 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 06:28 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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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? |