BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....

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..