational, sinancial and policy) residing with the faithful (beyons some local initiatives). But, how this could be done is a puzzle. Maybe an implosion will have to occur before there is an opportunity for real change, beyond the defensive drabble and tearful, though late, appoligies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 May 10 - 06:26 AM "by inferring that this mess is all the fault of the Church....." In the hope that one day you will actually qualify one of your nonsensical statements - didn't the church as a body cover up the abuses and re-assign the abusers to positions where they could continue their abusing. Dnd didn't the Vatican issue orders to deal with the whole affair within the limits of the church? Wasn't it an order from the Vatican that instigated the signing of 'pacts of silence' on the abuses so the crimes went undetected and unpunished? How was/is the church not to blame? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 05:31 AM Did Benedict XVI act out of concern for victims, (after decades of abuse) and published works), concerns to control massive amounts of money the group massed or to save the church and some inside from the consequences of their actions (or a combination of the above)? A couple of notable comments in the article on this "nest of sexual abusers, sancioned by the Vatican" The link to the article is at the end. "Given so much evidence, Benedict XVI, upon arriving at the papacy, ordered Maciel to leave Rome, return "to a life dedicated to prayer and penance" in Mexico and give up any form of public ministry, thus saving the priest from an ecclesiastical trial and especially from civil trials. The institutions of the top Catholic hierarchy and Mexican politics managed to protect Maciel while continuing to ignore the victims"..... ....."Maciel's death won't put an end to the scandal. What is needed is to get inside his organization to see just how far it was complicit in and abetted the crimes of pederasty, drug use, absolution for accomplices and others, although in 2001 then-Cardinal Ratzinger established a 10-year statute of limitations for the latter crime". http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/4016 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 01 May 10 - 04:30 AM Sorry Joe, most commentators in the media and quite a few posters here are defending the abusers by inferring that this mess is all the fault of the Church. As many of the abusers as possible should be charged....clean them out! Frank is right, the Pope should make a stand and condemn thse people. Smokey is also correct that few of the "cover uppers" will be charged, as evidence will be hard to get, but again the Pope should name names and clean up the organisation, The celibacy rule and it's effect in encouraging those of abnormal sexual orientation into the priesthood in such large numbers, must be carefully scrutinised |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 12:19 AM Well, Frank, I don't think anybody is defending "these priests" nowaways. When he was Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it did seem like the Pope dragged his heels at first. Then, finally, it seemed that he "got it" - despite the fact that John Paul II was still supporting Fr. Maciel, the notorious founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Ratzinger started an investigation. And when he became Pope, he banished Maciel. Now it comes out that Maciel was a morphine addict, molested at least 20 seminarians, and fathered children by at least two women....and his followers wanted him declared a saint. Maciel died in infamy, but his legacy lives on in the insidious Legionaries. But it does seem that Ratzinger/Benedict saw the light a couple of years before he became Pope, and started to seriously pursue the molesters. Nowadays, nobody is defending the molesters...but they're still trying to defend the bishops who covered up the crimes. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:43 PM Joe, one solution is for the pope to speak out forcefully against these crimes and to refrain from covering them up. He has made them church policy. Why is he defending these priests? Criticism of this is not bigotry. It is however humane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:59 PM I fear very few of the cover-uppers will ever see the inside of a cell door, unfortunately. Law Courts, quite rightly, require substantial evidence and/or proof to find someone guilty, and I suspect it would not be in abundance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:46 PM Sinead makes some important and logical points about the similar pattern in the global nature of the coverup that most likely had some level of central knowledge and coordination, or even stewadship. It is very likely that some (or many) in powerful positions wanted (and want) it to go away, and contributed to a cover up, because they were involved directly (in the abuse) or less directly, in letting it happen. There are only so many reasons that can be put forward for events that were widespread and spanned long periods in time that can bear any logical weight. RC faith and wanting the RC organization to be clean on this matter holds little water (holy or not so holy)...and I suspect is a route for the church to continue to move downward and dismantle, rather than upward and unify under its orginal purpose. As mg states "The coverup is part of the abuse itself because it allows perps (aka, pervs) to keep perping (aka, perving) and it allows more and more (of it) to happen (globally)"....and it likely is still happening in RC circles in many places in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM It is acceptable to me if they have total homosexual orientation or they have no orientation whatsoever. Or any combination or pattern. As long as they do not abuse children. If they have voluntary, nonabusive adult relationships I don't care with whom. But the coverup is part of the abuse itself because it allows perps to keep perping and it allows more and more to happen. So I would like to see the Pope resign..oh goodness, he is maybe going to apologize they say, but in June. Why wait? I would like the long arm of the law to reach out and put the coveruppers in jail if they are guilty of crimes. And mostly, like someone else suggested, I want any vows of silence on this matter to be officially released by the pope himself. That is so important. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 30 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM I like Sinead as a performer, but this inteview seems like just another stick to beat the Catholic Church. Maybe the Church needs a good beating, but not a word about the actual perpetrators? There are two separate sets of crimes here, the sexual abuse of boys, and the self serving cover up by the offices of the church. Although seemingly linked, the two crimes are very different in nature. The predators are gratifying sexual feelings in the abuse of boys and young men...a crime of sexual assault. The Church were invlved in damage limitation, until they realised the situation was out of control.....they were indeed guilty of a crime, but a very different crime from the one being inflicted on boys and youths by the priests. If we really want to protect children the two crimes must be dealt with separately, as I said above, we could remove the Pope and all his cardinals, but the abuse would continue while the sexual imbalance remains in the priesthood. The priesthood should reflect sexual orientation rates in the real world. Anything else is simply not acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 30 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM You know,I used to be annoyed by Sinead....But, after viewing her interview...it seems she is right on on many aspects of the issue....though her proposed solution may be seen by some as being on the extreme side. I suspect I would be there too, if I had been directly impacted by some of those unholy villians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:22 AM Sinead O'connor on the Maddow showN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:11 AM "Ho, hum.....as I answered Jim Carroll's question THREE times:" The question was would you have put in as much effort defending the school authorities as you have defending the church over its abuses - you still haven't replied, but don't bother - I think I know ther answer. "But I also believe that Jim Carroll is painting the guilt with too broad a brush, because he places blame on the entire Catholic Church" No Joe, we blame the organisation of the church, not the faithful who were as much in the dark as the rest of us. It was the heirarchy instigated a cover-up and organised an escape rout to enable the abusers tyo escape justice and continue their abuse - tell us they didn't. It is also the heirarchy who refuses to take responsibility for their part in the abuses and apologise and make reparation to the victims - tell us it isn't. "Jim and others have said that everyone in Ireland knew what was going on," No we didn't - I have said that the PHYSICAL violence was common knowledge, but the extent and the severity of that violence was not realised until comapratively recently, making it virtually impossible to do anything about it. The violence that was known about was accepted as severe corrrection, such was the power of the church to cover up its own actions. "Jim Carroll and others, why didn't you speak out against the Magdalene laundries and the reform schools when they were still in existence?" There you go again Joe - blaming the rest of us for the sins of the church. For the record - I am a UK citizen who came to live in Ireland in 1998 (just) after the last Magdelene Laundry was closed. I and most of us, had never heard of The Magdelene Laundries until the television film based on the experience of one of the inmates (BBC late 90s) - followed by the feature film 'The Magdelene Sisters' also in the late 90s. Those who knew of their existence believed them to be correction centres where 'fallen women' were sent, not the slave camps they are now recognised as being. So efficient was the cover-up by the religious orders who ran them, we still haven't a full picture of what went on thin them as the Government has washed its hands of holding a full enquiry into them, despite the fact that courts sent girls there as punishment. "I think that everyone who knows of a crime and does nothing about it, has some share in the responsibility for that crime." The last time the discussion sank to this level was when the parents of the victims were accused of knowing that the crimes were taking place and doing nothing about it; on contributer was so upset at this accusation that she withdrew from the thread. "The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago." So what - is there an amnesty on sexual abuse, and isn't this what Simon Weisenthall was constantly being told? "Note however, that he restricts the blame to Catholics, most notably current Catholics." Where on earth did that one come from Joe? I neither said it nor believe it. "For the most part, the sexual and physical abuse problem is over. " Not for the victims it isn't, and it will never be until the church admits its guilt and acknowleges the suffering it has inflicted on innocent children. "The only thing the Catholic Church can do now is to acknowledge responsibility, pay reparations, and set up controls so such a thing does not happen again." And the only thing the rest of us can do is make sure that the church, or any other influentual body never gets into the position where it could continue to abuse and persecute children the way it did. An interesting poll was published in yesterdays Irish Times. In 2001 6% of the population of Ireland had "no trust at all" in the church. By 2004 this had risen to 13% Todays figure stands at 32%, beaten only by the Government and the Banks. I really don't know why decent, honest Catholics are not hammering on the gates of the Vatican demanding that damage inflicted on the church by its persistant prevarication and avoiance of responsibilty, ceases immediately before it brings your church tumbling about your ears. "HERE'S JIMMY!!" I see you appear to have acquired a parrot. Just a reminder Ake, that it is you who hands out conspiricy theories and hidden agendas to back up your otherwise unqualified accusations. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM I knew someone whose mother decided that she was too insane to care for him, actually a really brave and rational decision on her part, and she was right. He was 'put into care' and shuffled from place to place. When asked for his religion he claims 'all of them' - for he would be sent from one 'place of care' to another on a regular basis. For years when an adult and finally out of "care" (the quotes are for a real meaning purpose!) he was stashing food in his bed and other places. He realised that he was so hungry as a child - chronically underfed by these 'good Christians!' that he had developed the habit of stashing any lucky excess 'just in case'. Now THAT is abuse too. Well he discovered rapidly as a youngster that when transferred to a new institution, if he 'converted' to the new brand of magical sky fairy gibberish, HE GOT EXTRA FOOD! Did he get 'done by a priest'? well he was in so many different 'brands' - including RC - and he was so embarrassed that he was very mature when he finally approached a doctor who treated him to stop the bleeding.... you know what I mean ... You can't blame JUST the RCs - but they seem to be getting most of the press at the moment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 11:29 PM Well, there were those rumors that there was saltpeter in our food in the seminary, supposedly to control sex drive...not salt & vitriol, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 09:54 PM Battered? Of course.....but certainly not molested. Typical of the Catholic church, eating the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 29 Apr 10 - 08:34 PM Salt n' vitriol on yer chips?......."HERE'S JIMMY!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM Friday night fish fry at a Catholic church, yes...and I do have many other good childhood RC memories....and none of them "touchy feely", as Ake may be suggesting:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 29 Apr 10 - 08:18 PM This thread is getting much too touche feely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:59 PM Sorry Joe, couldn't resist - I'm possessed by the spirit of a raddled old hippy musician that makes me do bad things and occasionally talk rubbish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:54 PM Touché, Smokey. Battered? Of course.....but certainly not molested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:47 PM Is the fish battered? (sorry, honest I am) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM Hey, Ed, have you ever been to a Friday night fish fry at a Catholic church?? They ain't bad - AND they're the only church that isn't afraid to serve beer with the fish & chips. I will NOT apologize for the Catholic traditional Friday night fish fry. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:36 PM Time for a humour break: I usually lump organized religion, organized labor, and organized crime together. The Mafia gets points for having the best restaurants. ~Dave Beard |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM No, I get it, Ed. I know all about the long-term impact of child abuse. But if the Church did not respond with compassion when the victim first reported the abuse, it's too late. What victim is going to accept compassion and healing from a church that stonewalled him for ten years before even acknowledging an offense? By that time, the only thing the Catholic Church can do is offer a healthy financial settlement and a profound apology - and the victim can use the settlement money to get his treatment from an independent source. The only proper way for the Catholic Church to receive a complaint of abuse or molestation, is to respond immediately with compassion and openness. An immediate denial of wrongdoing is always wrong, and yet the Catholic Church responded with initial denial time and time again. But for the most part, it's over now, and what remains is to clean up a horrible mess. Nobody believes the denials now - they went on for far too long. The only thing the Catholic Church can do now is to acknowledge responsibility, pay reparations, and set up controls so such a thing does not happen again. But on the other hand, despite the fact that some of you are going to misinterpret what I have to say, I do think that we need to explore the idea of the responsibility of a community to control a criminal environment that exists within it. Whenever there is injustice or crime in our community, we ALL have a responsibility to bring that injustice to an end. It's not good enough to pass the blame on to government or law enforcement or school boards or whomever - if we witness injustice and do not speak out at the time the injustice is happening, then we share at least a small part of the blame. If we wait until the injustice has ended and it's safe to speak out, it's too late. Jim Carroll and others, why didn't you speak out against the Magdalene laundries and the reform schools when they were still in existence? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM Joe, read through this site below, (there are many simolar reports accessible through the internet) and really consider your previous statements...especially those I highlighted regarding victims. RC sexual abuse victims are part of those statistics. Just because a child was abused by a "holy father" serving God, does not limit those impacts or statistics. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:21 PM The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago Er, didn't the vast majority of most stuff happen years ago? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:16 PM Many of the abusers (a third seems to be the popular figure) will be former victims, and many victims will go on to be abusers. The cyclical nature of child abuse is well documented and widely accepted as fact. One dodgy priest alone, in convenient circumstances, can easily produce tens of next-generation abusers or maybe more. Consider the historical and future implications of that phenomenon. It needs to be completely stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 06:52 PM "The direct blame for these crimes, both the molestation/abuse and the coverups, rests on those who actually committed these crimes" So, what is the RC church organization (lets not confuse it more by adding the current RC faithful, former RCs, all Christians and the world community in the dimension) doing to honourably agressively and honestly ferret those people out...those who committed and covered up the molestation and abuse (some that recent cases show recently, and possibly still exists) ..and some folks who are likely still residing within the RC structure...maybe it the higher structures? "For the most part, the sexual and physical abuse problem is over. The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago. Certainly, it's probable that some crimes of abuse and molestation are still taking place, but society has changed and the Catholic Church no longer holds the position of unquestioned authority that it once held. If we dwell too much on the past and focus mostly on extracting reparations for the crimes of those who are now dead or senile, we miss the opportunity to learn what it will take to prevent such crimes from happening in the future". Joe, you just don't get it! I suggest you read up on the broad and long-term impacts of sexual abuse, if not treated. Problems caused by sexual abuse do not go away with time, and if untreated negatively impact those abused, their families society and their children. Where is the compassion and reaching out to heal and provide professional help for those abused. Where have the RC church organization agressively reached out, sought and opened its arms and hearts to those who were abused under it's holy Christian roofs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 06:22 PM Joe, when you talk about a 'share' of the responsibility, do you mean it literally? I think not, but I can well see why people might misconstrue what you are saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 05:47 PM Ho, hum.....as I answered Jim Carroll's question THREE times: Of course, I believe that those who committed crimes should be prosecuted and punished. I do not defend anyone for covering up a crime, especially a crime against children. I believe that covering up a crime, is a crime in itself - is it not? So, yes, Jim, as I said three times before, I do agree with you and I do believe that both the molesters/abusers and those who covered up the crimes, should be prosecuted and punished. But I also believe that Jim Carroll is painting the guilt with too broad a brush, because he places blame on the entire Catholic Church. Note however, that he restricts the blame to Catholics, most notably current Catholics. He absolves from guilt all those who have left the Catholic Church, even those who knew what was going on. The direct blame for these crimes, both the molestation/abuse and the coverups, rests on those who actually committed these crimes. And, since Jim Carroll brings up what I said long ago, and since he and others have twisted it time and time again, let me say it again. There is a broader, community responsibility for any widespread injustice. I think that everyone who knows of a crime and does nothing about it, has some share in the responsibility for that crime. Jim and others have said that everyone in Ireland knew what was going on, but the Catholic Church was so oppressive that nobody could do anything about it. I replied that perhaps this is Ireland's "original sin," to accept such an oppressive environment and to say nothing. It has often been said that racism is America's "original sin." Does that mean that everyone in America was, is, and ever will be a racist? Of course not - many Americans were victims of racism. But racism was a way of life in America for most of its history, and it still exists. Different people had different levels of blame - but as a whole, the American nation was bound up in a tangled web of racism, and there was no way out until certain members of the oppressed races showed the leadership and courage needed to defy the web of racism. From what I've read and from what (in a limited manner) I've seen myself, the entire nation of Ireland was bound up an an oppressive web of control by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was a powerful and reliable ally in the struggle for freedom from the British, so it escaped the scrutiny it received in other nations - particularly in nations where there is no dominant religious denomination. The Catholic Church and the government of Ireland were in bed together, so both have a share in the responsibility for child abuse and molestation that took place in government-owned schools that were operated by religious orders of nuns and brothers. Mind you, I'm not absolving anybody of guilt here. The primary responsibility for the crimes, lies on the molester/abusers, and on the church (and government) officials that covered up the molestation and abuse. HOWEVER, there needs to be wider vision, an awareness of the failings of society as a whole in neglecting this problem and accepting it as "the way it is." When we point the finger of blame, we must do do with the realization that we ALL are to blame, that we all have shortcomings, that none of us is perfect. As we review what happened, we need to do so with the sober realization that there were children suffering for years and years, and NOBODY did anything to help them. For the most part, the sexual and physical abuse problem is over. The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago. Certainly, it's probable that some crimes of abuse and molestation are still taking place, but society has changed and the Catholic Church no longer holds the position of unquestioned authority that it once held. If we dwell too much on the past and focus mostly on extracting reparations for the crimes of those who are now dead or senile, we miss the opportunity to learn what it will take to prevent such crimes from happening in the future. So, in the end, I'm still asking for what I've asked for time and time again - a focus on preventing future crime, rather than dwelling on the crimes that too place thirty years ago. I am very much afraid for the future of my Catholic Church. Vatican II opened a window of honesty and freedom and individual responsibility, but there are many forces that are trying to close that window. The most vocal lay voices in the Catholic Church, are crying for a return of the authoritarianism and legalism of the past. I can't live under that sort of authoritarianism, but I'm not ready to give away my church to those who want to bring back the old days of oppression and moral triumphalism. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 29 Apr 10 - 05:09 AM What's going on? I tried to log on last night and again this morning with my usual account and I got 'Access Denied'. I just logged on this morning through another location and I find that my most recent post (which agreed with a point that Jim recently made) has been deleted and a thread I began last night about the UK general election has also been deleted. What is the reason for this? Is it because I'm a Guest rather than a member - albeit one who has been posting regularly to this Forum since 2001 and who has never tried to disguise his identity? Or is it because I agreed with Jim?
And I have to say that I'm a little insulted that you would suggest your message may have been deleted simply because you agreed with Jim. We never delete messages for that sort of reason. Oh, here it is - I see a deleted thread titled Labour Loses the Election, and you're the person who started it. We don't allow Guests to start non-music threads. I might have made an exception for you because you are a long-time poster, but the moderator was correct in deleting the thread. If you want more freedom, all you have to do is register. We have had a lot of problems with unregistered Guests, so we keep them under greater scrutiny and control. -Joe Offer- joe@mudcat.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Apr 10 - 03:51 AM "As I said when I answered Jim Carroll's question twice," Joe - again you are being dishonestly evasive about this; you are answering a question I did not ask and are continuing to evade the one I did. There is no question that paedophiles should be tried and, if found guilty, punished by law - we have no disagreement. My question (again) is regarding the church and those of its officers (employees) who co-operated with those paedophiles in their activities by ignoring, covering up and enabling them to continue what they were doing by moving them on to duties that placed them within reach of more children to prey on. You have put up a strong defence of your church throughout these discussions, to my mind, to the extent of shifting the blame elsewhere (the people of Ireland springs readily to mind). Would you have put up a similar defence of the hospital authorities if it had been sick children in their care that had been abused, or the education authorities if the abuse had been taking place in schools? For me, the most distastefully disturbing thing about this horrific affair is that the church has been treated in many quarters as being above the law and above criticism because of its spiritual position. It has totally refused, as a body, to accept any responsibility for what has happened to children under its care. Rather than apologies and admissions of guilt we have been given mealy-mouthed expressions of sympathy, as if the whole thing was really "Nuffin' to do wiv us guv'". What level of responsibility should the church, as a national (and, it would appear) international organisation take for the abuses that have been committed by its officers and employees and on its premises, on children under its care; abuses that would not have been possible to the extent they have taken place, had the church not occupied the position it has up to now? SHOULD THE CHURCH AND ALL THOSE IN OFFICE WHILE THESE ABUSES TOOK PLACE, BE LIABLE TO FULL INVESTIGATION BY THE LAW, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION AND, IF FOUND GUILTY OF COLLUDING IN SERIOUS CRIMES, BE PUNISHED AND MADE LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO THEIR VICTIMS? (Not shouting - don't know how to emphasise my point in any other way) I'm pretty certain that if a doctor or a nurse sexually abused a child while it was in hospital, not only would the abuser be liable to prosecution but both the hospital and and medical authorities would be answerable in some degree; the same would apply if it happened in school. Should this not be the case with the church, especially as the knowledge of the events was widespread enough to be kept secret and treated as 'in house' affairs? So far you have not come anywhere near to answering this; feel free to continue not doing so but please do not attempt to claim that you have. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 02:19 AM I had a long phone call today that really disturbed me. I heard allegations from a very reliable source that a priest I knew well in high school and college, may well have been guilty of molesting my fellow seminarians. Up until today, I had the feeling that the Milwaukee seminary I attended had escaped these problems, but maybe not. In addition, the infamous Father Murphy was next door at St. John's School for the Deaf, and apparently it was well-known among our faculty that Murphy was molesting students. Apparently, the seminary faculty expected the archbishop to do something about it - but I wonder why the faculty I loved and respected, didn't do something about it. So, I have to take time to think and gather information. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:27 PM I agree. An institution can definitely be immoral. Some immediately come to mind.KKK etc. And priests had to be able not only to be celibate, theoretically it appears, but to inflict some very harsh almost sentences on people..like have your 12th child even if it kills you from childbirth or your husband from overwork, or if the 11 children you have are malnourished, shivering in the winter, unhealthy etc. This is not in the distant past. This was my Catholic education. Plus you get one chance at marriage and if he/she is a monster, there is no alternative, leaving you with the aforementioned 11 kids and no means of support. So priests had to be able and willing to pass on these rules. ANd I have never heard anyone in the church, although I am sure there were some, apologize for them, and say sorry, I know it is rough but that is what GOd wants. So we have the celibacy filtre, and we have the rules and regulations filter. I am sure there are more. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:20 PM Ed T if you read my post of 28 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM - you will see that it was happening (and decried) from the most very early days of the Church - and documented in records still stored in the Vatican archives. Nearly 2,000 years of knowledge of the wrong doing are not abrogated by a few modern statements trying to pin the blame on 'external factors'.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 28 Apr 10 - 10:59 PM Why the RC Organization failed the children, and the RC Faithful There is evidence of a substantial and widespread level of sexual abuse of boys under the responsibility of those in te Roman Catholic church, that extended over a range of time. Cases of sexual abuse were managed with to minimise the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the RC institution and its congregation. When a priest was reported or found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to authorities, nor the famalies of those abused. The desire to protect the reputation of the institution in the eyes of the congregation and was paramount. There was a reluctance to confront or to put the responsibility on priests who offended. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. The immediate danger and long term damage to the children and families affected and to others were disregarded. It is asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time, and that it was seen as a minor personal failing on the part of the priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was and is a criminal offence. The recidivist nature of this sexual abuse was known to many religious authorities. Contrary to the Congregations' claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. Documents and victim statements reveal that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. The risk was seen in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account. When confronted with evidence or allegations of sexual abuse, the response of the RC religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location with no notice to the families, congregations or local church authorities where, in many instances, they were free to abuse again. The safety of children in general was not a consideration. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled offending priests access to children through other roles. The safety of children in general was not a consideration. Priests who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than dismissal from the Order. . The safety of children in general was not a consideration. Sexual abuse was known to senor religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations through a prolonged period. But, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was little visable attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were few, if any protocols or guidelines put in place to protected children from predatory priest behaviour. RC authorities did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as jointly responsible for the sexual activity. Benefit of the doubt was provided to the priest, time and time again. Authoritarian RC systems prevented disclosures by other priests and bishops and served to perpetuate abuse. Even when extensive evidence emerged, the RC authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past. Victims were blamed for the results of large settlements on local parishes. There were few attmpts to reach out to vistims nor families, nor to offer thropy nor healing. Victims were victimized again by this treatment. Some congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by courts on sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings. In fact, neither the bishops, the Vatican, nor local congregations were to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their priests and RC structure perpetrated. Congregational loyalty to the RC church and structure enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children. Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of civil authorities by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue. When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. When cases were reported to civil authorities these reports were delayed resulting in no charges, because of the statute of limitations. Rc authorities dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases. Rather than a formal recognition of the abuse that occurred and the suffering of the victims attempts were made to trivilize the crimes, by stating it the RC sexual abuse is no worse than in society, in other organizations, or the victims were not children. It took many years for the RC church to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective RC organizations failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue. The RC church has not been open on what senior RC personnel were involved in the failure to intervene early and protect children. There is no evidence of any steps to independantly analysis and understand how these failures came about so that steps can be taken to reduce the risk of repeating them. The RC church needs to examine how their ideals became debased by systemic abuse. They must ask how they came to tolerate breaches of their own christian rules and mores, and when sexual and physical abuse was discovered, how they responded to it, and to those who perpetrated it. They must examine their attitude to neglect and emotional abuse and, more generally, how the interests of the institutions and the Congregations came to be placed ahead those of the children who were in their care. Public trust will not be restored until the RC church publically acknowledges that the organization failed the children, not just that children were abused because of individual priest actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:31 PM I believe that the institution is amoral, neither good nor bad. I believe that if an institution is amoral, it is bad. Particularly if it happens to be a religious institution purporting to be good and preaching moral values. The crimes were committed by individuals, not by an institution. Indeed so, but those individuals were representatives of that institution, paid and trained by it. The institution therefore has some responsibility for the abuse beyond that of the perpetrators themselves. The circumstances for the abuse were provided, unwittingly or not, by the institution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM QUOTE http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/beast-file-history-catholic-church-sex-scandal This page has the video of the show segment,and many links (not given here) to the research material ~~~~~~~~~~ The final Beast File for season two looks at the Catholic Church's response to child sex abuse and the 2000-year paper trail of Church documents showing this first became an issue in the years following Jesus' death. Over the years, Vatican officials have blamed child sex abuse by priests on everything from homosexuality to the media. Recently, in a letter of apology to Irish Catholics, Pope Benedict XIV, appeared to blame the abuse on the secularisation and fast-paced change associated with modern society. But as this Beast File shows, modern society has little to do with it and documents linking priests to child abuse go back almost 2000 years. Most of the information for this story was garnered from the following four books, which are great sources for anyone looking for more information. - 'The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican, David Yallop, Constable & Robinson Ltd, London, 2007. - 'Sex Priests and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse', Doyle et al, Volt Press, Los Angeles, 2005. - 'Fallen Order: Intrigue, Heresy, and Scandal in the Rome of Galileo and Caravaggio', Karen Liebreich, Grove Press, New York, 2004. - Peter Damian, 'Book of Gomorrah: An Eleventh-Century Treatise against Clerical Homosexual Practices', Ed. P Payer, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1982. If you want to have a look around online for more information, here is a quick guide. There are a couple of good sites that have translations of and commentary on the Didache. As with many of the documents cited in this Beast File, there are a variety of translations and the usual historical debate over exact dates. If it's information on the Council of Elvira you're after, one of the best places to look is here and this is a great source on the scholar and monk Saint Bede. The last book on the list above is the best source around on the 'Book of Gomorrah', but this article also provides some fantastic background on Pope Leo IX and his response. The 'Decree (or Decretum) of Gratian' by Gratian of Bologna was the first instalment in a series of important canonical texts called the Corpus Iuris Canonici. You can find lots more information and links here. For those interested in the role played by Pope Pius V's 'Horrendum' this commentary in the Independent, helps put it into context. The 'Sacramentum Poenitentiae' is considered the definitive Catholic Church document on child sex abuse and solicitation by priests. Plenty of information and links can be found here, and the full Latin text (for those countless people who still learn Latin) can be found here. The 1917 and 1962 documents we refer to in the Beast File are the 'Code of Canon Law' and the 'Crime of Soliciting' respectively. Information on these texts, as well as former Cardinal Ratzinger's 2001 'Letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith' can all be found on the Vatican website. The recently released 2003 guidelines calling for child sex abuse cases to be referred to police can also be found on the Vatican website here. It should be noted that some of these texts deal with issues such as homosexuality and bestiality as well as child sex abuse. There is also debate in many cases over the exact dates of the earlier texts. We tried to take the most conservative or widely supported dates in the piece but we do recognise that not every historian agrees on the timing. ~~~~~~~~ The show segment showed that originally, the Church writers urged that the offenders be turned over to secular authorities for punishment. The pendulum swung though, and eventually after hundreds of years, the Church began urging that this should all be hidden from the secular authorities, and only handled in secret by the Church alone. Looks it's starting to swing back... UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:29 PM "HOWEVER, I believe that the institution is amoral, neither good nor bad. The crimes were committed by individuals, not by an institution". Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 159-173, 2000 Abstract: As evidence of the extent of the abuse of children in residential care increases, our understanding of this terrible wrong has altered. These assaults are an institutional syndrome, at the same time that they are individual crimes;certain systems of institutional care are conducive to/foster abuse behaviour(acting as 'crucibles' rather than 'honeypots' for rogue paedophiles). A theory of vicarious (institutional) liability is appropriate if we understand a syndrome of institutional abuse in this way, as involving institutional responsibility in addition to individual fault. The recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bazley v Curry found a children's home vicariously liable for sexual assaults of an employee on the basis of responsibility through the creation of risk, ananalysis of and apportionment of liability which is appropriate to the special syndrome of institutional abuse, while encouraging deterrence and providing fair and practical compensation to victims. This analysis/liability is supported by an economic analysis of institutional child abuse and decision making in child protection. After Waterhouse: Vicarious Liability and the Tort of Institutional Abuse Margaret Isabel Hall UBC Faculty of Law |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:53 PM while child molesters may be classed as "mentally ill," that doe not absolve them of their responsibility for their crime. I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:38 PM Paul Burke, there's no defense for molesting or abusing children, and no defense for covering it up. As I said when I answered Jim Carroll's question twice, the people who committed the crimes (including the crime of covering up the offenses) should be punished. HOWEVER, I believe that the institution is amoral, neither good nor bad. The crimes were committed by individuals, not by an institution. And Smokey, I agree that while child molesters may be classed as "mentally ill," that does not absolve them of their responsibility for their crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:06 PM I dunno, Smokey. I don't think mentally normal people molest children. That does not mean that child molesters are absolved of responsibility for their crimes - but I do think it's a mental illness. (Joe) Well it's certainly not 'normal', but I think the great majority of abusers know what they are doing, and seem go about it quite intelligently. I think the only way to 'treat' it is as one would an addiction, as that is where the most similarities seem to lie. It does, admittedly, seem apparent that some abusers do not fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are unaware of them. Addicts can often convince themselves of virtually anything if it supports their addiction, and generally, the more intelligent they are, the better they can kid themselves and others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 04:36 PM If it had been the education authorities or, say, the medical system that had harboured abusers and passed them on to continue their abuses, would we be getting the same excuses for such behavior or would we be hearing demands for punisment and reparation? (JC) No Jim, they would be sacked and punished if a case could be proved against them. Discovery isn't necessarily legal proof though. It might be worth remembering, that some of these church cases might never have come to light had the perpetrators not assumed some immunity from the law, or been given that impression by their 'superiors'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM "My point exactly Jim." D'you want to open a book on getting an answer? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM Joe, PLEASE stop trying to defend an organisation that supports child abusers. The 'homosexual bias' is quite probably an artefact of a situation in which most of the children in close contact with celibate priests and brothers were (are?) male. I suspect that if you broaden from sexual abuse to the equally damaging physical and mental abuse, thus encompassing female- staffed establishments for female prisoners (sorry, children in care), the numbers will even up somewhat. And don't get the idea that people are trying to suggest that child abuse is a characteristically catholic crime, or that abuse by Catholics is more prevalent than abuse by others. What is required is that the Church (which is known to have held inquiries into incidents) makes its archives available to secular prosecuting authorities, and stops protecting criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:55 PM My point exactly Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM "The criminals who actually committed these crimes should have their day in court" Does this include the accomplices who covered up the crimes and let them continue? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:07 PM The figures are perfectly clear, but in the current political climate most people ...and organisations, are afraid to point the finger in the direction of the perpetrators. The criminals who actually committed these crimes should have their day in court, members of the general public who commit rape or abuse young people, are called to account, even if the crimes were committed years ago. When Cardinal Bertone tried to draw attention to the "elephant in the room", the media went ballistic and as damage limitation the Church did not press the point. That's how thought control works and it means that by attempting to lay the blame for the abuse solely on the Catholic Church, the criminals will avoid punishment, the sexual imbalance in the priesthood will be ignored and young folk will continue to be sexually assaulted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 28 Apr 10 - 10:49 AM Jim, In answer to your question at the end of your post I think the answer must be an emphatic 'No' - which is what it must be as far as the church is concerned. The idea that offering to pray for the victims to be comforted somehow without locking the perpetrators up (which I've read in some of the responses from Irish priests and bishops) is simply obscene. I remember reading part of the report and being struck by how the commission were still trying to remind people of the 'good' that had been done by the Christian Brothers - as if somehow they resented even being expected to look into the subject. I've said elsewhere that it wasn't just the priests who have to be called to account - teachers, policemen, politicians, civil servants. social workers, school governors, doctors and all sorts of 'respectable', 'professional' all colluded to cover up the abuse and allowed it to continue as long as it did. Many of these people would also have been themselves involved in organisations that worked with young people in Ireland throughout the period in question - as, of course would many priests. I'm afraid to say I don't think we've seen anything yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 28 Apr 10 - 10:34 AM "catholicculture.org put a little anti-homosexual "spin" on the statistics" Correct, I did notice that...among the opther points in the article...but, is it possible that this spin is common inside the RC church? Just wondering? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:02 AM "political Catholic Church= Conservative= bad!" No - everybody here (with a couple of apologist exceptions) sees the issue as sexual abuse = bad; covering up sexual abuse = bad; and using considerable influence to harbour and protect sexual abusers = bad. The only exceptions to this are those who have acted as apologists for the church's wrongoings and those of you who have used the affair to promote their/your own form of abuse. Celibacy may certainly play a part in the behaviour of the abusers, but the main issue of this business is that a significant number of them were allowed, even assisted to abuse a large number of children placed in the care of the Catholic Church over a long period of time, probably generations, and in a number of countries where that church had influence. To date, apart from a few empty expressions of 'sympathy' (on par with comiserating with somebody who has lost a family pet), there has been no acceptence of wrongdoing by the church (as a body) and no offer of reparation or assistance to easy the damage done by the abuse If there is any substance in the suggestion that many abusers have been the victims of abuse, it is likely that the abuse with have affected future generations. Not only has the situation not been resolved, it has not even been recognised by the church, exept in the negative affect it has had on themselves. Had not action been demanded by a significant number of victims we would never have had the Ryan and Murphy reports and would not be having this discussion. The church certainly has to put its own house in order, but it also has to answer for the crimes committed against children in its care. Joe has avoided answering my question - I will draw my own conclusions as to why and put it as a general one to everybody. If it had been the education authorities or, say, the medical system that had harboured abusers and passed them on to continue their abuses, would we be getting the same excuses for such behavior or would we be hearing demands for punisment and reparation? Jim Carroll PS Ake - there are probably a few typos for you to take issue with there - enjoy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 10 - 06:35 AM Well, Ed, I think catholicculture.org put a little anti-homosexual "spin" on the statistics, and the original report is careful to avoid such bias. It does appear that the victim's age is most often between 11 and 15, at the time of first offense. You can get the original John Jay report itself at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here's an excerpt:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:30 AM This is an interesting read from Catholicculture.org. Does it contain an insight, or just a personal opinion? "The results of the United States Catholic Bishops' 2004 study on clergy sexual abuse revealed that, while some clergy were involved in pedophilia or abusing pre-pubescent children, most clergy were guilty of "pederasty" which is homosexuals preying on young males or teenagers" Is there such a study? "A problem erupted among the clergy and religious of the eleventh century which was similar to the clergy sexual abuse which occurred in the Church today. Reports of rampant homosexual activity in churches and monasteries came to Peter Damian in his monastery at Fronte Avellana in the Diocese of Gubbio in central Italy. Peter Damian took pen in hand and wrote to Pope Leo IX warning that "a certain abominable and terribly shameful vice" has sprouted in the region and unless it is punished "there is certainly a danger that the sword of divine anger will be used savagely against it to the ruin of many." Next Peter Damian discusses the case of "clerics or monks who are seducers of males." He is concerned that superiors are being too soft on clerics or monks who are guilty in any way of a sin of impurity with "youths or young boys." A problem identified in the 11th centuary? Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9225 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:59 AM I dunno, Smokey. I don't think mentally normal people molest children. That does not mean that child molesters are absolved of responsibility for their crimes - but I do think it's a mental illness. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:53 AM Psychiatrists or psychologists? I don't think I buy the 'mental illness' plea, and I don't think it's something that can be purposely cured. Maybe the placebo effect might give that impression though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:53 AM add to the list a suggestion I read somewhere and that is to release everyone from their vows of silence they were forced or bribed into or indoctrinated into. That would include victims, perps, coveruppers and the general faithful. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Apr 10 - 11:56 PM Well, Smokey, the Milwaukee Archdiocese tended to use stereotypical Jewish psychiatrists when I was in the seminary. But I've noticed that non-Catholics employed by the Catholic Church tend to be far more deferential to clergy, than are Catholic employees. From the 1960s through the early 1980s, the belief seemed to be that child molesters had a treatable mental illness. Several multimillion-dollar treatment centers were built by the U.S. bishops in the 1970s, and it was clear that bishops believed these centers would cure wayward priests. I think child molestation is a treatable mental illness - but it's clear now that treatment has a very limited success rate. -Joe- Here's a little more from that America Magazine Taking Responsibility article:
If 30 bishops in the United States had done this, the crisis would not have gone on as long as it did. People would have said, “Good, that is what leaders are supposed to do. They get it. With a new bishop we can have healing and move on.” Bishops have to be willing to sacrifice for the sake of the whole church. It is a scandal that Cardinal Law was the only U.S. bishop to resign because of this crisis. It is encouraging that four Irish bishops have submitted their resignations. Unless the church wants this crisis to go on for years in Europe as it did in the United States, some bishops will have to resign for the good of the church. In an editorial titled The Millstone, published April 12, 2010, America's editors said that the Catholic Church needs to do these things (excerpts):
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 27 Apr 10 - 11:17 PM Were they using their 'own' psychologists, or ones from outside the faith? I think I can guess the answer to that. Only an idiot, a lunatic, or someone with a vested interest would have made that decision. Child abusers don't stop; that has been known probably since before psychology even had a name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 27 Apr 10 - 11:00 PM More recent stuff:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huy30ja9Y-DzKy5mndofefJM179AD9FATCVG0 http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/24/13709261.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 27 Apr 10 - 10:48 PM "The bishops were compassionate and pastoral toward their priests, while forgetting their responsibility to be pastoral and protective of their flock. They tried to keep everything secret so as not to scandalize the faithful". A problem was (and, I suggest is), the victims were nowhere to be considered...not even in the lowly staus of "the forgotten" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Apr 10 - 10:30 PM Through the years, the Jesuit America Magazine has had many articles about the child molestation crisis, and I think the magazine's coverage of the issue has been very honest. You can find articles on the crisis from the last ten years at http://www.americamagazine.org/crisis. The former editor of the magazine, Thomas Reese, SJ, has an article called "Taking Responsibility" in this week's issue. Here's an excerpt:
Before 1985, few bishops handled these cases well. The tendency was to believe the priest when he said he would never do it again and to believe psychologists who said the priest could safely return to ministry. The bishops were compassionate and pastoral toward their priests, while forgetting their responsibility to be pastoral and protective of their flock. They tried to keep everything secret so as not to scandalize the faithful. Between 1985 and 1992, the bishops began to learn more about the problem. They held closed-door sessions with experts at their semiannual meetings. At one closed meeting, at least one bishop told his brother bishops of the mistakes he had made and urged them not to do the same. The number of abuses declined during this period. In 1992, under the leadership of Archbishop Daniel Pilarcyzk, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a series of guidelines on dealing with sexual abuse. Data collected by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that the number of abuse cases plummeted in the 1990s, indicating that by that time most bishops "got it." The guidelines were opposed by Cardinal Bernard Law, however, and ignored by other bishops who still did not get it. The guidelines were not binding on the bishops, and they continued to leave open the possibility that an abusive priest could return to the ministry. And at a meeting in St. Louis that same year, a group of psychologists who were treating priests urged the bishops to keep open the possibility of returning the priests to ministry. The scandal in Boston showed that voluntary guidelines were insufficient. It also showed that no one trusted the bishops (or their advisors) to decide who could safely be returned to ministry. As a result, in 2002 the bishops, with the consent of Rome, imposed binding rules requiring zero tolerance of abuse, reporting of accusations to the police, and mandatory child protection programs in every diocese. Under the zero tolerance rule adopted at their meeting in Dallas, any priest involved in abuse will never be able to return to ministry. In most cases, he would be expelled from the priesthood with possible exceptions if he is elderly and retired or infirm. The Dallas rules also required a lay committee in each diocese to review accusations against priests who are suspended from ministry while an investigation takes place. The rules were controversial in that many priests saw the zero tolerance law as draconian. They also feared false accusations and that the rules made them guilty until proven innocent. They objected that Dallas dealt only with priests, not with the bishops who are guilty of negligence. In any case, it took the American bishops 17 years to figure out how to proceed, from the 1985 lawsuit against the diocese of Lafayette, La., to the establishment of the Dallas Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People in 2002. The European bishops need to travel the same ground very quickly, and the Vatican needs to make zero tolerance the law for the universal church. Fr. Reese, by the way, was forced to resign from his job as editor because of pressure from then-Cardinal Ratzinger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 27 Apr 10 - 01:21 PM So you had a whole system that was not healthy run by the wrong people. If you had had some healthy, happy parentally oriented people running some of those places..and you probably did often...some of these problems would not exist. You had the wrong people trying to solve the problems. The wrong people might have been OK in different situations..say an accounting office. How very true, mg. Mind you, it's highly debatable whether the world's accounting offices are being run by the 'right people'... although the Catholic church doesn't seem to be suffering unduly from the recession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Apr 10 - 08:00 PM "You went to school with bears? In Ireland?....Amazing!" Reduced to typos now - and all to take the piss out of children's suffering; you really are trivial shit. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 26 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM I don't think the children were considered less than worthless..probably their souls were of great concern to most of those who volunteered for the religious life..but people with religious bents probably had religious motives, most of them...and the realities of dealing with dirty, malnourished children in orphanages say..who puked and wet the bed etc. were probably not in line with religious sentiments..and any bodily functions were probably considered filthy..and they are...but some people can handle them better than others. Then the kids are not passive recipients of custodial care either..they can be very obnoxious after perhaps losing parents, or being taken from drunken parents, or any number of bad circumstance. So you had a whole system that was not healthy run by the wrong people. If you had had some healthy, happy parentally oriented people running some of those places..and you probably did often...some of these problems would not exist. You had the wrong people trying to solve the problems. The wrong people might have been OK in different situations..say an accounting office. Well, it is a tangled up mess...at least people did try and I think most did their pitiful best...but the whole system was so sick that horrible things happened and horrible people rose to the top. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 26 Apr 10 - 04:50 PM Ake, you think the old Lochgelly tawse was bad - (and it certainly was) imagine something about the same size but with no tails and a lump of lead sheet sewn into it. That is what is known as a 'priest-strap'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 26 Apr 10 - 04:41 PM A poem written by a victim of childhoos sex abuse...and the importance to a victim of coming out and being heard and acknowledged. Once Upon A Time' Once upon a time life had no meaning; No God, nor faith, of any higher being. As darkness revolved, high up in the clouds; withdrawing to silence away from the crowds. There was no love only despise; an illusion of beauty; a beast in disguise. Isolation became peace a way of survival; turning inward to speak, running into denial. Defenses were constructed like concrete walls; protecting the image underneath it all. Then came the day, that life had meaning; there was a God and faith of a higher being. Beauties illusion restored an aurora of light; as silence eluded and flew out of sight. For now there's love; a sweet reprise; to beauties illusion, a blessing in disguise. Honesty has surfaced, a brand new arrival; speaking out against ones own self-denial. Mind and body connecting, reclaiming its style; unfolding a veil, of a hidden profile. Sage Williams © copyright 1992 All rights reserved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 26 Apr 10 - 03:14 PM You went to school with bears? In Ireland?....Amazing! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Apr 10 - 02:48 PM Don't superficialise this violence by downgrading it to what went on in schools - this was persistant and brutal, constant beatings with whatever came to hand, leading to wounding and bruising, and sometimes broken limbs. One of our elderly friends had her eardrum burst by being hit around the head by a priest - her crime - going to a dance. The violence was horrendous and it was accompanied by constant humiliation in front of fellow inmates, such as beatings on the bear arse in front of a classful of students. The withdrawal of food as a punishment for a misdemeanor was common, as was being locked in darkened cupboards for long periods. Makes Matt McGinn's experiences look like a stroll on the beach. All this happened because the children under the care of the church were considered less than worthless - summed up superbly by the letter signed by the present pope when he was a bishop, stating that a habitual abuser should not be reported to the authorities because "reporting his behaviour should be measured against the general interests of the church AND ON THE EFFECT ON THE PRIEST HIMSELF. Just take a look at the savagery of institutions like Letterfrack or the ones Patrick Galvin experienced before you trivialise all this to the level of a schoolyard joke. Are you sure you aren't a Christian? - you're certainly an apologist for their behaviour. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 26 Apr 10 - 02:34 PM Institutional discipline versus child abuse: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Bo-Ch/Child-Abuse.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 26 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM Well, it's not too long ago that violent abuse was part of the education system. All teachers at my secondary school were issued with "The Tawse" as an "enforcer" and some took great pleasure in administering large doses. 400mm long x 40mm wide x 10mm thick.....not pleasant, but it worked up to a point! The great Matt Mcginn, himself a teacher had the following take on wean control :0) Chorus: Rap tap tap upon yer finger Rap tap tap upon yer palm rap tap tap upon yer hand And I'll leave you with a blister like a Belfast ham 1 Before I ever took to teaching I was a fairly decent chap Then they gave me fifty weans and a lovely length o' leather strap 2 'Och!' says I 'I'll never use it, weans can respond to talk' I told them that then turned aroond and a boy let fly a cake of chalk 3 'The boy that threw the chalk' says I 'He'll never grow tae be a man He's far too feart tae show himself' But he did and threw another one 4 To strap a boy's an awfy business, every one's a mother's son Take the strap frae a' the teachers - issue every one a gun |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Apr 10 - 03:42 AM Well, Willie, I wasn't actually brought up to respect priests and nuns. I was brought up to be discriminating, to trust the ones who deserved trust and distance myself from the ones who didn't. I found many priests and nuns who were wonderful people and who had a wonderful effect on my life when I was growing up. I found a few bad ones, too. I've always let them know if I held them in contempt. My mother was a tough cookie, educated in a convent school and unafraid of priests and nuns (my dad was an engineer, and was far more respectful). When my mother was mad at the priests in our parish, we went to the nuns' motherhouse for Mass and stayed away from the parish. What DOES distress me is when I find the bad ones taking the balance of power. In my lifetime, I've found 65 percent of the nuns I've known to be admirable, and 30 percent tolerable, and maybe 5 percent deplorable. Of priests, 50 percent admirable, 30 percent tolerable, and 20 percent deplorable. Of bishops (judging more from reports than personal knowledge), 25 percent admirable, 50 percent (barely) tolerable, and 25 percent deplorable. Of bishops I've known more directly, maybe 50 percent admirable, 25 percent tolerable, and 25 percent deplorable. Bishops don't rate very high in my book. I have higher "admirable" marks for the ones I've known personally, because the deplorable ones are too snooty to expose themselves to mere laymen - so I didn't get to know as many of them. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 Apr 10 - 04:40 PM I think the historical 'acceptance' of the violent abuse is certainly one (but only one) of the factors which has facilitated the sexual abuse so effectively. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 25 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM It is true about sadistic behavior, and I think it is entertwined with sexual perversion and/or deprivation, regardless of orientation. And they say once sex and violence get mixed together, it is almost impossible to separate them. Christian brothers were notorious, in Ireland, Canada and Australia and I believe pedophile rings have been documented. I had some nasty nuns in high school although wonderful ones in grade school. One thing we have to remember is the background of poverty this all ..most of it..took place in....probably many of the nonabused kids might have been better off even in fairly bad schools than left to rot in the streets or whatever their alternatives were. Also, most of us have not dedicated our lives to very ornery teenagers. Some will engage you and wear you down and it is easy to see how you would want to really be in control as an adult. Well, it is a complicated situation. One sad note is one of the Dubliners has said that he was abused, I think by the Christian Brothers. But it is good that well-known people are speaking out. And it is too early to even think of healing. We have to get to the root of all this and root out the evil and dysfunction..well, at least the evil. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Apr 10 - 04:47 AM So far this issue is being discussed almost exclusively in terms of the 'sexual' abuse that took place; little attention has been given to the fact this came with a great deal of physical brutality, so if mobs of 'homosexual perverts' slipped over the church wall to have their wicked way with children, they hung around long enough to give a large number of sadists a leg up (or does sadism come with homosexuality I wonder, we haven't had that one yet - or not to my knowledge!) Once again; it appears that it needs to be repeated often enough to sink in; the victims of sex attacks were children, automatically making the sexual crimes committed against them, by law and in fact, paedophilia, not homosexual rape - and ne'er the twain shall meet, whatever our amateur 'sexperts' claim. The sex, the beating and the many other forms of cruelty and humiliation were inseparable parts of religious institutional life; read Patrick Galvin's 'Raggy Boy' autobiographical trilogy or see The Magdalene Sisters films. The severe punishments that were meted out to the children were for 'the good of their souls' - it was to 'beat the evil out of them' (a common enough mantra at the time), and were widely accepted as such. The thing that has always amazed me is that everybody knew about the beatings and accepted them as part of the training; at least one friend here was one of the recipients and showed surprisingly little bitterness, though he did single out The Christian Brothers as being the worst. Their slogan, I seem to remember was "Give me a child of five and I will give you a Catholic for life". Joe asked why it happened; it happened because it could happen; because the church was powerful enough to run their institutions and treat the children that came within their reach in any way they chose as long as they could pass it off as doing God's work. They couldn't do that with the sexual offences so they devised a method of coping with and hiding them rather than preventing them. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 25 Apr 10 - 04:39 AM Hey Joe, (I feel a song coming on there... No matter.) I didn't purposely change "distorted" to "warped." it was just me recollecting your post whilst replying. I do feel for many people, and from reading your posts, you included, who see their faith, what they have been brought up to use as a moral compass, destroyed by those who you have been brought up to respect. it must be shattering. (Although speak to many catholics over here, and especially over in Ireland, and the regime of systemic abuse has been an undercurrent of general knowledge for years and years. the worst aspect here is that it is not a surprise for most people, but a recognition of what many people have known. I have stated on either this or a similar thread that if any (I hesitate to use the term "good") is to come of this, it is that the church (and I use that in a broader sense than mere Catholicism) will be viewed as being a collection of humans using human judgement for human decisions. Just like any other organisation such as the local stamp collectors society. This may make people less prone to the awful sense of self loathing that churches like to inflict on people. Mea Culpa is a term that fascinates me, chiefly because whilst I am not perfect, I am not ashamed of what or who I am, and need no cleric judging me. You see, using their control mechanisms, churches / mosques etc are guilty of abuse by their very existence. And at the risk of repeating myself, never mind Einstein; "You can't solve a problem with the mindset that created it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 25 Apr 10 - 03:13 AM I think you explain your position very well m. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 24 Apr 10 - 07:18 PM I think there is at least one more group and that is the one I belong to...we liked the old traditions and music and Latin etc. We ..me at least..do not see improvements that came out of Vatican II. The old cruel policies about birth control and divorce still exist officially, although people are more and more ignoring them. Except for ugly architecture and music I can't see differences before and after but it was like someone threw a switch and said poof you will all not be Catholics any more but you still have all the same rigid laws. I never could figure out who the people were who came up with some of these changes..I never met any...did they have secret meetings in the 60s? Let's get together and write ugly music? I never in my life heard anyone complain about the Latin Mass or the music when I was growing up..we liked it. I want things to change..I want anything that hurts people to be not a part of church doctrine. I will believe in virgin births etc. I want people to be able to remarry if they are divorced. I want them to be able to have children they want and can afford and I think some people should be forbidden from having children. I won't stop being a Catholic. I will continue to eat fish on Friday. And take a bath on Saturday. And go to Mass on Sunday. But I want it to be a church where people and societies can be healthy in all ways. I think good people doing good deeds are wonderful...but all sorts of religions do that..some way better than us... What makes us Catholic? The links to the past are pretty much broken. I still sing the Latin songs I know just in case I am the last living person who remembers them...and that will soon be the case I am afraid. I think we need a religion that makes us good people without going so far we become perverted, neurotic etc., which we are truly seeing now. Not sure what the answer is, but I probably have a warped view of the church. On the other hand I don't crave an authoritarian religion and I think it still obviously is. Oh dear. I am in a quandary. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:48 PM Willie, I said, "The two of you have said many things that I believe are a distorted view of Catholicism - would it be right for me to seek to silence you?" - referring to Steamin' Willie and Jim Carroll. I carefully used the term "distorted." "Warped" is similar, but not quite what I meant. What you say is certainly not incorrect - it's just that there is another side of the Catholic Church which is completely disconnected from the abuse and molestation and coverups. Now, there are people who have a "warped" view of the Catholic Church - these are the Catholics who seek a faith that requires nothing more than blind obedience to an institution. These people want an authority to tell that what to do and how to think. This is the kind of Catholicism that is espoused by the EWTN Catholic TV network and the Immaculate Heart Catholic radio network in the U.S. (neither of them has any official tie to the Catholic Church). These people are what I would call "John Paul II Catholics" - they almost worship the immensely popular John Paul II, and they do their best to ignore the changes that Vatican II tried to bring about. Worse yet, most of the bishops in the world were appointed during the 25-year reign of John Paul, and these bishops, for the most part, buy into the John Paul party line. John Paul II wasn't a bad man, but his authoritarian view of religious faith is very distressing to me - and I think those authoritarian attitudes were a major reason for the coverups of the child molestation and abuse crimes. I've often said that American nuns are one of the few aspects of the Catholic Church that aren't screwed up. Well, now the Vatican is investigating the nuns because of questions regarding the nuns' doctrinal orthodoxy. So, for me, this is a very distressing time to belong to the Catholic Church. Most Catholic parishes in my area do not adhere to this authoritarian model, but parishes led by authoritarian priests are becoming more and more prevalent. Maybe the Vatican II era was a "Prague Spring" that is now just a memory. So, in many ways I'm disheartened by my Catholic Church - but I can still thoroughly enjoy Sunday Mass at my own parish, and I am once again in demand to teach various things in my parish; and on Monday I work at the women's center with some wonderful nuns. Once a year, I attend the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress with some 40,000 other Catholics, and it's a weekend full of thought-provoking presentations that have nothing to do with the authoritarian view of the Catholic Faith. Trouble is, I wonder how it will be after next year, when the new Opus Dei archbishop takes over. So, yes, there are two very different Catholic churches within the one institution, and I do wonder if my gentle, generous faith is going to be conquered by the rigid, authoritarian model. Right now, it feels like the authoritarians are winning. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM Ake: Nothing of any substance from the "liberal" religiphobes then? I haven't seen any of those on this thread. Why would you expect them to jump in now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 24 Apr 10 - 05:59 PM Most research suggests that adult sex offenders are generally a heterogenous population. But, a large number may have been abused in the past themselves, and are typically emotionally isolated, lacking in self esteem and assertiveness. One of the roots of the idea that homosexuality and child sexual abuse are linked to researcher, Nicholas Groth, who found that one-third of all child molestation cases involve men and boys. But, Groth also stated that it is a myth that men who molest boys are homosexual. Groth suggested there are two kinds of offenders fixated and regressed and they more often chose boys due to the lack of male sexual characteristics and feminine appearance. Many researchers of child sexual abuse agree that the absence of secondary sexual features (such as pubic hair, breasts etc) is a significant factor in the attraction and gender is of less concern. Considering this, those who sexually abuse children more easily able gain access to young male children by becoming sports coaches, boy scout leaders, clerics and similar professions, where we have seen child sexual abuse). Culturally and socially these roles have attract less suspicion (and even trust and admiration) from the community so these professions possibly attract individuals who wish to take advantage of these professions to build trust and secretly abuse the children in their care. It is unlikely that many children have been sexually abused in sterotype professions that attract many homosexuals...for example, hair dressing, medicine and the arts :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 24 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM Nothing of any substance from the "liberal" religiphobes then? Joe, as one of the few on this thread who seems interested in solving the problem of why the abuse took place to begin with, I have taken your post from a few days ago..... "Ake, I'm wondering if you have read Dr. Herek's article thoroughly. Dr. Herek would agree that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths: The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. So, certainly some molesters prefer boys and some girls (and some both) - but their focus is on male and female children, an orientation quite different from an attraction to male or female adults.If an adult male is drawn to have sex with a female child, would you call that normal?" This theory may have some validity, if it is applied to true paedophiles(although I would term them severely psychologically disturbed criminals), but as the Boston study made clear Clerical abuse is largely against male teenagers and youths. A substancial number of heterosexual men entertain fantasies involving post pubescent girls and young women...as a building worker one hears these stories all the time,(personally, I find such conduct sad and degrading), but there is no doubt that it happens. Fortunately, the fact that these men usually have families of their own, prevents the fantasy becoming reality on all but a very few occasions. Heterosexual men do not normally fantasise about having sex with young men or boys, so I believe the case concerning the selection of gender to sexual orientation, of sexual abuse victims, teenager boys/ youths, is proved and Dr Heric's theory found wanting at best...biased and invalid at worst. Heric is trying to contend that both homos and heteros sexually abuse boys and youths, with not a shred of evidence to support that contention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 24 Apr 10 - 04:21 PM "Oh that was yesterday's. Today's hasn't come out yet to the best of my knowledge" Sorry, it is hard to distinguish yesterday from today on this issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 24 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM Why was there a cover-up and why did bishops not report crimes and transfer priests to avoid detection by authorities? Maybe this interview with Castrillon a Colombian cardinal — gives a glimps of the mindset of Bishops likely guided by the approach sanctioned by those in power in the Vatican? This cardinal — " an influential figure at the Vatican before his recent retirement from active duty, heading the Vatican's office for clergy as well as efforts to reconcile with ultraconservatives who had broken away from the church". Notable segments: "A senior cardinal defended the Roman Catholic Church's practice of frequently not reporting sexual abusive priests to the police, saying Thursday it would have been like testifying against a family member at trial". "He would not give details, however, saying that "since I'm not stupid, I don't tell everything I know. Only drunks, children and idiots tell, and I'm not a child, nor a drunk, nor stupid." "The law in nations with a well-developed judiciary does not force anyone to testify against a child, a father, against other people close to the suspect," Castrillon told RCN radio. "Why would they ask that of the church? That's the injustice. It's not about defending a pedophile, it's about defending the dignity and the human rights of a person, even the worst of criminals." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0A3glgAtiRZsA0BEQLvoS9lTLVwD9F8FJ905 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 24 Apr 10 - 04:03 PM Oh that was yesterday's. Today's hasn't come out yet to the best of my knowledge. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 24 Apr 10 - 03:58 PM Another scandal today:http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/24/belgium-bishop-sex-abuse.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 24 Apr 10 - 08:39 AM Wow... Is this thread still debating Akenaton and his / her version of what I would call bigotry and offensive diatribe? Since I last looked, Joe Offer has said I have a warped view of Catholicism. Guilty as charged. Why? Because the Catholicism I was told about at school and the church likes to tell us it is does not reflect the Catholicism we are experiencing. What seems to be a tradition of abuse and for all of us to see, cover up and saying some people are infallible. Yep, as I said Joe, guilty as charged. I have a warped view of any organisation that uses its influence to prevent the relevant authorities to deal with criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:28 AM Akenaton "I am not anti-homosexual, that would be a ridiculous statement," Akenaton "The important bit is that homosexual practice unsafe and unhealthy " Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:15 AM "Jim Carroll, I realize that you want me to silence Akenaton," I don't believe in silencing people, but I do wish Ake could have his own dedicated thread for 'all about how gay sex is the root of all social evils', then everyone else could actually discuss the subject at hand, instead of discussing what he wants to discuss - time and time again. If this board had threading it would make life simpler. As it is, I won't bother following any of these threads again, because it's pointless. These topics are consistently rerouted by one poster who is - for some unknown reason - fixated on endlessly "discussing" one single topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM "I am not anti-homosexual, that would be a ridiculous statement," "Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality as a safe healthy and normal lifestyle." Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 24 Apr 10 - 03:55 AM It as been noted over and over that you are quite selective in your sources and usually refuse to acknowledge any sources tat counter your views. Also, your view that homosexuals need our help and understanding says a lot about your way of thinking in this matter. They don't, homosexuals (or trans-gender folk-musicians to bring in another thread) don not need out help and understanding. Like everybody else, they should be left to live their life as they see fit, without interference and with respect for who they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 24 Apr 10 - 03:39 AM I would just like to say, that Jim's attitude is symptomatic of the new "liberalism" which I have been railing against for some time. WE see it on the UK political threads and to a lesser extent on the Sarah Palin threads in the US. It is a need to silence, or kill any dissent to the current popular view.....it gets in the way of meaningful discussion. How do I know this?.....because for many years, I was Jim, a communist demagogue who would accept nothing but the true path. I even started to avoid reading articles which disagreed with my strongly held beliefs, even when the authors had no particular axe to grind. The strength of this forum, is that as Joe says we are basically all friends, I feel I know some here better than I know many people in real life. We all wear our hearts on our sleeve, but Joe is correct to stamp down on PERSONAL abuse. If this was allowed to continue Mudcat would become a boxing booth, not a discussion forum.....and could not continue. On bigotry, I try to back my arguments with statistics and evidence which appears to support my position, as far as I am aware, BIGOTRY is an unreasoning hatred of particular racial or other minority groups. I am not anti-homosexual, that would be a ridiculous statement, homosexuals are among us, they require help and understanding, not manipulation into a political weapon for the "liberal left". THE OLD DIVIDE AND RULE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 24 Apr 10 - 02:16 AM Sorry Joe, I was paraphasing what you said from memory as I was rushing out to work. I didn't mean to twist your words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM "Our usual policy is to allow people to speak their mind," Thank you for the voice of reason Joe - I assume the above extends to my right to speak out against persistant bigotry? If not, you have to extend that warning to all of us. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 10:49 PM ....and now back to the discussion. I have to say that this whole child abuse and molestation situation is absolutely vexing to me. It does seem that in the US, the supply of "new" news is petering out, and the reporters are starting to recycle old stuff and couch it in new words. As far as I can tell, the worst is over in the US. There was a thorough investigation, and the bishops instituted pretty good controls. But still, I haven't found answers that satisfy me. I still want to know why all this happened, and the bishops have really given no explanation. It's still a puzzle to me. The situation in Ireland sounds much worse, although I know many priests and nuns who grew up Catholic in Ireland and found it to be a wonderful experience. It's clear that physical and sexual abuse was widespread in Irish reform schools and in the Magdalene Laundries, at least until the 1970s, and that is a problem that must be dealt with. I don't have a perception yet about sexual abuse by parish priests in Ireland. It's clear that there was a problem and that there was an extensive effort to cover it up - but I don't think that reliable and complete information is available just yet. Same goes in the UK and Continental Europe. I'm sure there will be many more reports of child molestation surfacing in the next couple of years. But still, I haven't heard an answer that satisfies me. Why did all this happen? And why was it covered up for so long? I suppose the bishops were rightly afraid of hateful publicity, but the publicity that has come in recent years is far worse than it would have been if the bishops had been forthright in the first place. Seems to me there ought to be one bishop somewhere who has the courage to tell the truth. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM Jim says:
AND This is a further example of hate fuled stereotyping which, I am quite sure now, will go unchecked. I am really losing a great deal of respect for this forum. Yeah, Jim, you're getting carried away. I like you very much, and ordinarily, I have a lot of respect for you, but you've lost objectivity here. Ease off a bit. Our usual policy is to allow people to speak their mind, no matter what they say, particularly if they are established, well-known members here. We don't bestow "blessing" on either side - we just don't get in the way of the discussion. It's OK. You're among friends, and we're having a discussion. I think we all need to remember that - myself included. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 08:43 PM "If a bear chewed your leg off and you got no medical attention, you'd die rather quickly". Possibly the exact point being made...maybe yes, maybe no? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM "So, Jim, quit your snide remarks." I see you have chosen your side in the homophobic argument Joe - how dare you call my criticism of a constant barrage of homophobic filth 'snide'. No, I have no intention of ceasing my attempts to stop this homophopbic fanatic who persists in using abused children as a soapbox for his disturbing phobia. If he has the right to continue spouting bigotry, as he has done on four threads on Clerical abuse, why should I not have the right to express my disgust? I'm afraid you are going to have to ban me from this thread - and, in effect, from this forum. I find his attacks on a legitimate way of life totally unacceptable - as should you as a Christian and the decent human being I believed you to be should. Did you know that between 1933-45 the Nazis arrested 100,000 men for being homosexuals; an estimated 15,000 died in the concentration camps - so homophobia such as we have seen displayed here comes with an excellent pedigree. I find it extremely telling that you continue to avoid straight questions, nor do you back up your accusations that I and others have been unfair to the church. Make up you mind which side you and your Christianity are on. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 23 Apr 10 - 08:07 PM If a bear chewed your leg off and you got no medical attention, you'd die rather quickly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:48 PM Yes, 10 years ago is today's abuse if it has not been taken care of, like if a bear chewed off your leg 10 years ago and you had no medical help it would be today's bear chomping if it was still infected and ruining your health. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:46 PM Rest assured, Joe, I'm not accusing you of homophobia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM Smokey, I don't get the point you're trying to make about my statement about being uncomfortable with the "sexually-charged atmosphere in the seminary." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:07 PM 10 years ago is "today's abuse"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:03 PM From the past abuse to today's abuse....taken from the Orlando Sentinel Blog "The parents of a young man who said he was abused by a Catholic priest will tell their story this Sunday at 2 p.m. at the Ormond Beach Public Library. Toni and Joe McMorrow will tell how they grew frustrated with what they describe as the church's reluctance to act in the case of the priest who molested their son, Brandon Rains, who is now in his early 20s, in 2001 and 2002 when the family lived in Maryland. The Rev. Aaron Cotes was convicted and sentenced in 2009 in Maryland to 10 years of probation on charges of abusing Rains. He is restricted from having unsupervised contact with minors". Background provided by: Aline Frybarger | Friday, April 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM Several questions surround this case of Cote. First of all, although convicted he still maintains his innocence and defames Brandon Rains. He plea was " no contest," which he interprets as license to continue to claim innocence. He was given a shamelessly light sentence with no jail time. The Dominicamns protected this man for over 2 decades: hiding him in Peru where he allegedly abused a number of young men. Many families protested with the superior in that country and were accused of calumny. Letters recounting his behavior in Peru written to the NY Dominican superior were ignored. As recently as 2005 a teacher in Ohio wrote to the Dominican provincial in NY to complain of alleged abuse in the late 1980's, confided to her by a former student, now a grown man. The Dominicans sent Cote for evaluation but never informed the therapists of that recent letter. He was sent to a Providence parish where one of his first acts was to set up a youth sleep over retreat. Cote has a record of evidence of abusing youth going back to the mid 1980's in his seminary years. All of these facts are included in the court record of the original civil suit brought by Mr Rains. That was settled out of court, but not before very significant and copious testimony was taken. Go to NPR.org and click on the archive for " All Things Considered" Dec 31, 2008 for Barbara Bradley Haggerty's report that includes depositions from the Dominican superiors and succinctly lays out the facts and timeline..... http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features-the-religion-world/2010/04/23/catholic-sex-abuse-crisis-victims-parents-to-speak-sunda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM This site may have been posted before...but, I find it interesting> http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:45 PM Finally, from this article, I see some hope that the RC church may recognize the wisdom and healing of "Involving abuse survivors in efforts to help change the way the church responds to abuse allegations". "The victims of these crimes have never really been heard correctly or had their day or voice," McDaid said. "It's always been overdubbed or behind the church, the lawsuits, the lawyers, talk of Catholic reform, etc., etc., etc. "They are doing some work, but what they are blindly missing is that they need to do some work for survivors," he said. "They've given us a check (as compensation for wrongdoing), but nothing else." A novel and healing concept..."involving the survivor's viewpoint on the 13-member National Review Board, which advises the bishops' Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People on matters of child and youth protection" . http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2010/04/abuse-survivors-who-met-pope-ask-victims-meet-st-peters-square |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:21 PM "there was a sexually-charged atmosphere in the seminary, where guys were "hitting on" each other. I found this sexual atmosphere to be unhealthy, and at times I thought I might be the only straight person in the place." And Ake's being accused of homophobia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:06 PM Ake says: Joe talked of a "gay culture" in the priesthood, which made him "uncomfortable", perhaps this culture is what allowed the abuse to become endemic? I don't believe I would have said anything like that. What I DO recall saying, was that there was a sexually-charged atmosphere in the seminary, where guys were "hitting on" each other. I found this sexual atmosphere to be unhealthy, and at times I thought I might be the only straight person in the place. That's quite different from describing a "gay culture." Jim Carroll, I realize that you want me to silence Akenaton, but that's not going to happen. I disagree with him, but he has a right to say what he thinks - as long as it is not a personal attack on a specific individual. So, Jim, quit your snide remarks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM Here is another one..Laveda. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/07/cardinal-levada-point-man-in-risky-vatican-strategy-against-the/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:31 PM "Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality" Why would there be any need (or danger, for that matter), real or perceived, to promote any of the multitude of type of sexuality...I suspect it evolves naturally without any type of promotion....kinda like shooting blanks...as often occurs in posts:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM "Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality" Right from the start you have failed to show how gays 'promote' their sexuality any more than any other group in our society does. This is a further example of hate fuled stereotyping which, I am quite sure now, will go unchecked. I am really losing a great deal of respect for this forum. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 08:27 AM Ake posted "I'm afraid, where you are wrong, is in your supposition that I have any fear, loathing, or hatred of homosexuals. Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality as a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. my stance has not really been against homosexuals at all, but against the promotion by supposedly liberal govts of behavioural minorities, regardless of the consequences of their behaviour". Well that sure seems like fear ro me...not personal fear,of course, as you may have misinterpreted, but clearly a broader fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:47 AM Why was there not a massive RC faithful outcry when priests were moved from parish to parish, country to country...and allowed to abuse others (transfers, that may...or likely are still be happening) Snap, the Support network for victims of clerical abuse just published a statement that at least 65 catholic priests under suspicion of abuse were transferred to Mexico, where there is at present no law against paedophilia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:10 AM I really am not interested in your attitude to me, as I am sure the opposite to be the case. It does concern me that you use child abuse threads for your homophobic rantings - no change I see, as you appear to have official blessing to do so. Anyway, I'm sure you have enough hate for all of us. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM Question "But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. - WHY" Joe's response "Because they did not realized the extent and seriousness of the problem" Well maybe at first. But, there is a problem with this one answer to a complex issue, spanning many years. Why was there no christian outreaching to comfort and heal the victims by the faithful (after all, these victims were a part of the RC family)? Why were the bishops not taken on, when they spoke out against the victims (for example Colin Campbell)? Why was there not a massive RC faithful outcry when priests were moved from parish to parish, country to country...and allowed to abuse others (transfers, that may...or likely are still be happening)? This was known externally...especially in more recent years....so there is no logic that it was not evident internally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:51 AM Ake posted ......"isn't the most important thing to get the abuse stopped"? Yes, some seem to feel it has, others are not convinced that the church has really come to grips with the problems within the organization that allowed it to thrive and grow...some feel the root problem is in high parts of the organization" Yes, but not only in the USA and Europe...many suspect that it is a bigger problem then we now know for sure. As most of the abuse is between post pubescent boys/youths and adult males, then would it not be sensible to look see if there is a link between the very high numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood and the high numers of homosexual assaults taking place. There is another major issue...identifying the victims, seeking help for them to ensure their health and those thay come in contact with. Ake posted "Joe talked of a "gay culture" in the priesthood, which made him "uncomfortable", perhaps this culture is what allowed the abuse to become endemic" This seems reasonable, and is indeed something that should be looked at very closely, independantly and professionally...and the relatioinship of added stresses, such as lonliness and celebacy, on priests. Unfortunately, the RC church and many of those actually in charge (outside local stuff) let its dogma (anti homosexuality and pro celebacy) get in the way of meaningful investigation. I suspect the protection of the church organization and folks at high levels (for a number of reasons) are added factors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Apr 10 - 06:48 AM No vitriol intended Jim, just stating the facts as I see them as usual. I dont think you can point to any aggression from me towards you on this or any thread. If i have done so I apologise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 05:39 AM Rather comforting to find you've added me to your vitriol list Ake - at least I'll have plenty of company Jim carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:12 AM Apologist for child abuse, persecuter of religion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Apr 10 - 04:05 AM Joe; "And Jim Carroll, I answered your hypothetical question about schools long ago. My answer was: Of course, action should be taken against people who commit crimes, no matter what institution they belong to." And my reply was that this wasn't my question. You are defending the part that the church (not the individual abusive priests) played in the abuse scandal. My question was, would you defend the school authorities and the heads of education similarly if they covered up the abuses on and passed the abusers on to other schools to continue abusing? Would you describe a scandal that was widespread through the school system as "a few bad apples". If you are going to avoid answering these questions, I would be grateful if you would say so and save my having to ask them again and again. In the same way, you have accused me and others of being unfair to the church: "But day after day, over and over again, Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and others use the misdeeds of a few to condemn the entire Catholic Church" and I have asked you to specify where. Can I assume that you are not going to respond to this one either? It is beginning to dawn on me that none of you appear to have fully grasped what is happening here in Catholic Ireland, the 'Land of Saints and Scholars'. We are being met three or four times a week, with articles questioning the role and the future of the church in the press - not the gutter press, but in the broadsheets, and not a few columns but pages-worth. The letter pages are carrying a running debate daily; not snide attacks but detailed and informed debate, criticising the former behavior of the church towards the children and deeply questioning the handling of the crisis - that really is what it is - a crisis. These are, in the main, not anti-church people, but devout Catholics whose faith has been shaken, and in some cases, totally dislodged. On elderly lifelong churchgoer wrote recently that she can no longer look at a priest without thinking "I wonder was he at it". Yes, some priests did bad things to children and others didn't, yes, fellow clerics did know about it and didn't report it but let it continue (there is no record of anybody within the church reporting abusive priests, or even criticising them seriously within the church, prior to the Ryan and Murphy enquiries). From the top to the bottom, the hierarchy is handling this affair so badly that, as far as I can see, there is a very large question-mark hanging over the church and its future in Irish society. Any damage to the church, in this matter, past and present, is entirely self-inflicted, and this will continue to be the case until decent Catholics come to terms with the situation and get a grip. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM Thanks for your stated opinion of me Ed, and I am as you imagine, a reasonable person. (Smokey...I think you and I understand one another fairly well without any need for words) I'm afraid, where you are wrong, is in your supposition that I have any fear, loathing, or hatred of homosexuals. Right from the start, my stance has been against the promotion of MALE homosexuality as a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. my stance has not really been against homosexuals at all, but against the promotion by supposedly liberal govts of behavioural minorities, regardless of the consequences of their behaviour. Ihere have been several threads, in which the health issues associated with male homosexuality have been discussed. Before participating in these threads I had no idea that the health statistics were so bad......this information had never been made widely available to the public, but for the last thirty years homosexuality has been portrayed positively in almost all of the media. It is absolutely certain that if the homosexual health, life expectancy, and HIV figures had been available forty years ago,homosexuality would never have been de-criminalised.....on health grounds. Regarding clerical sexual abuse......isn't the most important thing to get the abuse stopped? As most of the abuse is between post pubescent boys/youths and adult males, then would it not be sensible to look see if there is a link between the very high numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood and the high numers of homosexual assaults taking place.....isn't that common sense for fuck sake! not "bigotry" It is completely wrong to bring the reasoning against paedophilia into this case....the vast majority of these assualts are not paedophilia. There is another word, which properly describes sexual abuse of teenage boys and youths, but that word escapes me at the moment and I have no time to look it up. Joe talked of a "gay culture" in the priesthood, which made him "uncomfortable", perhaps this culture is what allowed the abuse to become endemic? Whatever, as Mary says, this behaviour needs to be irradicated,and all abuse cases should be prosecuted. Would our resident religiphobes agree that all priests found guilty of sexual abuse of minors, be forced as part of their punishment, to take a sexual orientation test? Only then would we start to get somewhere near the truth, and be in a possition to protect the children of the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:54 AM http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_l0HtfJc-Jw9Q-CWAxTBrUGLaYwD9F8DMH00 AP calls Sodano #2 in Vatican. That is as of today. The Vatican's lawyer has called the lawsuit discussed in this article a publicity stunt...add that to words they are going to try to take back within the next couple of days. There is a role for each of us to play in this great drama...some of us must keep trying to excise the cancer which can not be denied exists..no, not even cancer, but gangrene, pustulance. And some can keep reminding people of the good work the church does and the wonderful people it produces. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM http://www.zenit.org/article-28993?l=english This says he is dean of the College of Cardinals and spoke at the recent luncheon for the pope. Sometimes I think he is described as #2 but I think officially Bertone is. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:42 AM Sodano was he not the one who interrupted the Easter Mass the pope was presiding at to talk about the petty gossip? Was he the one presiding at the funeral of the Polish president? I think he was but I will have to check. There seem to be suggestions that Sodano has el Papa in some sort of stranglehold and el Papa would like to get rid of him but seems to not be able to. THat is what it seems like. I do not know for sure. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:30 AM And Maciel died in 2008. You won't find Sodano doing much currently, but the papers are digging up all sorts of stuff Maciel and Sodano did in the past. Maciel was particularly dangerous, because he had such a large and militant following. But Sodano and Maciel should have been taken care of 30 years ago. And Maciel's religious order, the Legionaries of Christ, still take in seminarians at the age of 12. You'd think they would have learned. Still, it's too late to do much about them now. It really bothers me that so many Catholics want their church to go back to the authoritarian days of the past, when the Church pretended it had all the answers. Most priests and nuns don't want that sort of rigid atmosphere to come back, but I sure know a lot of lay people who want it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 22 Apr 10 - 11:12 PM Sodano is not acting as a retired person. Google him. He is all over the place and deeply implicated in the Marciel sickness. Watch that name folks. I do not think he is a good apple. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:44 PM We all think we're being rational, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:10 PM Cardinal Sodano is 82 years old and is retired. No use chasing after him, mg. And that's part of the problem - much of this stuff happened 30, 40, 50 or more years ago, and people are screaming bloody murder about it now. There's no perspective on this, no realism in the view. As a result, there's a lot of screaming - and nothing gets accomplished, nothing is done to prevent the problem from happening again because all the energy and money is spent lamenting the past. All I'm asking for is a rational approach. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 22 Apr 10 - 08:01 PM No, I do not condemn the whole Catholic church. Although I do think it has very serious intrinsic problems. I do want the pope to resign, but first I want him to thoroughly have Cardinal Sodano independently investigated. And please do not use my whole name as I hate to be googled. mg
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM Sorry Joe, my mistake, I thought you were criticizing them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:44 PM But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. - WHY??? Because they did not realized the extent and seriousness of the problem, Smokey. I think many bishops didn't realize it, either. From 1950 to the present (60 years), my Sacramento diocese has had six presiding bishops, and 16 priests suspected of child abuse (some of those priests were exonerated). Child molestation was known to happen, but it was relatively rare. So, people (and many bishops) figured it was an unusual occurrence, and were unaware that there were thousands of cases. The situation was quite different in Boston and in Ireland, but those places had bishops who covered up the crimes, allowing the problem to fester in secret. If you want data, look at bishop-accountability.org. They try to keep track of every accused priest in the U.S. And Smokey, why didn't you alert the media or the police? Why didn't you speak out for justice? Because you didn't know the extent of the problem, right? Same thing goes for Catholic lay people, and for many priests and bishops. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:41 PM Smokey's suspicion that all priests should be suspected of child molestation, is equally clearly stated. What I actually said was that I wouldn't risk my kid on a one in twenty chance. There is a difference. And yes, I am prejudiced, but I have never accused all priests or all Catholics or condemned the whole church, whatever that means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM There's an interesting piece published today in the online version of the National Catholic Reporter. Here's an excerpt: Words matterBy Kate Childs GrahamCreated Apr 22, 2010 The sex abuse scandal within the Catholic church has been reported on in every way, shape and form. However, many journalists neglect to make the distinction between the Catholic church and the culprits of the sex abuse scandal. Instead, they write sensationalist headlines about how the Catholic church is plagued with pedophilia or how the church is a hide-out for sex abusers. My reaction to this has been: No, this is wrong. It isn't the Catholic church that has a problem with abuses of sex or power, it is members of the hierarchy. After all, we, the faithful, the church, do not condone the actions of the perpetrators of sexual abuse or those who have sought to cover up these crimes. We are as shocked and appalled as the rest of the world. I still stand by that reaction and would urge journalists to be as specific as possible when it comes to the grave problem of sex abuse within the Catholic church. At the same time, though, I am starting to think that maybe the faithful has a bigger role in the perpetuation of this scandal than I've been willing to admit. When I was child, a priest was removed from a local parish after being accused of sexual abuse. People talked in hushed tones about the cause of the removal and shook their heads in disgrace. But they didn't stop putting money in the collection basket. They didn't write letters to their bishop. They didn't alert the media or the police. They didn't speak out for justice. I believe that the faithful have as much responsibility as the hierarchy to instill and ensure justice within our church. And, yes, it would be much easier to fight against injustices if there were clear, more democratic avenues to do so. But a long history of reformation is the church tells us that while creating positive and essential change is sometimes mucky, it is always worth it.... And Jim Carroll, I answered your hypothetical question about schools long ago. My answer was: Of course, action should be taken against people who commit crimes, no matter what institution they belong to. HOWEVER, when accusing people of crime, it is important to accuse only those who have committed the crimes. Akenaton makes it clear that he suspects all homosexuals of child molestation. Smokey's suspicion that all priests should be suspected of child molestation, is equally clearly stated. And both Smokey and Akenaton are highly prejudiced in their suspicions. Smokey, you accuse me a putting words in Akenaton's mouth - with all the diatribes against homosexuals that he's posted in these threads on child molestation, what else could he be referring to? It's crystal clear that Akenaton suspects homosexuals of being child molesters. If that's the case, then it's clear that he would not want homosexuals to have contact with children - is it not? OK, so you don't like the term bigotry. Let's just say that Akenaton and Smokey and Jim Carroll are guilty of broad overgeneralization.... Try logic sometime. It's very effective. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:13 PM I recall one of Johnny Cash's last interviews. When asked about his former alcahol problems he said something like "I don't drink, but I am in a constant lifelong battle with demons inside me, and the main one is alcohol" Because of social prejudices when and the society I grew up in, I have subconcious demons inside me that I fight each day...one is prejudice against gays I learned as a child. And, I suspect many of us fight this same demon...and some better than others. My logical side tells me that there is no rational for such subconcious beliefs. But, at times I catch them coming out.I work real hard to extend the same friendship, fellowship and benefit of the doubt to gays that I automatically give to others...but, I have to work at it. No matter how much logic I use or articles that I read, gay people that I meet...I have to be on guard not to let this subconcious belief, that was locked into my subconsciouis at childhood...( I suspect like prejudices with other minorities, that I do not seem to have) that's real hard to erase....But, like with Johnny Cash, that demon can be kept at bay. So can I say I act in a non prejudice way in life...yes, I can. But, unfortunately I cannot say I am without prejudice...though I go out of my way to get to know gays in my community and let them know they are welcome. So, I try real hard to take in what I read, and what people say to learn, to be logical, to be reasonable and fair and even harder to carefully balance what may be true about some and even amany gays with logic and keeping that prejudice demon at Bay. And, I know it is not logical, as I have nothing to fear from gays...or even the worst case scenario related to any aspect related to homosexuals. So, when it comes to Ake (and, I have not read many of his posts outside this thread topic)...I suspect he also has nothing to fear...but, it may just be that old subconcious childhood demon that raises its ugly head now and then...It can get the best of anuone. Anyway...sorry to so off on a thread drift...but, I personally needed to say that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM I dont know Ake...I dont know his purpose or conviction. He seems well read...though often mixes up apples and oranges and cherry picks research/opinion...in my view. But, that's ok with me.I suspect he is a nice reasonable fellow in real life, and someone that anyone...even a gay fellow could have a beer with. I doubt that he is a demon, nor the borg. To me he has stimulated debate..made it a bit more interesting and unlikely the thread will die. His posts have stimulated me to look up more stuff and learn new stuff, and even change my views on some things...because of the research and viewpoints I read , not his posted stuff. After all, someone has to take the right or oposing position, if for no other purpose but to move the center forward a bit and make it interesting:) I suspect some gays would be more offended if Ake stated he agreed with them, rather than being on an opposing position. I dont't recall that he was disrespectful to other posters...though his posted material may be challenging to some. Personally< I don't see the fuss. I may differ in that view if I were gay...but, I am not...and no gay person has come forward to express concern (that I know of). This is not a testimonial nor an endorsement, but just my reflection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:09 PM Well said, Ed, and thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:00 PM "But day after day, over and over again, Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and others use the misdeeds of a few to condemn the entire Catholic Church" Joe O sometimes goes to great posting lengths to emotionally (and I firmly believe sincerely) express the differences betwen the Vatican and the RC organization (Bishops, Cardinals, Yada Yada) and the rank and file RCs who are innocent of sexual wrong doing and do nothing but good in the world. I suspect most of those he condems here have similar, though not as intense feelings. However, when one challenges or debates in any way the actions and sincerity (yesterday, today and likely tomorrow) he goies into his RC defensive mode (I suspect possibly because of his earlier RC inner programing) brands those folks as being unreasonable, anti-RC folks whose only purpose is to bring an end to the RC church....WRONG. I have seen little of the condemation of the rank and file RCs who have been cheated more than some of the posters...if they copuld only see through the RC induced fog....I suspect that has been reinforced by what they see (to me falsely) as Christian Faith. In more recent posts, he has entered another stage of denial. He has condemed others who lumped all homosexuals as sexual abusers and those who question...and sometimes agressively, the RC role and actions (past and present) as anti-Catholic. So, what's the difference from this position and those that you seem to condem...for example, Ake and the Mudcat anti-Catholic hordes (Joe's term) and ....+ a number of foilks and (aka) "the others". Think about it Joe. Debate is debate. Put facts deductions and opinion forward for discussion....right or wrong. Show respect. Separate opinion from research, research from junk research and separate biased and non peer reviewed stuff from opinion disguised as research. Question the logic and bias of others. Do your best to promote your cause. Learn from others. Forgive when it gets heated. Appoligise when you get carried away. Its all fair and good stuff in a debate. It likely wont change the evolution of the issue. But, there may be a small chance one may get closer to the truth, a good way forward....and maybe some folks will understand a different perspective on the same issue from another? It's just words. Why should we get up tight because someone else has a different perspective, experience, viewpoint or bias? We are not going to move many stars with our views...but we can learn from others...and contribute to the discussion. And, we all have our blind spots prejudices we have gathered through life, and warts....some just wear them better. Put it in perspective folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:10 PM I think it was Smokey who said no priest should be allowed to have contact with children, and I'm sure Akenaton would say that no homosexual should have contact with children. Where's the difference? Can you really not see the difference, Joe? Priests are doing the abusing. Putting words in Ake's mouth isn't all that productive either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:06 PM Joe, More and more I am left with the impression that those outside Ireland have yet to grasp the enormity of what happened here. Sure, it wasn't the whole clergy who indulged in abuse - a considerable amount, but still a small minority. But it was a large proportion of the heirarchy who knew what was going on, didn't report it and allowed it to continue. Many of the people who acted in this way are now in prominent positions. some have owned up and resigned, while others are being found out and are refusing to resign. This is shaking the whole foundations of the church here, and the longer mit goes on the more fragile the church will become. I have no desire whatever to destroy the church - if I have indicated that I have, please point out where. But even if I did, I couldn't hope to do as good a job as the church is doing itself at the moment. If there is anything here I have said that is incorrect or unfair please point it out. And please don't you dare equate my attitude toward the church with Akenaton's torrent of hate toward gays. I asked you earlier what whether you would adopt the same stance if it was the education department who had behaved as the church has - I still haven't received a straight answer. More recently I asked you where I have given a distorted view of Catholicism - again I have received no answer - specifics please. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM Is Akenaton a bigot? Certainly. It's very hard to define a sexual act between an adult male and a boy as anything other than a homosexual act. And it follows that a sexual act between an adult male and a girl is a heterosexual act. Akenaton uses that information to condem all homosexuals (and one wonders why he doesn't use the same information to condemn all heterosexuals). That's the nature of prejudice - to use the misdeeds of the few as evidence to condemn the whole. Tens of thousands of men (maybe more) molest hundreds of thousands of boys, and it is indeed a serious and a horrible crime. And Akenaton uses that information to condemn all homosexuals. Akenaton is very self-righteous and sincere about it, but Akenaton is deeply prejudiced against homosexuals. So, we have Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and a whole sheaf of others who condemn the actions of Catholic priests who have molested and abused children, and of bishops who have covered up these crimes. And these condemnations are correct - these priests and bishops did horrible wrongs, and they deserve to be punished severely. But day after day, over and over again, Jim Carroll and Smokey and mg and Fionn and others use the misdeeds of a few to condemn the entire Catholic Church. I think it was Smokey who said no priest should be allowed to have contact with children, and I'm sure Akenaton would say that no homosexual should have contact with children. Where's the difference? In the "Catholic Come-All-Ye" thread, Amos posted an excerpt from a very interesting New York Times article that speaks of two Catholic churches. One is the chauvinistic, male-dominated, power-hungry organization that is responsible for this horrible scandal and coverup. The other is obsessed with feeding the hungry and comforting the afflicted. As the article says:
The article describes the Catholic Church that I have experienced all my life, a place that is usually full of joy and compassion and wisdom - but also an organization that has serious flaws that need to be healed. The truth can be a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a bigot, because the bigot makes use of only those parts of the truth that support his point of view. Akenaton is correct in saying that sex between an adult male and a boy is a homosexual act - and it is a horrible thing. Nonetheless, it is not a valid reason for condemning or restricting all homosexuals. The Mudcat anti-Catholic hordes are right in saying that it is a horrible thing for priests to molest children, and for bishops to cover up such crimes. Nonetheless, it is not a valid reason for condemning or restricting the Catholic Church. Certainly, there is a need to explore this entire scandal and to come to an understanding why it happened and what can be done to heal the harm that has ben done prevent such a thing from happening again. But the Mudcat hordes want nothing to do with understanding and healing - all they want to do is condemn and destroy. Is that bigotry? I'll let you decide for yourself. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:30 PM Actions change perspectives...words less so. Is this really new? Didn't the pope and a legion of others in positions of RC authority and in other world locals say they were sorry in the past and repeated it more recently? Based on that, and some of what followed up, or was revealed after some of the appologies, is it reasonable to expect that it would actually change perspectives significantly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:32 PM Does this change anything in anybody's mind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM Could we agree that a few clerics and their bosses (I won't speculate on the number, as some so, or whether they are still active in living out their distortions) share a distorted view of Catholicism? On the bright side, at least they don't post here:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 Apr 10 - 02:05 PM A distorted view of Catholicism? Hmm.. that's constructive debate for you.. I wonder where that puts my view of Catholicism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 09:46 AM "The two of you have said many things that I believe are a distorted view of Catholicism - would it be right for me to seek to silence you?" Meant to challenge you on this Joe - where - and I would like a reply to this? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 22 Apr 10 - 09:12 AM [Akenaton's] remarks do border on prejudice against homosexuals They don't border on it, they are way over the border and heading for the horizon. In just about any other medium, that sort of of stuff would fall under British criminal law against incitement to hate crime. I don't suppose he/she/it is ever going to tell us what the personal motivation for this hate campaign is, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 07:09 AM "No, Jim, that's too speculative..." Sorry Joe, have to think about that one - it seems clear enough to me as it has been a contstant mantra at all gays. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 06:41 AM No, Jim, that's too speculative... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:03 AM Meanwhile another bishop is about to step down. 500, by the way |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:02 AM "I am not about to suspend reality....." This is your 'reality. "Jim cited the case of a father who raped his son and daughter, but I am sure this creature must have been severely psychologically disturbed, or affected by drug or alchohol dependancy." Where is the 'reality' of your statement here; what evidence has come out of the ongoing trial that your surmisings have any basis in reality and are not part of your ongoing and very sick obsession with legally accepted homosexuality? Can you cite any evidence whatever that has emerged so far to back up your statement? Have you been following the case; do you know anything about it whatever? The crimes committed against the two children, son and daughter, were classic cases of paedophila, as were those against the victims of the church. Paedophilia is, by definition, "Sexual attraction by adults, usually men, of children of either sex. This is EXACTLY what has happened in the case being tried at the present time and it is EXACTLY what happened in ALL the cases of clerical abuse, yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you make the totally unsubstantiated and outrageous claim that "the instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare". Where is your 'reality' there, where is the evidence for this? The crimes committed by the clergy have nothing whatever to do with homosexuality. In the highly unlikely circumstance of them coming to trial, they will be tried for paedophilic rape and/or assault. Paedophilia is a fully established and recognised condition in it's own right, and, despite your ourageous claim to the contrary, there is a long list of outstanding cases awaiting examination of female children who have been, or have claim to have been raped by clergymen. Reality my arse! As far as I am concerned, your constant attempts to sideline the discussion to further your own particular kink is tantamount to re-abusing all the abuse victims. I wonder what the feller who you described thus; "if Jesus was alive today I'd be his friend" (unmarried, no children, just one possible girlfriend) would have had to say about that - I believe he had strong opinions on the abuse of children. Joe; Is not depicting members of this thread going about their legal NORMAL business, as disease spreading perverts, making personal attacks on Mudcat members - in this case, people who are not even involved in this particular discussion. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:59 AM Sorry, Ake, but your data does not compute. There are very large number of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in and out of the priesthood, who never molest a child. I think that means there is no need for a blanket prohibition against homosexuals, if most homosexuals are very unlikely to molest children. That being the case, you have to find other things that would indicate a likelihood to molest children, and base your screening on that criteria. HOWEVER, for as long as the Catholic church requires celibacy for priests, then I think it is foolhardy to admit men into the seminary if they are currently sexually active - whether those men are heterosexual or homosexual. And as long as the celibacy rule is in effect, I don't think it's a good thing for priests to ignore the rule and engage in sexual activity. Certainly, some priests are going to slip now and then, but I can't approve of that or say that it's OK as long as they're discreet. I don't think priests should be required to be celibate; but as long as celibacy is the rule, the rule should be followed - by both heterosexual and homosexual priests. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:13 AM Yes Joe, I take your point, but Herek has dedicated himself to a lifeswork in the defence of "homosexual rights" seemingly to the exclusion of every other facet of human behaviour. This would seem to make him more of an "obsessive" than Jim imagines me to be. I would maintain that to be involved in the defence of these "rights" issues to the extent that Herek is,(basically a powerful activist), makes complete impartiality impossible. I particularly dislike Herek's habit of, when he encounters a problem to his hypothesis, he simply calls it something else; for example the sexual abuse of teenage boys and youths that we see in the clerical cases, should be rebranded as "male on male molestation" giving the mistaken impression(in my view) that heteros and homos sexually assault young males in equal proportion. It is surely obvious that the large percentage numbers of homos in the priesthood, has a relation to the large number of boys and youths being assaulted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:58 AM Jim Carroll and Steamin' Willie, you bring up an interesting challenge. I criticized you when you insinuated questions about Akenaton, and you both countered that if you were not allowed to defame Akenaton, then he should not be allowed to present his allegations that there is a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. I think there's a big difference - your remarks were a direct, personal attack on Akenaton. His remarks do border on prejudice against homosexuals, but they are clearly what he believes quite passionately to be the truth. Rather than demanding that he be silenced, you have the freedom to gather and present evidence to refute his allegations. After all, what is the purpose of a discussion? - simply to defeat and silence your opponent? The two of you have said many things that I believe are a distorted view of Catholicism - would it be right for me to seek to silence you? I think the only way to effectively discuss a controversial issue, is to allow all sides to say what they think, respectfully and without personal attacks. Your insinuations don't add any proof to your position - they're just nasty insinuations. That being said, I have to say that I still disagree with you completely, Ake. You say that Dr. Herek's report is biased, but you do not specify exactly what it is that is inaccurate in Herek's report. Indeed, he appears to be very careful not to jump to conclusions on anything. He does agree with the distinctions you have made between those who molest pubescent and pre-pubescent children; and between those who molest male and female children. He does make one distinction that you fail to acknowledge: that molesters molest children, and normal heterosexuals and homosexuals have sex only with adults. Therefore, a normal homosexual who had not had sex with children, would seem to be as unlikely to have sex with children as a normal heteroxexual would be. In short, most people (whether heterosexual or homosexual) don't have sex with children. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM I am not about to suspend reality to fit in with your view of how society should operate Jim. The bias in Herek's writing runs through all of his wurk....that I have read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:37 AM Jim....When i say that I believe there is selection by gender in most cases of abuse against children; and in the clerical case, of abuse against mainly teenagers and young adults, I am not being discriminatory. I believe this selection is made by both heterosexually and homosexually orientated abusers. People who molest babies and very young children (paedophiles) appear to be in a different catagory.....something beyond sanity. Is is important to make this distinction if we are to fully understand the clerical abuse problem. To maintain that it is a problem of "Catholicism" per se, is simply wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM Interesting stuff from Dr David Finkelhor, From the Crimes Against Children Center, UNH http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV68.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM Does the John Jay report stand up to the rigis Ake test...a professional peer review test, is it unbiased, considering who funded it and supplied much of the information? Does it justify Akes conclusions as to homosexuality of abusers? You be the judge...From the NY Times "The report* contains a wealth of data about the nature of the abuse, its prevalence and the profiles of abusers. In hindsight, Professor Terry said, she wishes that the team had explored more deeply the sexual orientation of the abusive priests, whose victims were overwhelmingly male. Most sexual abuse victims in the general population are female. Other researchers have praised the John Jay study, but cite shortcomings. Because all of the data was provided by the nation's dioceses and based on existing files, for example, the John Jay team had no way to standardize definitions or know how the dioceses had chosen which information to include. ''This is the equivalent of a couple of good, interesting articles in a scientific journal,'' said David Finkelhor, a professor at the University of New Hampshire and another expert in the field. Professor Terry said she and her colleagues planned to publish peer-reviewed academic articles. ''This is the only database of a population of sex offenders anywhere in existence,'' although plenty of other studies look at samples, she said. ''There's a lot you can do with that.'' *(The Report) The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/nyregion/public-lives-a-dispassionate-look-at-the-wolf-in-priest-s-clothing.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:56 PM Some random thoughts. I really am having a little trouble with this one. To date Akenaton has used four threads on clerical child abuse as an opportunity for getting across his homophobic message. He has, on open forum, presented gays, on this thread and others, as disease-spreading perverts who have no control over their actions. This, I have to assume, includes the members of this forum who have stated that they are gay and have shown far more tolerance of his rantings than I would have been able to in their position. I can't speak for the US, but homosexuality has been partially legal in Britain since 1967, and was completely decriminalised in 1980, yet despite this he continues his (at least thirty year old) hate campaign on open forum, and once again uses the suffering of abused children as a platform. If, as has been suggested, he is trolling to wind us up, he has a disturbingly sick sense of humour, but if he is serious, he has real problems and should go and see someone to get mended. If this had been about race, and it bears all the hallmarks of the type of racism I have witnessed most of my life, I have no doubt he would have, at the very least, have been warned of his behaviour, yet so far, Steamin' Willie and I have had our wrists slapped and instructed that we have to be nice to him. Unlike some people, I'm not in the habit of running and wingeing to the site administrator, but I do believe that there comes a point when it is no longer acceptable for fanatics to use raped and abused children as a means of getting across a message that should, like the racism it so closely resembles, be nipped in the bud sharpish. As I say, I'm having a little trouble with this one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:50 PM What is normal for men with young teen at least girls is probably biologicaly normal but not socially or culturally OK I would hope. We also allow girls to flaunt themselves and they do not discriminate often as to whom...so is a "normal" man going to be attracted to a brazenly dressed and acting 14 year old who could make herself up to look 40? Yes, unfortunately. I think biology wants every single 15 year old to be pregnant..society does not. This is another whole can of worms. Bottom line is we have to have strong boundaries and be willing to impose them on both the men (or women) and the young people who don't realize the strong forces they are playing with in their attempts to be fashionable, popular etc. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM I found this 1964 Quaker perspective interesting...though on the drifting side of the discussion:http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/1964-quaker.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM Ake, I'm wondering if you have read Dr. Herek's article thoroughly. Dr. Herek would agree that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM Mary ....I have cited three cases, two very high profile, and one from personal experience, which suggest that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths, despite Dr Herics claim that victims are not selected according to the abusers orientation. He makes no logical argument in support of his claim. Jim cited the case of a father who raped his son and daughter, but I am sure this creature must have been severely psychologically disturbed, or affected by drug or alchohol dependancy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:00 PM I post MY opinions, backed by the results of specific, objective studies, the largest of these being the John Jay study into clerical abuse in Boston. Dr Herek presents his opinions, assumptions and huge leaps of faith, as fact. Whether I have an axe to grind or not, is of no importance to anyone. Dr Heric's axe is capable of cutting through the fibres of society and bringing it crashing down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM Ake: Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind? Unlike YOU? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM akenaton posted "Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind"? Reply So, is that the scale one would put forward to weigh professional (and non professional) research and opinion (even here)? If so, I suspect if you as closely checked out the personal opinions or activities of those whose research many here rely on...we would be stripped back to our own personal views....with no research to back up any logical discussion. There are statistics, research and professional opinion put forward as evidence... and even financed by... those who have a specific religious, family and anti-homosexual (or anti RC or religeous) perspectives or experience. Are we to rule their work out because of that? There are professions who have been quoted who have been censured by their profession for biased and poor research,some physciologists whose work is promoted here. BTW Dr. Gregory M. Herek is not one of these...but whose research is recognized by his professional community...regardless of his passions are outside his professional career) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM A very importantn question is whether pedophiles are attracted generically to children, which people are stating, or if this is broken down in to boy preference, girl preference or either/all. Without scientific studies, and I have been searching and haven't found the defnitive one yet, we must assume that there will be specific preferences for boys or girls. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:35 PM That should make pretty clear any further discussion of homosexuality with A. is useless. Let's move on with the subject at hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind? Take a look at his CV....objective? certainly not. he also makes huge assumptions and presents them as fact. The only reason his work is allowed to stand, is that the rest of academia is shit scared of the fascist thought police. They are all highly visible in the media, entertainment, "liberal" academia.....and Mudcat!! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:16 PM Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis (UCD). He received his Ph.D. in social psychology from UCD in 1983, then was a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. He subsequently served as a faculty member at Yale and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York before returning to UCD, first as a research psychologist and later as a tenured professor. An internationally recognized authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, hate crimes and anti-gay violence, and AIDS-related stigma, he has published numerous scholarly articles on these topics Biographical Sketch http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bio.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Lox Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:30 AM Is Ake still banging on about this? Bloody hell! You have an unhealthy obsession mate! Why don't you go and see a counsellor ... as least they'll feign interest and understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM Rather than others putting words in your mouth Akenaton, why don't you stop putting words in your own mouth? People are trying to have a reasoned debate here about clerical abuse of children, or paedophilia as it is clinically known. If you or anybody else wants to start a thread saying how Gay people are the root of all society's problems, then do so. I believe sites exist for you to do this. Some religious sites, Br*tish N*tional P*rty sites etc. A paedophile is not more a Gay person as a straight person. He or she is a paedophile. To make a sexual orientation distinction is an outrageous slur on many people. A rapist does not make heterosexual love a problem. Marital violence does not make marriage a bad thing. Clerical abuse does not make the church a bad thing. I have views on religion and especially organised religion that are not exactly complimentary, but I would never ever make clerical abuse in itself an excuse to wipe out religious organisations. I sincerely hope it will help people to question the infallibility of the church, but as an example not a root cause..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:36 AM " No I'm not!.....I'm simply stating the facts as they happened." Then what is the point of putting it in this discussion - sorry - just another part of your mission agaist gays. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 04:14 AM A father who rapes his own son and daughter is obviously mad. "All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused." Once again, you are implying that paedophilia is the same as homosexuality - it isn't." No I'm not!.....I'm simply stating the facts as they happened. But these facts do suggest that child abusers differentiate on grounds of sexual orientation. This applies to hetero as well as homo abusers As Mary has said, please stop putting words in my mouth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM "written by Dr Gregory Herek a homosexual rights activist." Once again you attempt to debunk somebody's work by describing them as an 'activist', as you did with the Dublin psychiatrist. You have persistantly taken an anti-homosexual line, sometimes a virulent one, so are we not within our rights to describe you as a homophobic activist, and filter everything you have to say through this description? "All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused." Once again, you are implying that paedophilia is the same as homosexuality - it isn't. As I pointed out earlier, there is a case here in Ireland of a father who raped his daughter and his son - no indication of homosexuality there. "The instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare." WHAT? The rape of children is paedophilia - not homosexual assault, even the most desperate of the abuse apologists accept this. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM just read Eds Link, written by Dr Gregory Herek a homosexual rights activist. His Bio does not mention his sexual orientation, but it might be interesting to find out. His CV is a catalogue of high profile defences of Homosexual rights issues. His article is hardly objective or accurate relying on studies by Kinsey, who could not even get the percentage of homosexuals in the community anywhere near correct. The points discussed are mainly personal opinion without any objective backing.....he contends that there is no way of telling whether a man who molests boys is homosexual or not.He also maintains that there should be no such crime as homosexual assault or paedophilia, rather, it should be termed "male on male molestation".....all this purely personal opinion and speculation. As I posted earlier, the big UK paedophile ring, which was led by one of the highest ranking Gay Activists in the country was exclusively homosexual and the victims exclusively male children. The vast majority of the abuse by priests in Boston, according to the John Jay report was against teenage boys and youths. When I was a child, a homosexual and a woman, in a "sham marriage" fostered twelve children.....ten boys and two girls. All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused. When the man was caught, he admitted the abuse, his sexual status and the status of his "marriage".....He was not charged (because of the scandal), but allowed to leave the district and no doubt continued his abuse elsewhere. Thank you Mary, I have never said all homosexuals were paedophiles...that would make me as stupid as those who make that charge. As I have said already, in this instance we are not in the main dealing with real paedophilia, but simple homosexual assault. The instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM Few would say that RC's in France (a country of 62 million people of whom about two-thirds identify themselves as Catholics) were or are scared of sex, or even the opposite sex :) But, they do seem to have difficulty with recruiting priests these days: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/20/world/international-uk-french-catholics.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:05 PM "Some Catholics are terrified, absolutely terrified of the opposite sex." In Catholic countries like Ireland the Church made sex a necessary evil; outside marriage it was forbidden totally, inside marriage it was for the procreation of children. The crossroads dances, open-air dances that were one of the major forms of recreation in rural areas, were systematically broken up by clergymen who would go in smashing instruments and beating the participants - the reason given was that it was encouraging sin for young people of the opposite sex to meet unsupervised. Anyone persitantly caught at a dance would be humiliated by having their names read out at mass on Sunday mornings. One elderly lady we know had her eardrum burst by a priest for attending one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:52 PM Oh mg, now you're being silly. When he keeps saying that on a thread about paedophile priests, what do you imagine he means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:28 PM It does not say that all. It sounds to me like it might be referring more to promiscuity but I see no link to pedophilia there at all. I do not find it at all hard to believe that pedophiles are not acting out of adult behavior..I just never saw him link all homosexuals to pedophelia and I of course do not at all. This is serious business here and we don't need to misquote people, even people I personally I don't agree with. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM @MG. If you haven't heard Ache say that homsexuality=paedophilia then you haven't been paying attention. He keeps repeating minor variations on the theme of (several times in this thread alone) "homosexuals do not have the constraints to their sexual behaviour that generally come with producing and rearing a family ....I say again they have thrown away the rule book." Which is a blanket assertion that all homosexuals (not some, or a few, or one) are unconstrained sexual criminals (in this context). In other discussions he says that "they all" can't or don't want to form relationships and are leading sad, empty lives. To mention but a few of his inane mumblings. You may find it hard to believe that paedophiles - when they act as such - are not acting out any form of adult (homo or hetero) sexual behaviour. That does not make the assertion inaccurate. Ed.T's link to that piece at University of California seems to explain that very distinction. You might do well to read it - carefully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM Here is an NPR piece on Marciel. Creepy man. Now, Cardinal Ratzinger did act on him and pope JP II did not, despite what seems to be adequate information. Keep watching for this Cardinal Sodono. He seems to be a rat. mg http://www.wbur.org/npr/126116570 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM To avoid the present dilema in the discussion, here is a good article that puts the issues and terms into perspective and correct research language....so we can talk a similar language and avoid spinning our wheels: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:03 PM Some points.. I have never read Ake say that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not remotely. Don't go putting words into people's mouths. This issue is complicated enough as it is. Second..I find it very hard to believe that a pedophile would not have a preference of either boys or girls. Do you truthfully think that if God forbid they were given a choice that some wouldn't lean towards one and others toward another? Third: I think we have to look not only what people are attracted to but what they are repulsed by..and that often can be women..due to awful mothers, or excessive religion or very strict training or early trauma or whatever. Take that into account. Some Catholics are terrified, absolutely terrified of the opposite sex. Some men are especially terrified of contact with women. And respulsed by the very tought of contact. Fourth: We know there are pedophiles out there in probably great number, thankfully not all active. But why oh why do we allow ten year old or twelve year old or five year old girls even dress in provocative ways? We are collectively nuts. And responsible for part of the problem..and especially we must all be vigilant with the problem of the mother's boyfriend...that is a whole other topic and a terrible can of worms and 10people will write in the next 10 minutes and say either my pit bull never bites or my boyfriend would never do that. Unfortunately, both things happen. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM I was just reminded of something that a very dear friend explained to me - she is no longer with us, but spend half a lifetime as a family social worker. Adults abusing kids, aren't fulfilling a distorted need for sex with a partner - of the opposite sex for a heterosexual or the same sex for a homosexual abuser - but are fulfilling a distorted need for sex with a child. The power/emotional/psychological dynamic of that situation. Paedophiles are sexually fixated on children. They aren't defined necessarily as homo or heterosexual because they are disfunctional in adult sexual/emotional relationships. Age is almost their only consideration toward their victims. Gender is secondary. A paedophile will tend to act out his or her needs on any child it can get access to. A reason that paedophile priests might have had a disproportionate number of male victims is that they might have greater access to boys than they do girls, because the genders are pretty well separated in Catholic organisations. It seems a fairly obvious and simply understood proposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM has anyone pointed out that most child abuse is of girls, by straight men - normally the father or a close male relative? What proportion of boys/girls are involved as victims of priests? It certainly won't be an all-male experience, I fear. That has all been repeatedly pointed out by several people, complete with reliable research based sources. Ake chooses to ignore that kind of argument or dismisses it out of hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM The only solution is to arrest the perps. (Or pervs.) Go up the chain of command to the top. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM Jim, Willie, As one of the people that might take offence from Ache, I appreciate your arguing this one out. But Ake is a troll best left unfed, I think. I have this picture of him relaxing of an evening with a nice dram of scotch (single malt, probably an Islay) chuckling away at all the reaction he provokes. I haven't read the whole of this thread - has anyone pointed out that most child abuse is of girls, by straight men - normally the father or a close male relative? What proportion of boys/girls are involved as victims of priests? It certainly won't be an all-male experience, I fear. It's the same old tired narrative of the bonkers bigots. There are some people with whom discussion is utterly pointless. At one Gay/Lesbian pride march in London in the '90s there were people wearing T-Shirts with the slogan - "Give us your kids: what we can't fuck, we eat!" Absurdly bad taste, but an excellent riposte to the equally absurd narrative that gay=paedophile. People who believe that are beyond intelligent discussion, so screw 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM "Jim maintains that all male heteros are "potential rapists" No I don't , and it really doesn't help your case to distort what I do say in this way. I said that if your point is, as it has appeared to have been over at least three threads, that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles, then the logical conclusion must be that all hetrosexual men are potential rapists. I believe both claims to be nonsense, but that is how your argument comes across to me, and obviously to others, and has done on all the threads I have been involved in with you on this subject. Your dislike of homosexuality is obvious and it has turned several threads on clerical abuse into attacks on homosexuals, which has to be wrong. The evidence on the clerical abuse we are discussing, the study by the Irish psychiatrists, the figures on homosexuality, even the definition of the term paedophile, all point to paedophila being an abuse of children regardless of their gender. We are in the middle of an abuse trial here in Ireland where a father raped his children - his son and his daughter - that is paedophilia, nothing to do with homosexuality. The above article (which you apparently dismiss on the basis of one of the twelve psychiatrists having declared himself gay) points to there being no evidence of your claims; even the church, on whose behalf the claims were made a week ago, have disassociated themselves from it.It is obvious that the abuses in the church were acts of paedophilia, and were carried out irrespective of the gender of the victims. If there is any imbalance between male and female victims in the church, I have no doubt that this is down to the access that the perpetrators had to their victims - industrial schools like Letterfrack full of young boys under the care of priests - paedophilia is an opportunist crime. It is significant that the figures to date do not include the young women abused in the Magdalene Laundries; nor to we have the information on what happened outside the time limit or in the diocese not covered by the two reports. The only thing we know is that there has been a great deal of abuse committed over a long period of time by priest, agaist children in their care. I believe it is totally irresponsible to draw definitive conclusions on this. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:28 AM Ok, Joe, I hear what you say. However, if there is any other way of dealing with drip drip poison diatribe that insults the very existence of a large section of society please advise. Sadly, the topic is one that is impossible to comment on without upsetting some people. Akenaton has demonstrated his / her? bigotry in such a way as to make reasoned debate impossible. it is wrong to just stop posting as refusing to stand up to such people is how the world has got into messes in the first place. Blaming a section of society for the criminal acts of a few, often not even part of that section, has terrible precedents and I for one cannot and will not allow their odious views to go unchallenged. Fine if that is what they think. free society, everybody has a right to a view. But everybody has a right to draw the line somewhere and say I cannot respect, let alone see the view as valid. Akenaton's stereotyping of all gays as predatory potential paedophiles who need feeling sorry for.... Well, I hope your warning of not getting personal extends to warning Akenaton that many people, gay / straight / religious / not religious / ginger / short / tall / male / female ..... can easily be disturbed by reading such filth and wonder where the moderators are...
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:58 AM Peter, where did I say that "homosexuality equates to paedophilia?" That makes no more sense than saying heterosexuality equates to rape. Men are by nature, sexual predators. Jim maintains that all male heteros are "potential rapists" and this point was mentioned on another thread, but in society we are all under pressure to conform to perceived norms and the production, and raising of a family makes the suppression of these instincts easier. Homosexuals however, have in the large part no such constraints on their behaviour as can be seen from homosexual health figures and the figures on clerical abuse. When we try to buck nature and throw away the rule book, problems always arise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM I can't see why the sexual orientation of the abusers is relevant. The only way to stop the abuse is to remove the opportunity. They couldn't be forced to, and church will never volunteer to do that, as the effectiveness of its conditioning process relies on influencing young minds, preferably from birth. (I would maintain that the overwhelming majority of Catholics never had one scrap of choice about it.) It seems to me that the only thing which has had the effect of actually reducing the abuse so far is publicity. Unfortunately the publicity will also push some of the abuse further underground. Sadly, I don't think it will ever be completely stopped. Teach your children well, is my advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:31 PM When I was working, I had a coworker who was jealous that I was in charge of the office, not he. He tried a little campaign against me - making implications that I was gay. It put me in a bad position, because I am sympathetic to gay people. That being the case, how could I claim that somebody calling me gay was offensive? One time, he said something to that effect when we were in a car with two other coworkers. I responded, OK, I've got notes of what you've said, and now I have two witnesses. Say anything like that again, and I'll file a formal complaint." He didn't make any implications like that again. But anyhow, there's no reason to be hurtful in what you say here at Mudcat. Discuss the topic, and stay away from personal attacks. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM Sorry Joe - will slow down, but I would point out that there are gays on this forum who might take offence at being lumped in with paedophiles. I'm off. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:46 PM Jim and Willie, I think you're getting a bit personal in the way you've addressed Akenaton. Please stick to the subject, and be careful not to be hurtful in what you say. Thanks. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:12 PM Akenaton So let's see what we've got. You don't like gays, you 'pity' them. You find a suggestion that you might be gay yourself 'insulting'. You deliberately and dishonestly manipulate the term homosexuality to equate with paefophilea, despite expert research and dictionary definitions. You accuse all gays of being potential paedophiles - but have no comment on the idea that, following your own logic, all hetrosexuals are potential rapists. You explain away clerical abuse as being down to homosexuality - despite research to the contrary. You reject (not dispute) any research that challenges your own bigotry. You appear to have no problem with the term 'bigot' - on the contrary, you appear to embrace it. On this basis, you reject the conclusions of a dozen field workers in the field of paedophelia on the basis that one of them is gay. That seems fair enough I suppose! You really do need help. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:31 PM "Your "objective expert" seems to be a homosexual himself! " Yeah - I assumed you'd work on the basis that only people with your agenda have a right to an opinion - pity all the other's in the survey backed him up. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:45 PM Even the 5% figure is wrong. 2-3% is now universally recognised. For years, the homosexual activists tried to foist Kinsey's figure of 10% on society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM The figures given by the John Jay study in Boston speak for themselves. We could certainly do with a lot of OBJECTIVE research into homosexuality and clerical abuse, just as we need objective research into homosexuality and high HIV rates. Your "expert" Dr Dibble(no relation to Constable Dibble I hope), in response to Cardinal Bertone's comments said..... ""There is no research to back up what he said. Five per cent of the world's population is gay and to put "US" all in that category is appalling" Your "objective expert" seems to be a homosexual himself! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:06 PM You're hardly in a position to take that sort argument A. I linked to an article which stated that there is no research to back up the statement that paedophilia equals homosexuality. You come back stating you're willing to accept "no scientific research done on homosexuality and paedophilia" . Which is rather a big twist of what was being said. I.e. that research fails to back up that (in effect, your) position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM Akenaton reckons if they had family men in the church, abuse would disappear. mmmmmm... if my Aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle. As I said, this is in the main not just a coincidence of sexually frustrated priests, this is about power alpha male syndrome. Controlling others. Most Gay mates I have can't handle the remote control on the telly, let alone control other people. It is because of the attitude of bigots that this has gone on for so long, and I mean generations. So for an ignorant bigot like Akenaton to perpetuate his hate agenda, it shows that if bigots are in denial, there is no answer to this serious problem. Or at least, as Einstein pointed out; You can't solve a problem with the mindset that created it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:52 PM The figures you quote are completely meaningless, as you are doing what you do in all these threads.....comparing real numbers with percentages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:13 PM "I wish you would try to keep up." And I wish you would start to take responsibility for your bigotry. "personal attacks from people who have nothing to add to the discussion." You are the one who uses the plight of abused children to peddle your bigotry. Why should you think a suggestion that you might be gay is a 'personal attack' - not everyone shares your bigotry. You've read the research and had the percentages - live with them and stop evading the questions. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:57 AM There is no doubt that by allowing heterosexual, family orientated men and women into the priesthood(normality into the gene pool), the sexual abuse would all but disappear. Didn't you read or didn't you (want to) understand the article? Never mind, don't answer that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM Peter, I am prepared to accept that there has been "no scientific research done on homosexuality and paedophilia" as quoted in your link, but this was not true paedopdilia....was it? It was in the main, abuse of teenage boys and young men by adult men. We dont need scientific research to determine what that is, do we? It is called homosexual assault. I really dont understand why you people keep apologising for these criminals...you should be pleased to see them face the courts and make the church a safe place for young folks. There is no doubt that by allowing heterosexual, family orientated men and women into the priesthood(normality into the gene pool), the sexual abuse would all but disappear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM we must understand who is actually perpetrating the crimes But we do, priests, members of religious orders (monks, nuns). And the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church has been involved in an extensive cover-up. That's what we are talking about is it? For your interest: Kate Holmquist's article in Saturday's Irish Times about the link between homosexuality and abuse : 'There is no research to back it up' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:11 AM Jim....The 50% was not my figure but Fr Cozzen's, as was the remark about the priesthood being a "gay occupation"....I wish you would try to keep up. I am quite unimpressed by the slurs against my personal sexuality, and hope readers of this thread are able to see them for what they are.....personal attacks from people who have nothing to add to the discussion. If we are serious about stopping clerical child abuse, we must understand who is actually perpetrating the crimes. This may be painful to those who hold your views on homosexuality, but I don't give a flying fuck for your synthetic pain......the real pain of abused youngsters far outweighs that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM I don't know much about this person, his background and research seems impressive. There is some interesting information and articles on his site to stimulate discussion, for example this one: http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/1992-10-17-Sexual_Abuse_by_Priests.html His main site, it may be worthwhile to look around it: http://www.richardsipe.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:07 AM "We are at the moment discussing clerical abuse in the Catholic Church." It is you who persistantly make these threads part of your interminably squalid gay-bashing hate campaign - the article was in direct response to the claim of homosexuality being the cause of clerical abuse. It was you who quoted 'statistics' to back up your bigotry - prove them or are you once ab=gaing going to scurry away from them? "50% of the priesthood could be homosexual" Priest are celibate by their calling so what proof do you have to back up this claim that 50% 'could be' homosexual? Steamin' Willie - I agree about the suppressed homosexuality - let's see if we can't get him out of the closet. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:12 AM isn't it funny that in the folk music threads, I generally disagree a lot with Jim Carroll's views. Yet in the BS threads, and especially the sad repulsive threads about clerical abuse, I can do no more than agree with him wholeheartedly. Jim, don't keep rising to the bait. Akenaton is pulling your plonker. Why? Because reading his diatribe, it doesn't take a trick cyclist to see his suppressed tendency to homosexuality has not been admitted to even to himself, so his brain reacts by making him paranoid. As this is about power, domination of others and forcing your will, (a more specific aspect of organised religion) then it is quite normal that most of the abuse is against boys not girls. A man will see another man as a future potential threat to his alpha male complex, so needs to subdue the poor young lad. Nothing to do with being gay, just more to do with power lust. Oh, and depraved criminality, but that goes without saying, unless you are a Cardinal in denial about your colleagues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:06 AM Sorry, that should read...."50% of the priesthood could be homosexual" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:57 AM We are at the moment discussing clerical abuse in the Catholic Church. Please stick to the issue in hand. My last post was simply to illustrate that abusers do not attack children at random, regardless of gender. That means that most of the abuse of teenage boys and youths in the Catholic Church, has been perpetrated by men of homosexual orientation. This is pertinent to our discussions, if we truly want to see rates of abuse fall. I have been reading in Ed's link, that Cozzens reckons that there could be 50% of homosexuals in the priesthood....."the priesthood is, or will soon be a "gay" occupation" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:44 AM Akenatin As you seem intent on turning yet another thread into yet another of your gay-bashing exercises - from the same Irish Times: and then perhaps explain your 'vast majority' - or ignore it, as is your wont. Jim Carroll 'THERE IS NO RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP' The cardinal's link between homosexuality and paedophilia is debunked by six psychiatrists who) spoke to Kate Holmquist ONE IN 25 Catholic priests in the US has been formally accused of sexually abusing minors, according to research commissioned by the US Catholic bishops. We don't have comparable research for Ireland, but between the Ryan and Murphy reports, we can surmise how realistic the US research is. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone has tried to blame "homosexuality". "You've got to be kidding," was the reaction of Dr Alan Dibble, a clinical psychologist in Co Meath, who has worked with paedophiles and sex offenders in the US and Ireland for the past 20 years. "There is no research to back up what he said. Five per cent of the world's population is gay and to put us all in that category is appalling... This is a mighty inflammatory remark to make based on 'being told', for someone in such a highly responsible position. Is the Vatican bringing old scientifically debunked myths out of the closet in order to avoid confronting the weaknesses inherent in a hierarchy without transparency and without self-reflection on the extreme stresses inherent in the human loneliness of the priesthood?" He adds: "As the Vatican has attempted to back-track on the cardinal's comments... and with their history of minimising the issue of child sexual abuse in the church by blaming others for scapegoating them, the Vatican is using the same cognitive distortions therapists teach child sexual abusers not to use - such as whitewashing, rationalising, minimising and excuse-making as a way to avoid taking personal responsibility," Dibble says. Five other psychiatrists and psychologists interviewed by The Irish Times agreed there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia, among them Prof Patricia Casey of UCD and the Royal College of Psychiatrists of Ireland. "It has never been demonstrated scientifically. Paedophilia is an attraction to minors - male, female or both." Prof Harry Kennedy, clinical professor of forensic psychiatry at TCD, explains that "there are heterosexual paedophiles, there are homosexual paedophiles and there is no special link between homosexuality and paedophilia and that is the plain science of it based on epidemiology, which is my field. I wonder where the Cardinal got his information. I'd be happy to look at any new evidence he might have and review it from a scientific point of view." Also adamant that there is no link between paedophilia and homosexuality are Dr Joseph Duffy, clinical director of the Granada Institute in Dublin, which has treated priests who have sexually abused children; Prof Donald West, psychiatrist and former head of the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge, UK; and Prof Michael King, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, who has treated paedophiles and sex offenders. The greatest threat to children are heterosexual males, says Kennedy. Girls are five times more likely than boys to be abused, usually by their father, stepfather or mother's boyfriend. West says: "Most at risk are girls in the home." Research has shown, since the 1980s, that heterosexuals - 95 per cent of the population - are as likely as homosexuals to be sexually aroused by children. When boys are sexually molested, the predator is most likely male, but that doesn't mean he is gay. As Casey stats, paedophiles are attracted to children and many don't care what gender the child is. One theory, King points out, is that boys are more accessible to the sort of predator who seeks out children in parks because traditionally they have greater freedom than girls to roam. Are there more paedophiles among Catholic priests than among the general population? "Nobody knows," says King. "My own theory is that celibacy may be behind some of this, because we don't seem to get the same reports in other churches. It's only a theory that celibacy is a cloak that puts you in charge of children." Casey also suggests that some abusers were attracted to die Catholic Church because they knew it would give them access to children, and vetting procedures weren't good enough. The stereotype, which is true, is that paedophiles get involved in sports clubs, scout groups and church activities to get access to children. The other classic method is to culti¬vate relationships with single mothers. Paedophilia is a fixation where, for a persistent period of at least six months, the paedophile has sexual fantasies about children and a desire to have sexual contact with children that he cannot control. As Duffy explains, a classic fixated paedophile is so driven that to be prevented from harming others, he has to be kept away from situations where he can have con¬tact with children - families, schools, play¬grounds and so on. The paedophile isn't sexually attracted to adults at all - male, or female, "Homosexuality is irrelevant," says King. "These men are predators in general." Dibble gives the case history of a "true" paedophile who was molested by an adult neighbour, then did the same at age seven to his best friend, which lasted until puberty. When the best mate went on to have girlfriends, "this guy turned to younger children. His sexual development didn't move on". He entered therapy in his 20s, after being caught molesting a child. After a year in therapy, he molested his nephew, and was placed in residential treatment for two years. After his release, he got involved with a woman his age and eventually molested her two sons, and went to prison. "Even with an experience of an adult relationship, his sexual preference was for kids and he couldn't grow out of that." Paedophiles are interested only in children, whereas child molesters are opportunists who will satisfy their needs with anyone, regardless of age. The Vatican stated this week that 10 per cent of abuse cases it has dealt with have been paedophilia, and 90 per cent sex with adolescents. "Studies have shown that men have a low age threshold in who they are attracted to, saying, if they're really honest, that age 14 is no problem whatsoever," says King. "But these young adolescents cannot give consent." Many priests who have sexually abused chil¬dren have been treated at the Granada Institute since 1994. Duffy says many abusers prefer being with a child because it suits their emotional level. Others use sex with children as an abuse of power, dominance and control. Anger against women, due to rejection, is another "driver". As King and Casey suggested, the rule of celibacy may contribute to priests having non-consensual sex with children with impunity. Casey believes that some men may go into the priest¬hood before they have had a chance to develop a mature adult sexuality and are stuck in an immature stage of development. "Perverse reactions" may result, says Duffy when "intimacy, closeness and comfort are expressed in negative and deviant and destructive ways". A book by Karen Leibriech, Fallen Order, argues that celibacy forces people in religious orders to turn a blind eye to the misconduct of others. Kennedy agrees: "In a society with a rule of celibacy, normal heterosexual and normal homosexual activity is regarded as a lapse and is likely to be denied and ignored. That creates a culture in which other things -including paedophilia - may also be ignored * and denied." So, are religious abusers evil, or are they victims? King believes that "we have a horrible way of seeing paedophilia as evil. Paedophiles are not evil, they are caught in this terrible bind. I'm not excusing their behaviour for an instant, but we often forget about the paedo¬phile as a victim of circumstances beyond his. control." But what are the circumstances? "We have no idea what creates a paedophile," says King. And neither does the Catholic church. "This is a complex area full of unknowns, and work to understand it is still in its infancy says Dibble. SEXUAL ABUSE THE NUMBERS Less than 1 per cent of the general population are paedophiles and child molesters 98 per cent of abusers of girls are men 79 per cent of abusers of boys are men Most at risk are children aged eight to 12 75 per cent of sexual abuse occurs within the household, mostly by fathers and stepfathers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:52 PM "it is clear that abusers do not attack victims to whom they are not sexually orientated, whether they have opportunity or not" I am not sure that this theory holds as much weight as it may seem at first glance? I suspect if you dangle a young girl, a young boy or an older man or older woman in front of many of those in prisons...the young boy, or older man would not be the first choice...just a thought. I suspect most young alter helpers were young boys in the past RC church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:58 PM Jim quotes in his last post. "THE TRUTH IS THAT CLERICAL ABUSE AND COVER-UP ARE NOT ABOUT RELIGION OR SEX, THEY ARE ABOUT POWER" If this is indeed the case, why is the vast majority of the abuse perpetrated against Young MEN and teenage BOYS. Why does the issue of power not apply in the form of sexual abuse against girls, in anything like the same numbers. Before anyone lays the abuse on "OPPORTUNITY", it is clear that abusers do not attack victims to whom they are not sexually orientated, whether they have opportunity or not. The last big child abuse ring in the UK was exclusively homosexual and all the abuse perpetrated against male children. Members of the ring also searched for adult homosexual partners, leaving messages in public lavatories etc. The leader of this ring was, believe it or not, Chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland.....ex Stonewall youth project.... From The Times...."He cut an impressive figure when, in 2000, he was called to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood to advise the Local Government Committee on "ethical standards in public life". He commented on equality issues and debated the controversy surrounding the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Invitations to Downing Street and the Royal Garden Party followed." Full details HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM An interesting perspective on gay priests and sexual activitity by priests in the RC church. http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hWkHRpryiakC&oi=fnd&pg=PA171&dq=celibacy+and+paedophilia%2Bstudies&ots=zkYb0HFBc4&sig= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:32 PM "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have shown, i have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia." Now, that is an odd statement (if accurate and in context) for the Vatican's secretary of state to make, (a posting that one would assume logical thinking would be a requirement)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:07 PM For those who doubt that SOME journalists don't do a good job, this remarkable piece by one of Ireland's best, Fintan O'Toole, from yeterday's Irish Times. Sorry about the length, Jim Carroll THE TRUTH IS THAT CLERICAL ABUSE AND COVER-UP ARE NOT ABOUT RELIGION OR SEX, THEY ARE ABOUT POWER In a week when the Pope's right-hand man pointed to homosexuality as the cause of paedophilia, Fintan OToole looks at the church's response to the child abuse cover-up and asks what it is all about THERE IS A word that became current towards the fag end of the Northern Ireland conflict, when evil had been reduced to banalities. An atrocity against one community would often be met on the other side, not with either outright support or condemnation but with "what-aboutery". Yes, some would shrug, this is terrible but what about Bloody Sunday? What about Enniskillen? What about Cromwell? That this form of moral evasion had its very own name was a mark of how pitiful and des¬perate it was. Even those who engaged in it knew that it was a last refuge. When the inde¬fensible could not be defended, the only remaining strategy was to present the perpe¬trators as victims, and those who criticised atrocities as hypocrites. As evidenced by this week's attempt by Pope Benedict's right-hand man Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, to blame homosexuals for the crisis in the church, what-aboutery is now the mainstay of the Vatican's response to the continuing revelation of its global strategy of covering up the abuse of children by priests. For a short period leading up to the issuing of Pope Benedict's pastoral letter to the Irish faithful last month, the Vatican seemed to be inching towards some tentative reflection on its own moral responsibility for the protection of abusers. But as the flood of allegations has risen ever closer to the Pope's own door, humility has been replaced by an aggresive backlash. The church leadership has now adopted a three-fold strategy: blame the victims; invoke anti-Catholic persecution; and identify modernity as the root of the problem. Benedict him¬self began the process of blaming the victims in his Palm Sunday sermon when he spoke of not allowing oneself to be "intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion". This was not an accidental or thoughtless phrase. It was directly echoed on Easter Sunday by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, former Vatican secretary of state and currently dean of the College of Cardi¬nals. He urged Benedict not to be dismayed by "the petty gossip of the moment, by the trials that sometimes assail the community of believers". In one magisterial phrase, the sto¬ries of those who were attacked as children and the demands for accountability are dismissed as malicious tittle-tattle. The next step of painting the church leader¬ship, not as powerful people with questions to answer, but as innocent victims of persecution, was taken by the preacher to the papal house¬hold, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa. Showing that no strategy is too tasteless to be deployed, he cited a letter from a "Jewish friend", comparing attacks on the church's record on child abuse to "the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism". Cantalamessa himself linked demands for accounta¬bility in the church to the "herd psychology" and the search for a scape¬goat through which "the weakest ele¬ment, the different one" is victimised. The ironies in this exercise in self-pity are almost beyond satire. Redefining the Pope, his cardinals and his bishops as the "weakest" members of society would be peculiar in any context. But in the context of child abuse, it is gro¬tesque. And claiming the status of "the dif¬ferent one", the outsider who suffers from stereotyping and discrimination, is a bit rich for a church that is happy to per¬petuate, as Bertone did this week, the vile stereotype that identifies homosex¬uality and paedophilia. If the church insists on drawing analogies with anti-Semitism, it might be well advised to avoid the subject of its attitudes to gay people altogether. Underlying all of this, however, is a more considered strategy of con¬structing an intellectual framework within which an official narrative of the crisis can emerge. That narrative is self-consciously reactionary. The church was fine when it had authority in society. That authority was challenged by liberalism, free thinking and sexual openness, and paedophilia is the result. In his pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, Bene¬dict could not have been more explicit about this. He urged the faithful to understand the crisis as a consequence of "new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularisation of Irish society". "Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people's traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values." As an explanation for paedophile priests and for the abysmal institutional response to their crimes, this bears hardly a moment's scrutiny. In the Irish context alone, we know from the Ryan report that systematic child abuse by Catholic brothers, priests and nuns goes back at the very least to the 1930s and almost certainly beyond. We know from the Murphy report that "there is a two thousand year history of Biblical, Papal and Holy See statements showing aware¬ness of clerical child sex abuse... it is clear that cases were dealt with by Archbishop McQuaid in the 1950s and 1960s And even if one were to accept the highly dubious contention that paedophile priests are a result of the move towards greater sexual openness from the 1960s onwards, how would that explain the most damaging aspect of the scandal - the cover-up by bishops and the Vatican? These strategies may be as desperate as they are clumsily evasive. But they are argu¬ably necessary to the survival of the church's current power structures. For if the organised cover-up of child abuse is not about petty gossip, not about victimising a defenceless Pope and not about secular modernity, what is it about? This is a question to which Benedict cannot give an honest answer because that answer would threaten the very system he embodies. Some liberal critics of the church often fail to answer the question, too. They may blame Catholicism itself, as if other belief systems did not end up justifying vile crimes. They may blame celibacy, as if the vast majority of attacks on children were not perpetrated non-celibates – often indeed by the child's own parents. The truth is that child abuse and cover-up are not primarily about religion or sex. They are about power. The bleak lessons of human history are that those who have too much power will abuse it. And that organisations will put their own interests above those of the victims. The behaviour of the institutional Catholic church in Ireland and around the world is certainly a stark example of both of these truths. But it is not the only example, even in contemporary Ireland. The Irish Amateur Swimming Association, for example, gave coaches the power to do what they liked to children and then engaged in a process of denial that was, albeit on a much smaller scale, essen¬tially the same as that of the bishops. The problem is not swimming, any more than it is Catholicism. It is power. The church's combination of temporal authority, spiritual control and a closed, internal hierarchy created the power that cor¬rupted it. The backlash of the past few weeks has merely confirmed what was already over¬whelmingly likely: that Benedict is entirely incapable of grasping this reality, let alone altering it. He has spent much of his career crushing dissent and rolling back the anti-hier¬archical spirit of Vatican 2. His solution, as he suggested in his pastoral letter, is more of the same - more obedience, more authority, more resistance to secular modernity. Those who looked to the Pope to respond to one of the most profound crises in the history of the church now know they will have to look elsewhere." WHAT BERTONE SAID Last Monday, while on an official visit to Chile, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, said it was homosexuality, not celibacy, that is linked to paedophilia. Cardinal Bertone also said Pope Benedict would be taking more surprising initiatives regarding the sex abuse scandal, but he did not elaborate. "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have shown, i have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia." "This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree, in percentage terms," he said. "The behaviour of the priests in this case, the negative behaviour, is very serious, is scandalous." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:12 PM Whoops - I was too quick to judge the old reactionary: Pope meets abuse victims |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:29 AM "...permanent dismissal from the priesthood"...and dismissal from church sanctioned activities involving children...in any country? http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1177793.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 18 Apr 10 - 10:55 AM Fintan O'Toole comments in the Irish Times And I intend to agree with him on a lot of his points, the homosexuality debate, the celibacy thing, the anti-church argument it's all smoke and mirrors that takes away attention from the core issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:05 AM "those who abuse children will find no shelter but will be treated as the criminals they are." Yes, I would agree with that Peter, but the problem would be that by pinning all of the blame on the offices of the Catholic Church, the abusers....those who actually committed the crimes will evade proper punishment, which should of course include permanent dismissal from the priesthood. Sorry about the link, but it can be googled under Boston clerical abuse. There are many links, the main link being the producers of the study The John Jay College of criminal justice...sorry if I've got the whole name slightly wrong, but to a net savvy chap like you it should be easy-peasy :0) Nice to talk to you again, hope your doing well...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM The Boston clerical abuse case instigated a study into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, its findings are readily available on line Whose study are you talking about Ake, and would it not be a simple courtesy to provide a link? You really provide little evidence to support your sweeping generalisations, yet at the same time you are quick to demand evidence from others. And why is it so important to you that child abuse should be put down to homosexuality, except that it would fortify a prejudice that seems to be distorting your judgment? The problem in the Catholic church will not be solved by pigeon-holing the abusers but by a fundamental rethink, from the present papal incumbent down, so that in future the voices of children will be heard, and those who abuse children will find no shelter but will be treated as the criminals they are. Meanwhile Benedict continues to mumble weasel words ("Malta loves Christ, who loves his Church, which is his body, even if this body is wounded by our sins...") while managing to evade meeting anyone abused by his priests. Pope avoids commenting on sex scandal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:50 AM Akenaton You don't hate homosexuals - you pity them because they don't share your sexual preferences - not hatred but contempt. You ignore the fact that homosexuality is not the same as paedophilia, a form of lying. You evade questions such as if homosexuals are potential paedophiles, why aren't hetrosexuals potential rapist - a form of lying. From the beginning of this you have used the abuse of children to forward your crusade against a legal and widely acceptible way of life - that is despicable. If the object of your contempt was tranfered from homosexuality to racism you would be identified with the Klan or the BNP. Well done. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:12 AM Lots, Ed. Alcoholism among priests is a big problem. I've told more than one priest that he can't go out among the public if he's tipsy or smelling of alcohol. Believe it or not, they listen. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:05 PM "But secular diocesan priests have no such community or family life, and they often live lives of extreme loneliness" Let's not forget, these folks are human...and have the same human social needs that we all share, regardless of faith or vocation. I wonder just how many turned to alcohol? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM I've read the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) quite regularly since it was first published in 1964. I've always found it to be honest in its reporting of information, although sometimes I find it a bit strident in its opinions. Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister is a regular contributor on the NCR Website, and her opinions are always very thoughtful. Take a look at her March 15 column on sex abuse. I think you'll be surprised to find something like this in a publication that calls itself Catholic. Chittister doesn't provide the answers that I'd like to learn, but she certainly asks probing questions. I'm afraid that only the bishops can answer why this whole thing happened - and I haven't heard a satisfactory answer from them yet. I get the feeling that a lot of bishops are very puzzled by all this, too - how did this horrible thing happen, and why didn't somebody do something long ago to stop it? I wanted to say something more about "secular" diocesan priests and celibacy. What I think we all need, even more than sex, is family. We need a home to go home to, people who will speak with us with total honesty but without threat. Our families are what keep us human. Religious sisters and brothers and priests have a sort of family in the religious communities where they live. I work for two nuns, and they have had a close, honest friendship for almost fifty years; and I used to work for two other nuns who had the same kind of wonderful, healthy, lifelong friendship. They are sustained by these close relationships, and the are happy, balanced, earthy, passionate women who really make a difference in this world - they've spent their lives teaching high school girls and serving the poor. Religious communities of men do not seem to be quite as supporting as women's religious communities, but some are very good. But secular diocesan priests have no such community or family life, and they often live lives of extreme loneliness. Their parishioners put them on a pedestal, and it's hard for secular priests to find anyone who will be honest with them. With my 8 years of seminary experience, I "speak their language," so I often make it a point to be bluntly honest with priests. Most times, they really appreciate that. If not, I usually find they're people who cannot be trusted. But this is a point to consider, that celibacy forces secular priests to live lives of extreme loneliness. It gives them too much time to brood, and I find that they can develop some really strange perspectives. I figure it's my job as an ex-seminarian to keep them honest. I haven't been able to reach the younger, neo-conservative priests, however - they are far too wrapped up in their own ideology, far too thrilled with their own self-image as priests. I think that many of them are powder kegs, ready to explode - and they make me very worried. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:35 PM Jack...I dont know if there are so many homosexuals in the Church of England priesthood, as they do not have the celibacy rule. can you produce any figures on that? It is pretty well accepted that the CR encourages homosexuals into the RC priesthood, where their single status can be disguised as celibacy, in many...not all, cases. Also the mix of "married with children" priests with those who are homosexual, would make the concealment of any crimes of abuse more difficult, leading to less abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:18 PM Sorry Jim...I missed your first post. The Boston clerical abuse case instigated a study into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, its findings are readily available on line, giving statistics and tables with the ages of victims ect As I've repeatedly said the perpetrators were adult males, the victims in the main, were teenage boys and youths. How can you possibly contend these crimes were anything but homosexual assault. Your ideas on controlling the abuse are absurd. "I would ascertain that no individual or organisation ever gains control over peoples' minds or bodies" I take it you are being serious?.....Exactly how do you propose to "ascertain no individual or organisation ever gains control over people's minds or bodies"? Do you not realise that we are continually psychologically manipulated by one organisation or another....most political or financial in origin. You yourself seem to be completely controlled in your thinking by "liberal" ideology, promoted as a diversion by the Captains of Capitalism. If you are not even trying to make sense, why bother to post at all? I never knowingly lie on this forum, and I have already told you that I am an atheist who understands the religious needs of others. I was never baptised, dont go to church,or hold any religious affiliations whatsoever. I do not hate Christians nor homosexuals, I leave the hatred to those who are easily manipulated. If you are interested in viewing hatred, just go to some of the UK political threads, or the Sarah Palin "hate fests"....there's no accounting for personal taste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 10 - 04:44 PM Not all men Jim, just you......to safeguard reasoned debate! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 10 - 03:00 PM Dictionary definition: Paedophilia, sexual attraction of adults, mainly men, towards children of either sex. So if paedopilia is a 'mainly men' tendency and hetorsexual rapes are overwhelmingly commited by men - shouldn't we men all be locked away somewhere to make the world a safer place? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM As I pointed out, the CofE also has a very large proportion of homosexual priests. But it doesn't seem to have a significant child abuse problem (either of the sexual kind or just plain bullying and violence). The difference is that the CofE doesn't have locally hegemonic power anywhere these days. An abuser priest in the CofE (of whatever sexual orientation) has no effective protection from secular law enforcement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM Akeneton Not long before I left London I did some electrical work in Soho, a few doors away from the Admiral Duncan Pub. Some time afterwards the Duncan was nailed-bombed by Neo Nazi David Copeland in a homophoebic attack; 3 died, 70 were wounded and maimed. I met some of the staff of the Duncan while I was working in the area, I don't know how they fared in the attack I detest all forms of bigotry, It damages lives, it maims and it kills. As far as I am concerned your persistant unsubsatantiated homophoebic statements that the clerical child abuse is homosexually generated (even the Catholic church have backpeddaled from this), is part of the bigotry that allows such things as the Duncan bombing to happen - as I said, it is no different than the racism that made it possible for five Nazi thugs to murder Stephen Lawrence and get away with it. If you have evidence, (that other apologists for the clerical abuse have failed to produce) that these are homosexual crimes, please produce it. As it stands, they are, and by and large, are accepted as being paedophelic acts perpetrated as displaysd of contempt for children placed in the care of abusers. How would I prevent such things happening again - I would ascertain that no individual or organisation ever gains control over peoples' minds or bodies to allow them to carry out such acts the way the church has been allowed to. What I would not do is to create diversions as to the cause of the atrocities that heve ruined the lives of many thousand children. Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is legal throughout the civilised world - it remains a crime in the minds of bigots like yourself. Suggesting that homosexuality leads to rape and paedophilia is, as far as I am concerned an act of abuse in itself and should be criminalised. Do you honestly believe that if homosexuality led to paedophelia and rape it would remain legal? You have never admitted to being a Christian but your attitude reeks of religious fundamentalism - substaniate your claims, or continue to be part of the bigotry that ruins lives - simple as that. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM Jim.....I have yet to read any ideas from you on how to stop the abuse of boys and youths by homosexual priests. When you start putting forward some effective ideas on how to stop that abuse, then I will accept that you are sincere in what you write. All I hear from you is a blatant attack on religion....religion which many millions worldwide love and need. Who are you to deny them their crutch?......God? or a bigot with a chip? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM akenaton You continue your homophobic diatribe and ignore requests to qualify your outrageously bigoted statements. As long as you continue to do so I will continue to point this out. Your attitude is no better than racism. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:59 AM Joe......"While I don't think celibacy causes child molestation, it eliminates a lot of sexually normal people from the "gene pool" that provides candidates for priesthood. That makes the proportion of sexually abnormal people higher, and creates a situation that is more comfortable for sexual deviates." Isn't that exactly what I have been saying? Where we seem to disagree, is in the definition of the abuse which has been perpetrated. While I agree that there has been paedophilia practiced by a very small number of deviant priests, the rates of paedophelia in the church seems to be almost equal to paedophelia rates in society at large. The vast amount of sexual abuse in the Church has been perpetrated by homosexuals, against teenage boys and young adult males. This is an accepted fact....accepted by all except our resident religion bashers, who see this scandal as a handy stick to beatup the church with. The church has many faults and the self serving cover up was disgraceful, but for members here to ignore the evidence and contend that the cover up was the worst crime, is disingenuous in the extreme. If the whole hierarchy of the Catholic church were to resign tomorrow and leave the make up of the priesthood as it is....the abuse would continue unabated. I say, the important thing is to ensure the rates of abuse fall, that is the only way children can be protected. I cite the celibacy rule as a weakness; by that I dont mean that "celibacy causes sexual abuse".....that is a ridiculous statement, if someone decides to become celibate and live a celibate life, then that is a personal choice and of course it does not "cause" sexual abuse. The difference is that to be a priest, celibacy is mandatory, and as such attracts, as you say, "abnormal people into the gene pool" I agree 100%!! get married men with families into the priesthood, men who understand about real life and about children, people who respect our young folk, many of whom are deprived and disadvantaged, men who do not just think of boys and youths as sex objects. It is reckoned that at least 25% of priests have homosexual orientation. As I have said on other threads, homosexuals do not have the constraints to their sexual behaviour that generally come with producing and rearing a family ....I say again they have thrown away the rule book. Time for the church to take a lead in these matters, not be led by the nose like the rest of society......into "something very much worse than religion" as Mr Dawkins contends.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:33 AM There's a lot of logic in the recent posts from Joe and Crow Sister. The Vatican is now saying the Pope would like to meet victims of child abuse during his visit to Malta, but "has a very busy schedule." They really know how to send out the right signals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 16 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM Joe, If there has been a technical glitch, then I apologise. I have had posts removed before, and had my IP address suspended for a while. I found this to be a "friend" posting as me, which can't happen now as I have moved house. (he was more outrageous than I am, and I try to get debate going by not holding back.....) So when I couldn't see them, (and somebody did post to support a view I put forward?) then I feared the censor..... Regards, SW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Apr 10 - 06:27 AM None of your messages in the "Catholic come all-ye" thread were deleted, Willie. There are no deleted messages in that thread at all. Your message may not have "taken" - that happens sometimes because of a technical glitch. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 16 Apr 10 - 06:07 AM For me, it is quite simple; In most civilised countries, it is against the law to suppress crime from the relevant authorities. Ergo, it is a crime to order your employees not to report serious crime by other employees if you are aware of it. Quite simply, I wonder how the Pope can now visit other countries without relying on diplomatic immunity? the thought of him being welcomed by our politicians when he visits the UK later this year is not an image I am looking forward to seeing. Politicians will be tolerant of this cover up merchant for one cynical reason; He still has followers who are so brainwashed that they believe he cannot do wrong, and these misguided souls have votes..... the dichotomy here is interesting; I don't believe in a police state any more than anybody else, but if I made a stance to say that anything said to me regarding crime whilst sitting in a large box was information I cannot pass onto the authorities, I would be in breach not only of the law, (which is not infallible of course) but also in breach of common decency and civilised behaviour. Like I said on another thread before it was deleted, if any good is to come of this it is for people to wake up to how organised religions really are an irrelevant paper tiger. they only have power because people bestow that power in them. if politicians felt ignoring them would not lose votes, they would not get the time of day from anybody... Your choice, your perpetuation of control mechanisms or your realisation that it is possible to enjoy life without feeling guilty about it. After all, you won't be judged in the afterlife 'cos guess what??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:59 AM Crow Sister, that's one of the more thoughtful defenses of celibacy I've seen. Celibacy is often not much of a problem for men and women in religious orders, because they choose to make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience - those vows are an integral part of membership in a religious order (although the "obedience" idea has changed radically in many orders). But most priests are "secular" priests, attached to a particular diocese instead of to a religious order. These priests earn a salary and manage their own expenses, and they live on their own and not in a religious community. They make a solemn promise of celibacy before they are ordained, but celibacy has never been an integral and logical part of diocesan priesthood. As a result, most diocesan priests I know, look on celibacy as a burden they had to accept because they wanted to become priests. But very few priests that I know, see celibacy as something necessary for priesthood (most of my priest friends would like to see women ordained priests, too). so, it's a tough row to hoe for many of them, and it's the reason why I and many others left the seminary. While I don't think celibacy causes child molestation, it eliminates a lot of sexually normal people from the "gene pool" that provides candidates for priesthood. That makes the proportion of sexually abnormal people higher, and creates a situation that is more comfortable for sexual deviates. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM Bringin' It All Back Home, from today's Irish Times. Jim Carroll POPE ENGINEERED COVER-UP OF CHILD SEX ABUSE, SAYS THEOLOGIAN Irish Times Religious Affairs Correspondent THE POPE has been accused by a leading theologian of engineering a worldwide cover-up of clerical child sex abuse in the Catholic Church and of having made worse everything that is wrong in the church. The accusations have been levelled by Pope Benedict's longtime critic and former colleague, Swiss theologian Fr Hans Kung, in an open letter to the Catholic bishops of the world, published in this newspaper today. It is devastatingly critical of the pope and urges the bishops not to be silent where the current church crisis is concerned but to set about reform and call for another Vatican council. Timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of Benedict's election as pope next Monday, Fr Kung says in the letter "there is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005)". He continues: "During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that Congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes {epistula de delictis gravida ibus), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the secretum pontificium, the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical pen-alties. "With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed urbi et orbi by the dean of the College of Cardinals [Cardinal Angelo Sodano]." Fr Kung says that "when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his [Benedict's] pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken". Such missed opportunities included, he says, "rapprochement with the Protestant churches", "reconciliation with the Jews", "the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims", and "reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America". Also missed was "the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV" and that of making "peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research". He says that "with a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic 'Vicar of Christ' who combines the church's legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict's policy of restoration has failed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:23 AM " and which is the most evil do you think?" Six of one.... The first is somebody who persecutes somebody for being different, the second is a hypoctite who likes to hear cocks crowing. JIm Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:28 AM "anyone who wishes to give up their sex life .....for whatever reason is not normal." And anyone with an extreme interest in other people's sex lives isn't normal either. Catholicism isn't the only religion where celibacy can be a part of one's spiritual discipline. It has an extremely long history within Hinduism and Buddhism too - though as with Catholicism, it's only a percentage of very devoted practitioners who take that path as a life-choice. Within Buddhism, apart from those dedicated to a Monastic ascetic existence, many perfectly ordinary people will choose to undergo a period of celibacy for deepening their spiritual experience. Celibacy, alongside abstinence from and relinquishing of other 'wordly' or sensual attachments is quite usual world-wide, for those called to dedicate their life towards a spiritual focus rather than a worldly one. There is a long history of such strict personal disciplines within the world's spiritual and mystical paths - many hundreds if not thousands of years of it in fact. Just because you, as a non-spiritual atheist will never be able to understand such a calling and just because it doesn't happen to suit your personal political agenda, doesn't make such spiritually motivated people "abnormal". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:23 AM Just thought, could we have a female Messiah? Remember how they taunted and cursed Jesus? Could it be Miss Sarah? :0) Shouldn't like to be a "liberal" on Judgement Day if she's the one :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:07 AM "A blatant homophobe and a closet Christian" :0) and which is the most evil do you think? :0) Just to set the record straight, the teachings of the philosopher Jesus were fine if a trifle simplistic...if Jesus was alive today I'd be his friend. In fact there are a couple of guys on here who could well be candidates for the second coming! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:44 AM "Solution? Simple!....get rid of the celibacy rule and get some normal people into the priesthood" You sound just like the priests dictating to the rest of the world what we should be doing with our sex lives - mind your own business. Who are you to dictate what is 'normal' and what isn't? And still you remain silent on your pronouncements. A blatent homophobe and a closet Christian. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM Solution? Simple!....get rid of the celibacy rule and get some normal people into the priesthood....anyone who wishes to give up their sex life .....for whatever reason is not normal. There are a large number of cases of homosexual abuse of young people in the church. There are a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the priesthood. Put these two facts together, stop navel gazing and get it fuckin' sorted...if you dont, the "liberals" will crucify you and your church. They encouraged the liberalisation of homosexuality in society, your church used it to fill the gaps in the priesthood and now the church is being pilloried (perhaps rightly) by the same people who's ideology caused the problems in the first place. You seem to be completely taken in by the "liberal" agenda Joe...don't you realise that people who need religion also need order in society, permanence,conservatism? They dont want some fuckin' new age cult! Time to start asking yourself some pertinent questions I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:53 PM I suppose we can identify four major types of male molesters - there must be differences, because the acts are so different: Rome's first response to the current sex abuse crisis, was to target homosexuals; and Rome instituted restrictions on homosexuals entering and attending seminaries. Right-wing Catholics were triumphant, because they have long blamed the troubles of the Catholic Church on the "homosexual agenda" of liberals. "Homosexual agenda" has become a buzzword for anything conservative Catholics don't like. But Rome got shot down early on that one, because it's clear to most of us that homosexuality is not the reason for child molestation. There are still a few conservative idiots trying to blow that horn, but Rome has largely backed off its attempt to blame child molestation on homosexuals. It's very obvious that the vast majority of homosexuals wouldn't dream of having sex with a child. There are still forces in Rome that try to blame child molestation on liberalism, and the relaxation of sexual attitudes and taboos. The conservatives like that argument, too - but it's dropping into the background. It's very obvious that the vast majority of liberals wouldn't dream of having sex with a child. The loudest voices now are shouting that the blame for molestation lies in the fact that the molesters are Catholic, and that the Catholic Church is nothing but an international child molestation conspiracy. It's very obvious to me that the vast majority of Catholics wouldn't dream of having sex with a child. And some blame priesthood, as if ordination had some power that induced the tendency to molest children into a man. And others blame celibacy, as if not having sex with a mature, adult partner would cause a person to want to have sex with children (celibacy may create a haven for those drawn to molesting children, but it seems clear to me that celibacy and child molestation are separate matters. Indeed, true celibacy makes child molestation impossible). So, it seems that in all this, people have been barking up the wrong tree, wasting all their energy pointing the finger of blame at false targets and proposing solutions that destroy their favorite targets without actually solving the problem of child molestation. Maybe it's time to stop all the finger-pointing at false targets, and to ask the difficult questions required to find a solution to this terrible web of crime. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM It's odd that for some that discussions/perspectives of homosexual activists are ruled out by some...regardless of the content...while discussions/perspectives of RC church activists/apologists (when convenient to a point) ....regardless of the material cited or logical thinking (or lack of it) ... should be considered? (Unfortunately often what's been said and cited is missed). A point is that adult minor (or child) sex is illegal and should never occur...and is especially significant when the adult is in a position of authority over the minor (children are not in a position or of an age to consent)...whether in a day care, a school or a church, or elsewhere....trying to water it down by naming it a differently is mere deception...whether done by the RC church, its agents or others with another agenda. Adult male to minor sex is obviously a perverted homosexual act...just as adult male to female minor sex is a perverted heterosexual act. But, that does not mean that the adult molester is either a homosexual or heterosexual in life outside this deviant act. Just as homosexual acts in closed situations (for example, in prison) make a person a homosexual when the participants are removed from those sexually closed situations. The RC church rules out celibacy (a sexually closed situation) as a cause of the significant number of perverted acts....without citing any logical reasoning behind it....many accept it as fact. Increasingly, some in the RC church blame it on homosexuality... without any logical reasoning cited. I suggest both need more fact based scrutiny. But, that would require a real desire for change, rather than a mere defence of the status quo and the brand. Yes there may be many homosexuals inside the RC church....and many don't like it. But, does that logically mean this is the cause of deviant sexual behaviour? It kind of reminds me of the lack of logic in the statement that smoking grass leads to heavy drug use, because those on heavy drugs smoked pot as children. Yes, and logically most drank milk as children also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:23 AM Ake You continue to ignore questions and to qualify your outrageously bigoted statements. Most commentators recogonise no such thing and continue to refer to it as CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE and not homosexual assault. The church itself has now backpedaled desperately from a Vatican statement that the problem was a homosexual one rather than one of paedophelia by members of the church. I have to say that you are one of the most blatently dishones bigots I have ever come across. QUALIFY YOUR STATEMENTS AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS or stand exposed as a homophobioc bigot without even the common sense to attempt to hide your bigotry. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Apr 10 - 06:17 AM Most commentators have realised that what has been happening in the Catholic church,is not "paedophilia", but the sexual abuse of male teenagers and young adults by adult male priests....(homosexual assault) You must have been very selective in your reading, Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:45 AM "Activists of any persuasion can never be trusted to tell the truth." Homosexuality is a way of life, not a political party or a cause. What are homosexuals 'active' in - and are hetrosexuals 'activists' as well? I notice this morning that the church is desperately backpeddling on the suggestion that the abuse was a homosexual crime. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:33 AM You're dancing on the head of a pin Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:29 AM Sorry, ake, but you're not likely to find me on your side. Whether the victim is sixteen years old or six, that victim is still a child. I think most people wouldn't call it child molesting if an eighteen-year-old had sex with a child of 16 - but if the perpetrator were thirty years of age, people would call it child molestation and a crime - whether the two were of the same or opposite sexes. If people of approximately the same age have consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex, most people would call that normal. If their ages are vastly different and one is a child, most people would call that sexually deviant child molestation. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:06 AM Joe...I would agree with your definition, if were were discussing "paedophiles" in the usual sense ....that is deviants who prey on young pre-pubescent children. Most commentators have realised that what has been happening in the Catholic church,is not "paedophilia", but the sexual abuse of male teenagers and young adults by adult male priests....(homosexual assault) As I think you as a supporter of religion should know, the paedophilia issue is being used as a smoke screen to divert attention away from this homosexual abuse and on to the offices of the church. The Church has been cowardly in the cover up of abuse, and of allowing homosexuals to become priests for financial reasons and to make up diminishing numbers of heteros.....while opposing homosexual practice in its teaching. As can be seen from these threads, the agenda is, "here is a chance to break religion", and more importantly, break the conservative stance taken by the church on sexual, moral and social issues. Religion, especially in the US is the main defence against unfettered "liberalism" with all the social problems it produces and as such will always be in the "front line". Perhaps you should re-examine your Religion and your politics, to determine which means more to you. Only Jesus Christ could reconcile the two in todays climate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:40 AM Activists of any persuasion can never be trusted to tell the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:30 AM I suppose there's a difference in definition here. It does appear that the majority of the children molested by male priests were male. Akenaton classes those molesters as "homosexual." I think most of us would call the molesters "molesters," and not class them with what we consider to be "normal homosexuals." Adults who have sex with children are what used to be called "sexual deviants," although I haven't heard that term used much lately. It's having sex with children that is the deviant behavior, and it doesn't really have anything to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 14 Apr 10 - 08:09 PM Are you saying homosexuals can't be trusted to tell the truth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:59 PM As most may have guessed, Jim Burroway, the author of the article linked to by Ed, is a very ACTIVE....homosexual activist As Mr Burroway is himself a homosexual, the validity and integrity of the article must be in question. I posted THIS elephant on the other thread, it contains more reasonable conclusions and statistics from the John Jay study into clerical sexual abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Apr 10 - 03:02 PM This might work better: Ed T's link As the thread has been revived, it's worth noting this response to Cardinal Bertone's comments on Monday: French government condems Vatican" As the BBC's even-handed religious affairs correspondent put it: the Vatican has yet to learn that when it is in a hole it should stop digging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 14 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM Interesting reading on the topic: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM And you might like to add sometyhing about the accomplices to the crimes committed against children - are they homosexuals as well, or just casual onlookers? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:17 AM "Given the very high volume of homosexual assaults" Do you mean assaults 'by' homosexuals or those inflicted 'on' homosexuals, encouraged by homophobia such as your own? You continued to ignore the FACT that by far the greatest number of sexual assaults are hetrosexual and carried out on women by men - therefore making all men potential rapists (do I have your logic right?). Where does your 'high volume' come from? The longer I live ther more I become convinced that homophobia, or any obsession with the sexual behaviour of others, stems from some peoples' deep insecurity of their own sexuality. "Richard Dawkins has become a caricature of himself" I have no particular brief for Dawkins, but I do welcome the possibility of a test of the Pope's immunity from the law. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:42 PM Richard Dawkins has become a caricature of himself and does aetheism no favours at all. Christopher Hitchens proselytises our cause to far greater effect. Somewhat to my surprise Hitchens seems to be joining forces in the the proposed pope sting. Even if the law is with the pranksters, it is quite likely that such an initiative would be counter-productive in terms of the public reaction. But if the idea is pursued, it may persuade Benedict to rethink what at best was always going to be a tricky visit to Britain. I doubt if he would want to get into one of those fiascos such as befell Pinochet and Mugabe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM "Is there a mechanism for deposing a pope?" Not that I'm aware of, unless of course it could be shown that the pope was elected fraudulently, as was the case with antipopes of the past. The pope can resign at any time for any reason or no reason. It's doubtful that Dawkins will be able to get within a mile of him. Also, he does a great disservice to his fellow atheists by portraying himself as a slimeball. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 11 Apr 10 - 12:24 PM Just been reading that studies have found, people of "homosexual orientation" make up between 20 and 50 percent of the priesthood. Given the very high volume of homosexual assaults(not paedophelia, paedophelia is in fact quite rare in the Church)do you not think that this represents a link between male homosexuality and the abuse of post pubescent teenagers and young adults. Let the perpetrators be brought to justice....find out the truth about the sexual behaviour of priests. The cover up was a separate crime which should also be investigated, but even if the pope was forced to resign, the abuse of youths would continue until a proper balance of sexual orientation is struck among priests. The longer I live, the more I become convinced that homosexual practice and the abuse pubescent boys is linked. Scrap the rule and ordain married heterosexual priests....the abuse will fall sharply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:34 AM "Is there a mechanism for deposing a pope?" Following revelations that the Pope signed a letter saying that the interest of the Catholic Church took precedence over the sacking of a paedophile cleric, atheist Richard Dawkins has announced that he intends to serve an arrest warrant on him during his planned visit to Britain. If he goes ahead it should at least clear up whether or not his position places him above the law, but don't hold your breath! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:54 PM Tricky then... although, given that they write the rules and they interpret those rules, I expect they can do anything they want to really, as long as they can produce miles of obscure and verbose justification for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM Yeah I meant short of killing him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM See JP1, some would say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:40 PM Is there a mechanism for deposing a pope? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM Here's the blicky for mg's link: ABC News And here's a more comprehensive report on the same (California) case, which contains further links: Los Angeles Times For the first time, mg, I begin to see a possibility that your wish may be granted. No doubt this latest document was leaked by someone in the US hierarchy.If so, that whistleblower will not be alone and we may expect further revelations. A likely explanation for such leaks would be that elements within the hierarchy now accept that Ratzinger's early departure, damaging as that would be, would not be as damaging as his staying in office. My issues with Ratzinger are more about his arrogant and reactionary behaviour in his previous job than about his handling of these various abuse scandals. But he is inextricably associated with attitudes to child abuse that are morally corrupt and many will doubt that the Augean stables can be thoroughly cleansed while he remains in office. If he works this out for himself, fine - he will go, and his church will have a chance to put the past behind it. If he does not, there is little prospect that he could be deposed. In which case the church may need to steal itself for a growing avalanche of unhelpful leaks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 09 Apr 10 - 03:26 PM This is new. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=10332336&page=2 There is a signature on a document from the pope, who must must go. I think he is lying through his teeth. This priest tied up boys and abused them, said he tried to abuse every boy who sat on his lap. One would ask why they were on his lap. This was in 1980s. Oh but we didn't know as much then. The hell we didn't. I did and every sensible person did. Laws were in place at the time. There is no reason at all that shameful pope, former head of the Inquisition office, should remain as any sort of spiritual or even administrative leader. Joe, don't bother. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 10 - 01:33 PM Well, Ed, here's the whole section on "Loss of the Clerical State" from the Code of Canon Law. As you can see, it's clear as mud.
CHAPTER IV : LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 08 Apr 10 - 09:15 AM Another interesting perspective from a respective opinion writer, on two Canadian Parishes which have been impacted by RC church abuse....and where the bishops did not meet up to standards of responsibility nor decency..in fact at least one (Bishop Lahey, who recently handled compensation payments was recently charged with bringing child porn to Canada, from the USA). http://silverdonaldcameron.com/columns/?tag=colin-campbell A question?What is the RC process to "defrock an ordained priest" and how complex is it? I ask, because I recently read the following: "Defrocking a priest, or dismissing them from the priesthood, is difficult, even if sexual abuse is proved in a court case. Canon Law from Rome dictates that ordination, properly received, never becomes invalid. Priests can apply to be laicised, or return to a lay state, for example, if they wish to marry, but circumstances for dismissal must be exceptional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:07 AM Well, Ake, you do have a point. The article you quote talks about "large number of sexually oriented gay men in our seminaries and presbyterates (the priest fraternity in a given diocese)." Up above in this message, Ed_T quoted a previous message (that I couldn't find), where I told of my seminary experience. In my sophomore year of college, there was a "sexual charge" to the atmosphere, and I sometimes felt I was the only straight guy there. I have no qualms about homosexuality, but I feel very uncomfortable in a sexual atmosphere when it seems that all everybody is interested in, is "hitting on" somebody else - of the same or opposite sex. It certainly didn't seem to be a healthy atmosphere for a seminary - and I'm very glad the faculty did something about it. Still, there's a vast difference between homosexual or heterosexual contact between two people of the same age, and two people of vastly different ages - especially if one of those people is still an adolescent. I don't think there's a need for a male, celibate priesthood - but, if that's the rule, then I think priests should follow the rule or leave the priesthood. The fact that they're forbidden to marry, does not give priests permission to have sex with either gender outside marriage. And Peter, I agree that there needs to be an explanation of the secrecy orders. The Pope and the bishops have a lot of explaining to do. So far, their explanations haven't really told the story. I'm willing to accept a rational explanation - I suppose there are many people here who cannot accept any explanation, but for me, an admission from a pope or bishop that "I screwed up" would be a very good start. It's time for the bishops to take things out of the passive voice and say something more than "mistakes were made." But on the other hand, I do think that there is a need for forgiveness and reconciliation - what this Catholic sacrament of reconciliation (confession) is all about. Our culture is too oriented toward condemning and destroying (or at least punishing instead of healing) those who did wrong, and I don't think our society really has much of a concept of forgiveness. We keep pushing for an expansion of capital punishment and for longer prison sentences, and we seem to have no other answer to crime. Our philosophy seems to say that if my neighbor has done something wrong, then he is an evil and worthless person, and I have a right and perhaps an obligation to destroy him. We've built a society that puts a high value on mistrust and vengeance, a society that puts little faith in the value of admitting a mistake and beginning again. Well, I think it's a good and healthy thing to admit that "I screwed up" when I did - but then it's up to others to accept my admission and my resolve to do better next time, and for them to allow me the chance to have another try. But since our society does not believe in repentance and reconciliation, we have created a situation where people cannot admit guilt - because if they DO admit guilt, others will feel there is justification for destroying the wrongdoer. And in this particular situation, billions of dollars in reparations are being paid by parishioners who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing, and the priests and bishops who did wrong aren't paying a penny. there's something cockeyed here. South Africa and some other nations acknowledged this dilemma after atrocities, and have set up truth and reconciliation commissions. These commissions allow people to admit their guilt and apologize without fear of punishment. These commissions have not been an absolute success, but they do seem to be a possible tool for healing a widespread and endemic injustice. Our society still finds value in prosecuting war criminals from World War II, a war that ended 65 years ago this August. I fully acknowledge that many horrible things were done during WWII, and it is unjust that some people have escaped prosecution all these years - but isn't there a point where it's better for us to stop pursuing vengeance and start the pursuit of healing? So, I just don't know what's the answer to this child molestation and abuse problem. I do know that it's time for the pope and the bishops to give some straight answers. I've seen admissions of molestations for years, and lately some admissions of coverups - but as far as I can see, not one bishop has ever attempted to explain why these coverups happened. It's time for the to tell the truth, the whole truth. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:02 AM "Catholic Church haughtily considered themselves and their church to be above the law." Not only in Ireland Joe - the Pope is highly unlikely to ever have to answer accusations made against him about his knowledge of sexual abuse and a wider picture (Switzerland, Canada, Cyprus) is emerging every day. "It's clear that the Catholic Church and the Irish government were in bed together " An unfortunate choice of words which conjurs up all sorts of interesting pictures in the circumstances! "it has seemed that the Catholic Church was a functionary of the government" It is fairly obvious that the case was the opposite and that the Government was a servant of the Catholic Church. Akenaton If these crimes were 'homosexual' rather than power or degradation driven, doesn't it hold that, as the vast majority of rapes are hetrosexual, then all hetrosexuals are potential rapists? Can't help noticing that you aqre still shufffling your way around the basic questions in your quest. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:19 PM If I remember correctly Mary, a large percentage of the victims in the Boston clergy abuse scandal were aged between 14 and 17. As explained earlier, Paedophiles are generally attracted to children who are pre pubescent....up to 10 or 11 years of age, often much younger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM I am totally fine if 100% of priests are gay and if they have adult partners or relatioships. I don't buy this post-pubescent thing..what are they talking about? Anyone who reaches teenage years? Are they counting 13 year olds in with children or teens? A 17 year old is one thing and could smack the priest to kingdom come, but a 13 year old is quite often very childlike...what is meant by post-pubescent, other than a weasel word? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:34 PM Some interesting views on homosexual sexual abuse, from Fr Donald Cozzens in the Boston Globe. here Easy-print version FOCUS The clergy's buried truths Prevalence of male teenage victims in scandal points to other issues By Donald Cozzens, 4/28/2002 "As the abuse scandal continues to rock the US Catholic Church, priests, whether heterosexual or gay, cope with skyrocketing stress and plummeting prestige. Owing to the details of the revelations, gay priests are in the public eye as never before, many of them no doubt bracing for an anti-gay backlash. At the same time, lay Catholics are discussing the role homosexuality plays in the abuse of teenage boys and wondering how the current turmoil will affect the priesthood and the church itself. But there is one essential element of the scandal that has not gotten the attention it deserves: Most priest abusers are not pedophiles -- adults whose sexual drives are almost exclusively directed toward pre-pubescent boys and girls. Rather, they fall into the category of ephebophiles (from ephebeus, one of the Greek nouns for a post-pubescent youth). Both pedophilia and ephebophilia are criminal, and in the eyes of most religious traditions, immoral. As the distinction takes hold, it is accompanied by the disturbing realization that most of the reported victims of priest abusers are not children, but teenage boys. It's been two years since I wrote about the large number of sexually oriented gay men in our seminaries and presbyterates (the priest fraternity in a given diocese). The denial that greeted my report, though diminishing, remains strong. Even raising the issue led to allegations that I was attacking the sanctity and reputation of the priesthood. It's impossible, of course, to accurately determine the percentage of gay men among the nearly 25,000 priests active in the priesthood and in our seminaries. Studies suggest that perhaps 30 to 50 percent of priests (especially those under 50) are homosexual in orientation, compared with about 5 percent in the population at large. In the United States alone, more than 20,000 priests have left active ministry since 1970, most to marry. While gay priests have also resigned in significant numbers, the priesthood has lost a sizable proportion of its heterosexually oriented members. A number of gay priests report that they entered the priesthood as a way to deal with their orientation, though that is not how they thought of it then. For some, this was an attempt to put their sexuality on the shelf, so to speak, to avoid coming to terms with their orientation by embracing wholeheartedly a life of celibate service. Such tactics, we know now, don't work over the course of time; they actually subvert healthy maturation. But what difference does it make if 30 to 50 percent of priests are gay? The rule of mandatory celibacy appears to make the issue of orientation a moot point. In reality, it is far from that." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:13 PM Joe, I'm in tune with your last post and the editorial you pasted into it. But there is one point that the editorial did not cover, and it touches on your suggestion that the trail might not have reached the Vatican. The bit that is missing is the letter urging secrecy (on pain of excommunication) that Ratzinger sent to all bishops worldwide in 2001. For me, that alone makes his position untenable. Here's the link again: Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret Incidentally the aloof Vatican response at the end of the article would just add fuel to the flames if they ran it again in the present climate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM Jim Carroll, I think it's clear that especially in Ireland, certain powerful elements in the Catholic Church haughtily considered themselves and their church to be above the law. No question there - and it happened in certain sections of the US, too. I think this was the case in Ireland because the nation was so universally Catholic. Religions behave themselves better when they have competition, and when they do not have close ties to government. It's clear that the Catholic Church and the Irish government were in bed together - and that's been the case in many "Catholic" nations. In Spain and Portugal and many Latin American nations, this has led to Church support of dictators and the wealthy. In the US, where the Catholic Church is large but still a minority, the Church has tended be more likely to speak out for justice on labor and immigration issues, civil rights, peace, and a number of other things. But in Ireland and other Catholic countries, it has seemed that the Catholic Church was a functionary of the government - or (especially in Ireland) that the government was a functionary of the Catholic Church. There are elements of that in Poland, too. Still my point in the other message was about Canon Law, which you unfairly painted as a separate system of law that was meant to supersede civil law - and that's not the case. There may be a few areas where canon law is in contradiction with the laws of some nations; but for the most part, canon law covers only internal church functions and issues. Canon Law is the code of internal regulations of the Catholic Church. And there is nothing in Canon Law that permits or condones the molestation or abuse of children. Also, I think that in most cases, it is erroneous to point to Rome as the responsible party in the coverup or failure to discipline in child molestation cases. Rome HAS stepped in as of late because of the failure of local dioceses, but this sort of matter is in general the responsibility of the local bishop. This is due to that fact that local bishops are largely autonomous. It does appear that in Ireland, the archbishops in Dublin and Armagh held much tighter control than you'll see in other countries. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is a loose affiliation of independent bishops. They sometimes agree to act together, but generally are fierce in holding onto their independence. In Ireland, it appears that until very recent times, the Catholic Church was ruled quite strictly by the Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of All Ireland in Armagh. Poland also has a particularly strong Primate. If there is a Primate of the Catholic Church in the United States, it's merely a titular office. The President of the USCCB, currently Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, does serve as a spokesman for the US bishops, but doesn't wield a whole lot of power outside his archdiocese. There was a time when the archbishops of many major Catholic cities in the US were in bed with the city government, particularly in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. And yes, this did lead to city police departments ignoring crimes committed by priests. That hasn't been the case in the US for a long time, however. The National Catholic Reporter has an excellent editorial on this issue. I think it clearly reflects the thinking of progressive American Catholics. Most of us progressive Catholics have been Catholics all our lives, and we want to think well of our Church. We've known a lot of good in our church, but we've also seen some of the bad. We want to believe that there is some rational explanation for what happened, and for why the bishops failed to put a stop to this scandal fifty years ago. So far, the bishops have not given an explanation that satisfies me. anyhow, here's the text of the National Catholic Reporter editorial: Credibility gap: Pope needs to answer questionsAn NCR Editorial - Mar. 26, 2010 The Holy Father needs to directly answer questions, in a credible forum, about his role -- as archbishop of Munich (1977-82), as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1982-2005), and as pope (2005-present) -- in the mismanagement of the clergy sex abuse crisis. We urge this not primarily as journalists seeking a story, but as Catholics who appreciate that extraordinary circumstances require an extraordinary response. Nothing less than a full, personal and public accounting will begin to address the crisis that is engulfing the worldwide church. It is that serious. To date, as revelations about administrative actions resulting in the shifting of clergy abusers from parish to parish emerge throughout Europe, Pope Benedict XVI's personal response has been limited to a letter to the Irish church. Such epistles are customary and necessary, but insufficient. With the further revelations March 26 [2] by The New York Times that memos and meeting minutes exist showing that Benedict had to be at least minimally informed that an abuser priest was coming into the archdiocese of Munich and that he further had been assigned without restrictions to pastoral duties, it becomes even more difficult to reconcile the strong language of the pope in his letter to Irish bishops and his own conduct while head of a major see. No longer can the Vatican simply issue papal messages -- subject to nearly infinite interpretations and highly nuanced constructions -- that are passively "received" by the faithful. No longer can secondary Vatican officials, those who serve the pope, issue statements and expect them to be accepted at face value. We were originally told by Vatican officials, for example, that in the matter of Fr. Peter Hullermann, Munich Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger approved the priest's transfer to the archdiocese, but had no role in the priest's return to parish ministry, where he again molested children. Rather, it was Fr. Gerhard Gruber, archdiocesan vicar general at the time, who, according to a March 12 Vatican statement, has taken "full responsibility" for restoring the priest to ministry. Gruber, subsequent to his statement, has not made himself available for questions. We are told, moreover, that the case of Hullermann is the single instance during Ratzinger's tenure in Munich where a sexually errant priest was relocated to a parish where he could molest again. If true, this would be a great exception to what, in the two-and-a-half decades NCR has covered clergy abuse in the church, has been an ironclad rule: Where there is one instance of hierarchical administrative malfeasance, there are more. Given memos and minutes placing the pope amid the discussions of the matter, we are asked to suspend disbelief even further. Context of mismanagement The first reported clergy sex abuse stories, dating back in NCR to 1985, focused on the misconduct of priests who had been taken to court by parents of molested children -- parents who had gone to church officials, but received no solace. Instead, what they received from church officials was denial and counter accusation. Almost from the beginning of the coverage of these trials, it was clear the clergy sex abuse story had two consistent components: the abusing priest and the cover-up by the bishop. The story grew as more survivors of abuse came forward. What soon became evident was that this was not primarily a story of wayward priests, but of an uncannily consistent pattern by individual bishops. In nearly every instance, bishops, faced with accusations of child abuse, denied them, even as they shuffled priests to new parishes, even as they covered up their own actions. The story was first flushed out in the United States and soon across Canada. By the year 2000, sex abuse accusations were turning up across the globe. In the United States, the scandal flared anew in 2002 when a judge released thousands of pages of documents dealing with the sex abuse scandal in the Boston archdiocese. Suddenly, ordinary Catholics had access to the patterns involved in the cover-up and to the unfiltered language of memos and legal depositions and letters that outlined how church officials sought to protect perpetrators and marginalize their victims. All at once, the public outrage was commensurate with the hierarchy's outrageous behavior. The story would repeat itself around the country: Wherever documents were released or legal authorities conducted investigations, the depth of clerical depravity and the extent of hierarchical cover-up were far greater than previously acknowledged by church authorities. Knowing they had an unprecedented crisis of credibility and facing potential multibillion-dollar liability, the U.S. bishops met in Dallas in June 2002. The whole world, represented by more than 800 members of the press, was watching. There the prelates unveiled what came to be a "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." It was intended to protect children from molestation, establishing a "one strike and you're out" policy for offending priests. It did nothing, however, to hold accountable individual bishops who engineered the cover-up. By early 2001, responsibility for managing the church's response to the ongoing crisis was delegated to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. The Vatican, by then, viewed the crisis as beyond the boundaries of any one national church. Crisis crosses borders In the last decade the story has not gone away. Rather it has continuously reared its head in nation after nation, especially in those countries with a free press and independent judicial system. A dominant characteristic of this story is that where and when it has emerged it has done so without the aid of church hierarchy. To the contrary, it has taken lawsuit after lawsuit, investigative report after investigative report, to bring this horrendous story to necessary light. Another part of the pattern of this dispiriting tale is that church officials have never been in front of the story. Always late, always responding, and, therefore, at every step of the way losing credibility. This seemed to be the case once again with Benedict's pastoral letter to Irish Catholics. By the time he issued the letter, the story had moved to his native country, Germany, and had touched him personally. In the past two months, there have been more than 250 accusations of sex abuse in Germany. From the German Catholic viewpoint, the pope's failure to mention anything about these abuse cases has pained them deeply and added to suspicions that the former archbishop of Munich has lost touch with his people. Inexorably, a story that began with reports on trials in a few U.S. cities a quarter century back has now moved up the Catholic institutional ladder -- from priests to bishops to national bishops' conferences and to the Vatican itself. This last step is the one we see emerging this month. The new focus is unlikely to end anytime soon. Time for answers The focus now is on Benedict. What did he know? When did he know it? How did he act once he knew? The questions arise not only about his conduct in Munich, but also, based also as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A March 25 Times story [3], citing information from bishops in the United States, reported that the Vatican had failed to take action against a priest accused of molesting as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school from 1950 to 1974. Correspondence reportedly obtained by the paper showed requests for the defrocking of the priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, going directly from U.S. bishops to Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican secretary of state. No action was taken against Murphy. Like it or not, this new focus on the pope and his actions as an archbishop and Vatican official fits the distressing logic of this scandal. For those who have followed this tragedy over the years, the whole episode seems familiar: accusation, revelation, denial and obfuscation, with no bishop held accountable for actions taken on their watch. Yes, there is a depressing madness to this story. Time after time, this is a story of institutional failure of the deepest kind, a failure to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a failure to put compassion ahead of institutional decisions aimed at short-term benefits and avoiding public scandal. The strategies employed so far -- taking the legal path, obscuring the truth, and doing everything possible to protect perpetrators as well as the church's reputation and treasury -- have failed miserably. We now face the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in church history. How this crisis is handled by Benedict, what he says and does, how he responds and what remedies he seeks, will likely determine the future health of our church for decades, if not centuries, to come. It is time, past time really, for direct answers to difficult questions. It is time to tell the truth. -Joe- This article is right on the borderline of our one-screen (32-inch) size allowance for copy-pastes, but I think it's still within the limit. Oh, and we haven't heard the end of the sordid story of Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ. Click here for more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:39 AM ...the priest is merely a functionary. Do you (Joe) really believe this is how most catholics view confession? In any case I still don't see how it helps, when confessing one's sins to a god, to bring a potential paedophile into the loop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM Another, more recent US ruling: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n17_v33/ai_19206224/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:30 AM An article (from a christian perspective) on state interests versus clerical...though dated, (1986): http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=998 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:18 AM An interesting opinion piece: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1175697.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 10 - 04:51 AM Joe I expected either an acceptance or a rebuttal of my points on the 'law unto itself' attitude prevelant in the Catholic Church, then and now - I got neither. Today's Irish Times carries horrific descriptions of the abuse carried out by Father Smythe on one of his young women parishoners. On the many occasions after he raped her he beat and berated her for not acknowledging that he was "carrying out God's wishes". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM Hmm.. delightfully mediaeval - I wonder if they do them in mahogany.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:57 PM Early American Behaviour Modifier http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2259680980084696379fCjIWc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:50 PM If you don't believe in the soul or the spiritual, that is understandable. Billions of us do. And 'billions' of us don't, Beeliner, but I'm open to the possibility of being wrong. Are you? I see "restoration of the soul to a state of grace" as being relieved of some or all of the guilt which is a normal consequence of doing something 'wrong'. Sociologically, I think that is a most unhealthy phenomenon. Fifteen showers would be much more beneficial. I prefer to hang on to my guilt, I see it as a very useful behavioural modifier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:52 PM As in all sacraments, the healing or spiritual effect is believed to come from God, not from the priest - the priest is merely a functionary. There's an element of commitment about admitting your wrongdoing out loud, rather than just keeping it between you and God and assuming you're forgiven. The "seal of confession" does give a feeling of safety. It's rare that what a person admits in confession could be material evidence in a court procedure, but the secrecy of confession has been challenged occasionally in courts in the US and other locations. I don't know of a situation where a priest has bowed to government pressure and revealed what was told him in confession - it's one of those things that is simply not done, no matter how corrupt the priest is. In the seminary, we were told that we needed to do everything we could to convince the penitent to admit his crime to government authorities. We were also told that if a person was unwilling to admit his crime to the criminal justice system, that would be grounds for a priest refusing absolution - but that the priest still couldn't inform "the authorities" about the crime. The sacrament of reconciliation (confession) only grants forgiveness if the penitent is truly sorry for his sin, and is resolved not to do it again. I suppose you can get all wound up about the possibility of somebody telling a priest in confession about some horrible crime that he intends to commit - but this is something that occurs very rarely, if at all. I would bet it's something that most priests have never heard. Perhaps there are times when a priest's testimony might be convenient evidence in a criminal trial and might help lead to a conviction or longer sentence - but using the testimony of what priests hear in confession as a crime prevention tool, would probably seem nonproductive to most prosecutors and law enforcement officers. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:47 PM I came accross this recent web commentary from a Boston area survivor of RC clergy childhood sexual abuse...I found it compelling, so I post it here to share: Survivor of Clergy Sexual Abuse in Boston: The Catholic Church Leaders Have Not Cleansed the Cancer of Child Sexual Abuse Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 03/27/2010 - 1:48pm. * Guest Commentary by GARY BERGERON FOR BUZZFLASH.COM As a survivor of clergy abuse from the Boston area, it is of no surprise to me that the issue of clergy abuse has resurfaced on the front pages of newspapers across the globe, reaching the leader of the Catholic Church and rearing its ugly head. It was almost 8 years ago at the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston, that I found myself asking one simple question, "What's next?" One year ago, after Pope Benedict met with a few survivors here in the United States, I again found myself asking the same question, "What's next?" The truth and the facts which caused the resignation of Cardinal Law 8 years ago, are the same truths and facts of today. The documents released a decade ago, are the same documents that the general public are amazed to read today. The only thing different is the time that has past and the names of some of the church leaders. Almost a decade ago, as thousands of survivors struggled to open the door and shed a light on childhood clergy abuse, the Catholic Church had an opportunity to open their doors, release their records. The leaders of the Catholic Church had an opportunity to cleanse the cancer of childhood sexual abuse from their institution and break the cycle of silence. Instead, the world was told by Vatican officials that the abuse of children by priests was an "American Catholic Church" issue. The Vatican officials were wrong. The Catholic Church, and the world, has an opportunity to open up a dialogue on childhood sexual abuse. Hopefully this will not be another opportunity missed. The question of "What's next" wasn't rhetorical for me a decade ago, it is not rhetorical for me now. The world is waiting for an answer, and so am I. Gary Bergeron is a clergy abuse survivor from the Greater Boston area who traveled to the Vatican with his father, also a survivor of clergy abuse, in 2003. He is the author of "Don't Call Me A Victim, Faith, Hope & Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church." He is currently working on his next book titled: "Finding Peace, One Man's Journey." (BuzzFlash Note: We called Gary, who lives in the Northeast, to confirm his E-Mail to BuzzFlash. In a discussion, he told us that he is not looking for vengeance, but wants the Catholic Church hierachy to answer the question of what it will do to prevent child sexual abuse from continuing. Gary said that he wanted his grandchildren to be protected from what happened to him and his father, and that the occurence of child sexual abuse -- and the Church cover-ups -- in so many nations indicates that this is a widespread institutional pathology that needs immediate remedial action). http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3103 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM Peter, you are obviously entitled to your opinion on the forgiveness of sins, but the relevance to the theme of the thread is remote. Beeliner, I argued way up the thread that the sacrament of confession, and the power it invests in priests, has been a major factor in enabling the abuse to continue. Is that of no relevance in this thread? And do not even you begin to question the whole confession mularky now it is plain that a finite proportion of your forgivers of sins have been going from parish to parish sexually assaulting children? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:17 PM Peter, you are obviously entitled to your opinion on the forgiveness of sins, but the relevance to the theme of the thread is remote. The sole basis for such a belief is John 20:22-23. We take Christ at His word. Were it not for this commission there would be no such belief. I've already given examples of how sacramental absolution exists apart from civil responsibility for one's crimes. A penitent can certainly confess his sins directly to the Father in private prayer, but in sacramental confession one actually hears the words of absolution, and one is able to receive advice to how to deal with one's moral shortcomings. Making a good confession and then receiving the Lord in the Eucharist feels like taking about 20 hot, soapy showers in a row. But I understand that those who have not had the experience find it hard to understand. If such procedures seem 'dumb' to you, then you probably shouldn't be a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or an Anglican/Episcopalian. I'm hoping that there will eventually be an upside to this horrible scandal and that the Church will make significant changes. Eliminating the sacrament of reconciliation will not be one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:41 PM The guest post above with my fingerprints on it (6 April,6:59am) was indeed from me, using someone else's PC and forgetting to log in. Sorry. Beeliner, I don't know what rendered Smokey speechless, but what leaves me lost for words (well nearly) is the fact that a laity can be dumb enough to think its priests have the power to restore souls to a state of grace. It is precisely because you billions of catholics (so many couldn't possibly be wrong, eh?) do believe your priests wield such power that the paedophiles among them have been able to get away with so much. It takes a brave sheep to speak out against a shepherd who can restore souls to a state of grace just by dressing up in a stole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:37 PM I think incest has been a problem in the past at least..the common situation of semi-alcoholic father, continually pregnant mother, handy daughter. The birth control issue has caused so much misery to so many people. Is religion supposed to make us miserable? Unhealthy? Dead? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM I'm lost for words... If you don't believe in the soul or the spiritual, that is understandable. Billions of us do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM Restoration of the soul to a state of grace. I'm lost for words... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM A few years back, a RC priest friend of mine (we went to university together, and were close at that time) told me that through church confessions that incest was rampant in his parish. I told him that I felt he had a moral obligation to go to authorities. He said he could not, because of his RC church obligations. I suggested he not name names, but advise the police or social workers of thealarming incidence of incest that he wa aware of, so they could reach out to those impacted. He told me that it was not church policy to do that. I can't certify that his interpretation of local RC church policy was correct, at that time. But, this always struck me as an unchristian face of the RC church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM "Makes WHAT all right?" FFS, the centre I worked in exacted high standards in its volunteers, why couldn't the freaking Priest-ery bollox. How many of us are supposed to stay 'reasonable' now? I've lost lt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:01 PM I suspect we will see beyond the tips of the icebergs all around the world. The more you seek, the more you find. Nearly 2,700 call German church abuse hot line: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNOfSa1jBGKk_KjTBCQ6rTFoqJ7AD9ETNU201 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:59 PM And the effect of absolution is? Restoration of the soul to a state of grace. That alone should encourage the penitent to do the right thing and face civil justice. My original point was that simply going to one's priest, say at his office or rectory, and confessing a crime does not in itself obligate the priest to silence. In such a situation the priest should say, "You've got to go to the police and admit what you've done. I'll get my coat and go with you." Obviously, that was not done in the instances we have been discussing here, and that is shameful, for the individuals involved and for the Church as an institution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:56 PM "Would you speak freely to a psychiatrist if you were aware the psychiatrist was obliged to report your statement to the police"? If doctors and social workers were not required by law to report any signs or expressions of child abuse to the police, many more children would suffer child abuse....some which was similar to what was seen under the protection of agents of the RC churrch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM And the effect of absolution is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:39 PM I see, is that some comedy hat, that makes it all alright or something? Makes WHAT all right? The stole is a vestment, a strip of cloth worn around the neck to indicate that a sacrament of the Church is being performed. Receiving absolution does not mean that the penitent is released from responsibility for the consequences of his/her sin. That's why the confessor might make the absolution conditional on submission to civil law and punishment. That's certainly what I would do were I a priest hearing a confession of child molestation. Under those circumstances, if the offender refused to do so, there would be no absolution. But the priest cannot reveal the details of the confession under any circumstances, period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM Jim - 'Tip of the iceberg' is exactly what I meant. We do not yet know the true extent of the cover-ups and probably never will, because where it has been truely successful it will remain covered up. Long may the process of discovery continue, but any statistics based merely on what has so far been discovered are an unreliable indicator of the extent of the abuse in terms of distribution or quantity, hence my earlier remark about Poland, and in previous threads about Africa and India. Beeliner - Yes, that is exactly what I meant by 'confession'. The priest fails to report his knowledge of a crime to the authorities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:21 PM True that confessions don't get reported. But stuff you find out because someone reports it you of course should report. Keep reading Andrew Sullivan. He is printing stories now of the abused. And now they are talking about how abusers were sent to Alaska to Native communities. Not even the tip of the iceberg. Oh, there could be real icebergs there couldn't there. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:18 PM "The priest must be wearing the stole" I see, is that some comedy hat, that makes it all alright or something? Honestly I find myself removed farther and farther away from formal Christianity. Give me Thomas a Kempis any day over this utter bollox. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:28 PM Priests do not report crimes confessed to them to the relevant authorities. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, it has to be a sacramental confession for the 'seal' to apply. The priest must be wearing the stole and the admission must be for the specific purpose of obtaining absolution, which the priest might, at his discretion, withhold or make conditional. In the latter case, the condition could be that the penitent turn him/herself in to the authorities and confess the crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM Joe, in one of those reports Budzinski and another witness described Cousins yelling in the presence of Murphy. In the other, Budzinski told people at a meeting that Cousins yelled at him when there was seemingly no other victim present. Even if Budzinski was lying through his teeth both times, your comment about Sullivan would still be out of order. Your recent comments, and your reference to the (slightly catchpenny but entirely justified) headline on Sullivan's article, more than ever convince me that you have no grasp of the damage that has been done, and is being done, to Ratzinger's "one true church" beyond your own local community and your own immediate experiences; damage that emanates not from the behaviour of individual errant priests but from attitudes and policies which Ratzinger had a direct role in entrenching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM "They "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous." The hierarchy of the church (including at least two popes) knew crimes were being committed yet they did not report them to the authorities - they moved the criminals on to commit further crimes - they forced the victims of those crimes to sign agreements not to speak about their experiences to anybody other than officers of the organisation that contrived in the committing of the abuses - not one of them has been prosecuted for collusion in those crimes. Which part of this do you deny happened Joe, and if none, what other explanation do you have other than the existance of an organisation that considers itself above and not answerable to the law? If it were employees in the education system who had acted in the above manner after having continuously and over a very long period sexually and physically abused the children in their care, would you be as understanding and ready to forgive as you apparently are of the clergy and hierarchy of the church? akenaton So far you have: Described the objectors to the rape and abuse of chidren as "religiphobes!" Suggested that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles. Described the church as providing a safe haven for "homosexuals and criminals" Perhaps you would like to go for a 'full house' and tell us how guilty you believe the victims of these abuses were for the crimes committed against them? Smokey "Regarding 'coverups' - we are only aware of the ones which failed." No; we are only aware of the ones that have been investigated so far that have failed. The brief of the investigating bodies covered a very limited time period and a tiny number of dioceses, yet it is reported that these abuses certainly went back, at the very least to the end of the Second World War, possibly throughout the twentieth century and were widespread throughout the church. The Government here has to date refused to investigate similar offences committed against young women who were sentenced by the authorities to work in the Magdelene Laundries - also run by the church. Tip of the iceberg. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:17 AM I'm not aware of anyone who can legally withhold information from the authorities about an active child abuser in this country. Obviously the priest's crime never gets discovered as long as he is silent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:51 PM Counselors for some time have had to report certain things in order to prevent murders etc. And the church did place itself above the law. Would they have voluntarily turned people over to the police if there had not been public pressure? Did they? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:47 PM Oh, yes, Smokey, I suppose the "seal of confession" is one exception. It's honored by government in the U.S. and in Ireland, but not in all nations. Such an exception is also granted to medical personnel, psychiatrists, and professional counselors. It wouldn't be quite fair to have a counselor required to reveal what is told to them in confidence in a professional counseling session. Would you speak freely to a psychiatrist if you were aware the psychiatrist was obliged to report your statement to the police? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:37 PM Regarding 'coverups' - we are only aware of the ones which failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:04 PM The "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous. Canon law covers church functions. It does not supersede or countermand civil criminal law. Canon law covers church procedures, not government procedures. Failing to report a crime is an offence in most countries. Priests do not report crimes confessed to them to the relevant authorities. Church law/policy habitually obstructs the course of justice in this manner, and in the eyes of the church, supersedes criminal law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:39 PM So, Peter (Fionn), we have two accounts of an interview of Budzinski:
Jim Carroll, in a typically dramatic overstatement, says: And a church that has placed itself above the law (in fact has invented their own law as an alternative) harboured and protected them and allowed them to carry on with their abuse. The "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous. Canon law is a system of internal rules for the Catholic Church. It does not supersede or countermand civil criminal law. Canon law covers church procedures, not government procedures. You make it sound as if it were wrong for an organization like a church to have internal rules. Nothing in Catholic canon law prohibits civil authorities from prosecuting crimes. That's just silly for you to imply otherwise. The facts of the matter are bad enough, Jim. There's no need for your exaggeration. It does appear that the coverup was far more widespread in Ireland than in other countries, because it was the highest-ranking bishops in Ireland who were doing the coverups. Yes, coverups happened in dioceses in the US and in other countries, but certainly not in the majority of dioceses - except that in Ireland, it appears that there were serious coverups in almost every diocese. And as I read the authority structure of the Catholic Church, the primary responsibility for oversight (or lack of oversight) in this matter lies in the individual dioceses, and not in Rome. For the most part, dioceses are autonomous; so 'the buck stops' in the office of the local bishop - for the most part. Rome has some oversight authority, but not as much as is implied in many posts here. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:23 PM This may help some who arev confused by the issue of homosexuality....that is not the center of the thread topic...though it ic likely related in the discussion....in some way. http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/faq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM "One thread at a time please!" You are the one who insists on turn this into a homophobic rant rather than what it is - clerical and church-sanctioned abuse. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM Joe O made this observation awhile back on another post: ".... in many dioceses there is a strong homosexual culture among a certain small (but significant) faction of priests - in certain circles of priests, you'd think you were in the Castro District of San Francisco. Conduct is overtly sexual and flirtatious. "Straight" priests feel very uncomfortable in such circles, and can often seek friendship with parishioners instead of with classmates if this sexual culture is too strong. I would guess from the overtly sexual attitude of priests in these factions, that celibacy is not important to them. As I said above, there was a time in my sophomore year of college when this sexual atmosphere was very strong, and it felt unhealthy to me until a number of people were removed by psychological screening. While I was in the seminary, I did not know of any students being sexually active. Some did go on dates with women, but I never heard of male-male dating. I never, ever heard talk of anybody even thinking about having sex with children, or professors having sex with high school or college seminary students". Joe's personal observations indicate a homosexuality community within the RC church (not surprising) , but does not indicate a link between those from the homosexua group within the RC church and the child sex abuse(I am unsure if anyone followed up on those comitting crimes, as to their sexual preference in society, after leaving the church). I suspect some are confused as to whether the male sexual child abuse was in the RC church was situational homosexuality or dispositional homosexuality (see the attached link with observations on the prison homosexuality scene for the difference). If it was mostly situational, (as within prison) then could the impact of celebacy not be a valid theory? Access to the complete document is not online. But the site does give one an idea of the observations....and possibly more rersources exist on the topic online. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/crmrev9&div=9&id=&page= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:27 AM You've already been well stuffed on the other! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:25 AM One thread at a time please! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:52 AM "What a furore from the religiphobes!" After a silence fromour resident homophobe. "I am an oft admitted atheist, who tries to understand the needs of others." As long as those 'others' sexual practices ar te same as your own - of course. Jim Caroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM Personally, I think the 'petty gossip' remark was pretty much the last straw. My faith in my Church is hovering near zero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM For immediate release: Sunday, April 4, 2010 Lofty statements from Vatican officials do not change the facts Statement by Barbara Blaine, SNAP President 312-399-4747 Lofty statements from Vatican officials do not change the facts. Deeply wounded victims and our family members need comfort and healing but instead receive reprimands and insults. When we speak up and tell how our childhood innocence was shattered by sexual assaults by priests it is not "petty gossip." Learning that church officials, including the Pope, failed to intervene to protect us as children has rubbed salt into our wounds. The track record of the Pope has been to cover up and seek silence about the sex crimes by priests. The Pope has said very little and taken no decisive action to rid the church of the sexual predators nor to offer justice to victims. While Sodano and other church officials keep claiming the Pope has done so much the victims still seek concrete action from the Pope. SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world's largest and oldest support group for victims of clergy sexual abuse. Founded in 1988, SNAP has over 9,000 members. http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/canadaworld/article/1006707 http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2010_statements/040410_lofty_statements_from_vatican_officials_do_not_change_the_fact |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:52 AM "an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal" Likely not as outraged by the victims and their families? I suspect that the scandal had a number of impacts: 1) Outrage and distrust in the RC heirachy by many members of the RC church 2) Outrage and concern about the local financial impact....and a focus on dealing with the new financial reality. 3) Embarassment and reduced sense of trust by the laity...some who have left or have looser ties with or ttust in the central RC organization....this could stimulate significant future change. 4) Attempts to save the brand, demonize those questioning the RC organization (including the media) ....much like defense lawyers attempt to convince the public that what happened , could not have happened, or was really not representative or all that bad ....read some of the defenses on the web and by the Vatican. 5) As to the priests and bishops....I suspect they either had their suspicians that this was happening or knew it was happening all along...though the magnitute may have been an eye opener. I suspect there is embarassment by priests or nbishops who were not involved or complacent (likely to varying degrees). Joe O makes reference a case of a local compassionate reaching out to those who were violated by priests. While what he describes seems like a genuine attempt to help victims...I have not seen similar actions where I live, and I suspect it is an anomoly, rather than a reflection of what occured in most other locals. As to the discussion of whether good people do good things...it's a no brainer...yes, they do....and they do so regardless of what organization they are affiliated with or bound by. Yes, there area vast number of good priests and bishops....and maybe events will separate the good from the bad....as its hard to believe that some guilty folks and those complacient are not still in power positions within the RC church heirachy. A more meaningful discussion would be did the Vatican, the RC structure and priests and bishops doing to help victims? I do not feel they have stood up to the challenge....and possibly are still far from the mark....beyond saying we are sorry....which likely rings hollow when they are still in the defensive and denial mode. I have noted that in the past few weeks a few bishops and priests have broken ranks with the Vatican and have said some good things....expressing their personal outrage and remorse....and committment to help heal those violated and rebuild a stronger church....none of the defensive bunk. That is a small sign of rebuilding trust.....versus what is happing with the Vatican. |
|
Subject: RE: BShttp://mud: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM It's pretty easy for an unscrupulous reporter to put words in the mouth of a deaf person, isn't it? On reflection you might like to retract that unfounded smear, Joe. (Wisconsin: victim speaks out) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:14 AM I would agree with that, my use of the word "need" was wrong, but I'm sure you understand my meaning. These crimes should be dealt with through the courts, although getting corroborating evidence could be difficult in most of the cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 05 Apr 10 - 07:48 AM "Isn't the important thing to cut the rates of abuse in the Church, then there would be no need for any sort of cover up." There is never any "need" for a cover-up on the contrary there is always a "need" for transparancy. Other organisations like the education system deal with abusers properly. You're never going to utterly eliminate the abuse of power by those in power either, however many checks are in place, there will always be those who will slip through. Thus it's essential that any organisation that others are expected to trust in, demonstrate they are trustworthy by dealing efficiently with such problems - rather than trying to cover their own backs by offering silence, protection and shelter to depraved and dangerous individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:01 AM What a furore from the religiphobes! Isn't the important thing to cut the rates of abuse in the Church, then there would be no need for any sort of cover up. The Church is run as any other organised religion, like a huge corporation, the people who run it will always have a corporate mindset. That said there are literally hundreds of millions who simply could not function in society without spiritual aid.....are they to be left to suffer because "liberals" do not like the conservative nature of religion. This very conservatism is what gives strength and hope to the needy, most of whom just do not understand the huge changes in society, changes which look to most of them as utter madness. As I have said, it looks like most of the abuse reported so far has not been paedophilia as we generally understand it, but homosexual abuse of teenagers.....this needs to be addressed! Having said that, there are cases of paedophilia showing up and a very good start in reducing such abuse would be to employ priests who have an understanding and empathy with children. Change the celibacy rule, vet all new entrants to the priesthood for psychiatric problems and sexual abuse history. Admit responsibility for a bad rule and tighten up the system.....then get back to doing a very necessary job Jim Carrol.....I am an oft admitted atheist, who tries to understand the needs of others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:19 AM All I ask for is a balanced perspective, an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal. You will realise that in the light of everything that went down it's very hard to balance the few 'no-hassle settlements' you mention with how the church in Ireland handled things in that respect : they sent two 'tough as nails nuns' (description from the other negotiators) who hammered out a deal that capped the financial responsibility of the church in such a way that the state and taxpayer were effectively responsible for any financial compensation of victims of abuse that took place in the church run industrial schools. Only after reports that revealed the extend of the abuse were published and the pressure of public opinion became too strong most of the orders (though not all) agreed to shoulder the financial burden. Not before some orders made sure the majority of their assets were put out of harm's way though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:16 AM "Child molesters did the molestation....." And a church that has placed itself above the law (in fact has invented their own law as an alternative) harboured and protected them and allowed them to carry on with their abuse. The Pope's epistle proved to the world that this mindset is very much in place in the Vatican, and that if the abuse carried out hadn't taken place on the scale that it did, this wouldn't have registered on their Richter Scale. The church, from top to bottom, were fully aware that these rapes and physical abuses (significant that these haven't really entered the equasion to any great degree) were taking place and their only action was to protect the abusers by moving them on to continue their 'little weaknesses' - even to the extent of forcing the victims to sign declarations of silence. ALL the crimes committed by the church should be exposed in their entirity, punished fully and the influence that it once held should never be returned to it. The disturbing backdrop to all this is that the Catholic church is fighting tooth-and-nail to retain access to the minds of Irish children through their schools. If not the minds - why not their bodies - it's happened before? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM This article and this article make it appear that Archbishop Cousins may have been yelling at the child-molesting priest, not at the deaf students. the quote: Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, two more victims of Murphy, said in an interview last week that they remember seeing Archbishop Cousins yell, and Murphy staring at the floor. It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan misquoted the interview of Budzinski. Frogprince, I think if the Milwaukee Archdiocese had its way, Fr. Murphy would not have functioned as a priest at all after he was removed from his position. There is no indication that he served as a priest anywhere near Milwaukee after his removal. But he moved to the remote area near Superior, as far away from Milwaukee as you can go and still be in Wisconsin. In the meantime, Milwaukee got a new archbishop, and I imagine Murphy was forgotten. If he had applied for permanent assignment in Superior, I would hope he would have been checked out. But since this was just fill-in service, celebrating Mass when the regular priest was absent, he went unnoticed for twenty years. And apparently he led some weekend retreats, which are often locally organized and not official functions. It wouldn't happen that way with the restrictions that were put in place after 2000, but there were no set procedures for handing child molestation cases in the 1970s. Child molestation was known to happen occasionally at the time - but until this last decade, the extent of the problem just wasn't known. And even though Murphy did continue to function on a limited basis after his removal from the Milwaukee Archdiocese, he did not get a permanent assignment in the other diocese, and there are no reports that he molested anyone after his removal. That being said, it should also be noted that it took many, many years for the deaf students to get the attention of the Archdiocese. It appears that the previous Milwaukee archbishop, who later became Albert Cardinal Meyer of Chicago, had been told of the allegations sometime between 1955 and 1963, and Meyer sent Murphy on retreat and "then put him back in the school to undo 'the harm he had done.'" Meyer had the reputation of being a man of integrity, but apparently he did not take the allegations seriously. At the time, I and most Catholics (and most Catholic priests and bishops) thought it unthinkable that priests or our grandmothers could ever commit a crime. As a result, it took a long, long time for the deaf students to get the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to take them seriously. But when they got the attention of Archbishop Cousins, Cousins removed Murphy within a matter of months. Ed T says:
I don't know what to think about Pope Benedict in this matter yet, particularly with the allegations that he failed to discipline a molester priest when he was archbishop of Munich. So far, I think Benedict's actions as pope have been appropriate. As for Pope John Paul II, I think it's clear that he did wrong, and I am completely opposed to his canonization as a saint. The right-wing religious order, the Legion of Christ, founded in Mexico in 1940 by Fr. Marcial Maciel. By the late 1990s, it was widely know that several seminarians had reported that Maciel had molested them, but John Paul continued to support Maciel. The only excuse I can think of, is that maybe John Paul was too sick to be fully able to comprehend the seriousness of the charges against Maciel. John Paul was very ill with Parkinson's disease for the last ten years of his papacy, and I don't think he was capable of doing his job. After John Paul died and Benedict was elected Pope, Maciel was almost immediately removed from public ministry, allowed only to celebrate Mass in private and to live in seclusion until his death. In recent years, more evidence about Maciel's molestation offenses have come to light, and it was learned that he fathered children by a number of women. And I can't figure out how in the world John Paul didn't see what was so evident to the rest of us. So, I think JPII was dead wrong - but I haven't made up my mind about Benedict yet. Right now, what I say about him is that he isn't as bad as I expected him to be - and I do think that Benedict "did the right thing" about Maciel, after the many years that JPII neglected that problem. -Joe- Here (click) is a YouTube video of an undated ABC report on the Maciel situation. Note that at the time, both Ratzinger and John Paul did not accept the allegations against Maciel. If they had acted against Maciel when the allegations first became public in 1997, the Catholic Church would have a lot more credibility. Do take notice of how debilitated John Paul appears in the video. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: frogprince Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM Joe, I've found almost all that you've said here to be at least measured and reasonable. But I can't quite swallow this: A priest molests deaf children for 20+ years. An effort is made to prevent him from continuing to commit more heinous acts. But the son of a bitch is allowed, in a "limited" way, to continue to appear as a spiritual leader, a representative of the church and of Christ himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM Joe, please stop assuming that none of us believe that there are "good people" in the church. When my grandmother was in a coma, her Catholic prayer group prayed for her around the clock until she came out of it. Her own Priest was with her through thick and thin during her illness and it was her Christian faith that kept her together during months of sickness and pain (with no painkillers) prior to her death. She chose to become a Catholic, against her parents wishes, at sixteen because she was called to. The ordinary and good people, are victims of this self-serving and deeply morally corrupt cover-up organised by the church's hierachy. I feel very sorry for these people. And as I say, I'm glad it's not me having my faith rocked right now. But I have nothing but contempt for a supposedly spiritual *organisation* which secretly colludes in the activities of paedophile members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:12 PM Research has demonstrated an association between child sexual abuse and a subsequent increase in rates of childhood and adult mental disorders. People with a history of sexual abuse are much more likely to experience higher rates for childhood and adult mental disorders, personality disorders, anxiety disorders and major affective disorders post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, chronic depression, substance use problems, personality disorders, suicidal tendencies, psychotic symptoms (e.g. delusions and hallucinations), low self-esteem, guilt and a feeling of being tainted, increased tendancies to do self-harm, dissociative disorders, difficulties in relationships and at work. My rant: So, if the RC church, and its members, do so much good in the world, why did they not reach out to those whom they knew were abused by RC priests? When those abused came forward, and as cases were confirmed, why did the church and its members not proactively offer sympathy, compassion and professional treatment? My observation was the abyse claims were first ignored, then doubted and the victims were publically marginalized, attempts were made to cover-up the crimes…in some cases the victims were blamed for the abuse….attempts were made to belittle the seriousness of the offenses (for example, through using population statistics, and by saying they were not children when the offenses occured, but prepubscent young people). When they took actions through the courts…the church and many members blamed the victims for the financial results on the local churches. ...and still do (if they could take an objective view). So….where were these good caring people…reaching out with compassion to help heal and treat those subjected to chuld abuse under the hand of those in a position of authority inside the RC church? It may be that other organizations (and those involving other clerics) did no better when it comes to reaching out and helping to heal those impacted by child sex abuse, at their institutions hands. But, many of these groups do not have members agressively defending and "selling the brand" of the good works their organization and membership do in the world. Some information on the impacts of child sexual abuse: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/416 http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/child-sexual-abuse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM I think you are dead wrong about Andrew Sullivan. He is one journalist that I follow. He is an anguished Catholic. He is not trying to sell stuff. He is a gay anguished Catholic who calls himself a sinner. I don't personally think he goes for cheap shots. He seems quite rational to me, but he is a like a dog on a bone. He is not going to let go of this, for reasons that I think are highly moral and not for his career or whatever. Let's find another scapegoat instead of him..and no one is putting down the decent and heroic people who are doing all sorts of good deeds..and quite likely the pedophiles did many good deeds too. And I think we have to stand and be counted here. I think we must call for resignations, and I believe the pope's; it looks like John Paul II was involved in coverups so there goes his canonization as far as I am concerned although I liked him....I think we must insist on every known abuser meeting with experimental psychologists as well as others to determine what causes this. I think we must have our eyes wide open to this perhaps not being a problem of lonely, unsocialized repressed men and perhaps something more sinister. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:32 PM Would you accept a kiss from a homeless person? Joe, I spent most of the 70s playing in rock bands.. ok, now things may be different, but then again I'm not a nun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM Who is blaming them? Not me, for sure. I generally like them. I think they've got a very bad deal out of all this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM Yeah, Smokey, but that's the way it is in all of life, no matter who or where we are. None of us is all good, and none of us is all bad. The goodness doesn't come at the "cost" of child molestation, however. Child molesters did the molestation, and selfish and incompetent and cowardly bishops covered it up - not all bishops, but enough so that it made a horrible mess of things. But most of the people (Christian and otherwise) who work with the poor and homeless, the aging and the suffering, are courageous and generous people who had no responsibility whatsoever for the molestation of children - so, why blame them for this mess? Would you accept a kiss from a homeless person? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM It's a pity all that goodness comes at such a cost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM I knew Archbishop Cousins, Peter and Jim and Crowsister. He was a gentle man, and he never "yelled" at anybody. Andrew Sullivan took a cheap shot and went for drama instead of truth. It's pretty easy for an unscrupulous reporter to put words in the mouth of a deaf person, isn't it? It was a terrible thing that Fr. Murphy molested boys at St. John's School for the Deaf from 1950 until it came to the attention of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in 1974. Archbishop Cousins first learned of the sexual abuse in 1974, and he removed Fr. Murphy from ministry in 1974. Cousins handled the situation as it should have been handled. The local police department of the City of St. Francis should have prosecuted Fr. Murphy, but didn't. The St. Francis PD was the ultimate small-town police department, and its officers were most likely too incompetent to handle issuing parking tickets very well. As I recall, they DID have a very good team in the local bowling league, but that's about it. Even the Milwaukee Police Department was known for its incompetence and racism and "old-boy network" attitudes at the time. But there is no evidence that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee handled the case inappropriately. There were many, many child molestation cases that the Catholic Church handled badly (and sometimes criminally), but there is no evidence to show that this one one of them. But Andrew Sullivan chose to go for the cheap shot nonetheless. Take an impartial look at Sullivan's article, and you'll see it's riddled with bias. Unfortunately, Fr. Murphy moved to another diocese after he was removed from ministry, and Cousins retired in 1977. Murphy lived in the Superior Diocese, as far north as you can go in the US without going to Alaska. Very few people in southeastern Wisconsin have ever been to Duluth-Superior. It's too cold, and too far away. Murphy and his offenses were forgotten up there in Northern Wisconsin, and he was allowed to serve as a substitute priest (celebrating Mass only) for many years, until his situation came to the attention of Cousins' replacement as Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, in 1995. But both Weakland and Cousins were bishops who did things right. They may not have done things exactly the way some people might demand, but there is no evidence that Murphy was able to molest any children after he was removed from ministry in 1994. The auxiliary bishop in Milwaukee during most of the time in question was Richard Sklba, another bishop who insisted on doing things right (and my favorite Theology professor). Even then, I have to say that Weakland was a homosexual, and he paid a former lover over $400,000 when the man threatened to expose him. And I was very disappointed that Sklba had approved the blackmail payment. There is good and bad in the Catholic church - and there are people who are both good and bad, just like in real life. None of us is perfect, and none of us handles every situation perfectly. Yes, the sexual molestation and child abuse in the Catholic Church was horrific, and more of the scandal will be uncovered in the coming years. The problem was partly bungled, and partly covered up by intent. Whatever, the whole thing is a terrible scandal and a terrible mess. But on the other hand, there is much good in the Catholic Church. I have a love-hate relationship with my pastor. He is a horrible administrator, and he was a terrible boss when I was his employee. But he's a good pastor, and he has a lot of compassion. At Mass on Holy Thursday this last week, I looked over and saw him giving a shoulder massage to an 80-yr-old priest who was celebrating Mass with him. After Mass, he gave the Sacrament of the Sick to a woman who has been in pain most of the last ten years; and I saw him ministering gently to another sick person today. Last Monday, my boss took me on a tour of the Loaves and Fishes Dining Room in Sacramento, where she worked for 12 years until she came to the women's center where I do volunteer work. My boss, Sister Judy, has been a nun for fifty years. As we walked through the complex, many homeless men and women came up to talk with their legendary Sister Judy - some of the homeless people even kissed her on the lips. Judy was really in her element among the homeless, and I was half-afraid she wouldn't come back with us to our safe women's center, where most of our guests actually have a place to live. There has been great wrongdoing in the Catholic Church, and I'm sure we haven't seen the end of it - and probably never will. Nonetheless, there is great good done in the Catholic Church. It's important to look at both sides of the coin. Andrew Sullivan didn't do that, probably because it doesn't sell newspapers. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" How did a deaf child know he was being shouted at? Oh, come on - many ways, as has been pointed out. It seems very sad to me that someone should question the word of a child - not of a journalist - in defence of the indefensible - the systematic rape of children and the persistant collusion by fellow clergymen and the hierarchy in order to not only allow the perpetratory escape justice, but to continue his offences. For me , the most relevant part of the article was this: "He will not quit, of course. And he will not personally repent for these personal failings in public. This is all "petty gossip" fomented by enemies of the church. It's old news. He has reformed things. He has, in the words of the Vatican, "nonresponsibility". Others will take the fall for those crimes of the past. And the broken souls and bodies that remain out there — the scarred victims of this abuse of power — where are they this Easter? What place do they have on this, our holiest day?" And the Catholic church will continue to be led by somebody who has directly colluded in the rape of children. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" What are you smokin', Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:23 PM That post was clumsily edited, but not wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM "Thus his own pastor presents the hierarchy as victims with his antisemitism analogy (an analogy he now seems to have drawn by accident). And the dean of the cardinals' college dismisses serious allegations as "idle chatter." Joe showed just how trite the defensive mindset can get with his ludicrous question: "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" The stupid boy obviously didn't realise that the archbishop was only miming." Aye, Peter. As an aside what concerns me is that some here appear to be assuming that all the posters concerned by the Church's cover-ups are anti Cstholic & anti Christian. I'm not. I considered being Baptised a few years ago. But found another path. I've ever found beauty and wonder in the Christian mystical writings. On my Catholic Grandmother's grave, I'm profoundly glad I never bound myself to such a filthy and rotten institution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:56 PM I saw Sullivan's article before seeing the link here and thought it was way over the top, particularly where it referred to the Murphy case, in which respect Joe has pointed up a crucial deception. But every time I start to feel sorry for this wretched pope he reawakens my fury by ignoring the whole cover-up outrage. At the same time he supinely allows others at the Vatican to conduct a suicidal rearguard action. Thus his own pastor presents the hierarchy as victims with his antisemitism analogy (an analogy he now seems to have drawn by accident). And the dean of the cardinals' college dismisses serious allegations as "idle chatter." Joe showed just how trite the defensive mindset can get with his ludicrous question: "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" The stupid boy obviously didn't realise that the archbishop was only miming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM Wait until we hear from developing nations. If this can and has happened in the Netherlands, where there is not the poverty you can find elsewhere, although it exists everywhere, where there is not the desparation, wait until we hear from the Philipines and Uganda especially..and we have been hearing about situations in Uganda for a long time, more involving nuns being abused, but I think also younger and perhaps teen women. How did priests figure they would not be discovered? Or was the temptation too great to override that? How did all of these numerous bishops think that it was OK to pass these people along or not report them to child abuse people..certainly by the 1980s it was required if it was a school situation and certain people were obligated to report abuse. Was there some secret training that bishops had that let them to uniformly it seems to act in this way? Did they confer with the same upper management person? Did they act individually? If they acted individually how come there don't seem to be many people turned over to police? How many abusers were turned over to police? What prevented more? There are many unanswered questions. If each bishop made the decision by himself, how could we gotten so many numb... assembled to think this way? That they were above the law. That this could go on on their watch. That they could pass criminal behavior on to other parishes? I can't figure it out and I will not apologize for the bishops, although I wonder how many had perhaps the same problem? I don't know. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM I meant to add that the gossip line seems for the moment the official dismissal of any allegations of covering abuse and letting priests connected with abuse in positions that allowed them direct contact with children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:33 AM Not that it matters much but it really already did a week ago |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM And now it's been introduced into the headlines around the world... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:10 AM At Easter Mass in the Vatican this morning, a leading cardinal has dismissed the child-abuse issue as "gossip". GOSSIP ???!! The term was in fact introduced into the debate by the Osservatore Romano and Benedict himself at the start of Holy week, a week ago. Article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:04 AM In this morning's Irish Times: A leading cardinal, addressing Pope Benedict at the start of an Easter Sunday ceremony, said the Church would not be influenced by what he called "petty gossip" about sexual abuse of children by priests. "Holy Father, the people of God are with you and will not let themselves be influenced by the petty gossip of the moment, by the trials that sometimes assail the community of believers." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0404/breaking1.html He's worried about the trials that assail the "believers". Not those suffered by the victims. It assails belief, all right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:49 AM At Easter Mass in the Vatican this morning, a leading cardinal has dismissed the child-abuse issue as "gossip". GOSSIP ???!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Crowsister Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:30 AM "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" Heavens! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:45 AM Mary, if you think the pope should be ousted because of the Arizona case that was cited by Ed T. (03 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM) and you claim it's not that you want the priest/molester defrocked, then perhaps you should actually read the article. The priest was removed from ministry years before, and the issue in question that was to be handled by Rome, was laicization (popularly referred to as "being defrocked.") Smokey, since you are defending Mary, you might want to read the article as well - it's posted right in this thread. The issue in the Archdiocese of Munich that took place when Ratzinger was archbishop - that is still a real question. The Arizona situation is not so significant - if the priest is no longer allowed to function as a priest, what's the difference if he hasn't been laicized? If the diocese has already taken action and removed the person from functioning as a priest, what's the big deal about having a higher court in Rome add emphasis by laicization? I think it's far better if these things are handled on a local level - it would be ludicrous to have every criminal case end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, wouldn't it? But if the local level fails to do justice, then it's up to a higher court to supersede the lower levels. The Timesonline article written by Andrew Sullivan is titled I believe you’ve killed the church, Holy Father. It is quite dramatic, and plays a little loose with the facts. How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974? Sullivan's article makes it appear that Fr. Murphy was allowed to carry on until 1996 — "two decades later, with Murphy’s victims now at the 200 mark." In actuality, Cousins removed Murphy from ministry in 1974, and the only church function Murphy was allowed to perform after 1974 was to celebrate Mass as a substitute priest. There were no victims reported after 1974. The Murphy situation was certainly horrible, with a priest molesting deaf children from 1950-74 - but it appears that Archbishop Cousins handled the situation quickly after it was first reported in 1974, and removed Murphy from his position of school director almost immediately. For the sake of full disclosure, let me admit that I knew Archbishop Cousins and I really liked him. He seemed to be a man who did things right. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:24 PM Good article, mg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:01 PM Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article7086620.ece Maureen Dowd has also spoken up several times. We are not talking about the failings of some psychologically deranged priests. We are talking about bishops, cardinals, and a pope who could not or would not pull the plug on this..assign them to an accounting office or have a constant watchguard on them when they interact with anyone, but no contact ever with children or teens. An article about the former Bishop or maybe Cardinal of Portland Oregon..asked why he didn't warn parishioners when a priest was reassigned (and probably in the time duration when he should have been on a sex offenders registry) he said he didn't want to embarrass him. Jesus, Mary and Joseph and all that is holy. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:38 PM No. I am not upset about a priest not being defrocked. I have never called for any priest to be defrocked. Even in this case where the situation was called "satanic" by someone. I want the pope to be depoped because of his failure to do anything that I am aware of in this situation. Someone has produced a letter they wrote to him personally asking for a prompter (like as in years) response because the priest was considered dangerous. As in abusing a 7 year old and 9 year old boy in the confessional. That is a bit serious. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:35 PM Mary didn't mention laicization, she was annoyed because Ratzinger did nothing to stop the abuse or acknowledge it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM Mary is all upset about an Arizona priest/molester who wasn't defrocked (laicized). I'm wondering if it really matters. If a priest has his faculties taken away by his bishop and is not allowed to function as a priest, what's the difference? The more frequent reason for laicization is for priests who voluntarily leave the priesthood and want to get married. That sort of laicization doesn't happen very often, either - so the former priests get married in a civil or nondenominational ceremony. I think I'd rather not see lifelong priesthood at all. Most parishes have plenty of men and women who could do a wonderful job of presiding at liturgy and administering the sacraments - but there's no reason why they should have to do it for a lifetime and as celibates; and there's no reason why they should have to be trained forever. the "mystique" of the priesthood has failed. i think we'd be far better off being led in prayer and liturgy by "normal" people. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:15 PM The statistics prove it, Jack. Maybe the Polish Bishops are more efficient. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM Among Ireland's most prominent opinion formers it is now almost a given that catholicism is in its death throes in that country. If so, its writ will soon not run beyond the world's most under-developed third-world communities. Not quite. Ratzinger presided over the worst haemorrhage of adherents the church has ever seen by refusing to budge over celibacy in Latin America. That was a gift to the Protestant evangelicals. The last holdout is likely to be Poland. Which is also the place we've heard the least news from over these abuse scandals. Anybody seriously believe Polish priests are any better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:57 PM To clarify in case of misinterpretation, I mean that any defence beginning with the word 'statistically' is likely to be irrelevant bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM For 'statistically', read 'irrelevant bollocks'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:46 PM One of the RC defense commenyts I often hear, regarding sexual abuse of minors is: statistically, priests abuse fewer children than that which occurs in the general population. To me, this is a red herring defense....crafted and oft en repeated in loyal RC websites and presentations. It's kind of like saying that "if policemen murder citizens at a lower rate than in the general population, than it's OK." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM I'll be very surprised if he hasn't shuffled off his mortal coil by Christmas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:44 PM I want the pope to go, unless someone can prove to everyone's satisfaction that he was not responsible in this Arizona case. Bishop Moreno apparently wrote to him when he was in the other office, CDF or whatever the former Inquisition office is called. Direct letter beseaching him to take action. No response for years and years. I can't remember if that was the case with 7 and 9 year old boys in confessional preparing for first communion. I want him gone. Is there a sign up sheet or do we have to write to our often useless cardinals and bishops? Don't bother calling me a fallen away Catholic. I am a practicing Catholic, but would hardly be called a good one. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:32 PM Smokey, your 6:03 post seems to be saying that because there has been a wide range of different types of abuse taking place in the Church, that most of it can simply be put down to "opportunity". My point was that the distribution of types of offence, for example more abuse by priests on youths than by priests on young girls, correlates with the circumstances in which it was possible to happen. There are many times more opportunities available for priests to abuse youths than to abuse girls, and the reported incidents seem to reflect that, showing a larger proportion of same sex (m-m) abuse overall. To put it another way: if priests were only ever left with 6 - 10 year old girls, that is where all the abuse would be, and I think that many of them (but not all) would be the same priests. I think Ed's link explains it far better than I ever could. My other, and main, point in that post was that half-preventing some of the abuse just isn't good enough, whatever the overall demographic distribution and sexual orientation of the overall abuse is. It's all profoundly and equally wrong and it all needs to be stamped out. Remove all opportunity. Personally I don't care who gets offended, put out of work, faith shattered, whatever. They should be glad to make that sacrifice for the sake of protecting children from such treatment, and to ensure the credibility and maybe the survival of their church. The children are more important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:04 PM In fairness, the Archbishop of Canterbury quickly apologised for his remarks While the head of the Church of Ireland calls the comment 'thoughtless and hurtful' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM Thanks for the explanation about church law, Joe. Also I don't have any issue with the Murphy case on the basis of what I've read so far and what you have just added. I accept that there is sometimes a place for compassion and that this was such an instance. I thought the same about Megrahi's return home to Libya, and I'm not very enthusastic about cases being pursued against octogenarians who had minor roles in Nazi death camps. But Ed T's last post above brings the whole Vatican conspiracy right up to Ratzinger's door. And for me he is completely nailed by his letter to all bishops in 2001 (see report I linked to in my previous post). What was that if not direct interference in the criminal law? Among Ireland's most prominent opinion formers it is now almost a given that catholicism is in its death throes in that country. If so, its writ will soon not run beyond the world's most under-developed third-world communities. The pope will be visiting Britain later in the year, and he would have done well to avoid that visit becoming an unmitigated disaster even without the Archbishop of Canterbury's extraordinary contribution this morning (again linked in my previous post). I wouldn't be surprised if he feels like retiring, but can see that his resignation now might do even more damage than hanging in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:58 PM There have been some questions about Catholic Church law and the sexual abuse crimes. Church law applies to functions within the church, and does not supersede civil law - they are in different arenas. A priest cannot be removed from the priesthood by a civil law procedure - that's a matter for church courts. A Catholic cannot be excommunicated in a civil law procedure, and a civil court cannot withdraw a theologian's license to teach. A bishop can remove a priest's "faculties" to that the priest is not allowed to function as a priest - but only Rome can "laicize" a priest and declare that he is no longer a priest. I've had some interest in 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. In 1995, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland received complaints about the fact that Murphy had not been removed from the priesthood, and Weakland initiated church court proceedings against Murphy in 1996. Murphy was terminally ill, and appealed to Rome on the grounds of ill health. Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith honored the appeal and cancelled the court trial. Murphy died in 1998. As to why Father Murphy was never defrocked, a Vatican spokesman said that "the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties." He said that Father Murphy's poor health and the lack of more recent accusations against him were factors in the decision. I have particular interest in this case because I attended St. Francis Seminary from 1961-70, right next door to St. John's School for the Deaf. The brother of a friend of mine attended St. John's, and my friend worked for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. I didn't know Fr. Murphy or anyone at the School for the Deaf, and I think I met my friend's brother only once. Still, this was happening right next door to where I was living. One NewYork Times Article says:
Should Cousins have taken stricter action against Murphy in 1974? Probably, but there were no precedents at the time, and nobody knew how such cases should be handled. Cousins was archbishop during the years I was in the seminary, and I liked him very much. In general, his policies were very humane - and he was disliked by the right-wing Catholic forces in Milwaukee. A chronology from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee seems to indicate that after Murphy was removed from the School for the Deaf and moved to Superior in 1974, the restrictions placed upon Murphy were gradually forgotten - Weakland replaced Cousins as Archbishop in the late 1970s, and apparently Weakland did not become aware of Murphy's situation until 1995. At the time I attended the seminary next door, I thought it unusual that there was a Catholic school for the deaf right there, and we had not knowledge of what went on there. Nobody spoke of it, and nobody knew any of the faculty and staff there. It seemed to me that we as seminarians should be doing volunteer work there and learning about serving deaf people. Now I wonder if Murphy intentionally kept his school separated from the rest of us, for his own protection. The problems at the school did not become public knowledge until 1974, four years after I left Milwaukee. Apparently, the Milwaukee press gave a lot of coverage to Murphy's story at that time - so what happened was not done in secret. So, I dunno. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: open mike Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:44 PM There is a story on a radio show that takes place at St. Elizabeth's Parish...the story on NPR is told from the point of view of a priest named Wall, who was a "fixer" who was sent to parishes when other priests were removed due to allegations.. He was transferred to St. Bernard's and in 4 years, with 4 scandals he replaced 4 monks, his career path was driven by other's mistakes. the interview can be heard on http://www.thisamericanlife.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM A puzzling event....if isolated, then OK. But, I fear it was not: Rome took 12 years to defrock U.S. priest By MATT SEDENSKY The Associated Press Sat. Apr 3 - 4:53 AM The future Pope Benedict XVI took over the abuse case of an Arizona priest, then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood, according to church correspondence. Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 1990, members of a church tribunal found that the Rev. Michael Teta in Arizona had molested children as far back as the late 1970s. The panel deemed his behaviour — including allegations he abused two boys in a confessional — almost "satanic." The tribunal referred his case to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005. But it took 12 years from the time Ratzinger assumed control of the case in a signed letter until Teta was formally removed from ministry, a step only the Vatican can take. As abuse cases with the pontiff's fingerprints mushroom, Teta's case and that of another Arizona priest cast further doubt on the church's insistence that the future pope played no role in shielding pedophiles. Teta was accused of engaging in abuse not long after his arrival at the Diocese of Tucson, Arizona, in 1978. Among the allegations that would later be part of settlements: He molested two boys, ages 7 and 9, in the confessional as they prepared for their First Communion. Bishop Manuel Moreno eventually was made aware of the allegations and held a church tribunal for Teta, which determined "there is almost a satanic quality in his mode of acting toward young men and boys." Teta was removed from ministry by the bishop, but because the church's most severe punishment — laicization — can only be handed down from Rome, he remained on the church payroll and was working with young people outside the church. At the time, Ratzinger headed the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the office that typically handled cases of abuse in confessionals. The church considers those more serious than other molestations because they also defile the sacrament of penance. In a signed letter dated June 8, 1992, Ratzinger advised Moreno he was taking control of the case, according to a copy provided to the AP from Lynne Cadigan, an attorney who represented two of Teta's victims. Five years later, no action had been taken. "This case has already gone on for seven years," Moreno wrote Ratzinger on April 28, 1997, adding, "I make this plea to you to assist me in every way you can to expedite this case." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM Speaking on the BBC24 news channel today (Dateline London) Johann Hari, who writes for the (London) Independent, Huffington Post etc, claimed that in 1981 Ratzinger had ordered that a veil of strict secrecy was to be drawn over all church inquiries into child abuse. I thought he was perhaps overstating the case a little, but an internet search quickly produced evidence to support Hari's assertion: Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret This might explain a matter that puzzled Penny S earlier in the thread: namely what was significant about Ratzinger having child rape classified as an offence in "church law" when it was already an offence under the criminal codes of most countries in the world. It would seem that the catholic church was indeed firmly (and as it has turned out, fatally) committed to keeping all matters concerning its criminal priests securely in-house. Today there is dismay in Dublin that the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion said this morning that the catholic church in Ireland had lost all credibility.(BBC report) The archbishop of Dublin does seem to have been a heroic exception with his strident criticisms of how some of his colleagues have responded to the crisis. But it is hard to see how the archbishop of Canterbury, or anyone else outside the catholic church, could take any other line when the lamentable performance of Brady and Co has brought such sharp dissent even from within (as further evidenced in Peter Laban's link to the Irish Times take on a post-Catholic Ireland). Like Jim Carroll, I cannot for the life of me see what Ake is railing against in that paragraph he posted from one of Joe's links. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM "The only question which requires an answer is, "why is there so much homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church"" No - that's the only question you choose to address - the rest you choose to ignore. You have my answer with the public school, prison, services analogy, which you have carefully ignored. - now let's hear yours. Perhaps you can tell us why 'The Catholic Church "is affording homosexuals and paedophiles a safe haven to commit crimes" - I'm sure there are many devout Catholics who would be interested in your answer. You have never told us your religious inclinations; do I hear the sound of the cock crowing thrice? Your postings are very reminiscent of the hypocricy that cast down practicers of sex outside marriage, whatever form it took, into the fiery pit while it was rampant within the ranks of the clergy, protected by the silence of their fellow clergymen and colluded in by the hierarchy. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:35 AM and by the way Jim.....If you dont understand the purpose of that paragraph and indeed the rest of the article, you should not be discussing this subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:16 AM The only question which requires an answer is, "why is there so much homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church" If the leaders of that church do not make a determined effort to have the guilty priests convicted and instigate a wide ranging inquiry into the Celibacy Rule and and its effects in facilitating that abuse, then I shall have no option other than to agree with you and find the Church authorities just as guilty as the perpetrators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:51 AM "How's this for a credible and unbiased opening paragraph?" What planet do you occupy? The mythology of the 'black rapist' fed many of the lynchings in the southern US (did you never hear of the 'Scotsboro Boys' incident and many hundreds like it that were grimly envisioned in Billie Holliday's 'Strange fruit') and continues to be bogey man there and here in the UK "Coming over here to take our jobs and women..." It is these that have fed the propaganda machine of the BNP and The Klan down the decades - "Half baked opinions and propaganda." get real. Likewise, the image of Jews kidnapping children to use in their 'human sacrifices' has been part of our culture at least since the time of 'Hugh of Lincoln' and, like with the black southerners, has fed many pogroms throughout the Western world. "I dont believe there is a problem with homosexual abuse in the services and I hardly think it is fair to bring the fantasies of children into your grubby attempt at defending your stance." Same sex liasons have longg been recognised facts within any single-sex circumstances; the merchant navy is well known for it as are public boarding schools. I was fascinated to see your interpretation of is as "homosexual abuse", nobody but yourself has described it as such - it has nothing to do with either 'homosexuality' nor 'abuse' - it is usually consentual and experimental opportunism practiced by those deprived of the company of other sexes, and widely accepted as such, apart from by people like yourself with your 'lynch mob' mentality. As for my "grubby attempt at defending your stance", it is you who has used the suffering of children to espouse you bigotry against a way of life which is now accepted throughout the civilised world. Your disingenuity is underlined by continually refusing to address the questions raised here. I repeat WHERE DO THE ACCOMLICES TO THE ABUSE WITHIN THE CHURCH stand in all this - are they not part of the problem that will be 'solved' by removing the celibacy rule and if so, how will they be 'solved'. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:21 AM Some thoughts on Post Catholic Ireland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM Sorry for all the typos....rushing out to work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:48 AM Smokey, your 6:03 post seems to be saying that because there has been a wide range of different types of abuse taking place in the Church, that most of it can simply be put down to "oppotunity". This argument does not stand up, due to the matter of sexual orientation. As I've said many times, the vast majority of sexual abuse has been against one gender, and generally one age group. There is absolutely no evidence that abusers generally, attack victims of a gender to which they are not sexually orientated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:36 AM Credible and unbiased Joe? Are we reading the same link? I'm beginning to have second thoughts about you, if you cannot see what that article really is How's this for a credible and unbiased opening paragraph? "Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women." It continues in the same vein, voicing lots of half baked opinions and propaganda. To get to the truth of the Church's current problem, we must first understand the difference between paedophilia and sexual assault. Problem is, too many just do not want to make that distinction! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:20 AM Most polls conducte on these issues, are influenced heavily by what is being promoted by media and pressure groups. Most people are simply afraid to say what they really think, for fear of legal action......as in the Glasgow preacher case, or due to pressure to conform to artificial norms. The Mudcat "liberal" goldfish bowl, is an interesting place, but hardly representative of public opinion. One can hardly tune in to any entertainment broadcasts without seeing homosexuals promoted to an unrepresentative extent, of their lifestyle presented as positive and "cool". The very real health, psychiatric and lifestyle problems associated with homosexuality, for a large part of that community, are never made clear to the public. Whether you like to admit what seems obvious or not, the Church and society must stop looking for excuses, make sure abusive priests are charged and if guilty convicted. this would pave the way for a public enquiry into why homosexual abuse is so widespread in the priesthood. If these measures are not put into place, then the Church's opponents here will have been proved correct, the criminality will indeed be seen as endemic to Catholicism. Justice must be seen to be done, even if doing so turns up truths which are hard for many here to swallow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:04 AM Ed's Link has some interesting information. It's from the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis, and it seems very credible and unbiased. Here's an excerpt:
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters. I think, Ake, that it shows that most people think you're wrong. Molestation of pubescent and pre-pubescent boys and girls may have different motivations, but "normal" homosexuality and "normal" heterosexuality are not the cause of the molestation of teenage boys and girls - this is predatory behavior, not the normal sexual drives of mature adults. There is some evidence that some priests have sex with teenage boys and girls because the priests have not achieved sexual maturity, and are not capable of normal relationships with mature adults. There is some argument that a 12-year education in a totally male environment may delay sexual maturity for some seminarians. I didn't have that problem - my Catholic seminary encouraged us to have contact with women. But I fell in love with one of those women and married her. A few messages above, Ed T. asked a very good question: Who is it who speaks for the Catholic Church? Officially, the Pope (in consultation with the bishops) speaks for the entire Catholic Church. Individual bishops speak officially for their dioceses - in consultation with priests and lay members. And pastors speak for their parishes, in consultation with representatives of the laity. In reality, they don't do as much consultation as they're supposed to do. But there are many others who claim to speak for the Catholic Church. Right-wing Catholics invest heavily in media - in the US, almost all of the so-called "Catholic" broadcasting is dominated by right-wing Catholics, funded heavily by German Catholic brewery families and the original owner of Domino's Pizza. The Catholic press in the US is mixed, but tends to be led by the publishing houses of religious orders, who tend to be progressive (or at least moderate). The publishers of Catholic religious education texts tend to be moderate. The social services are led predominantly by progressive Catholics. Progressive Catholics also tend to dominate protest movements like the ongoing protests at the School of the Americas (Fort Benning, Georgia), the death penalty protest movement, and the immigration reform movement. And of course, right-wing Catholics dominate the anti-abortion movement. Right-wing Catholics have been in the forefront of the movement opposing gay marriage, and left-wing Catholics have been very active in promoting the dignity of homosexuals. So, it's a mixed bag. The Catholic League and Mother Angelica's EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) are two organizations who are very strong in their claim to represent "true" Catholicism - and personally, I think they're both full of shit. Most priests and many bishops would agree with me. Oh, and in certain sectors of the Catholic Church, it has become fashionable to accuse opponents of having a "homosexual agenda," even if the opponent never speaks of homosexuality. Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles is frequently accused of having a "homosexual agenda" (particularly because he favors immigration reform), and there's a priest in my town who frequently throws out that accusation against his enemies. Once again, I think it's bullshit. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 02 Apr 10 - 09:18 PM Interesting information on the topic of child abuse molestation: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:25 PM So.. back to clerical abuse then.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM Their true wealth is a moot point and impossible to find out, but bear in mind that most countries have huge national debts, and the Catholic Church doesn't. Well, I'm not sure that it's either of those (i.e. moot or impossible to determine), the figures I quoted were not just made up, the point is, the Church is its membership, not its clergy, hierarchy or financial managers, though all of those, assuming they're Catholics, are part of the membership. The thing most non-Catholics don't realize is that only one collection per YEAR - it's called 'Peter's Pence' - goes to the Vatican to be used as the pope sees fit - and it's the SECOND collection that Sunday, the proceeds from the regular collection staying, as always, in the parish, though there might be some sharing within the diocese at the bishop's discretion. The idea that the Church is getting rich at the expense of the faithful is ridiculous.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:47 PM That's all right Smokey! I rather like it when you don't see my posts......Makes life so much easier! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:30 PM I'm glad you aren't poor Beeliner. Their true wealth is a moot point and impossible to find out, but bear in mind that most countries have huge national debts, and the Catholic Church doesn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:24 PM "I'm certainly no expert, but from what I understand of 'Jesus', his advice would be for them to donate their colossal wealth to the poor, particularly as that's where an awful lot of it came from, one way or another." I'm no expert either, and perhaps someone else has other figures. I've seen the 'colossal' wealth estimated at 15-20 billion US dollars. That's about $15-20 per Catholic. I spent more than that for lunch for myself and my wife at Ruby Tuesday's today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM Sorry Ake, didn't see your post - I knew a bloke who'd joined the Merchant Navy on leaving school at 16, and was obliged to sleep with a broken bottle in his hand for years.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM It seems to me from reading various reports, testimonies, Vatican documents, etc., that practically every sort of abuse imaginable has been perpetrated under the protective umbrella of the Catholic Church over the years. Entirely accountable for, as Jim rightly says, by opportunity. The same happens in every other walk of life too, but less so due to the lack of the (sometimes unwitting, sometimes intentional) support network provided by the Church and their somewhat creative use of 'God's law', which, whenever they can get away with it takes precedence over real law. I can't for the life of me see why it's relevant what proportion of it is homosexual abuse - it all needs to be stopped as quickly as possible, and such is the diversity of the problem, there is no easy solution to be found by singling out one form of abuse by one subgroup, whatever size it happens to be. Eliminating homosexuality or celibacy in the priesthood would never, for example, prevent nuns from beating young girls half to death or torturing babies. The only way to prevent the abuse is to completely remove the opportunities. Half measures are merely half solutions - and then only if you're lucky. The only way for the Church to regain its credibility(?) is to do this themselves voluntarily and pull out of all care situations until such time as they can prove to have tidied up their act and convinced humanity that they can be trusted. Yes, it's drastic and would disappoint a lot of good, honest, and well intentioned people, but that is part of the crime committed by the abusers and those who have knowingly not prevented them or assisted in bringing them to proper justice for whatever reason. The many good and decent people who were unfortunate enough to be born into Catholicism have been done an unimaginably huge disservice. Just as an aside - I'm certainly no expert, but from what I understand of 'Jesus', his advice would be for them to donate their colossal wealth to the poor, particularly as that's where an awful lot of it came from, one way or another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:45 PM The Church is not evil....merely craven! The situation in the priesthood is well known to the leaders of Catholicism....they just dont know what to do about it. Over 100.000 priests have left the church to marry, in the last 20 years, leaving an un- representative number of homosexuals in the priesthood. "liberal" laws make it impossible to use "positive" discrimination. A Christian street preacher in Glasgow was fined £1000 for saying that "homosexuality was a sin". Priests Choose to be in their situation.....convicts do not! As for the other groups you mention, I dont believe there is a problem with homosexual abuse in the services and I hardly think it is fair to bring the fantasies of children into your grubby attempt at defending your stance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM And once again you choose to ignore the abuse agaoinst women that is common knowledge yet still to be made fully public. Clerical abuse was was purely opportunistic - they took what was readily available. It is akin to same sex liasons among convicts, public schoolboys, servicemen and others where other-sex partnerships are restricted - or are these situations riddled with homosexuals as well. Please let me be there when you tell your friendly neighbourhood oil-rig worker is gay! And once again - where do those who colluded with the crimes fit in - gay sympathisers, latent homosexuals. I wonder what Joe or any devout Catholc thinks of the suggestion that his church is a haven for gays encouraged by enforced celibacy. Where is your evidence for any of this? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Crowsister Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM "You illustrate the point I just made, very well Crowsister." Cheers Ake, like I said, you're the best. Once I was a blinkered dogmatic "liberal" with a rigid political ideology determined to silence and oppress others on folk music forums, but I'm all better now thanks to you! I blame anal sex.. years upon years of it between consenting adult males warped my poor tiny mind. Never again I say :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM You illustrate the point I just made, very well Crowsister. Dont worry too much about the "light", I see from your other posts that when this phenomenon has occurred in the past, before long the darkness descends again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Crowsister Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM Yes Ake, you are correct, it's all about homosexual men and people knocking the poor old church, it's got nothing to do with Priests raping children it's only dogmatic fake "liberals" who assert that, but their lying of course because it's some guff about their "ideology" or something. Yes, you're brilliant and everyone else's opinions are rubbish. I was so blinkered before, but now I see the light. Gays, "liberals", homosexuals, HIV, "liberals", homosexuals bla bla bla. Next please... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:00 PM Peter...What are you trying to say? Only an idiot would maintain that no girls are subjected to sexual abuse by priests, but the fact remains that the vast majority of this abuse was perpetrated against teenage boys and young males by adult men. In my book that is not paedophilia, but homosexual assault. Joe...I'm surprised by your remarks. As a father of four, of course I am horrified by paedophilia and the sexual abuse of young people, my remaqrks on pubescence were to illustrate the difference between paedophilia and homosexual abuse, not to excuse either. My stance in these threads is to protect children and get to the truth of why this disgusting behaviour is so rife, not nfurther a political ideology, like that which is regurgitated daily by so many here. These people care not a fig for children's welfare, or homosexual's welfare(on another thread)...Only for their dogmatic determination to impose their view of the world on everyone. This thread is not about the abuse of children to them, it is simply a chance to attack what they see as a "conservative" church and a "conservative" Pope. In today's Times, Mr Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist and author of "The God Delusion", is quoted as saying....... "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something very much worse." It is my belief that the thing which Mr Dawkins fears is "Orwellian liberalism" as practiced by 90% of the Mudcat membership. An endless search for a mythical equality, regardless of the effect this may have on the future of society, dismissal of any sense of personal or community responsibility, and a dogmatic determination to hold the party line at all costs, never resorting to reason or objective thought......this creed will ensure that what should be a free, proud and inspirational species, will evolve in their image, as weak willed, dumb automatons. Ed....Thanks for having the honesty and the bravery to post the links. I think you may be one of the handful of real liberals here. Joe..(again)....Why did you feel obliged to traduce Ed's links by attributing them to "right wing thought" as if it were some sort of disease.....this is exactly the problem in discussing all these issues, the truth comes from all wings, as does deceit. Labelling opinions as "wrong" simply because they are held by the wrong person or group is not liberal.....it is the most severe form of reaction......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 02 Apr 10 - 02:47 PM Vatican priest compares reaction to abuse scandal to Holocaust Some nerve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 02 Apr 10 - 02:14 PM It is unreasonable to be confused, as to who speaks for the RC church. The Pope and his organization seems to say it is somewhere in Rome. Many individual RC members often claim it is not the Pope nor the Vatican. Some claim it is the local the Bishops and local structure. Then there are others say it is the individual RCs or the parishes. Then there are those who point to the results of large meetings, where issues are discussed, and sometimes resolved...on paper, that is. And, then there are the outspoken folks...some right wingers, some left wingers,the defenders (right or wrong) , the apologists, single issues folks, alternative folks, back to the bible folks, back to the old church folks, those who select the convenient message, community active folks, those who don't want to focus on any issues (only faith), those looking out, those looking in, those pissed off by the pristly scandal, those directly impacted by the priestly scandal, the mystics, charismatic folks, "women priests in waiting", " married men in waiting, Christmas, Easter Ash Wednesday baptism, marriage and funeral attenders, those who go to church 'cause it kinda looks good (because of the neighbours or the kids) , or those who do so "cause their parents did so, and "it seems like the right thing to do". And, then there are those who actually pay attention to God's and Christ's messages messages....that often seem to get lost in the worldly affairs of Christianity and the RC church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Apr 10 - 01:23 PM Please don't think that the "Catholic League" speaks for the Catholic Church, although they sometimes claim to. They represent only the extreme right wing of the American Catholic Church. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:27 PM "Many pedophiles often prefer children close to puberty who are sexually inexperienced, but curious about sex" Source. Profile of a Pedophile, By Charles Montaldo, http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm Wow, heavy stuff from Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League? http://theweek.com/article/index/201440/Catholic_leader_Gays_not_pedophiles_are_the_problem |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 02 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM Ake, A bit of reading |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:44 AM "Most of the abuse is perpetrated by men on pubescent teenagers." On what do you base this homophobic statement? - pre-1970 abuse, Magdelene Laundries, diocese not yet investigated? Shame on those who would use the abuse of children to display their particular brand of bigotry Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Apr 10 - 02:39 AM Ake, whether the victim is eight or fourteen years of age, it's still a horrendous crime. It just doesn't make sense to make a distinction between pubescent and pre-pubescent victims. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 01 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM "He who kick church, break toe." (Confucious 551-479 BCE) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:45 PM I take it, YOUR agenda is to kick fuck out of the Catholic Church. If that is the case, you run the risk of offending many more people than I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:40 PM We are discussing on this thread, clerical child abuse. Most of the abuse is perpetrated by men on pubescent teenagers. That is not paedophilia as most of us would understand it, but homosexual assault. Please try to get your facts straight. If those posts are an example of your sense of humour, then bring back Benny Hill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS/Crowsister Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM A second request not to allow yet another thread be turned into a gay-bash fest. Cheers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS/Crowsister Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:22 PM Just a reminder to all concerned with the issue of church cover-ups of peadophile priests - not to get sidetracked into a "are all gays homo's and does celibacy turn you homo" discussion. Fascinating as that might be - for another thread for people interested in men putting their winkies in other men's bum holes... Otherwise if someone simply want us to agree with their formula here it is: yes I believe you it's amazing now I finally understand I've been so blinkered until now but obviously all homosexuals are latent peadophiles and anyone celibate will naturally turn gay! So everyone that's a priest will become a pederast and want to bugger altar boys. Phew, glad we got that one sorted. No need for any more threads on the matter! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:34 AM "I do not believe that in general terms sexual abuse is carried out irrespective of gender. " Based on what evidence? "by affording homosexuals and paedophiles a safe haven to commit crimes" One is legal, the other is a crime except in your distorted mind. Homeosexuals are in no need of a 'safe haven' - they are not criminals any more - we have moved out of the Stone Age (or some of us have). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:13 PM I understand your point Joe and I'm sure there are many good and dedicated people in the priesthood, but the C. R. appears to be doing more harm than good to the Catholic Church, by affording homosexuals and paedophiles a safe haven to commit crimes against young people. Like Mary, I dont believe this abuse is "part of Catholicism" or a "power thing", it is something which can be fixed.....with the will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:45 PM Well, Ake, most priests I know, live lives that would be very hard on family life. Many of them DO live lives that are totally dedicated to serving their congregations. My pastor had to borrow forty bucks from me on Sunday because he had given all his own money to the poor. He once said from the pulpit, "If I don't have money to give to the poor, I get it from Joe Offer. I don't know if I've ever remembered to repay him." No, he hasn't repaid me, but I'm proud to help him in his charity - but if he had a wife and children, I'm not so sure that they'd be so happy. Some priests accumulate a lot of money and live very comfortable lives, but many take their dedication very seriously. It's a hard way to live, but many of them do it very honorably. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:32 PM Joe, if that is the real reason for the retention of the Celibacy Rule, then it is an absolute disgrace and does reflect badly on the Catholic hierarchy. However I feel there must be more to it than that. The reason that a suggested people like you pressing for change now, is that the current furore over child abuse in the Church must give your stance additional leverage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM Ake, the Catholic Church sees celibate priests as better servants to their community because they can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a salary that wouldn't support a family. I've fought against the celibacy rule all my life, so your suggestion that "this would be a good time to start" is moot. I said that our young neoconservative priests see celibacy as a gift, while priests my age tend to see it as a burden. Our neoconservatives are trying to hearken back to an ideal Catholic Church of the 1950s that never really existed. They tend to have a very unrealistic view of life and sexuality. I did battle with some of these Young Conservatives in a class last summer, and got myself reported to the bishop's office. No action was taken against me, although I was subjected to a flood of platitudes about how I should learn to tolerate (and respect) these young priests who are the "future of the Church." Bullshit. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:17 PM They work from dawn to dusk on Saturdays and Sundays, and they're quite busy the rest of the week. They are also required to spend several hours of each day in private prayer. This called 'saying the office'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM Boy, that opens a can of worms, Mary. I've seen many "religious" people who are heavily burdened with psychosexual problems. But for them, their religion seems to be part of their psychosis. If there is no joy in a person's religious faith, that's not what I would consider faith. Maybe it fits the general definition of faith, but it's certainly not what I've experienced as faith. I see religious people who are judgmental and selfish and full of anger and prejudice and weird sexual thinking - to me, these things are the very antithesis of true religious faith. For me, faith is about joy and generosity and love of fellow man. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM Thank you for your honest answer Joe, there are still things which I do not understand, like how can the church see celibate priests as "better servants to their community" than the ones who share the lifestyle of those they serve? In addition, why are priests who believe in celibacy as a virtue, termed "conservative".....surely such unreasonable beliefs should be classed as "radical" This may be a good time for people like yourself to start pressing for a change in the rule, if you wish to see a stronger and more importantly a better Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:31 PM I think you can be sincerely religious and still have serious sexual problems to the point of abuse. They are not really incompatible. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:30 PM Akenaton asks if I can explain the reason for the requirement for celibacy for Latin Rite priests in the Catholic Church. Well....keep in mind that I have argued against the celibacy rule and male-only priesthood all of my life; and that I might well be a priest today if it weren't for the celibacy rule. So - I might not be the best person to give an explanation of the celibacy rule. I wouldn't try to explain the male-only priesthood, because I can see no logic in the explanations I've heard. The practice of celibacy began among monks, who originally lived as hermits. You can see vestiges of this in the movie Into Great Silence. The French Carthusian monks in this documentary live and work in silence in separate buildings, gathering only for prayer and Mass and certain other community activities. Non-contemplative priests and brothers and nuns who belong to religious orders, live and eat and work and pray together in a community house. They consider the community to be their family, and marriage and children and family finances would not work in a religious community structure. Celibacy can work very well in a religious community, and it is an inherent and necessary part of the life of a religious order. There are a few nontraditional religious orders (like the Taize community) that have accommodated married couples and families. Members of religious orders feel they are called to celibate life within a community. It gets really messy if they aren't celibate, and we have seen in the press how disastrous the results can be. Secular (diocesan) priests take a promise of celibacy when they are ordained, but it is not an inherent part of their priesthood. They do not have the benefit of a religious community to sustain them and to provide family relationships, so the life of a diocesan priest can be very lonely. The rationale is that celibacy frees a priest to serve his community, 24/7/365. There's truth in that - American diocesan priests celebrate Mass every morning, make hospital visits and do office work during the day (with time out for golf), attend meetings in the evenings, and sometimes get up in the middle of the night to administer the sacraments to people who are dying. They work from dawn to dusk on Saturdays and Sundays, and they're quite busy the rest of the week. That kind of life can be very hard on a family - clergymen from other denominations somehow make it work, but that may be because they have a wider base to recruit from because they don't restrict ordination to celibate males only. Non-Catholic clergy typically serve much smaller congregations, so their workload may be such that they can actually have a family life. I do know some priests who function very well under the rule of celibacy. Typically, they have a good network of friends and a healthy social life - without sex. Oftentimes, they will have one or more close female friends. This can sometimes become a sexual relationship, but then it gets messy. As long as the requirement for celibacy remains in force, a man can't function as a priest and not be celibate. And to be very clear about this, the rule of celibarcy does not allow any sexual contact or fondling - no sex with women, no sex with men, and no sex with children. I would say that priests generally have a fair amount of sympathy for their brother priests who have trouble with the celibacy requirement, and they're likely to tolerate priests having sexual relationships with men or women - at least for a time. I do not personally know any priests who have any tolerance at all for priests who have sex with children or teenagers. I have worked in the Catholic Church all of my life and I have known hundreds of priests and nuns, many of them very well. I have never, ever heard any talk from priests or nuns that expressed any tolerance for anyone who commits crimes against children. Most diocesan priests I know follow the rule of celibacy, but they consider celibacy to be an unnecessary burden. They do their best to follow the rule, but they find it very hard. The younger generation of priests are largely very conservative, and they talk about celibacy as being a "gift" - but priests my age largely think they're full of shit. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM Thank you Smokey, very informative although it does not answer the question as to why the Celibacy rule is still so important to the Catholic Church....in fact your links bring the ruling even further into question, as it is evidently not part of original Catholic theology. I also found an interesting little snippet which appears to bear out what I was saying about celibacy being a convenient hiding place for homosexuals and other sexually unorthodox types. "By far the group that has the highest rate of HIV infection of any occupation is Catholic priests from gay relationships. It is logical that many gay men would choose the priesthood in an attempt to deny their natural sexual orientation." I agree with you that celibacy per se is not the problem, but the "Rule" provides a place in Catholicism for those who are neither celibate nor sincerely religious |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:00 PM Just as an add on to what Peter has been saying....I was brought up as a Scottish Presbyterian(now an atheist), our ministers were all hard uncompromising men whos dry theology would bore folks to tears. As a young stonemason I was given the job of building the new alter in the big Catholic Chapel in the nearest town. I cut all the stone by hand and transported it to town where my labourer and I built the stones in situe. I was amazed by the conduct of the two local priests who spent most of the time telling jokes and having a few drinks with us. In fact, when the alter table was finished, we all sat on the marble top and polished off almost a bottle of whisky and a carrier bag of canned beer. :0). Our joyless ministers would have been shaking their grey heads in disapproval. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:54 PM Ake, you might find these interesting: A Brief History of Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church The History of Catholic Celibacy As they say, if you want to know what's going on, just follow the money.. The celibacy rule itself has nowadays become a part of a generally unhealthy attitude to sex within the Catholic Church which is all to do with planting guilt in the minds of their followers as a means of control and manipulation. Only the Church can alleviate that guilt, of course, making people falsely psychologically dependant. Its success is varied but its effect is horribly obvious, certainly to any observant outsider. I agree completely that the celibacy rule needs to be scrapped, but it's the rule that does the damage, not the celibacy. None of the sexual abusers are celibate, after all, or appear to have ever intended to be. I seriously doubt whether any cleric is literally celibate, though I admit finding out would be somewhat impossible, which is only one of many reasons why it's such a daft rule, except for the financial angle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:56 PM We haven't eaten touched on the sadistic stuff..Christian Brothers etc. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7082705.ece An article about a priest, now a Bavarian bishop, who not only beat girls in an orphanage, but yanked them out of bed. Now, what is a male doing in a girls' dormitory. I keep saying, unless we see this problem, or this mass of related problems, as endemic, there can be no healing. And there can be no doubt that dealing with ornery teenagers can try th patience of a saint. maybe some people were called to priesthood or religious life but not called to work with teenagers or children. We have to cut through the shame factor too. I am for naming names if guilt is absolutely sure. It would of course shame all of us, ad there are things I have done that I wouldn't want put on a billboard, but I think we have to do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM If we cant trust ourselves to be alone with children, then we're truly fucked! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM Watch the power of the church assemble though when some old Irish Catholic, who has supported the church his entire life, wants someone to sing Danny Boy at his funeral. Then the whole church operation springs into action to prevent such an awful, unthinkable act. It can and does act with great agility and power. Maybe just an aside to this thread but I wouldn't think 'the whole church operation springs into action' when funeral arrangements are concerned. That is pretty much something that's in the hands of the Parish Priests. I only ever get inside a church for the funerals of friends, musicians mostly and have never seen restrictions placed on the goings on (although I am aware that in some places the local priest can put his foot down). In fact I have heard music played, have played music inside churches, I have witnessed how the PP put on his civvies and 'let the family have the hall' for Tom Munnelly's funeral and presided over a secular service that included a rake of singers. I have been at a concelabrated mass for a local singer/dancer which was presided over by an old friend and neighbour of the deceased (a former missionary priest) who spent his time on the altar reminiscing and telling stories how they in their young days travelled the country chasing music and telling stories 'like we were in a pub' (as someone remarked after). That service ended with the priest remarking it wouldn't be in the spirit of the deceased to let this turn into a funeral, after which he called for a half set to be danced in front of the altar (by some of the finest dancers in Clare with Jackie Daly playing a blast of reels up in the choir gallery). I don't know how anyone else's experiences are, my eyes were certainly opened by these goings on to the fact the church can on occasion muster a liberal streak when the situation arises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM Joe, in plain language and in a spirit of sincerity, why does the Catholic Church see the Celibacy Rule as so very important. It does not seem to make sense to me, being unfair the people who who see being a priest as vocational, yet who who wish to live a "natural" life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:29 PM Our pastor has a pretty good solution to the problem of kids being alone with a priest in confession - he sits with the child in a pew in the corner of the church. He and the child are both out in the open where everyone can see, but they're out of earshot. That seems to work quite, well, and still fulfills the requirement that a person should be able to go to the sacrament in private. The kids seem to like it that way - it's much less daunting than going into a little room. Fr. Mike feels more at ease, too, since it relieves him from any suspicion. I was a Cub Scout leader through the 1980s, when there was a lot of press coverage of sex abuse problems in the Scouts. Every Scout leader felt like a suspect at the time - it wasn't a good feeling. The Boy Scouts of America adopted a nationwide "two-deep leadership" policy, that required all activities to be supervised by two adults. That took a big burden of suspicion off us leaders. It also make it much easier for us to conduct activities - one leader could lead the program, while the other one handled emergencies and discipline issues and other needs. It was a simple, reasonable, and effective solution to a serious problem - and it had unexpected side benefits that made programs run much more smoothly. The Scouts also did better screening of volunteers, and got legislation passed that allowed and required fingerprinting and criminal records checks on people who worked with children. That's what's needed in this situation - reasonable solutions that are effective and easy to carry out, solutions that show respect for the vast majority of clergy and youth leaders who are completely innocent of any sort of misconduct with children. Restrictions that treat every clergyman and every volunteer as suspect, are not a good idea. There has to be a better solution. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:01 PM I have read all the posts on this subject with interest. To me the policy solution adopted by the Scout movement and the Boys Brigade and many youth sports assositions that adults should never be allowed to be on their own with minors both for the minors and the adults mutual protection should be universally adopted and advertised. There would be problem in some cases with confession but im sure that could be suitably covered with a trusted lay person be in close attendance. The past is gone and should be learned from Kenny B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM I think Mary, that the Church's unwillingness to act against those criminals, had more to do with attempting to prevent lawsuits than in assisting them to evade prosecution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM This is something I don't get. They can't seem to get their act together when priests are abusing little/older/boys/girls. Watch the power of the church assemble though when some old Irish Catholic, who has supported the church his entire life, wants someone to sing Danny Boy at his funeral. Then the whole church operation springs into action to prevent such an awful, unthinkable act. It can and does act with great agility and power. That is why we are all halfway crazy. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:32 PM I missed Mary's post, but I rather agree with what she says! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:24 PM I never suggested that all abuse was committed by homosexuals, but you attributed the following to me. "but it's nonsense attributing all abuse to homosexuals." I do think the majority of sexual abuse is committed by homosexuals, given the published figures available It seem obvious to me, that the Celibacy Rule will attract people with sexual "issues" into the priesthood. Do you think celibacy a normal lifestyle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:02 PM Please don't put words in my mouth Peter. How else do you want me to read your suggestion the situation would get better if only the church enrolled more heterosexuals into the priesthood? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:58 PM Of course I dont attribute all abuse to homosexuals, nor do I think all abuse is sexual, but the vast majority of sexual abuse cases involve adult men and teenage boys...fact. Please don't put words in my mouth Peter. I do not believe that in general terms sexual abuse is carried out irrespective of gender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM I never buy these it's all about power and never about sex arguments. It just does not fly with me.At some point it is about sex, sex that we don't understand, urges that we do not have but it is a sexual condition. I think the church does not want heterosexuals, it wants nonsexuals and that is what the whole religion has tried to do certainly in my lifetime, neuter us all, through segregation of the sexes, through shame, through linking sex with unending poverty-stricken reproduction, through all sorts of other methods. It works sometimes, and sometimes it fails horribly. Read Andrew Sullivan..he is very rational I think. Sinead O'Connor, who has been ordained a priest by a legally qualified bishop, and who am I to say if it took or didn't take, has also been writing some good pieces. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM Never heard such a pile of shite in my life!.....Of course it had to do with sexual preference......Teenage boys and adult males, a homosexual's wet dream. In a lot of cases it also had to do with availability. Girls were abused when abusive priests had easy access to them. I am sure some of the abusers were homosexual but it's nonsense attributing all abuse to homosexuals. Predators like Brendan Smyth went for whoever they had access to, irrespective of gender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM Jim Carroll...Did you read the German priest's description of his abuse of a teenager in his care....It was reported in the Times It was disgusting, but as far as I could see, absolutely nothing to do with power and everything to do with sexual gratification. The priest had convinced him self that he was "comforting" a young friend.....no coersion, no threats, just unadulterated lust. You are the apologist on this thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:18 PM Never heard such a pile of shite in my life!.....Of course it had to do with sexual preference......Teenage boys and adult males, a homosexual's wet dream. You people should foget you're political dogma if you really want to protect our children. I said heterosexuals should be ENCOURAGED into the priesthood, by abandoning the Celibacy Rule, to allow priests to lead a normal sexually fulfilled life in a family setting. That would strengthen, not weaken the Church. That does not mean that homosexuals should be banned from the priesthood, but at the moment all heteros who want a normal sex life, are virtually banned. I dont want the criminals to evade prosecution, quite the reverse, blaming the Church for the abuse does excuse the crime. The church was guilty of cover up, in an attempt to protect itself from litigation brought on by MEN abusing mainly TEENAGE BOYS....These tactics were disgraceful and inexcusable but the fact remains, that the abuse was personal to every man who committed it. You want to stop most of it? Change the rule that causes most of it. "Celibacy" is simply a convenient place for these people to hide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:44 AM "encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood," I don't know too much about the mechanics of church recruitment - are priests recruited on a 'sex preference' basis? Should the church advertise specifically for 'hetrosexuals', or maybe substitute 'homosexuals' into the old wording of 'No Irish - non-whites, Asians, foreigners etc... need apply'. As much as akenaton would wish it otherwise, homosexuality is legal; what are the civil liberty issues of making them the targets of bigotry and exclusion such as his? Maybe we should take the giant step forward of making homosexuality illegal again. Or maybe even the Nigerian (final) solution??? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:26 AM Much of what we are seeing in the Catholic Church is simply opportunistic homosexual behaviour......Change the Celibacy Rule, encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood, and the problem will solve itself. Many of the victims of abuse were girls, do not paint this as an issue of homosexuality. It isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM I see akenaton is still wearing his homophobe hat. It is not a homosexual problem - it is an opportunistic abuse of power by clerics against children put in their care. Juggling with figures is a way of placing the blame elsewhere, nothing more. So far we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. The government here in Ireland has refused to hold an enquiry into the events surrounding the Magdelene Laundries - all the victims were women. We have no idea of the extent of the abuses and against whom they were perpetrated beyond the time limits set by the enquiries held so far. We have no idea of the abuses carried out in diocese not yet examined. "Change the Celibacy Rule, encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood, and the problem will solve itself" is nothing more than disingenuous bigotry. Are we to assume that the problems of the church heirarchy who readily colluded in the crimes and allowed the criminals to escape justice and continue their abuses will also 'solve themselves'? And those clerics who knew what was happening and did nothing; where do they fit into akenaton's grand 'homo' plan - homosexuals themselves, closet homosexuals - what? Smokescreens like this are a sure-fire guarantee that these criminals will escape justice (bar the few token resignations we have seen so far), things will remain the same and the cycle of abuse will start all over again. These were opportunistic acts of power - they did it because they could; and they are expressions of contempt rather than of sexual preference. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:02 PM A couple of grim reminders of what we are talking about for anyone who missed them the first time around: Sisters of 'Mercy' Michael O Brien (victim) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:33 PM In a study on sexual abuse by priests in the US(Boston I think), very few of the victims were young children, the vast majority being teenage males and young male adults, all of whom had passed puberty.....Go figure. I reckon that's down to nothing more than opportunity. I also think that there is a lot more bisexuality about than most would care to admit, though not necessarily conscious or active. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:42 PM Hot air, Ake. You have no way of knowing how you would have behaved if you'd had the misfortune to be born with a paedophilic libido. If you think you're Mr Perfect, that could be because you've never been tested. Your suggestion that the existence of homosexual relations means child abuse is "rarer than we are led to believe" is absurd. Are you claiming that victims who claim to be nine or ten years old are in reality beyond the age of consent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM Uncomfortable fact for apologists on this thread. In a study on sexual abuse by priests in the US(Boston I think), very few of the victims were young children, the vast majority being teenage males and young male adults, all of whom had passed puberty.....Go figure. I am sure that Paedophilia in the sense of pre- pubescent children as victims is very much rarer than we are led to believe. Much of what we are seeing in the Catholic Church is simply opportunistic homosexual behaviour......Change the Celibacy Rule, encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood, and the problem will solve itself. BTW.....If I had ever developed any of the ideas mentioned above about children, my own or anyone elses.....I would certainly taken measures to safeguard them....like blowing my brains out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:26 PM Would you indulge that feeling if you truly loved your child? I believe not. I think maybe there are some people who don't appreciate or perhaps even distinguish the difference between sexual feelings and love. Unfortunately, I've no idea exactly what point I'm actually trying to make with that statement.. I'll 'ave me tea and think about it.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM Hope I am not repeating as a post seems to have disappeared. Anyway, yes I do believe that people can be both perveted and basically good at the same time. We don't know enough yet about the results of brain damage, fetal alcohol sydrome, "bad mommy" syndrome, autism spectrum, drugs taken by mother, chromosomal damage etc. to write the whole person off. People struggle with things we have no idea of and sometimes they don't struggle hard enough and sometimes they do to the end of their capacity and do awful things anyway. We have to protect people from them, and set up safeguards so that others do not have similar opportunities, and we have to do more psychological and neurological testing and case histories etc. so we understand why this happens. A lot of people especially now are surviving with brain problems that would have kept them institutionalized before. A lot of kids being mainstreamed today are going to have problems in society as adults. It is a very complex problem. Once children and vulnerable adults are safe, I think it is OK for us to have some compassion for the perps and see that they can never do this again, but parts of them can be salvaged. Not all people of course, but some. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM "Thank you for making the important distinction between paedophilia and child molestation," Hi Smokey - I worked (as a volunteer) for a time in a centre for adult survivors of abuse. I heard stories from heartbroken parents laden with guilt simply at experiencing sexual feelings in response to changing or bathing their infants.. Imagine being a *genuinely* loving parent confronted with such a thing in oneself? How troubling and horrifying that would be? Would you indulge that feeling if you truly loved your child? I believe not. As I've said previously, I was sexually assaulted by adults as a child. Fortunately for me, I've not suffered the same kind of psycho-sexual damage that some survivors have, which leads them to be sexually attracted to children themselves. Others do of course, and some pathetic entities choose to indulge their proclivities - but my guess is from my own discussions with other survivors, that there may potentially be just as many who decide not too. Unfortunately these "good, decent" voices, are unlikely to ever be heard because of the associated filth that do cynically decide to seek out child victims to gratify their sexual dysfunction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:14 PM I think it's perfectly possible for a child molester to give the appearance of being 'decent and good' in all the other areas of their life, but that only makes them more dangerous. There is a strong element of addiction in child molestation and addicts can be extremely crafty and resourceful in supporting their addictions, particularly the more intelligent ones. Understand addiction, and you're halfway to understanding child abusers. They can only be stopped by completely removing the opportunities, and in the case of child abusers, should be completely stopped - nothing less is good enough. Thank you for making the important distinction between paedophilia and child molestation, CS, people tend to forget that. 'Paedophile' comes from the same root as 'Anglophile' and 'Francophile'. I don't think the people we are discussing have a great deal of love for children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CS Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM "I do think that people can be pedophiles and decent good people both" Uhuh.. Do you think it's possible for someone to be a serial rapist and a "decent, good person" both. Or a fraudster that cons elderly people out of their life savings and a "decent, good person" both. Or someone who regularly enjoys torturing small animals for their fun and a "decent, good person both"? I do think *some* people who are defined as 'peadophiles' (which strictly simply means someone who is sexually attracted to children rather than someone who sexually abuses children) can be decent people, those are the peadophiles who choose NOT to sexually molest children for their personal gratification. Those people exist, in the same way that alcoholics who resist alcohol exist. "Decent, good people" are the ones that exercise control over their selfish impulses to indulge their human weaknesses at the expense of and to the detriment of innocent others. Ordinary people do that everyday, is it too much to ask that Priests do the same? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:02 PM I always thought my home parish had escaped the trials, but no...it was there when I was very young...I forget the priest's name..it defnitely was not Father Mulligan, who was the prototype of decent, mumbling Irish priest...Bing Crosby could have played him. I do think that people can be pedophiles and decent good people both. That is what makes it so awful. I would make sure that once they have faced the civil music, that they never saw a child again, but I would not hesitate to go to Mass, communion, confession, last rites, whatever to them as an adult with full disclosure or enough safeguards in place that abuse would not be possible. I wonder if there is a connection here with alcoholism that is a sad problem among some priests..and many joined the priesthood out of desparate financial circumstances or severe family pressure and should never have been ordained. I am sympathetic to them, but I will not shelter them or enable them. It is too complicated for me, but I think once a priest always a priest and I would not prevent them from doing priestly duties in confined, transparent situations with people who voluntarily came to see them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:51 AM The parents share the responsibility? In today's world, yes. In the 50s and 60s - the parents had no reason to suspect. It may seem naive but the children who were chosen to help out in the rectory or on Saturday in the church were the "good" little children. Their parents were thrilled that they were chosen. I often helped out in the rectory when the priests needed mailings done or gifts wrapped. I always helped clean the church and get it ready for Sunday mass. Luckily, the one priest in our parish who was a paedophile preferred little boys and I only found out about that years later. My brother knew and always refused to have anything to do with that priest. My brother was considered a problem child. He never told my parents about the priest's actitivites because he didn't know how and they would not have believed him. The priests of my childhood were almost all veterans of WWII. They served on the front lines as chaplains. They were good decent men. One of them often came to visit us for a meal or just conversation. We trusted them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:16 AM "Jim, I don't know of anyone who's been doing that. If there are any, I agree with you." There have been a fir amount of suggestion on this and on the 'Suffer The Children' thread I started that parents shared the responsibility for the abuse by allowing it to happen -- hence my response here. Here in Ireland one priest has blamed the children themselves for 'putting temptation in our way'. The Pope's 'Nuffin' to do wiv me guv' epistle has blamed the abuse on the increased secularisation of the church; completely ignoring tha fact that, though the reports that have disclosed the horrors of what happened only go back a few decades, it is now accepted that abuse has been occurring on a large scale since at least the end of WW2, and almost certainly before that. The genii that has not yet been let out of the bottle is the almost inevitable research into what happened in all of the other Irish Doicese - now demanding investigation - and the Magdalene Laundries. Watch this space Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:54 AM Mary, I tried to post to that thread, and got a 'THREAD CLOSED' message. Maybe it was just a glitch. In any case, it's 2am here, I gotta go to bed, but will rejoin the discussion in the morning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM there is another thread. one arm rigid, right arm, at about 45 degree angle. During Mass. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:39 AM Well, what is the context, is it done during mass, benediction or some other service? As I said, I have never heard of this, I have a mental picture of a Nazi salute as one arm held out rigidly, pointing slightly upward. I've certainly never done any such thing in a Catholic church and if I were asked to do so, I think my attitude would be like your own. But what is the connection, if any, to the theme of the thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:32 AM http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm See if this works as clicky... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:26 AM That was a typo..should have been WWII... The congretation raises their arms in a gesture that I can not discriminate from a Nazi salute, although perhaps a historian of some sort could. Get any google picture of Nazi salute and that is what it looked like. They did not click their feet together though so maybe that makes it socially acceptable. There are some things civilized people do not do or say. This is at the top of the list. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:19 AM And yet another church in the Washington State gives the Nazi salute. Sick beyond belief. I will start another thread The other thread has apparently been closed. Here is what I attempted to post there: It was not done when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, nor have I seen it until a couple of years ago. How shocking this must be to some WWI veterans Mary, it wasn't done when I was growing up either, nor do I have the least idea what you're referring to. Also, I think you have the wrong war. Could you be more specific? I've been a Catholic for almost 70 years and have never heard of any such thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:38 AM Have any priests or bishops offered to do prison time or house arrest or some sort of reparation? Have they volunteered to be subjects of psychological testing so that the correlates/antecedants of this pathology can be discovered? I presume that some have but I have not heard of it. And yet another church in the Washington State gives the Nazi salute. Sick beyond belief. I will start another thread and no matter who apologizes for this behavior, it does not happen on my watch without me spreading the word about it. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:05 AM That would be a good start, mg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:58 AM That would pretty much close down the Boy Scouts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:20 AM Hard procedures to see that this does not happen again. How about some easy ones. You will never be with a child unattended. You will never take boys on camping trips. You will not have sleepovers with boys (duh). How smart do you have to be? How hard was that? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:33 PM Jim, your dad must have been a principled guy. In fairness to Joe, as I suggested earlier, he will have little conception of how monstrously his beloved church has behaved in parts of the world where exploitation has been a little easier than in California. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM Those supporting the church over its covering up the abuse by blaming the victims and their parents are perpetrators of abuse themselves and are now fighting a rearguard battle. Jim, I don't know of anyone who's been doing that. If there are any, I agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:54 PM Those supporting the church over its covering up the abuse by blaming the victims and their parents are perpetrators of abuse themselves and are now fighting a rearguard battle. The Bishop of Galway has now been exposed as being involved directly in cover-up and almost certainly will have to resign - the fact that he has clung on to office by his fingernails and has been supported in doing so had done immeasurable damage to the church, and will continue to do so while he is in office. The Pope has now been put in the postion of having to explain his own part in the German abuses, and here in Ireland it has been recently suggested that he will be the first pope forced to resign. Those blaming the victims and their parents appear to be ignoring the power exercised by the clergy. My father was forced to work away from home because of his going to Spain to fight Franco (the church, with its support for fascism didn't come out of that too well). While my father was working away from home on a number of occasions (Friday afternoons usually), I saw my mother giving away the tiny amount of money she had in the house to the priest making his collection and left with not enough to feed herself or me and my sister - out of fear for the church. This was in non catholic England - I am assured by relatives living here in Ireland that things were much worse here and the church's power was absolute. One of the only good things to come out of this whole sordid affar is that the church will NEVER occupy that position again - if it survives. Any body that sanctions abuse and then forces the victim to take a vow of silence doesn't deserve to have any influence. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:29 PM "In understanding all this, it's important to understand that Catholic bishops and clergy and nuns and parishioners are just people - some are bad, and most are mediocre, and some are good. That fact has not been acknowledged in many of the threads discussing this problem, and that is my main objection to these threads." Joe, it's been acknowledged ad nauseam, usually in response to your posts. It's too obvious for most to bother even mentioning. The truly innocent, save for the victims, are not the subject of discussion. Please credit us with a bit of intelligence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Penny S. Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:01 PM Peter, I would think you are probably right in your suggestion - it would probably account for choir masters, scout leaders, and other groups where paedophilia has intruded. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM So I guess we will continue the discussion without your input for now. Joe, "I pretty-much agree with John MacKenzie, too. I completely agree with John that people are personally to blame - that it's people who committed the crimes, and not the Church." Joe, wouldn't you agree the the church assumed a part of the blame when it chose to hide and protect the people who committed the crimes and in fact enabled them to continue committing the same crimes? Had these priests been given a choice of say a cloister without access to children and being defrocked, I would be more sympathetic. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - I believe this applies to Rome. If you are saying that the members of the church who knew nothing (I was one) are not to be condemned, I agree. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM If you make a claim, beeliner, especially if it is contentious, the responsibility for sourcing it is yours. Peter, you remind me of J. Wellington Wimpy: "Let's you and him fight." I don't think that mine are contentious. But since Ake made his assertion first, let him provide substantiation first and then I will do so. The JW statistic is pretty well documented. The society refuses to release the names, claiming ecclesiastical privilege, but do not dispute the number as far as I know. I don't believe that the RCC has ever claimed such a privilege unless the information was imparted as part of a sacramental confession, in which case the confidentiality is inviolate. But I'm not trying to start an argument here, and as I mentioned previously, you also challenged Ake's assertion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM Thanks SINSULL, that's exactly what I meant. Strange that beeliner couldn't work it out for himself/herself. To recap, beeliner said to Ake: "And your source for that is what?" When challenged on his own assertions, he/she says:"I think that a simple google search would provide plenty of reliable documentation of both my claims. I doubt that Ake's could be similarly verified." It beggars belief. If you make a claim, beeliner, especially if it is contentious, the responsibility for sourcing it is yours. After all, that's what you plainly expect from others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM I think that a simple google search would provide plenty of reliable documentation of both my claims. I doubt that Ake's could be similarly verified. The key word is 'reliable'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:05 PM I think he is referring to your sources for the info you provided on Islamic clerics and the Jehovah Witnesses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:47 AM Beeliner: while demanding sources from others perhaps you'd take the trouble to provide one or two yourself. Not an unreasonable suggestion, Peter. I questioned Ake's assertion because it seems baseless. You questioned it also. Which of mine would you so categorize? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM Beeliner: while demanding sources from others perhaps you'd take the trouble to provide one or two yourself. Penny: of course you're right about celibacy but I would have thought it patently obvious that abusers don't honour their vows. My guess (for which I have no statistical foundation) is that paedophiles entering the church because it offers an effective route to their prey is a bigger problem than priests being driven to paedophilia by the celibacy vows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 29 Mar 10 - 09:47 AM ...these crimes are much more widespread within Catholicism than any other religious group... And your source for that is what? Clerical child molestation in Islam is endemic, the rule rather than the exception. Within its hierarchy, murders have been committed over which young boy belongs to which cleric. Jehovah's Witnesses have files on over 25,000 cases of ADMITTED abuse, not mere accusations. All JW's are clergy by definition. Admittedly though, the situation within Catholicism is much more horrendous than most Catholics imagined prior to the recent revelations, and the very worst thing that the Church can do at this point is to attempt a whitewash, which they seem to be on the brink of doing. I hope I'm wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Penny S. Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:50 AM Surely celibacy applies to ALL sexual activity involving another person, and not simply consensual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. So a vow of celibacy should be taken to cover these abuse cases, shouldn't it? It isn't a vow to keep from women. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:12 AM Ake, is it in fact "patently obvious that these crimes are much more widespread within Catholicism than any other religious group"? I haven't seen figures, but would be slightly surprised. And surely celibacy would involve little sacrifice for people whose libidos steer them in directions other than conventional sex, but for whom employment in the catholic church (and in some other institutions) is attractive because of the opportunities for grooming victims? I am sure no-one could argue with John's point about individual responsibility. But I am much more concerned about the catholic church's institutional complicity in facilitating (I trust Joe is OK with that word?) child abuse. Whether this mentality extends to the incumbent pope I don't know. The case against him in Milwaukee looks flakey. (If I understand correctly, he did not hear about the errant priest there until some 20 years after the police had decided there was no case to answer.) But I thought the last two paragraphs from the link in my previous post were compelling: I asked Franz whether it was possible that, as archbishop of Munich in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Joseph Ratzinger was unaware of the scale of abuse in the church. "I think Joseph Ratzinger had to know it," believes Franz. "I cannot imagine he didn't know. I think at this time the Church tried to sweep it under the carpet. They didn't want anyone to speak badly about the Church. If Ratzinger did know, that would certainly be consistent with a pattern of closing ranks that has been evident among the bishops in several countries over the past 15 years or so. That article suggests Ratzinger has disappointed fellow catholics in his own home town. Maybe they have invented their concerns, but as Joe might say: "Why would they?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:54 AM I pretty-much agree with John MacKenzie, too. I completely agree with John that people are personally to blame - that it's people who committed the crimes, and not the Church. And it's people who should be prosecuted. HOWEVER - my point about organizational theory is to illustrate how the Catholic Church operates, which is more-or-less the same as every organization. Most organizational heads live under the illusion that they have moral authority, that they have control of their organizations, and that they have a complete understanding of the essence of their organizations. Most often, that's not true - all they know is management. A bishop's office is no place to learn compassion, because bishops do not have direct contact with situations where compassion is required - mostly what people learn in bishops' offices is organizational structure and the use of power. I referred to the organizational structure of the Catholic Church in response to someone's statement about the Catholic Church "allowing their priests to homosexually (and otherwise) abuse children" [it's interesting to study how the word "allow" is used in this thread]. If we are to understand and fix the problem of child molestation in churches, it's important to understand the authority structure of the churches, which is far different from what many people think it is. Very few churches are able to get complete obedience from their clergy and members, and that's certainly the case in the Catholic Church. It's completely ludicrous to think that the Catholic Church can "allow" its clergy to commit crime; or to think that it can "forbid" such crimes and expect to be obeyed (despite the fact that some bishops DO expect to be obeyed). In understanding all this, it's important to understand that Catholic bishops and clergy and nuns and parishioners are just people - some are bad, and most are mediocre, and some are good. That fact has not been acknowledged in many of the threads discussing this problem, and that is my main objection to these threads. Yes, there are evil bishops and evil functionaries in bishops' offices, but most of the people working in those offices are simply mindless bureaucrats. Yes, there are bishops and functionaries who have committed crimes and deserve prosecution - but there are many others who just didn't see or understand what was happening and followed the demands of the bureaucracy rather than the demands of compassion. For the most part, these latter people paid settlements and dealt with complaints as required, ands even removed most of the offending priests; but failed to do the hard work of setting up procedures that would help prevent this problem from happening again. So, yes, there were bishops and church functionaries who committed crimes by covering up the crimes of molesting and abusing priests (and to make hairsplitting Peter/Fionn happy, I suppose that at this moment there ARE bishops and priests and functionaries who may be committing crimes at this very moment, but most likely most of them did it last week or earlier). Then there were many who more-or-less did what was required and really did nothing criminal. And there were a few who took strong, assertive action at the root of the problem. Interestingly, one of the bishops who did take strong action against child molesters was Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, a homosexual who paid a former lover a blackmail payment of some $486,000. But it appears that Weakland had actually loved the man who eventually blackmailed him, so that's another matter. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM I fully agree with John MacKenzie. These crimes were all perpetrated by individuals who happened to be priests of the Catholic Church.....Let them receive the full force of the law. It is patently obvious,that as these crimes are much more widespread within Catholicism than any other religious group, something different must be happening there. The biggest difference by far is the Celibacy Rule.....how can you simply dismiss it without giving any reason? These priests should be dealt with by the courts, and rather than asking the Pope to resign, we should be asking for a public inquiry into the priesthood, with reference to homosexuality and the celibacy rule. As I said on another thread, these crimes were not committed by the Pope or the Catholic Church. For the most part, they were perpetrated against teenage boys by adult men with erections......Go figure. There is an exceptionally graphic account in today's Times, by a German priest who admits to abusing boys in his care. His story would make your skin creep, but does not give a sense of abuse of power, just a need for sexual gratification, and unbridled lust. These people need to be carefully scrutinised before being allowed access to impressionable pubescent boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,SINSULL Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM Been away - a house concert. As others have observed, I noted the situation at Preble Street because it seems to me to scream hypocrisy. Support and hide priests who engage in homosexual activities while punishing a group that protects child victims for being proactive for homosexual rights especially when the Directors of that group voted against coming out for gay marriage. A visit to Preble Street's website will answer any questions about the legality of their operations far better than I can. Any private donor has the right to choose not to donate. I know many who refuse to donate to the Salvation Army because of their stand on homosexuality. I prefer to recognize the good they do and continue to give them money. The money is only a part of the shelter's budget. In a year when the economy and unemployment has both reduced donations and increased the use of their facilities, this loss of funds hurt. Not to worry - a fundraising effort from sympathisers has replaced more than half the funds and is expected to cover it all. Here is a link to the entire story including the diocese letter and Preble Street's response: http://www.pressherald.com/news/diocese-penalizes-homeless-aid-group_2010-03-23.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM the perpetrator and the victim are equal. Complete and utter bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM ===We are all guilty of some crime and should be forgiving, undrstanding and active in recognising that the perpetrator and the victim are equal. Olly ===== Sorry if I am being a bit thick; but could 'Olly', or somebody. kindly explain to me WTF that is supposed to mean!? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Olly Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:51 AM Every organuisation made up of 100 people has 2% rotten and 2% saints 18% support or corroborate the 2% i.e. close proximity support that gives a net work for eveil or corruption of 20% in any organisation also a potenmtial for good of 20% in any organisation The "floating" 60% dont engage and really are afraid of truth in any situation and prefer to divest their interests and concrn to others. state,Army,Police,Lawes etc etc....The floating,dissengaged group Cause most of the problems due to lack of action when observing wronmg doing . Take for example drugs or petty crimes which people turn the other way about ...this only ebcourages more corruption and allows "permission" by default. We are all guilty of some crime and should be forgiving, undrstanding and active in recognising that the perpetrator and the victim are equal. Olly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:28 AM To view the catholic church as 'an organisation' in the business sense, is depersonalise it, and in so doing, attempt to make the blame institutional and not personal. It wasn't an institution that waved it's dick around and got innocent children to do things they didn't understand to/with it. These were people, not organisations, they are perverted, and they committed a criminal act, for which they are liable in law. Any person or "organisation" that aids and abets them in the concealment of those illegal acts, is ipso facto, also guilty of an offence. Prosecute them all, the law is on the side of the children. Forget the fact that they are churchmen, and remember that they are guilty of corrupt practices. If they were policemen, firemen, or teachers, they would be locked up by now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 28 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM I certainly agree, Penny, that the catholic church is not the only transgressor. I agree too that celibacy is not at the root of the problem. As for Joe's rhetorical question: "Why would they be (evil)?" I am afraid he's making that point to the wrong person. "Evil" is a concept born out of religion and one that I don't recognise. To me it implies a satanic hand at work. Joe has simply made a straw man and knocked it over. As an attempt to skirt round the hierarchical abuse of children (which is what occurs when a bishop stifles a child victim's protesting voice) it is pathetic. The abuse happens and Joe knows it happens. It is sheer fatasy to suggest that it can't be happening on the ground that bishops couldn't be that evil. It is also fantasy to say I see the catholic church as an "unholy conspiracy to lead lead the world to sexual perversion in the name of Jesus." I do see it as an arrogant and manipulative institution that has grown rotten on the excesses of power it has wielded in several countries (but not so much in the US) down several centuries. Here's the view from Ratzinger's home town. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Penny S. Date: 28 Mar 10 - 08:50 AM This morning on BBC Radio 4, the Sunday programme, Trevor Baylis, the inventor of the wind up radio, spoke about his abuse at the - I was going to say hands, but that is anatomically wrong - of a Church of England priest. Nothing said about the marital status of the man, but much made of his being six foot tall and Baylis being only 5 at the time. He was told it was part of worship, and secret, and did not tell until his parents were dead. The priest was moved to another parish at some point. It isn't just the Catholics, and not just to do with celibacy. There was also a piece about the Pope and how he had, as Ratzinger, brought in that sex with someone under 18 was a clerical crime in the church. (Not sure of the exact terminology.) It did seem odd to me that something which would be a crime in the states' views needed separate identification in the church, and did rather imply that men suspected of this crime would not be expected to be dealt with in secular courts. Penny Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:43 AM More to come |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: MGM·Lion Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:55 AM Joe, wasn't it the founder of your Church who declared that it was "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt VII)? You might think your bishops are merely incompetent and have therefore "fucked up" your Church. But the rest of us are of opinion that "By their fruits ye shall know them". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:32 AM I think it's the behaviour of the bishops that matters, not whether you want to call them 'fucked up' or 'evil'. The end result is the same. Either way, the abuse still happens and the Church still has some responsibility for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:25 AM Nope, Peter, the only way to make sense out of the Catholic Church is to view it as an organization, and measure it by the principles of organizational theory. I know you prefer to see it as some sort of horrible, unholy conspiracy to lead lead the world to sexual perversion in the name of Jesus, but your conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense. People just aren't that evil. They're fucked up, and I'll be the first to say the bishops are fucked up - but they're not evil. Why would they be? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 27 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM Joe, try to stop thinking of your church as a commercial enterprise. Forget its huge banking interests etc and try to imagine it as a fellowship; a source of moral authority. It might take a leap of imagination, but if you go down that track you might begin to remember that bishops, cardinals and popes take upon themselves significant pastoral duties as well as budget-control responsibilities, resources management and all the other stuff associated with business admin. Bishops like to consider themselves a little bit more than "upper management". Have a look at the case of John Magee. Is he one of those bishops whom you assume to be "just incompetent"? His perverse handling of two abuse cases became the subject of a report by Ireland's National Board for Child Protection. The report's criticisms were so withering that Magee's diocese threatened legal action if it were published. In the face of a public outcry the report waspublished, eventually, and Magee promptly stood down from his clerical duties. He had no alternative. After dithering for a year, Ratzinger has at last accepted Magee's resignation, and Magee now basks in the title of "emeritus bishop." It would be stretching things to present Magee as an innocent abroad. He spent some 20 years at the very heart of the Vatican, serving for much of that time as private secretary to successive popes. Could he have spent so close to the throne of St Peter for so long, without learning to distinguish between right and wrong? "Just incompetent"? I would be surprised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:00 PM I think we're talking a different language, Smokey - or maybe we have a completely different understanding of the authority of the Catholic Church. Crime exists in all societies - and the Catholic Church is a society. Crime is an aberrance, a type of conduct that is socially unacceptable. It is not to the advantage of any society or organization to accept aberrant behavior, because it interferes with the operation of the organization. Bishops (with few exception) don't want child molestation or abuse to exist within their domains - it just doesn't make sense for them to want such a thing. Bishops are the Upper Management within the Catholic Church, and there's an interesting phenomenon about Upper Managers - they expect to be obeyed (and outsiders expect that they will be obeyed) - but they measure obedience by success, not by actual obedience to their dictates. Now, if you've worked in a bureaucracy for any amount of time, you know that's absurd - subordinates pretend to accept whatever a manager says, and then they go and do whatever they think is best. If that didn't happen, organizations would never survive the harebrained theories that managers come up with. Managers live in a different world, so most often this passive-aggressive disobedience of management desires happens very smoothly (and it's a good thing it does). And more often than not, the results are successful, because the people who do the work want their work to succeed. There's a problem with this, though: miscreants can also take advantage of this system of operation. In the Catholic Church, the child abusers and molesters are ostensibly the most obedient to the dictates of the hierarchy. It's well-known that child molesters are very charming and convincing - that's how they get kids to go along with them. Their charm also works with Upper Management (read: bishops). Child molesters and abusers are experts at ass-kissing, and bishops (and all Upper Managers) are very susceptible to ass-kissing. Upper Managers aren't programmed to react positively to people who say, "Hey, wait! This is wrong!" - so they're much more likely to respond positively to the ass-kissing of the miscreants. This absurdity works the same in any large bureaucracy - it's just that the Catholic Church is the Ultimate Bureaucracy, since it is old, huge, and entrenched in tradition and illusions of authority. So, not only is the Catholic Church the Ultimate Bureaucracy, it is the Ultimately Absurd Bureaucracy. I don't think most of the bishops are bad men, even though they mishandled the child abuse and molestation scandal so miserably. It's just that they are Consummate Bureaucrats, people who are almost completely incapable of thinking outside the box. Child molestation and abuse isn't supposed to happen - when it does happen, the Catholic bishops are utterly incapable of dealing with it. And so, we have this horrible mess. Since the 1960s, many brilliant and dedicated people have spoken out against the problem of abuse and molestation in the Catholic Church. And for the most part, the bishops didn't begin to listen until the beginning of the millennium, when it began to cost them money. But most of these bishops aren't bad people - they're just incompetent. I guess I have to put this in strong language so people understand: the Catholic Church is profoundly fucked up - but that doesn't mean the people in it are bad. The administration of the Catholic Church is a huge, absurd bureaucracy. But it's not bad. It's just fucked up. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:59 PM Fair comment, Joe, though I think you knew exactly what I meant - 'allow' is perhaps the wrong word. However, it's happening and it has been covered up by an unknown number of trusted Bishops, Cardinals or whatever, employed by and working on behalf of the Catholic Church. It has certainly been effectively 'allowed' to continue by some Church officials. How far up (and out) that corruption has spread remains to be seen. Why indeed would anyonedo that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:24 PM There you go again, Smokey. The Catholic Church doesn't "allow" priests to abuse children. That just doesn't make sense. Why would anyone do that? I can see Sinsull's question about bishops withholding funds from a shelter; but I can also see that the bishops are between a rock and a hard place, since they're required to support the party line. While most of the homeless charities in Sacramento have Catholic roots, they have been careful to disassociate themselves from the diocese. We do get funds from the diocese at the women's center, but we make sure we're not dependent on those funds. For that matter, it's probably wise for most charities not to be dependent on any one source for funds - you never know when a source is going to back out. Still, we don't advertise what we do that the bishop and other donors might not approve of. That's one of the risks nonprofits have to take - depending on money that often has strings attached. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM The immorality, as I see it, lies in the Church disapproving of gay marriage with one hand, while the other is allowing their priests to homosexually (and otherwise) abuse children. It looks hypocritical to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:03 PM None inferred, Smokey. As I said, though not naive, my exposure to life's underside has been limited, thank the Lord. Nor have I lived in the UK. Nor, when I have visited there, have I seen many young people whom I would suspect, by their appearance and demeanor, of being child prostitutes. I certainly do not doubt that they exist in substantial numbers, but I can't help wondering how the law deals with such a situation. I still fail to see, however, any 'immorality' on the part of the RCC in picking and choosing the social organizations it wishes to aid financially, based on those organizations' associations. Personally, I've always considered same-sex marriage a non-issue, because the solution seems so obvious. You just have, at the state level, civil unions for everyone, leaving the traditional aspects of marriage to the churches entirely. Let those denominations, and independent churches, who are willing to marry same-sex couples do so, and let those who refuse continue to refuse. Problem solved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 27 Mar 10 - 06:15 PM No disrespect intended Beeliner. I'm in the UK, and the great majority of our child prostitutes are runaways. It's a problem here. Maybe the opportunities for employment are different here. The connection with clerical child abuse is the morality of the Catholic Church, or lack of it, in its priorities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 27 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM Smoke, I left home at 17, not due to conflict with my parents, just because I wanted my own life, worked until I was 65, held a wide variety of jobs, some of which I was better at than others, some of which I liked more than others. During that time, I applied for unemployment maybe two or three times, but was never without work long enough to collect any benefits. Prostitution never crossed my mind. Nor can I imagine that it would have had I been homosexually oriented. Please understand, I'm not knocking the shelter, and I support, both morally and financially, such institutions. I just don't see the connection with clerical child abuse. Nor do I understand why it would shelter runaway minors. Is that legal? I dunno, just asking. Maybe I've led too 'sheltered' a life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 27 Mar 10 - 04:59 PM in which case they would be expected to be self-sustaining like any adult. Indeed, Beeliner- the noble profession of prostitution is crying out for such motivated young people. Churches are free to fund or not to fund as they wish. In this particular case it seems to be their wish that is being questioned, not their freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 27 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM Well, call me a hardhearted so-and-so, but I don't see (1) what this has to do with clerical child abuse, (2) what excatly 'under the Preble Street umbrella' means if, as you say, the shelter has no control over the advocacy group. They are either affiliated or they are not. Runaway teens should be returned to their parents, unless of course they are being physically abused. If they simply don't like the standards of behavior their parents impose, they should seek legal emancipation, in which case they would be expected to be self-sustaining like any adult. It seems to me that any church or religious body should be free to fund or not to fund as they wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 27 Mar 10 - 12:19 PM Here in Maine we are shaking our heads in wonder. The Catholic Church has revoked funds pledged to the Preble Street Shelter which offers food and housing to homeless men, abused women and runaway teens. They are desperate for money - my company regularly fundraises for them and donates food and clothing. In addition, they were forced to return any unspent money. A Homeless Advocacy group under the Preble Street umbrella supported the Gay Marriage Amendment in Maine. Preble Street's directors voted not to. They have no control over the Homeless Advocacy group. The group pointed out that most of the runaway teens it helps are gay and escaping families who can't except them. The bishop says they have violated a written agreement promising to uphold the church's moral and social values. Meantime the shelters remain full, the food still goes out the door and children are provided a safe haven but with less dollars. They suffer over an inexplicable political statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:45 AM He also said that anyone who abused children should have a mill stone tied around their neck and they been thrown into the sea. No he didn't. You mean Mark 9:42, and Jesus was warning against something rather more general than what you most likely mean by "abuse". He would probably have seen opening a bank account for a child as being just as bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:10 AM I think it's because of the good works the church does, and the good morals that it preaches, that this is so shocking. Problem now is to prevent a seige mentality from taking complete hold, otherwise the chances of Catholic churchgoers looking at it dispassionately, will rapidly decrease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: banjoman Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:03 AM I have read and re read this thread, and having been a practising catholic for almost 67 years I have to admit to having serious doubts as to the how the church is governed . There can be no excuse whatever for the abuse of children either within the church or outside and the perpertrators of such actions should be brought to account regardless of their position. However, it is easy to forget about the vast amount of good works being done at grass roots level in the church both by clergy and laity. The actions of the perverted few must not be allowed to obscure this. Overall, my thinking has come around to believeing that the original message of Christ was a very simple one of love and respect for ones neighbour, and that this has become obscured over time by pomp and ceremony - a Pharisitacal approach? - which is exactly what Jesus preached against. He also said that anyone who abused children should have a mill stone tied around their neck and they been thrown into the sea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:36 AM From the link at the top of the thread: In December, Sean Brady told a reporter that he would feel obliged to resign if any act or omission on his part "had allowed or meant that other children were abused". If the cardinal needs a little more encouragement before deciding to yield up the trappings and privileges of his high office (as he will inevitably have to do) it looks as though he is getting it. The (London) Times, 27 March 2010 In this case Ratzinger has managed to make his mind up within a matter of weeks, which is real progress. It took him more than a year to decide that he needed to accept the resignation of John Magee, the bishop of Cloyne and previously secretary to Paul VI and John Paul II. Interesting though that whereas Magee apologised and stood down as soon as his lamentable handling of abuse allegations was exposed, Brady is clinging on until the bitter end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM "THis was in the olden days. Priests can date women? Or is it seminarians? When were you there? I am all for it, but I would like to see them married if they choose. mg" WHAT was in the olden days? Your scenario or mine? Who said priests could date women? Junior college level students in seminaries are about as far from the priesthood as pre-med students are from being physicians. They have taken no religious vows whatever, and I don't know of any seminary for DIOCESAN priests that places limits on their social life during their free time, within the bounds of decency, of course. Strip clubs and crack houses are definite no-nos. I was there a long time ago, and only briefly, but I agree with you that the Church should admit married men to the priesthood, and it does, and always has, in all of the Eastern rites, and more recently in the Western or 'Latin' rite under certain circumstances, mainly clergymen from other denominations wishing to convert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:20 PM Wait until these investigations reach developing nations..especially those with AIDS. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:06 PM It's interesting that they make more fuss about a normal relationship. Brainwashed children can (or could) be silenced, and animals can't talk. Adult women are consequently perceived as more of a threat to their credibility, and therefore their pocket. That's why I see the (allegedly) large compensation payouts as a positive thing - hit them where it hurts and they might even do something about it. Eventually. Not fast enough for me though - even as I write, I know that somewhere there is an innocent child going through (real) hell at the hands of some disgusting pig in a cassock. It could be prevented, but only with drastic measures. Bring 'em on, I say. Quickly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM THis was in the olden days. Priests can date women? Or is it seminarians? When were you there? I am all for it, but I would like to see them married if they choose. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:23 PM "Take a delicate boy, scare him to death about sex with women and hellfire etc.etc. Pray constantly for his vocation. Put him in a seminary at age 13. Don't give him any contact with women." Huh? What planet are you posting from? It's been my experience that MOST - possibly not all - seminaries not only allow but even encourage their students to have active social lives, including dating women if they wish to do so. That was certainly the case at St. Bede's in Peru, Illinois when I was there. We had dances frequently, the girls from the local hospital being invited. (No, we DIDN'T dance with one another if they failed to show up!) The reason for this is - or should be - obvious. If one's priestly vocation is in doubt, it is better to recognize that before rather than after ordination. Now, Trappist monks and similar institutions may have different rules. But I do not know of much child abuse in such venues, nor have I heard of 13-year-olds being accepted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM here is a real scandal..the Cuban priest who cavorted on the beach. Now he was relieved of his administrative duties, could not say Mass in the parish etc. They had no problem dealing with a man and a consenting woman. That is the horror to them. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1896581,00.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:17 PM To me it is understandable. Take a delicate boy, scare him to death about sex with women and hellfire etc.etc. Pray constantly for his vocation. Put him in a seminary at age 13. Don't give him any contact with women. It could be quite possible he does not see that as a problem. In the meantime his sexual development is stunted, he is perpetually a 13 year old scared to death of many things and perversion just oozes out. I bet a good 90% of the abusers don't really realize what they did, and if they do, consider it superior to having fall into the snares of a woman. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Big Mick Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:13 PM In my circles I don't hear many saying that those calls for justice are being destructive. There are some that wish they didn't have to hear it, and some that are angry at those piling on because they would see us gone, but virtually every person in my own faith community wants this disease rooted out. In my own opinion, and it is purely that, I think that this stuff makes a very good case for allowing married clergy, and for the ordination of women. What we are suffering from is a problem that has become inbred culturally. It is, in my opinion, an inability to acknowledge that men don't have all the answers. What I don't appreciate is those with an agenda against the Church, to use this to try and undermine the good that is done. I think of my time spent going to Mass, and traipsing the grounds of Boys Town, USA, and soaking myself in the legacy of Father Flanagan. He was a fine man that cared about kids. His work goes on today. There are many cases of Catholic religious men and women working to alleviate poverty around the world. I look at the work of Mother Theresa, and can find no fault in it. So, Csister, I want the disgusting stench of the actions of these people purged. I want the culture changed. And I want to get on with my quest to understand that which is not, IMO, understandable. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM The church helped create these sick animals, from boyhood up. You can't just root out bad priests and the worse bishops. You have to start rooting out sick mothers and fathers and nuns. Supposedly St. Michael the Archangel came down from heaven and told people to keep what is good about their religions and throw out the rest. What is cruel is the stance on divorce and birth control. what used to be good was at least a beautiful liturgy and beautiful songs. Well, that has changed forever. I don't know how people become fanatics, but that is what we have to find out. I was raised to be a fanatic, but it didn't take. I have to force myself to do whatever Catholic stuff I do or don't do, except that I do believe in prayers in Latin and tithing and being a decent person. I also believe in encouraging marriage, including for gay couples, but not ruining people's lives with the laws about it. And can't Catholics think for themselves? Not those my age and older. Maybe younger ones, but they had better still come up with the "right" orthodox answers. You can think but only if you come up with what they want you to think. So it is a big mess. Happy Easter. And be sure and make the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday because you will get a plenary indulgance. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:00 PM [i]Yes Peter. My prior post was made in bitter irony - but I didn't make that clear.[/i] I thought so, I thought you couldn't be serious. It was a good time to make the point about the victims though. Because that's where the focus should be, they have been denied too long and they deserve at least some healing by seeing their pain acknowledged and those responsible, those responsible for the abuse and those responsible for sheltering the abusers, held accountable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CSister Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:47 PM Hey Mick, no probs. My fault. But in any event - I really appreciated your post from a devout Catholic's perspective. That's the kind of stuff that I want to hear from Catholics! The bulk of my family were Catholic, and I have great empathy for anyone with a deep spiritual calling. But I really don't dig the idea that those of us angered by these revelations of corruption, are somehow being "destructive". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM John, I am assuming you are being facetious. For those who don't know "suffer" in this use means "allow. Although I vaguely remember a horror/mystery novel based on the misinterpretation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM I feel compelled to quote an excerpt from the handbook of the Christian faith. "Suffer the little children" It certainly rings hollow, in the light of what those poor kids went through, at the hands of those perverts. To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington, 'Just because a man wears clerical robes, it doesn't mean it's safe to leave him alone with your kids.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Big Mick Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:18 PM Csister, I was composing when you posted. I didn't realize it was a tongue in cheek comment, but I should have. Still, my comment stands. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM The relevant bits have been outlined in the original document. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Big Mick Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM Isn't it time we all simply let go of the past and stopped moaning? I am not going to go back and see who posted this. I am a Catholic man, and I want to state unequivecolly that we certainly MUST NOT let go of the past and stop moaning. While I never witnessed any of this, and the harshest critics still must admit that the percentage of priests that did this is below 5%, still we must root out the perpetrators, and destroy the culture that permitted this to happen. That is the only chance there is for redemption and to rebuild the confidence in the Church. But most importantly, we owe a debt to those injured. The Church, and ones faith, is where one should feel safest and most secure. During the time children are asking essential questions and becoming adults, is the time they are most vulnerable. These "priests" that took advantage of these children are sick animals and must be purged. The culture in our Church that hid this, and did nothing must be changed. There can be no equivocation, or mitigation, of this guilt. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,CSister Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:12 PM "It's important to the victims that their pain is recognised and the injustice done to them by the original denial of their claims is rectified. The church and the state, we all in fact, owe them that much at least." Yes Peter. My prior post was made in bitter irony - but I didn't make that clear. I don't think it's time we all stopped moaning by any means. That'd be like Hitler saying: "Hey c'mon guys. So, we made a bit of a boo boo! Get over it man. Can't we all just have a group hug now?" This stuff has been going on forever, it's destroyed numberless lives. There is no way to be 'positive' about this stuff if we keep trying to deny victims ongoing suffering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM From the Guardian article linked in a previous post: "The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication. They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials." I only just glanced at the actual document. It is pretty heavy slogging, but I might try to read it later. In fairness to the Church, however, I find it hard to believe that any victim of clerical abuse was required to "take an oath of secrecy AT THE TIME OF MAKING A COMPLAINT.". Somehow that just doesn't ring true. In such cases, the bishop might suggest that the victim or his/her parents allow the Church to handle the matter internally. If this was agreed to, only then would the oath of secrecy apply, and that would be in the interest of a fair and unbiased investigation and hearing, and would apply equally to everyone concerned. No Church official including the pope himself would have the authority to require such an oath if the victim chose to decline that option and go to the police; in fact, attempting to impose such an oath might well be a crime in itself. Now, if the victim agreed to have the Church settle the matter internally, and the result was a 'whitewash', then it's doubtful that the victim would feel obligasted by such an oath and highly unlikely that any excommunication would ensue. Indeed, in many such cases one of the parents might not even be Catholic, in which case threats of excommunication would be meaningless. I may be splitting hairs here, I just don't believe that the situation would have been as stated in the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:02 PM Isn't it time we all simply let go of the past and stopped moaning? It's important to the victims that their pain is recognised and the injustice done to them by the original denial of their claims is rectified. The church and the state, we all in fact, owe them that much at least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:45 PM MG, you are quite right, you can find 'them' anywhere, but the dog-collar seems to attract more than its fair share, and the church seems to knowingly provide opportunities. Personally I'm in no doubt that it's still happening. They don't stop unless the opportunities are removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:50 PM Here is an explanation that is what I have been trying to say. It is not just random, oh you will find them in any religion, occupation etc. It is endemic. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM I agree CS. The problem for me is that it is more than likely that paedophile priests are still being shielded, shuffled around parishes, and a threat to children. So no one noticed John XXIII mention of bestiality??? I thought for sure the animal rights activists would jump in with both feet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM Thanks for that, Sinsull. I notice they covered all eventualities: "But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'." Very holy, I'm sure. Even if it never actually happened with animals, they obviously didn't trust their priests not to do it. And they thought of it. What next, I wonder? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Crowsister Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM Gee, how are we all supposed to keep 'constructive' about this stuff, when folk will keep insisting on revealing profound institutional corruption in the Church? Isn't it time we all simply let go of the past and stopped moaning? Seriously though. Paradoxically I'm not exactly surprised, but yet I'm still utterly gobsmacked.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection In the early 60s, bishops were threatened with excommunication by John XXIII for making public charges of sex abuse against priests. This remained in effect in 2003 under direction of Cardinal Ratzinger. "Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" My point is that Ratzinger was then operating under rules from the Vatican. Excommunication is the harshest punishment the church can inflict on a believer. His choice regarding dealing with abusive priest,guided by his faith, would have been clear. Observation not opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:20 PM I'm not at all sure "dragging the Church into the 21st century" would be a good thing. Dragging it into the 21st century criminal justice system would be a good thing.. Still, it's happening, albeit far too slowly. It's good to see that the rest of Europe is waking up to reality too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 24 Mar 10 - 01:26 PM And another head rolls as the Pope accepts the resignation of the Bishop of Cloyne. Irish Times The Guardian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:35 AM By the way. Peter Laban, I wonder if you are the Peter Laban who is a fine piper and with whom I've crossed swords elsewhere (on the subject of Howard instruments). In this thread, at least, we seem to be in tune! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:54 AM Sorry Peter, I mistakenly attributed beeliner's words to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM Dutch cardinal Simonis stated in an interview about he abuse cases that have come to light : 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst'. This is the excuse often quoted as one coming from post Nazi Germany when asked how the holocaust was allowed to take place. 'We didn't know'. Why the cardinal used the German phrase which has so much baggage and associations with hypocrisy in the Netherlands instead of a statement in Dutch I don't know. It seems to me it's not the best choice of words in the given situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM Smokey ....Joe was wrong in his remark, you are smart, insightful and always a delight to debate with. Peter, I'm not at all sure "dragging the Church into the 21st century" would be a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Mar 10 - 08:36 PM Too right, but one wonders just how much choice popes actually have over it. I'm surprised he took the job on in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 23 Mar 10 - 07:14 PM A papal resignation could be a real possibility here. And if that occurs, it could be the best thing to happen to Catholicism in centuries. It could drag the Church out of the dark ages and into, if not the 21st or even 20th, at least into the 18th or 19th century. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:37 PM "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man." That's a cheap comment, Joe, and a personal insult. I would expect better than that from a man of your experience and knowledge. However, I am not offended and this is not a battle of wits. For the record, I agree with the majority of what you say on this subject and admire your stance in many ways. I have come to respect you through these discussions and have learned much from your insight of the Catholic Church, for which I'm grateful. I don't know about you, but I think respect should be a two way street. Just because I don't subscribe to all your beliefs and opinions does not make me witless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM I don't know about Poland but in the Netherlands there are now 238 members of the RC clergy who's names are being mentioned in connection to child abuse, including sexual abuse and physical violence. source : De Volkskrant, today |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM Anyone here know how this is playing out in Poland? With a culture of secrecy driven by both the Church and its late boss's allies in the CIA, there are higher political stakes there than in Ireland or the Netherlands. The buck can't just stop with Ratzinger - desacralizing the memory of John Paul II would strike a blow at the ideology of American capitalism. You can bet that Reagan's minders knew exactly how much kiddie-fiddling their pal in the Vatican was conniving at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: frogprince Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM "Many here equate all conservatism with evil," I would hope that you can realize that that is a gross overstatement, to say the least. A number of topics under discussion here have brought out the fact that many of us feel that too much of the so-called conservatism on the current political scene is actually extremist, regressive, anti-intellectual, and inhumane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Greg F. Date: 23 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM To what extent do secretaries & accountants abuse children? I wasn't aware that clerical help was more prone to this than anyone else. What we have hear is another example of the "Culture Of Fear" that has taken over the U.S. & is rapidly engulfing the rest of the world. Reliable statistics establish that child molestation is less prevalent than decades ago. Yet people get into hysterics. Is it an abominable cime? Yes. Is it The End Of Civilisation As We Know It? Hardly. Get A Grip! We've been Scared Witless long enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 23 Mar 10 - 09:02 AM I don't know what you're sighing about, Joe. There were two problems with your statement that Smokey quoted {{sigh}}. First, as you reluctantly conceded only after Smokey pointed it out (not that it needed pointing out), the abuse and cover-ups we are talking about are those perpetrated specifically by Catholics. And I think we might take it that your CEO, old Ratzinger himself, is also favourably disposed to the cover-up culture, otherwise he would have had the decency to apologise for it in his recent message to Ireland's Catholics. Second, "took" in your statement should be deleted and replaced with "are taking". Or are you really satisfied that nothing remains to be uncovered? (That would be surprising given that the Irish experience is encouraging victims to come forward in several other countries.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:44 AM We must consider what is realistically achievable here. I should certainly be possible to get the celibacy rule ammended, but changing the core beliefs of the Catholic Church is a different matter all together, and even if this WAS achievable,it is probably not in the interests of society. Many of the views promoted by the Catholic Church are beneficial to the long term survival of humanity and many of the views expounded by "progressives" and "liberals" have been found to create more problems than they solve The Church is by its very nature "conservative" and should remain so, if not it becomes simply a cult. Some of the basic beliefs on how we can survive as a species are not and should not be up for debate. Many here equate all conservatism with evil, but this is not the case, there is at least as much evil committed by so called "progressive" govts worldwide, as is committed in the name of religion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:21 AM What's the phrase? "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man." G'nite. Oh, and 100!!!!!! -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:08 AM [sigh] Whatever, Smokey. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:20 AM You quote me partially and out of context Joe. I did not say there is no need to understand the reasons behind child molestation. The rest speaks for itself; the perpetrators are Catholic therefore your statement obviously isn't true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:48 AM A direct quote from you, Smokey: Knowing what motivates the perpetrators won't achieve that. It won't achieve anything; the majority of child molesters don't stop whilst ever they have the opportunity to continue, whatever their motivation may be. I said this: "NO CATHOLIC favors the crimes of molestation and abuse and coverups that took place in the Catholic Church." You claim this is blatantly not true. Your evidence? Why would anyone favor crimes of molestation and abuse, and covering up those crimes? Well, I suppose the perpetrators might, but that's obvious. I suppose you could say THAT about almost any crime. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:13 AM Somebody above said there's no need to understand the reasons behind child molestation. No they didn't! If you don't understand a criminal activity thoroughly, you'll never be able to figure out how to control that sort of crime. Not true. Shooting "bad guys" with guns just isn't very effective. Also not true, though no-one has suggested anything of the sort, and I certainly wouldn't condone it. NO CATHOLIC favors the crimes of molestation and abuse and coverups that took place in the Catholic Church. Blatantly not true, otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 22 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM I would be willing to wear a Kick me I'm Catholic sign. I grew up in a household where my mother was very attracted to religious abuse and caused great problems for our family. I think the church rewards this behavior and people (she was a Baptist by birth with a Baptist preacher father) are attracted to sicknesses in the church like moths to a flame. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: olddude Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM AS a Catholic, one can only hope that changes occur sooner than later. So many years and still the abuse goes on ... get the church up to date in the 21 century and get rid of the Celibacy thing, it does no good for anyone. Allow women to be priest, do the things to make the church a better place for everyone and a safer place for everyone ... one can only hope |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:49 PM Peter K (Fionn)- you say The problems are not always evident in the US - particularly on the east and west coasts - where there has long been a readiness to question church authority. I see it a bit differently. It seems to me that progressive Catholics are more at home in the Midwest U.S., which has a higher percentage of American-born priests. For a century, the east and west coasts were served by a large number of "The FBI" (foreign-born Irish priests), and they set a repressive tone to many of the dioceses in the east and west. The last of the Irish priests came in the late 1970's, and then priests came from third world countries. In recent years, most American-born priests have come from conservative seminaries, and the progressive seminaries (like the one I attended) have closed. I've gotten to the point where I don't trust a priest under fifty years old - and it seems the remaining Irish priests are the progressive ones nowadays. I'm not sure there's much hope for us Catholic progressives. We keep trying, but it seems we're dying off. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:21 PM "celibacy is a red herring. The real problem is the corrupting effect of power." I agree that celibacy is a red herring. But I'd say rather that the 'real problem' is that positions of power are attractive to corrupt people. And moreso positions of unquestioned power over vulnerable kids, are going to be extremely attractive to paedophiles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Wolfhound person Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:58 AM IIRC, Peter, altar girls were one of the prohibitions in England that came in as we were heading for the exit. Female eucharistic ministers were bad enough; the same as with female Anglican clergy now, there were church members who couldn't cope with this, even if the individuals in question were nuns. Paws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:24 AM I posted before seeing Wolfhound person's very perceptive comments, showing and explaining the extent to which attitudes can differ between one country, or one diocese, and another. Incidentally my daughter was an altar girl in a catholic parish – her choice, with no influence or interference from me – and encountered no problems at all. (A priest resigned, but it was on account of an allegation that was never publicly pursued.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:58 AM Indefensible as it is, celibacy is a red herring. The real problem is the corrupting effect of power. As far as I know, the catholic herarchy's alleged gift of absolving sin exists nowhere else in Christianity, reformed or unreformed, and puts priests above and beyond the laity. A step nearer divinity. Priestly power is now ebbing away by the day, as catholics increasingly challenge the myth. As their power fades - and already we see the cardinals, bishops and priests being pushed on to territory where they never intended to be - the child-abuse issue will recede too. The problems are not always evident in the US - particularly on the east and west coasts - where there has long been a readiness to question church authority. In post-colonial Ireland, by comparison, it was a very different story, even in living memory - as evidenced by Peter Mullan's film "The Magdalene Sisters" (2003) set around 1964. The institutional abuse seen in that film in homes run by the Sisters of Mercy might well have been found in similar non-church institutions at that time. What is far more shocking is the film's depiction of what happens when a whole society places itself in cowed subservience to a rotten hierarchy. Only a few years earlier Dublin's Archbishop McQuade had required the dismissal of a public librarian on the basis that as a protestant she should not be in a position to influence young minds. In those days, the archishop could not return from overseas travel without being greeted at Dublin airport by the prime minister. (Hard to imagine in northern California, Joe?!) Ireland's emergence from the dark ages has been faster than the speed of light, and many other countries will have taken note. The catholic hierarchy is being reduced to its proper place in society regardless of the Vatican's resistance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:03 AM "Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age" Yeah, then those who find they have a genuine spiritual calling (and there will always be those who are called to seek) will actively seek out and find their way to a path that helps them personally evolve as human beings, rather than cleaving unquestioningly to a dogma instilled from infancy by whatever religious institution happens to weild the greatest power and influence over their community. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 22 Mar 10 - 06:45 AM "Besides which, I'm of the opinion that indoctrinating children into believing that they have to live the rest of their lives depending on an 'imaginary friend' (and other such drivel) is, in itself, no less than child abuse. Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age by all means, but to attempt to take away that choice is abuse of an insidious and cruel kind." I have to say that I agree with that, 'Smokey' (although I'm not sure that I would have expressed it quite as 'robustly' as you). If it was up to me all education would be secularised immediately. We pay far too much respect, and give far too much leeway, to organised religions of all kinds. And now that one of the largest of those organised religions has been shown that it cannot be trusted with the physical and mental well-being of our children it's time for society re-evaluate the role of those religions within it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Wolfhound person Date: 22 Mar 10 - 06:08 AM I've been trying to keep out of these threads, but I'd like to add a UK perspective to a few points. I think Joe O is a) very fortunate in the dioceses he describes, b) describing a tolerant and forward looking type of church setup that quite frankly I just don't recognise, c) sounds like a real Christian person, doing his his best. I got out in the mid-80s after 15 years as an active lay adult in England, when it became apparent that the church (over here at least) was rapidly lurching back from the progress made in Vatican 2. Self & spouse were always on the extreme liberal wing, and read widely - the names that spring to mind were Schillebeeckx (sp?) and Kung. But always lurking in the background was the figure of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - a certain Cardinal Ratzinger - who even back then seemed to be applying the brakes as hard as he could. It became easier for him after the demise of Paul VI. We were friends with an ex-professor from one of the Rome colleges - Hubert Richards - whose original surname indicated his German origins; and he was also warning of the conservatism to come if his compatriot reached high places. The English church is not that autonomous, Joe: IMO there is much more emphasis on the universality and uniformity aspects of the church, and bishops have had their knuckles rapped for not falling into line. Many like us, who could no longer see any forward movement, simply gave up. Now we live in an area of England where Catholicism never died out: it was tolerated and hidden but always there through the proscribed years. That gives a totally different slant to the perception of local clergy, who still (OK some of them, probably) have a fortress mentality. Any innovation is regarded with deep suspicion. As to the child abuse thing, my spouse, who went through the whole education system / altar boy thing, says he never encountered anything of the sort himself. Nor did I perceive any oddity in the various priests we encountered. It did however leave him with a very odd view of "normal" man-woman relations which has taken many years to accept and reverse. Not aided by stupidities like the small print of Humanae Vitae. I was long ago forced to the conclusion that the celibacy rule (which is a late, and arguably spurious add-on) did nothing for the healthy development of Catholics in general and their pastors in particular. Paws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:34 AM Even Catholic priests must make their confession. To whom did the guilty parties, confess this one? Or did they in commomn with most others I know of, confess to a few small omissions, get absolution. Then go right on sinning? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM "Catholics are reeling from the effects of this scandal. But is wallowing in guilt the only thing society will allow us to do now? Should we all walk around with "kick me when I'm down" signs pinned to our backs?" Is anybody blaming people who happen to be Catholic for Church policies? I know I'm not and have never done so. Though I think you Joe, may have suggested something along those lines in arguing elsewhere that all Catholic Irish people must have in some way been complicit to abuse carried out by Priests and the cover-ups organised by the Church, and thus equally - as individuals - bare the burden of guilt for the Church's actions. As for guilt, yes absolutely. Anyone who has been a knowing and willful accomplice to the abuse of children should be feeling very guilty about it. But most especially those in positions of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:36 AM I don't think there's enough information to make a decision about Brady's actions in 1975. It may be one of those "looks worse than it was" situations, or it could be an intentional coverup. I'll wait and see. The situation Brady found himself in in 1975 is known as was his function and role in it. Cardinal Brady himself has declared that armed with hindsight he should have acted differently. The victims of Brendan Smyth obviously disagree. Specialists in canon law like msgr Maurice Dooley on the other hand are quick to declare that the Cardinal did nothing wrong at all at all. Whether or not one feels Seán Brady should have acted in 1975 hinges on how you weigh the obligation of those involved to report the abuse to the Gardaí as opposed to swearing two abused children to secrecy. You may or may not choose to consider the argument that at that time people didn't know how to deal with child abuse (see an interesting letter to the editor in Saturday's Irish Times). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Mar 10 - 02:38 AM Greg names Dale Fushek, founder of the popular Life Teen youth ministry program; along with popular teacher and a best-selling religious author John Powell, SJ. I'd add Covenant House founder Fr. Bruce Ritter to the list. These were very popular, nationally-known priests who worked with youth and molested them. These men were loved and idolized - and they betrayed the young people who loved them. As I said above, the "weirdness count" among priests is maybe 20-30% - these are the priests I wouldn't trust my children with. Trouble is, the ones who are the most prolific child molesters, usually don't seem weird at all. They are most often very charmong and convincing, and they seem to have the highest of morals The most successful child molesters aren't the type who condemn people for immorality - it's the weird ones who do that, and that makes them suspect. I have to say that there isn't a high "weirdness count" among bishops - for some reason, a good number of bishops (maybe 20-30%) are just bastards. There are plenty of bishops who are darn good people, but a 20-30% bastard count is awfully high - and it affects a whole lot of Catholics if their bishop is a bastard. As far as I can tell, it is the bastard bishops who are most likely to cover up stuff like child molestation - power is the primary consideration of a bastard bishop, and a child molestation scandal is a serious threat to a bishop's power. Now, there are situations in every diocese that the bishop should have handled better, but most of those were honest mistakes or things that looked far worse than they actually were. I would guess there were ten to twenty out of some 200 dioceses in the United States where there were systematic coverups of child molestation. Please remember, also, that each diocese is largely autonomous. The Pope has very limited control over what goes on in dioceses other than his own, which is Rome. The news coverage has been such that it seems like all priests were molesters, and all dioceses had coverups. The problem was (and is) very serious, but it is not universal. It does seem to have been far more widespread in Ireland, due to a long chain of dictatorial archbishops in Dublin. The first message in the thread questions actions in 1975 by Cardinal Sean Brady of Armagh, who is now Primate (chief bishop) of all Ireland. I don't think there's enough information to make a decision about Brady's actions in 1975. It may be one of those "looks worse than it was" situations, or it could be an intentional coverup. I'll wait and see. Somebody above said there's no need to understand the reasons behind child molestation. I can't agree with that. If you don't understand a criminal activity thoroughly, you'll never be able to figure out how to control that sort of crime. Shooting "bad guys" with guns just isn't very effective. But still I wonder what the Catholic Church is supposed to do with all of this. There's no doubt that the crime was significant and widespread, and Catholics are reeling from the effects of this scandal. But is wallowing in guilt the only thing society will allow us to do now? Should we all walk around with "kick me when I'm down" signs pinned to our backs? Nobody in this or any other Mudcat thread, has tried to deny the molestation incidents or the coverups. People in this thread have been jumping all over all Catholics, holding sacred traditions up to ridicule, and generally battering those few of us who dare to try to bring some balance to the discussion. Crime happens all around us. Some people direct their entire focus on the terrible things in our society, and they live their lives in fear and mistrust. They accuse others of being "soft on crime," implying that those who don't dwell on crime must be in favor of it. NOBODY favors crime. NO CATHOLIC favors the crimes of molestation and abuse and coverups that took place in the Catholic Church. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Greg B Date: 21 Mar 10 - 09:43 PM Joe, I support you in your struggle. Heaven knows, I spent significant time in apolgia for my own mentor, John Moriarty FSC, who did so much for me--- and made one feeble attempt on my virtue. But as I've run across one, two, three, six, twelve of the young men he groomed and exploited, my views have changed. These are not "isolated incidents" or a matter of "a few bad apples." The fire that is guys like John, like John Powell SJ, like Dale Fushek, like hundreds of others has jumped the Atlantic and ignited in Ireland, in Germany, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Italy... The wheel, as Bob said, is "still in spin." In a choice between the clergy, and their victims, I choose the latter. Yadda yadda anti-Catholic yadda. We have met the enemy. And he is "us." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:31 PM They'd certainly drop, but not disappear by any means. Then there's the sadistic violence, which is another thing to consider. The celibacy rule was an entirely financial thing when they started it, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:03 PM "I should add that, though I'm not in the slightest bit religious, and have never been, my attitude to all this would be exactly the same had it occurred in any other organisation or institution, regardless of religion" Yes Will. But it doesn't.....does it? At least not to the same extent as it seems to occur in the Catholic Church and of course the difference is the Celibacy Rule, a rule which encourages people of unorthodox sexual orientation into the priesthood. The victims of this abuse were for the most part pubescent teenage boys and the perpetrators adult men. I do not believe that paedophiles target children of a different sex than that which they are sexually orientated towards. The latest paedophile ring in the UK was exclusively homosexualhere Get rid of the Celibacy Rule, encourage marriage and family values in the priesthood and watch abuse rates tumble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bill D Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:24 PM "institutional complicity" is a good term. It is the reason there have been court judgments against the church and the church has paid some very large settlements and fines. Although 'individuals' are the ones breaking the rules, the institution creates the complex of rules, attitudes, opportunities and responses TO rule breaking that exacerbate the sick tendencies OF individuals. To some, the very structure of certain institutions (not just the Church) make a certain amount of abuse inevitable. If that is the case, the possible cures are quite a topic for debate. Reorganize? Reduce? Restrict? Remove? There are NO easy answers when the institution is seen as a necessary thing, while its organization and basic principles are seen as elements of the problem. Joe Offer has chosen what is possibly the hardest path....trying to work within the institution and improve it, while disagreeing with many of the historical patterns and 'teachings'. I don't think I envy him the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:02 PM Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes. I'm more interested in stopping it happening, Ake. Knowing what motivates the perpetrators won't achieve that. It won't achieve anything; the majority of child molesters don't stop whilst ever they have the opportunity to continue, whatever their motivation may be. On the other hand, understanding what motivates the Catholic Church to cover up their crimes and further their opportunity is a valuable key to some degree of prevention, surely? You are dead right about the church accepting responsibility. Responsibility and blame are two quite different things, and the church seems to have virtually no sense of responsibility, or ever has had, as far as I can see. Words are just words - actions talk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Mar 10 - 03:14 PM Very well said Peter! It certainly would be a good thing if the Church accepted responsibility for the shameful cover up...no doubt about that! I think it might be a stretch from that, to demanding the Pope's resignation. Pope Benedict seems one of the more thoughtful and intelligent Popes who have held office during my lifetime and although many might see him as "conservative", I feel he has no option if he wishes to adhere to the Church's basic principles.....which are NOT all bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 21 Mar 10 - 02:50 PM All the abuse was perpetrated by individuals Ake, like Joe you are recognising one crime but overlooking another which is far more serious. The crime you recognise is the abuse of children by individual priests and other religious. As Joe has argued, this crime is broadly comparable with similar abuse by certain individual scoutmasters, teachers and others who are put in authority over children, except that priests have always enjoyed exceptional advantage arising from their unique role in sacramental absolution. I would not blame the catholic church for this crime any more than I would blame the scouting movement. I recognise that paedophiles have sometimes sought positions in such institutions to gain access to their prey rather than to fulfil any sort of vocational calling. I don't particularly castigate such institutions where they have allowed paedophiles to slip through the net, and I am cautious about how the abusers should be punished. I assume it is only a matter of good fortune that I don't have paedophilic tendencies myself and I recognise that many abusers are also victims of abuse. (Child abuse within families, which exceeds all the abuse by strangers, priests and others put together, is a separate matter and does need empathetic handling to take account of factors such as any value there may be in maintaining the family unit.) The crime you overlook is the crime of institutional complicity: a determination to cover up even the most depraved abuses which has often extended to a demonising of those who have been brave enough to complain about what they have endured. In this respect the catholic church has behaved with overwheening arrogance and has completely lost its moral compass. It is utterly inexcusable. If Ratzinger had an ounce of moral decency about him he would sack Brady and then, on the basis that the buck stops with him, tender his own resignation. Unless there is a gesture on that kind of scale the catholic church in Ireland is dead in the water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:59 AM Kevin Myers' The State of Ireland 1975 : a strange and demented place |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:38 AM Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes. I think the church is not doing itself any favours at this point by responding the way it does. The official line hastily distanced itself from the uttering of Msgr Maurice Dooley this but as the man spoke on radio to many people he was the face of the problem, the face of a church favouring a legalistic 'there's nothing we did wrong' approach over a more compassionate one. How can you not wonder about what motivates people like that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Will Fly Date: 21 Mar 10 - 05:45 AM Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes. I don't think it's rocket science to have some idea of the complexities that might motivate men to abuse children. The main point that has been discussed in this thread and in the media generally is how a set of men at the highest levels of the church - men who are supposed to be Christians, who are supposed to religious and proclaiming God's word on Earth - men who are supposed to be setting examples of goodness and morality - can be so dishonest as to try to sweep the mess under the carpet rather than deal with it honestly and openly, and cut it out swiftly and cleanly. The hypocrisy of such a stance is breathtaking, given the scale of the problem. This is why it's been discussed to such an extent. What motivates the Catholic Church is precisely the point. I should add that, though I'm not in the slightest bit religious, and have never been, my attitude to all this would be exactly the same had it occurred in any other organisation or institution, regardless of religion. I can only guess at the upset all this must cause to committed Catholics, and I'm sympathetic to it, but please don't try and fudge the issue by saying it's just another chance for some of us to get at the church and religion. It's not. I worked for many years in a university. Some years ago, a member of staff was found to have child pornography on his office computer. After being interviewed and having admitted downloading it, he was instantly dismissed and left that day. No shilly-shallying, no moving him from one department to another. The university, with a large population of (mainly) young people acted properly. Surely the church should do the same? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 21 Mar 10 - 05:39 AM "most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes." Yes, the discussion moved on quite some time ago to why the Church covered up crimes of it's Priests. As to what motivated the Priests, it was Peadophilia. Paedophiles rape children, not adults who aren't getting sex with other adults. During my time as a single person, children never began to seem sexually attractive to me. YMMV |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 21 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM The Dutch Bishops have made a statement saying Pope Benedict's pastoral letter, although explicitly addressing the situation in Ireland, should be read as applying to the situation in the Netherlands as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM Corporate thinking, CS. 'Tis what one would expect, sadly. That's why they're the most successful business on earth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:22 PM "The pope speaks on only of the failures in the Irish church, and neglects the role of the Vatican. If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial," Yes, I observed the overiding agenda in that piece, of the Vatican completely severing itself from the actions of the "Irish Church". Very telling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM A million dollars doesn't seem excessive to me - turn it into sterling and it's not really much at all for what many of the poor sods had to endure, let alone the effect on the rest of their lives. True, the money has been previously taken from/donated by parishioners, but my thinking is that they have been swindled and will probably be more careful where they throw it in future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM Do you really expect the Pope to say that "It is the deliberate policy of the Catholic Church to protect sex offenders"? The cover up was an attempt by the Church to protect itself from financial claims. I believe in America, the Church is paying out in excess of a million dollars to victims. These huge payouts are sure to motivate a series of false claims, complicating the matter further. All the abuse was perpetrated by individuals, and should be dealt with through the courts. The celibacy rule should be abandoned, as it encourages into the priesthood people with psychiatric and sexual issues. It seems madness for a church which promotes family life and values, to continue with a rule which contradicts those very values. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:44 PM It looks to me as though Ratty is digging his hole deeper and deeper.. His blaming of secularism is nothing short of ridiculous, but given how far removed from reality the man is, is hardly surprising. Still, I'm sure a bit of earnest praying will fix everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM The following is part of a reaction from the One in Four group of survivors of clerical abuse: "Pope Benedict has passed up a glorious opportunity to address the core issue in the clerical sexual abuse scandal: the deliberate policy of the Catholic Church at the highest levels to protect sex offenders, thereby endangering children. The pope speaks on only of the failures in the Irish church, and neglects the role of the Vatican. If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial," quote taken from this article I think this sums up well how people (in Ireland) feel about the issue, as far as I can gather from the reactions I have heard so far. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:10 PM Oh! This is Mudcat, dont let relevancy get in the way of a good old rant! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM It's a scandal in itself that Brady isn't already sacked and behind bars. Trying to understand why all this happens has done nothing to prevent it and is largely a waste of time, save for academic interest and for future reference. Remove the opportunities and it stops. That is how to prevent it. We all know there is no shortage of abuse outside the Catholic Church, but it has nothing to do with what is under discussion. As an organisation, the Catholic Church has proved it cannot be trusted, and its representatives should not be allowed anywhere near children, ever. That may seem harsh, but just one more abused child is one too many for me. The decent members of that church, as it's been said before, have been betrayed by it, but that cannot be undone and I feel very sorry for them. There is, however, nothing to stop them continuing to be the good people that they are. Besides which, I'm of the opinion that indoctrinating children into believing that they have to live the rest of their lives depending on an 'imaginary friend' (and other such drivel) is, in itself, no less than child abuse. Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age by all means, but to attempt to take away that choice is abuse of an insidious and cruel kind. However, that is no more than my personal opinion and probably not strictly relevant here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 20 Mar 10 - 01:54 PM Missed this earlier when quickly scanning today's Irish Times: a profile of the abuser Brendan Smyth who is at the centre of the present controversy surrounding Cardinal Brady. For those not familiar with the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:33 AM Full text of Benedicts Pastoral Letter to the Irish Catholics First reaction in irish Times which als ocontains links to Cardinal Brady's address |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM "When we demonize certain groups, what we're saying is that those groups are different from us" No, we're saying that the Church as an extremely powerful organisation orchestrated an intentional cover-up of profound evil that was rife in it's heart. The Church is different from me, as it's much bigger - bigger on a phenomenal scale, and these actions that this massive powerful organisation took in knowingly, willfully and routinely sheltering and assisting evil-doers amongst its own ranks, were themselves evil. Catholics as individuals are not to blame for the evil actions routinely taken by a corrupt organisation that they trusted in. I also have a lot of time for genuinely spiritual Christians as individuals. But I do not conflate individuals and organisations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM It's not just that they're evil people who need to be shamed and condemned. There's a reason behind all of this, and it needs to be understood. When we demonize certain groups, what we're saying is that those groups are different from us - we could never do something horrible like that. Joe, to me it seems we aren't saying they are different from us. The unfortunate core of the matter is the behaviour church (hierarchy) , which not only seems to think but behaves like they are different from us and different rules apply to them. And for that reason refused so long (and now only reluctantly and under huge public pressure) to take responsibility for the cover up of abuse or have offenders prosecuted under the law of the land. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM I think the responses here have been fair, and deserved, Joe. You say "There is no doubt in my mind that the molestation and abuse of children was a horrible thing." Now there's a word in there you cannot vouch for, and that's the word "WAS" It IS an horrible thing, and I bet you a pound to a pinch of snuff that it's not gone away, nor will it. They either need to allow priests to marry, or not allow them to be alone with vulnerable people, children OR adults. As for that "horrible thing" part, I find that a mild condemnation. It's more than horrible, it's disgusting, it's depraved, and it's illegal. As for the attempts of the church hierarchy to keep it "in house", words fail me. Sorry Joe, I'm not anti Catholic, if anything I may be anti religion, but I would never deprive a believer of his or her the comfort, that their faith gives them. However, this fiasco, will do far more to disillusion the faithful than I could, and I think, that in a way, this is why they cover it up. I believe there was a a little local difficulty when the Bible was first printed in English, as those in power didn't want the common herd to be able to understand the word of God. Well I think we may have a similar thing going, with the desire to suppress, and deny, the truth about the bad apples in the holy Catholic barrel now. They're only the common people, no need for them to know about this matter!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 10 - 11:10 AM Peter, people do things for reasons. It's not just that they're evil people who need to be shamed and condemned. There's a reason behind all of this, and it needs to be understood. When we demonize certain groups, what we're saying is that those groups are different from us - we could never do something horrible like that. We all can cause horrible harm. We need to understand that, or we're doomed to doing just that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:57 AM when the only goal is to destroy and condemn, I think it becomes bigotry. There is no doubt in my mind that the molestation and abuse of children was a horrible thing. We have to find out why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. But what's happening here at Mudcat is a feeding frenzy. There's no attempt to understand - it's all about blame and destruction. I think you're a bit easy dismissing the discussions here as a 'feeding frenzy'. I think these discussions are in reaction to problems they occur in the societies we live in. Discussion here are a response of the ever growing number of cover-ups that are coming to light, in Ireland the involvement of cardinal Brady in hushing up the young victims of Brendan Smtyh and the other cases quoted above, the ever more cases emerging in Germany, yesterday the Dutch papers were full of the cover up of abuse at a RC institute for blind children (here). A distinct pattern is growing ever more distinct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:47 AM Jack, Hopefully, parents have learned that they have to prepare their children NOT to become victims and not to take the word of any adult over their child's. Scout leaders, teachers, priests and just recently a pediatrician have all been involved in sexual abuse of children. When my son was in school I insisted on the right to walk into his class at any time any day just to be sure all was well. And I did it.I also watched very closely when an adult took an unusual interest in him. On the other hand, I never allowed any child into my home without his parent's express permission. I ran several programs for children in my neighborhood and was extremely careful both to protect the children and myself. An ugly reality. Joe - that is so sad. Imagine being helpless to protect the children you teach. Again, we are talking about a time when girls were either married or nurses and teachers and nuns were servants to the church and little more. I am an ex-Catholic and have many bitter memories of the nuns who taught me. But some were great women who genuinely loved the children in their care and did all they could to support them. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:20 AM Neil, when the only goal is to destroy and condemn, I think it becomes bigotry. There is no doubt in my mind that the molestation and abuse of children was a horrible thing. We have to find out why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. But what's happening here at Mudcat is a feeding frenzy. There's no attempt to understand - it's all about blame and destruction. My friend Sister Esther, who's about 80, is disgusted with the role of the "upper management" of the Catholic Church in California dioceses in the sex abuse scandal. She told me quite sternly (as close as I can recall), "Don't kid yourself, Joe. They knew all about it. We told them time and time again about priests who were molesting children, and they did nothing." Don't expect me to defend the bishops or the child molesters. That's not at all what I think, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm disgusted, too. Nonetheless, I'm not going to run away. I'm going to stick around and see that the mess is cleaned up. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:15 AM But when outsiders come in with their sweeping condemnations, that's bigotry. And I'm sick of it. -Joe Offer- It seems to me that much of the condemnation, both in Mudcat and in the world at large, is coming from people who were raised in the church. Are these outsiders? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:02 AM In many of these cases, parents took the priest or nun's word over that of their children, and all telling Mum and Dad achieved was to get the kid a thrashing. How many parents would send their kid off for religious instruction with the warning "oh, by the way, the outfit we're sending you to is hooching with perverts"? These abuser priests know they can count on parents as dumb accomplices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 19 Mar 10 - 09:24 AM And today the Boy Scouts chimed in: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:20 AM I dated a man who at the end of WWII lived in Germany. American soldiers gave him and his friends candy in exchange for sex. He is still torn apart about it today blaming himself. He was about 7 and there was no other candy to be had. The Americans were friendly to all the kids. Some took advantage. Power and opportunity made it possible. I believe the first line of defence today is for parents to openly discuss the issue with their young children and make it absolutely clear that if anyone approaches them inappropriately, they are to leave and come home immediately and TELL MOM and DAD. Children need to know that their parents will believe, support and protect them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bryn Pugh Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:04 AM Not being a christian, I probably have no right to post, here. However : Is it known what, if any, abuse of children or other vulnerable persons takes place in the Eastern Churches - Orthodox or Independent - where (with the exception of bishops and abbots) the clergy is expected to be married (although the celibate priest and deacon is not unknown to these Churches) ? A comparison, if possible, might be useful if the Western Churches which require clerical celibacy wished to re-examine the question of celibacy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Emma B Date: 19 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM A short but interesting dicussion on BBC Radio 4 this morning "Is there any linked between celibacy and sex abuse in the Catholic Church?" between Paul Crawford, Professor of Mental Health Humanities at the University of Nottingham, Mary Raftery, Irish writer and film maker and Fr Dennis Tindall, priest and former Child Protection/Safeguarding Coordinator for the Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle. link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:29 AM Cardinal Brady has admitted his role in what most reasonably-minded people, perhaps including Joe O, would regard as a criminal cover-up, as a result of which Brendan Smyth was free to continue his depravities without constraint. (See the link I provided at the top of the thread,) Why on earth has Ratzinger not sacked him? That would have sent out a slightly stronger signal than all the anguished handwringing in which the hierarchy now indulges (although the anguished handwringing is itself a step advance on the supreme arrogance in which the hierarchy previously indulged). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM No need to wonder why the mass of Mudcat posts on this subject are destructive Joe, they see this issue in the same light as they see every other issue.....as political. Catholic Church= Conservative= bad! Its the old knee jerk that we see on other threads, where no one can see the wood for the political trees. The issues are simple, the Church adheres to a rule which makes the abuse of children many times more likely....the celibacy rule....get rid of that, and abuse will dwindle to the rates we see in the real world....still much too high of course! The Church is badly at fault for the cover up and no amount shedding of crocodile tears or sickening apologies is going to redeem it, but a change in the rule which has been the main cause of the abuse, should make it clear that the Church accepts responsibility.....for the cover up and for the disasterous effects of the rule of celibacy. This would be something positive and achievable..... without tearing the church apart, which is the real agenda of many on this forum. You once described my thinking as "warped" I let the remark go on that occasion, but perhaps you should review my position this and other associated subjects like "liberalism" and homosexuality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:42 AM Well, Joe- 1. I have to say I don't understand many incidents where molester priests were quietly transferred. I know that sometimes the priests were given psychiatric treatment and pronounced "cured" and fit for duty. In other cases, the charges were not believed even though a settlement was paid. This was dramatically portrayed in the Meryl Streep movie doubt. At the end of the movie, you still don't know whom to believe - the nasty, rigid nun that Streep portrays, or the charming, easygoing priest that she has accused of child molestation. Even the child's family don't know what to do or what to believe. I think it's an excellent portrayal of the complexity of the problem. 2. Joe, aren't you aware that in the United States, the vast majority of damage claims are settled out of court? Out-of-court settlements save both sides the delay, uncertainty, and cost of a court trial. There's often some sort of nondisclosure agreement connected to such settlements, and usually some sort of statement that the party paying damages does not admit any guilt. The damaged party is free to accept or reject the settlement, but then has to take the risk that he might lose in a trial. Yes, there is a risk of false accusations - that's one reason for the nondisclosure agreements - but the parties paying damages must feel that the savings of out-of-court settlements outweigh the risk of false claims. Also, remember that a court trial can be traumatic for a victim. It might be compassionate to avoid a trial. In my diocese, the standard settlement amounts were $25,000 and $40,000 - and yes, a nondisclosure agreement was required. I don't believe that parents were requred to agree not to file criminal charges - I'm sure that would have come out in the news if such had been the case. In most cases in my diocese, criminal complaints were filed. I don't know about statistics on criminal cases (in general, not molestation), but a large number are settled out of court by "plea bargains." In both civil and criminal matters, both sides have to decide whether it's worth their while to go to trial. Most often, it's not. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe_F Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM I am not a Christian of any kind, so the news that priests, like other human beings, are often corrupted by their power is not *particularly* surprising or dismaying to me. However, I have repeatedly seen two statements about the Church's handling of these cases that, if true, seem to me outrageous: 1. Some priests who got caught were quietly transferred to other places where they still had access to young people. Chastity aside, Christians are supposed to believe that prudence is a cardinal virtue. 2. When priests were accused, the Church sometimes has made monetary settlements out of court. Such an attempt to avoid scandal can only multiply it, by creating an incentive to make false accusations, which in such cases are hard to tell from true ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: PoppaGator Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:42 PM I just heard on the radio that The Church (perhaps the Pope hiumself, or a spokesperson, etc.) is expilicity and adamantly denying that the celibacy rule has anything to do with the abuse scandal(s). I beg to differ. For centuries, the celibate religious life has attracted individuals who, for one reason or another, are resolved not to engage in any sexual activity at all. Certainly, significant numbers of these people would be those who recognize that they have no interest in the limited range of sexual options permitted to them by their church and their larger society. If I experience "temptations" to act out sexually in a manner that is strictly forbidden under any circumstances, I might very well feel that my only option is to take the vow of celibacy and join up with others like myself. Not everyone will be able spend an entire lifetime maintaining the resolve they first felt as teenagers. And, even those who do NOT "stray" are likely to experience a degree of fellow-feeling with those among their brotherhood who do cross the line. So, the cover-up phenomemon should not be surprising. For ages, societal forces inside and outside all churches and authoritarian structures were pretty effective at stifling human sexuality. Nowadays, for whatever reason, society as a whole is no longer unanmimous in this regard. The rule of celibacy has become a recipe for disaster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM Hi, Jack- I sometimes think Hans Küng goes a bit too far, but I agree with most of what he has to say. He and Benedict XVI were colleagues as Theology professors at Tübingen, and Benedict seems to have a good deal of affection for him - despite their obvious disagreement. It's an interesting thing about Benedict - he can disagree profoundly with people and still respect them. A 2008 article in Time Magazine says this trait of Benedict's may have caused the death of Catholic liberalism, but I don't think that's the case. We Catholic liberals are alive and kicking. Another voice to be reckoned with is Richard McBrien, former chair of the Theology department at Notre Dame. His personal Website is http://www.richardmcbrien.com/, and his columns can be found at the National Catholic Reporter, http://ncronline.org/user/16. You will find columns from Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister and a number of others at the same URL - and you will find all of them interesting. McBrien's column used to be carried in a number of Catholic diocesan newspapers. Now that the appointees of John Paul II lead most dioceses, very few diocesan newspapers carry McBrien's column - but McBrien is still out there speaking the truth to those who will listen. Father Andrew Greeley has been sidelined by an automobile accident, but his Website contains a lot of challenging ideas. I'm not sure how he's able to survive, but Father Ron Rolheiser is still published in a number of diocesan newspapers. And if you want to take a look at a really refreshing Catholic voice (who is really disturbing to bishops), look at Edwina Gateley. All of these people are far more critical (and far more credible) than most of the Mudcat posts I see on the Catholic Church - but their ideas are constructive, and the Mudcat posts are (for the most part) destructive. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM Here's somebody who can reasonably say "I told you so". Hans Küng, 2010 Hans Küng, 2005 A friend of mine is a Catholic who recently had her priest moved (for no sinister reason, he was doing a terrific job) and replaced. The new guy took it upon himself to remove all books by Küng from the parish library. I wonder how far up that initiative came from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bill D Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM Just to clarify... I was not really suggesting that priests NOT do counseling. I agree with Joe that special training should be added to their education, and I also wonder if certain 'types' of counseling should have a different format of some sort. (perhaps supervised...or group.......or even recorded, though that opens a new can of worms.) and Joe... 20-30% 'creeps'?? Wow...a significant number indeed. I wonder then, if those with 'creepy' attitudes are drawn to the priesthood, or whether celibacy tends some TOWARD creepiness? (then, I wonder what the % might be in Scout leaders or gym teachers) In any case, it seems as if the celibacy situation is, as I suspected, a real issue and a contributing factor to problems. (I try not to wave my arms and expound on "what oughta be done!", as it would make very little difference in discussing the day-to-day practical situation. There are many, many sad situations all over the world with religious groups & beliefs entangled in their ongoing problems, and all *I* can do is have conversations like this in the hope that it will stir some thought.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:20 PM I think those Germans are going to get riled up..and they do not have a monoreligion in Germany...they are not going to be afraid to really speak out, as they should. How could the priests have figured they would not have gotten caught? Did they know in advance that it would overlooked? Was there that much of a culture that made it OK? I think the final nail in the coffin is to get 10 or 11 year olds to sign a document agreeing to silence... And the Church has expended enormous effort in keeping young men and women apart from each other because of "occasions of sin" etc...huge amounts of energy into keeping young people "pure." It just does not add up, unless you see it as the true sin in their minds was with a woman (and even in marriage unless you were actively desiring a child each and every time, no matter the economic or physical circumstances, sex was still a sin). So how could this culture carry on? ANd it was not isolated instances..they were prepared to deal with this happening..as a byproduct of celibacy perhaps? As preferable to relations with adult women or other grown men? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:54 PM Oh, and Peter Laban, of course I agree with you that offenders should be punished and removed from ministry. You won't find anyone who will disagree with that - so why do people keep throwing out that accusation? What I'm saying is that controls are being instituted that are intended to prevent child molestation before it happens the first time - many of these controls are unproved, and are a repressive burden on those who never would and never will molest a child. It sounded to me you were tired of all comment and felt the church is attracting undue attention by 'church bashers'. Maybe my reaction was somewhat heated. The matter is, as Martin pointed out, well beyond the actual abuse. There is a culture of hushing up and moving on, we're long past the point where we're talking about a few isolated cases, there's a pattern that needs to be broken. There's a perception that the hierarchy is only willing to move as a damage limitation exercise, simply because the public outrage has become too strong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8572875.stm Read and be informed. Read the paragraph toward the bottom. THe priest says what I have been saying..in the church I was raised in, and still practice although as a Bad Catholic and not a Good One, he comes right out and says the real sin was being with a woman..not abusing children. That is how people were raised..men especially, probably seminarians especially. It is not just the priests and bishops, it is or maybe was the mothers and not as much the fathers, but the holy mothers. Once again, here is my song..sung to Boston Burglar I am a Boston grandmother Catholic as can be I never thought I 'd see the day my church would fail me What went on in that sacristy was a great and mortal sin And now they're coming forward the boys who grew to men I see him on the altar with his bright and shining face I should have never let him set a foot within that place My other sons were different hoodlums one and all But little Aloyscious I prayed would hear the call Put the priests in jail and slam the iron door And tell the other prisoners what they are in there for Then throw in the bishops and toss away the key And if I had my druthers they would never be set free We went to our devotions the priest said let us pray I guess we all know now it could be spelled another way God protect the faithful who listened to them preach And God protect the little boys who fell within their reach |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: MartinRyan Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM Joe This crisis is no longer about sexual molestation - and hasn't been for several years. It's about the enthusiastic, systematic willingness of the Catholic Church to protect itself by concealing the abusers and, for many years, by scaring the molested into silence. Ultimately it is the implications of that willingness - and the apparent inability of the church to acknowledge that it, in itself, was WRONG , which will bring the church to its knees - in several senses. You are quite right that the situation has been a godsend (teehee..) to habitual church-bashers - but, again, that is not the point. Let them have their moment of glory. The real battle is elsewhere. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM Most priests that I know, cope with celibacy pretty well - but they don't believe priests should be celibate. They accept the rule of celibacy because it's required, but they don't like it. That celibacy rule is why I left the seminary after 8 years of a 12-year program. My current pastor, born in Ireland, was away from the priesthood for ten years. During that time, he had what I would call normal relationships with women. My previous pastor (born in the US), was away from the priesthood for ten years and was married and widowed. That's not the norm for priests, but it's interesting that I've had two pastors in the last ten years whose contact with women was a lot more normal than one would expect. As Bill says, there are minor exceptions that allow for Catholic priests to be married in certain circumstances. It has always been the case that Eastern Rite Catholic priests are usually married, but there aren't many Eastern Rite priests in the western world - most are in the Middle East. The other major exception is more recent - the Catholic Church is ordaining Protestant ministers who want to become Catholic. Unfortunately, these married priest are usually distressingly conservative men who are fleeing their own churches because they object to the ordination of women and homosexuals (and generally they seem to object to the respectful treatment of women and homosexuals altogether). So the fact that the Catholic Church is ordaining Protestant refugees, is not a hopeful thing to me. I do think most priests cope with celibacy, and I don't think celibacy makes them become child molesters. There are a few priests who like being celibate because it frees them from family obligations and allows them to serve their congregations more freely. But I don't think that's the case for most priests - most priests merely cope with celibacy. And then there are the other ones, the people who like the celibacy rule because it shelters and hides their sexual weirdnesses - not only child molesters, but also others who have some creepy attitudes about sex. There are no statistics on this, but I'd guess that among the priests I know, maybe as many as thirty percent fall into this "creepy" category - probably closer to twenty percent, but that's a significant number. A person would be crazy to talk confidentially about a sexual matter with one of these creeps. While I don't think the celibacy rule creates these creeps, it certainly provides shelter for them. And what's worse, it excludes the vast majority of normal people from the priesthood. Time and time again, I have seen wonderful people leave the priesthood or leave the seminary because they couldn't accept the celibacy rule. Too often, the Catholic Church has turned away men and women who would have made wonderful priests - because the Catholic Church can only accept male celibates. I think I would have made a very good priest, but I left the seminary because I wanted to be a husband and father. So I think that Bill is right about the celibacy rule. It makes unusual sexual conduct (celibacy) the norm, and excludes all those engage in what is considered normal. Most priests cope with the celibacy rule and conduct themselves quite well, but celibacy is an unnecessar, burden that plays host to a number of problems - not just child molestation. -Joe- Oh, and Peter Laban, of course I agree with you that offenders should be punished and removed from ministry. You won't find anyone who will disagree with that - so why do people keep throwing out that accusation? What I'm saying is that controls are being instituted that are intended to prevent child molestation before it happens the first time - many of these controls are unproved, and are a repressive burden on those who never would and never will molest a child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM People keep saying that the molesting priests should have been controlled so molestation wouldn't happen. Hmmmm. I wonder if any of us would want to live in a society that is so strictly controlled, that crime is impossible. For godsake Joe, seriously. People keep saying priests who have been found abusers needed to be controled. Not moved on to other positions, like in the case of one of the more horrible abusers who was placed as a counsellor in a boy's school, where they could continue on their abuse. That's hardly too much to ask is it, next people will be asking the men be brought to the attention of the police so justice could have been done. What society is coming to... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM People keep saying that the molesting priests should have been controlled so molestation wouldn't happen. Hmmmm. I wonder if any of us would want to live in a society that is so strictly controlled, that crime is impossible. I didn't like Pope John Paul II. I thought he undid a lot of good that was accomplished by Vatican II. I had a great deal of respect for the bishop my diocese had in the 1980s, a gentle, wise man of integrity. He was replaced by a John Paul II appointee who joined in the work of undoing Vatican II. Luckily, since the Catholic Church largely has local autonomy, I could find many parishes that were largely unaffected by the oppressive reign of John Paul II. Another thing about John Paul II is that he largely ignored the sexual abuse crisis. I suppose part of the reason for that was that he was in ill health the last ten years of his life. For the most part, he ignored the problem because he didn't believe such a thing could happen in his church, which he saw as perfect. I'm not totally thrilled by Benedict XVI, but at least he is open to discussion - and he has done something about the child abuse/molestation crisis. But still, his control over my life, and over bishops and priests, is limited - and I am very glad of that. I don't deny the child abuse and molestation that took place in the Catholic Church. I am appalled by it. Most likely, it is still taking place. I do not believe that any amount of effort can completely stamp out a crime of this nature. There were Catholic dioceses and institutions and religious orders where child abuse and molestation was allowed to run rampant - in a few places, partly due to the fact that the bishop himself was a child molester. In the diocese next to mine, Santa Rosa, California, the bishop was having a sex affair with a priest. In that diocese, the sexual abuse problem was not handled at all, and there was a horrible mess when it was finally discovered what was going on. Still, most parishes in that diocese were reasonably healthy. I watch the events very closely in two dioceses, my own Sacramento diocese and the Milwaukee archdiocese where I attended the seminary. I know a good number of the priests in these two dioceses. In my diocese and in Milwaukee, most cases of child molestation were handled years and years ago. A few slipped through the cracks for various reasons. You will find that in most free societies, a good amount of crime goes unpunished. I don't know statistics, but I would guess that in the United States, far more than fifty percent of crimes committed, go unpunished. Some are unpunished due to incompetent law enforcement, but most are unpunished because there was not enough evidence to make a case. That's the way it is in a free society. I accept this - does this mean I favor crime? Yes, there were a lot of child molestation incidents in my church that went unpunished - but there were a large number that ended up in a priest being removed and prosecuted. In my diocese and in Milwaukee, almost every reported child molester was removed from the priesthood. Some fled the country to avoid prosecution. But most priests and most bishops did not commit these crimes. What I ask for at Mudcat is balance, for a realistic view of the nature of organizations and the nature of crime. And for the most part, I don't see that happenening. Still, I think Bill D has a very balanced and realistic perspective. I disagree with him on one item - his suggestion that priests should not do counseling. I think they should be properly trained to do counseling, and they are in many seminaries. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bill D Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:36 PM While I agree with a lot of the criticism folks have posted here, I also am sympathetic to Joe's position. He grew up within this church and is attempting every day to do positive things and change what he can. Joe asks.."So, hey, does anybody have any really good ideas on how to detect and solve the problem of child molestation? " Yes... I do, but I have NO notion that there is much chance they would be taken very seriously, as some of the problems are built in to the very structure and routines of what the Catholic Church believes and into their basic practices. One: Although it is, as Joe notes, possible for ANY institution to have its share of abusive, degenerate members, the **Catholic** church has this basic restriction against married priests..(yes, I know there are minor exceptions, but it IS the usual way.) This exacerbates whatever problems already exist. Our evolutionary heritage and basic biology do not recognize 'chastity' as a natural condition. When men and women are housed and taught in an environment of almost all members of their own gender, a different set of temptations are encountered, and 'some' people have less personal resistance. Add to this the common perception among those already tending toward deviant behavior, that 'the church' is an easy way to indulge without serious restrictions, and you get an ongoing problem! Two:There are a few situations which create opportunity that are specific...for example, confession. Priests hear things which MUST be hard to sublimate, even for those with GOOD intentions. (There is a joke about a Rabbi who is asked to sit in for a priest who is called away....and the joke ends with a friend asking how it went, and the Rabbi replying, "But I did get a few good leads!") There are, as I understand it, several situations where personal 'counseling' is part of the plan.. (I am NOT familar with all the details)...and it seems to me that this invites tempation. Three: The very complex and structured hierarchy itself contributes to the tendency to hide, rather than cleanse, problems. Bad publicity is often treated as a worse problem than the offense, and offenders are 'counseled' and 'moved' and records are hidden. I can't see most of these basic items being radically changed soon.....but that's what I see as would be necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM Yet half the world defends Polanski. Different strokes for different folks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:42 AM It's not just the Catholic Church, as has been mentioned already, but I will tell you this. It sickens me that people who profess to follow the teachings of the Bible, but only adhere to those they think apply to them, they piss me off. It sometimes looks as if everyone who is put in a position of trust abuses it. Politicians, Ministers of Religion, Scout Masters, Teachers etc etc. I know it isn't so, but it's still true, that the church seems to attract more than it's fair share of homosexuals, and paedophiles. I detest religion, for just that reason, it is impossible to avoid hypocrisy, and live a normal life. So why do they sit there and pontificate at the rest of us? Let them set their own house in order. It's time the light of the law was cast on the obscene practices of these people, both the perpetrators, and those who cover up for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:45 AM While abuse from individual Priests might have been rife is bad enough, but the cover-ups were part of a much bigger systemic form of moral social and spiritual corruption to do with the whole Church as an organisation top to bottom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Leadfingers Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM Any organisation when it reaches a 'certain' size will have members who do NOT conform to the same beliefs as the majority = Just look at THIS site - We now have SO many members and guests , that the old attitudes are lost in a flood of Vituperation and Nastiness ! And Mudcat is only a fraction the size of the Catholic Church ! Sadly it does seem that far too any senior priests hav condoned in covering up abuses within the chuech , in ALL parts of the so called civilised world . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:28 AM Joe, no doubt you think your posts above are the essence of sweet reason, but in reality they are a paradigm for what is wrong with the Catholic Church's response to the child-abuse scandals. You may not mean it, but there is an unwarranted implication behind this question: "...is it easier just to point the finger of blame instead of showing compassion for the victims?" It is very easy indeed to point the finger of blame at people like Cardinal Brady because their behaviour, and their sheer inability to comprehend what's wrong with it, makes them such easy targets. But pointing the finger does not interfere with my capacity to show compassion for victims. Why would it? But your question becomes even more irrational when one considers the complete lack of compassion shown by Brady when he conspired with children to keep the lid on the torment they had endured. You ask what I have done to prevent child abuse, and the answer is: nothing. But that doesn't disbar me from criticising those who do encounter it and allow it to continue. It might have been fairer to ask what I would do if I knew that a priest had abused a child. My answer to that I hope I would not behave like Brady did. You deflect criticism of the church by pointing to abuse elsewhere, and of course abuse does happen elsewhere. Your problem with that analogy is that it is rare, outside the catholic church, for those known to have concealed and accommodated child abuse to be promoted to high office where they are then allowed to remain with impunity until or unless outside pressure becomes irresistable. It is this that makes your church exceptional, and impossible to defend with rational argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM There are reports in today's UK Guardian (for example) of 10-year old boys being forced to sign papers vowing them to silence - by the church - with the priest in question then going on to abuse boys for a further 18 years. These relate to the controversy over the presence of now archbishop Seán Brady at the signing of these vows of silence in 1975. Two victims of serial abuser Brendan Smith were asked for a vow of silence, at least one of them was only ten years old at the time. Smith continued his spate of horrendous abuse. Mind you today's Irish Times reports of a woman sworn to secrecy about abuse in an out of court settlement in 2000, which involved the Bishop of Derry Seamus Hegarty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:44 AM reign = rein |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM Joe, When the hierarchy of an organization is part of the cover-up if not the crime, then the criticism is earned. I have had personal experience with two instances of priests abusing children and in both cases the Diocese chose to move the offender to another parish where abuse occurred again. I do not blame my Catholic relatives for this crime. I do blame the church. One of these was promoted to Monsignor despite his "problem" and is now in federal prison. Child abuse is horrendous but you and I both know that it was a different world for Catholics in the 50s and 60s. If a nun said I did something, my parents punished me. It didn't matter whether I did it or not. Nuns and priests had close to absolute power over children in their care. That was a time when a girl who was raped kept her mouth shut for fear of being shunned. Pregnant unwed girls were sent to "visit" a faraway relative for a few months. They came back to go on with their lives with no one the wiser (except the poor girl who was forced to give up her child). Abortions happened - I personally know good Catholics who arranged them for their children - but it was done very quietly and illegally. The world has changed. Catholics, especially US Catholics have changed. Frankly, I see a break coming between Rome and the US.I applaud the courage of the nuns in the US who have chosen to support a national health plan despite the church's stand that it represents government funding of abortions. COnvents in the US have been under fire from Rome for quite a while now. It will be interesting to see if the church can reign them in or watch them form an alternative Catholicism. I am rambling. Sorry. One question - do you personally condemn anyone's behavior regarding the child abuse scandal within the churches? Mary, not trolling. I respect your opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM Yes, in a church with a billion members, there's bound to be corruption mixed with the good. Joe, I absolutely agree with you on that point. I think the problem is that when the high-ups in the church - bishops, cardinals, perhaps even the Pope - know about it, they seem, (according to several press reports) to cover it up and not really cut it out root and branch. There are reports in today's UK Guardian (for example) of 10-year old boys being forced to sign papers vowing them to silence - by the church - with the priest in question then going on to abuse boys for a further 18 years. I can understand that there will be rotten apples in every barrel of society. What is disturbing is an apparent real lack of will on the part of the church high hierarchy to admit it and get completely rid of it as far as they can. So - for example - if a priest should commit child abuse in one parish, he should be struck off the priesthood, rather than, say, simply be moved to another parish. And, yes, it's not just the Catholic church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Connacht Rambler Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:22 AM "the broad spectrum of the Catholic Church" Such gobbledegook. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM I'm not done yet. I'm sick of this bigotry, this lack of tolerance from people who claim to be progressive, these armchair experts who have no idea what's going on in the broad spectrum of the Catholic Church - but yet they take delight in condemning the whole for the misdeeds of a few. Yes, in a church with a billion members, there's bound to be corruption mixed with the good. And yes, Catholics are angry about the child abuse and molestation that has taken place, and they've done a lot to attempt to solve the problem - starting in the 1970s in the US. But when outsiders come in with their sweeping condemnations, that's bigotry. And I'm sick of it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM There is NO church, in ANY country, which is blameless. A crime is a crime. And there is no family that is blameless, no school, no government agency, no children's organization, no political persuasion. Child abuse happens everywhere, and it's often covered up or not believed. There is no doubt that it's a horrible crime, and it happens far more often than it should. And it certainly should not happen in a church. So, hey, does anybody have any really good ideas on how to detect and solve the problem of child molestation? Or is it easier just to point the finger of blame instead of showing compassion for the victims and actually doing something positive to end this plague of child molestation? If you're going to use phrases like stinking church, this cesspit of mutually protective vested interests, would you care to tell us what YOU have ever done to prevent child molestation? Yes, it's true that some priests molest children, and some bishops cover up crimes because it's the easy way out and because it protects their interests as "upper management." Some parents molest and abuse children. Some coaches do. Some Scout leaders do. Some uncles do. Some law enforcement officers do (a surprisingly large number). Most don't. So, quit your fucking bigotry and find a solution to the problem, willya? And the ugly truth is that there is no solution to this problem. NOBODY knows how to deal with it. -Joe Offer, who has actually investigated child molesters and barred them from volunteer and paid positions- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: kendall Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:39 AM I never could be a Catholic but I hate to see the church being dragged through the mud like this. Will they ever come out of the Dark Ages? The church lasted for 900 years until some Pope decided that priests had to be not married. I love tradition but only if it makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:20 AM Then there's the "the-children-must-accept-their-share-of-the-blame-for-putting-temptation-in-my-way" getout: BS: Suffer The Children (revisited) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM An interesting media perspective on the sketchy and defensive RC Vatican message that "others do it, so it's OK, be happy":http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1172497.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Rapparee Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM There is NO church, in ANY country, which is blameless. A crime is a crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM It rather looks as though Ratty himself has done his share of covering up in the past. Much about all of it here: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/ Belief in God/s is one thing, and all well and good for those who need it, but organised religion is quite another. Take away all that cannot be proved, and all that's left is a money-making monster preying on people's vulnerabilities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Gervase Date: 17 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM this is Blair's Busted Britain Blaming Tony Blair for kiddy-fiddling clerics is a new one! Well done for the most bizarre non-sequitur yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 17 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM No. Re-read the story. Several young men appeared on TV with the video claiming that they had been abused as children since their early teens and that the abuse continued. A criminal investigation is underway. Three priests have been suspended by the church. The video certainly was sensational but the story and investigation involve child abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 17 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM MSNBC is putting an unacceptable slant on this story. There is NOTHING illegal or (by the standards of most people outside the Catholic Church or Bible Belt America) in any way reprehensible about an older adult having sex with a 19-year-old. And THAT is what Microsoft and the Brazilian media are making a fuss about. Not the (unproved, undetailed, so far completely unverifiable) allegations about sex with 12-year-olds - they have nothing to say about that, since they know no more than we do. They have an agenda that aims at criminalizing homosexuality. Most of us might find a film of a middle-aged guy in a cassock sodomizing a teenager something less than a turn-on, but a civilized society does NOT make creepiness a crime. Outside the Catholic value system, that film is simply not relevant to anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:48 PM I don't have particular problems with hypocrisy..I think it serves a purpose and people would probably be worse without it as a social barrier. I would not care if I found out the pope or bishops had affairs with adult, consensual partners, male or female, makes me no nevermind, any more than if my dentist or mechanic did. But to not protect children...as Laura whatshername says, the ones who fail to protect others from abuse are the evil ones, more than the abusers. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM I do not know the state of this pope's soul, but he gives me the heebie jeebies and always has. I just asked why when he was chosen when they had plenty of younger and promising candidates, or if they wanted an older conservative, plenty of those too. Why? Why? Now the chief exorcist of the Vatican is talking about stuff at the very top of the Vatican...what is going on? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Connacht Rambler Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM There will have to be a clean-out at the top of the Catholic hierarchy, including the Irish Cardinal and the Pope. I am an Irish Catholic and haven't gone to mass for 40 years because I could of the hypocrisy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM The claim is that this priest has been abusing these young men since they were twelve. What is consensual now was a crime 9 years ago. There is a criminal investigation underway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM The pope himself is being drawn into the net, and if he is guilty of coverups, transfers etc. as is suggested, then he needs to go. To jail if recent enough offenses, but I t hink they are too old to be legal. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: bubblyrat Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM It is not just the Catholic Church ; there have always been "Dodgy Vicars" in the Church of England,you know. As kids,in the local church choir,we used to make jokes about the vicar,the verger,the choirmaster,etc, but we were never afraid because we knew that,if any of them "tried it on",we'd tell our Dads,who would then go round and do some pugilistic "sorting out".And we made sure we were never alone with them ! Of course,it is different today ; Dads ( if there are any) would be too scared to thump a vicar as they'd probably be jailed for it ( "Old Fashioned" coppers would turn a blind eye and say "he must have tripped and fallen,Your Honour !" )but that was Real Life, and this is Blair's Busted Britain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM There can't be any country in the world where it's illegal for a priest to have sex with a 19-year-old, surely? (I thought you might have made a typo, but no, it checks out). In Brazil the age of consent (for either heterosexual or homosexual activity) is 14. Looking further down the MSNBC story, the priest was also accused of having seduced a boy aged 12 some time in the past, but instead they chose to make their headline out of something that was no sort of crime, simply because they got it on video. The Catholic Chursh may not come very well out of this but the media isn't much better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: SINSULL Date: 17 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM Take a look at today's headlines. Videos were shown on TV in Brazil of a priest having sex with an 19 year old. It was taken by a 21 year old who claims to have been abused by this same priest for 9 years. He and two other priests have been relieved of their duties and secreted away. Same old crap. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35901985/ns/world_news-americas/ |
|
Subject: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 17 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM What next for scandal hit catholic church? Just a few months ago Cardinal Sean Brady promised to resign if it was established that any act or omission on his part had been a factor in allowing any abuse of children to continue unchecked. He has now admitted that, while still a young cleric, he witnessed two children - one just ten years old - signing a vow of silence about abuse the child had suffered from a priest (the imfamous Brendan Smyth) who continued to abuse children for a further 20 years. Logic suggests that the condition Brady required for his resignation has been met. But apparently not. He says he will tender his resignation only if the Pope demands it. Apologists will say that attitudes were different then; that it was understandably difficult in that earlier climate for priests (who take it upon themselves to pass judgment on the sins of their supine flocks) to recognise the difference between right and wrong. One poster here may well refer to the cardinals and others of the catholic hierarchy as "upper management" - and anodyne term calculated to play down the pastoral-care and morality aspects of the job spec. I wonder when this stinking church, this cesspit of mutually protective vested interests, will get the simple message that child abuse is not only wrong but also criminal. Brady should have resigned, the Pope should have sacked him in any case and the gardai should have charged him with perverting the course of justice. |
