 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
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... |