 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 06 May 10 - 04:08 PM Bonnie....."Sexually assaulting someone weaker - whether children, women, or the feeble-minded - is the real evil, whatever the combination of genders. Lying and seeking to cover it up compound the iniquity. These are the real matters which need to be addressed" I agree fully with what you say, but if we are properly to address this problem it is important to understand exactly who is committing these crimes and why they are committing them. It is also important to discover why this behaviour (the sexual abuse of boys and youths by men), is largely confined to the priesthood of the Catholic Church. By turning a blind eye to the reasons behind the abuse, we do not serve our young people, in the same way as in ignoring homosexual hiv and life expectancy figures we do not serve homosexuals. Roman Catholic priests have the highest rate of hiv infection of any occupation......ARTICLE HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 May 10 - 05:03 PM Does the celibacy rule cover masturbation? Good question. I never bothered to think of it, since the Catholic Church considers masturbation to be immoral (read: "against the rules") for everyone. Wikipedia has quite an article on clerical celibacy - noting that there is a chance of inaccuracy in Wikipedia entries, I have to say this article looks good. But anyhow, masturbation is one of those things that isn't talked about - kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. It warrants a paragraph (2352) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where it is referred to as "an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." A priest I trust says it's the sin he hears most often in confession. He didn't say more, but I got the impression he wished people could find more important sins to confess. But in answer to your question, priests and nuns are supposed to be exemplary in the practice of the virtue of chastity, and refraining from masturbation and other "impure" things falls under that category, rather than under the category of celibacy. What do I think of it? Well, I don't think of masturbation as sinful, but it's not something I'd go around recommending as a beneficial spiritual practice - but it's something people do as a normal course of nature, and I see no reason to condemn it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 10 - 05:33 PM "Roman Catholic priests have the highest rate of hiv infection of any occupation." If this is in any way true, and if, as you have persistently claimed. the asssault on the children were by homosexuals, do you have any examples of the victims having contacted aids from their abusers - if not, why not? I suppose I will have to add this to my quite considerable list of unanswered questions to you. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 May 10 - 05:49 PM I don't know anything about the source of this document...but, I found it on a quest to determine Buddhist views on homosexuality:http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 May 10 - 06:26 PM I try to stay away from a legalistic approach to teaching both religion and morality. It's too easy to get boxed into absolutes that way, and both religion and morality are not exact sciences. Ed's link to the article on Buddhist views on homosexuality, makes a lot of sense. Here's an excerpt:
Some people tell me that I'm "not really Catholic" or "not really Christian" because I refuse to take a legalistic approach to morality. I think Jesus Christ (and Thomas Aquinas) would agree with my more compassionate approach. I don't reject "the rules" - they are an important part of making moral decisions, but they are not the only proper guide to what's right and wrong. It's important to weigh the factors. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 07 May 10 - 03:01 AM Jim....I have no way of knowing whether or not young people have been infected. I only print what is documented or what I have witnessed....I allow people to draw their own conclusions. If I have failed to answer any of your questions, I can only assume that they have been more inane than your usual verbiage. Even I, tire of making the same point over and over again, just because you adopt the pretence of not understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 May 10 - 02:47 PM "Jim....I have no way of knowing whether or not young people have been infected." No, you haven't - this has not stopped you making your unsupported pronouncements up to now. There have been no reports of abuse victims contacting aids from their abusers, which rather puts your pronouncement of predatory, disease riddled homosexuals infiltrating the priesthood in order to have their wicked way with children into context - doesn't it? If any good can be said to have come out of this sordid mess, it is the fact that it has thrown the church, its influence and its teachings into the public gaze. One thing is for certain; it will never again attain the position of power it once held and abused. This thoughtful piece which appeared in this mornings Irish Times would have been unthinkable not too long ago. Jim Carroll TIME TO DITCH ARCHAIC IDEAS ON HOMOSEXUALITY Scientific research into gender attraction and general social evolution removes any excuse for depriving gay people of open and fulfilled lives Homosexuality is caused by eating chickens, according to the Bolivian president {The Irish Times, April 22nd). Or is it the fault of domineering mothers and weak fathers according to the reparative therapists {The Irish Times, April 21st)? Then there is the "I'm told" connection between homosexuality and paedophilia according to Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Bertone {The Irish Times, April 13th). With so many opinions and confusions about an integral part of the human condition, it is no wonder any sexual orientation not subscribing to the majority experience can become a target for misunderstandings and even fears. Consequently, "gay" becomes used as a pejorative taunt by children. So, in separating the wheat from the chaff, what are the known facts? Human sexuality is an extremely complex phenomenon since it involves more than just biological urges. Multiple variables influence the expression of all human sexuality, not least our sociological, cultural and religious experiences and beliefs. However, our emotional attractions do have an underlying inner sense that points that biological drive consistently in one direction. As so often happens with research questions, science grapples with the "nature versus nurture" bases for human behaviour. Psychoanalytic theories postulated parental relationships as a possible cause of male homosexuality, with emotionally distant fathers and overprotective mothers. However, the opposite appears more likely. Fathers can tend to distance themselves from sons who do not fully meet their criteria for maleness and mothers are likely to be protective of such sons. Social learning theory and its correlates, classical and operant conditioning or behaviour modification, can have an effect on certain sexual behaviours and even fantasies, but not on sexual preference. In the 1950s, these theories were taken to the extreme with aversion/shock therapies but with poor results. The seduction theory assumes early homosexual experiences will predispose a boy to develop a gay orientation. Studies reveal boys who have same-sex experiences knew of their inclinations before experiencing such activities. An example is one by Daewood (2000) in which he surveyed 37 gay sibling pairs: two-thirds did not engage in any mutual sexual behaviours and the average age for becoming aware of their same-sex feelings was 11, but the average age for discovering that the other brother was gay was 21. These findings are similar to a recent Irish survey (2009) that found the average age of awareness was 12 but public coming out was not until about 19. Serious scientific research is currently focusing more on biological processes in the prenatal stages. While there has been a concerted effort to identify a "gay gene", it appears genetics contributes less than half of the variance and the genes responsible for sexual orientation actually affect the brain's chemistry and the brain's response to that chemistry rather than directly mediate the orientation itself. While the research is much more complicated than these brief descriptions, the conclusions of the bulk of this peer-reviewed research is that sexual orientation is decided well before conscious choices are possible and the resulting orientation, whatever the direction, is irreversible. Whatever one's choice of lifestyle based upon beliefs, culture and psychological wellbeing, sexual preference or attraction is ingrained. If the emerging knowledge has merit - and there is sufficient evidence to accept it does - I believe the academic debates are no longer relevant. What is relevant is focusing on how our gay citizens can develop to their fullest potential, which can only happen in the context of human interactions and relationships. An integral and basic aspect of these interactions revolves around that universal, all-engulfing, romantically inspired, electrifying shiver that, despite neuropsychological studies, remains more in the poet's corner - the emotion of love. Our society can no longer deny expression and fulfilment of such a core element as love to over 5 per cent of its population when all heterosexual couples can openly and without fear or shame avow commitment to each other. So, how are we supporting our gay youth to become psychologically autonomous individuals free to express their most basic needs for acceptance and approval if they must overcome more hurdles than the average teen? And for those where the hurdles are too insurmountable, how can those gay adolescents experience and learn about relationships if they have to keep their emerging identity hidden in a deceptive game of pretending to be someone they are not? The recent RTE documentary Growing up Gay in Ireland demonstrated the confusions and struggles gay youth must endure with family and peers just to find some place within themselves to develop an individuated, autonomous and confident sense of identity. Watching it, I was reminded of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Those who have read the novel will remember that Huck was running away from an oppressive 19th-century American society along with Jim, a runaway Negro slave, as they discovered the world by rafting down the Mississippi river. The central dramatic moment in the novel is when Huck is faced with a dilemma. Should he do the "right" thing as he would have been taught in Sunday school and turn his friend Jim into the authorities, or not betray their friendship but break the law and thus be forever damned to hell? Despite the laws and cultural beliefs of the time and the innocent belief he would be damned for all eternity, Huck's decision (to use his own words) was "Alright then, I'll go to Hell!" Huck was able to access a deep inner sense that there could be only one truly humane choice, regardless of the personal consequences, and that was the idea of friendship. Thus, the naive boy became the autonomous man. In our society today, at least 5 per cent of our youth are faced with a very similar dilemma between an inner sense of self as gay and trying to fit in with the majority of their peers. Facing the prospect of loneliness, it is no surprise that suicide is more common among gay youth. Unlike Huck, they do not all have the courage or the confidence in themselves to swim against the current. Ireland is changing rapidly in awareness and acceptance of sexual orientation differences. Cardinal Bertone's recent inept comment was a non-runner for debate since most informed people today do not accept such nonsense. A 2009 circular from the Department of Education encourages schools to be more proactive in dealing with homophobia. However, a 2009 survey sample of parents across 120 Irish schools conducted by the University of Limerick noted the majority believe homophobia is still strong in many schools and that gay issues should be on the curriculum. So there is much more our society needs to do. There are many who would still believe they are destined for hell because they are gay. As one of the girls in the RTE documentary stated, it already felt like she was in hell with regard to school bullying. So, with the current state of our knowledge, it is time to reconsider our attitudes and personal biases and to reassess those beliefs which may be archaic, ineffective, non-relevant and inhumane. It is time for parents to continue to educate themselves to the facts and convey via modelling and discussion with their own children to fully respect differences. We must free up all our youth, and all our citizens for that matter, to become and experience and express who they are to their fullest potential. Or maybe we should just quit eating chicken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 May 10 - 06:36 PM Interesting articlew, if you fish around the site, there may be more: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex4.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 May 10 - 01:54 AM I'm really impressed with that religious tolerance Website, Ed. It seems to have a very reasonable, balanced approach - and it refrains from screaming. I'm glad you pointed it out to us. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 08 May 10 - 02:34 AM Please!! Do you really regard that as "objective" It is simply a screed of "liberal" propaganda, all pros and no cons. Not a word about health figures, promiscuity rates, life expectancy etc? The whole article is extremely biased against the conservative view, without putting forward any real evidence to back up what they say, other that everyone should be "equal" regardless of behaviour. They conveniently leave out any "sexual orientations" which are against the current law......completely biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 May 10 - 03:12 AM And the push goes on to turn this thread from one on child abuse to for-and-against homosexuality - again. Attacks on children are not homosexual, they are paedophilic. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 08 May 10 - 07:41 AM "sexual orientations" which are against the current law" Which laws and where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 May 10 - 09:42 PM Sorry, ake, but your sacred "conservative" point of view is bound up in legalism and prejudice. Common sense*, which is by far the best moral arbiter, has very little to do with it. Oh, and contrary to common belief, we liberals are generally quite well-mannered and well-behaved. -Joe- *And to my mind, "common sense" and "conscience" are more-or-less the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 09 May 10 - 07:44 PM Good. They are naming names and this one has been very suspiciously involved in things. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0510/1224270048664.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 09 May 10 - 08:19 PM Any idea what the secret may be, if still a secret, that is? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7701579/Popes-visit-to-Portgual-may-shed-light-on-Third-S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 09 May 10 - 08:22 PM People pretending to be RC, to get work...Only in Canada, you say? http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100509/Turning-Catholic-100509/20100509/?hub=TorontoNewHome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 09 May 10 - 09:07 PM I can't recheck the article but come to think of it there was talk of something about the third secret of Fatima and I am not sure if it was related to Cardinal Sodano or not..but he does not sound like a good Vicar of the Church to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 09 May 10 - 09:23 PM The Pope will travel to Portugal this week amid hopes that he might shed light on one of the Catholic Church's most intriguing mysteries – the so-called Third Secret of Fatima By Nick Squires in Rome Published: 10:50PM BST 09 May 2010 During his four day visit, Benedict XVI will pray at the shrine of Fatima, one of the best known centres of Catholic pilgrimage in the world and the focus of endless conspiracy theories and Doomsday predictions. Its cult is founded on the belief that three shepherd children witnessed a series of apparitions and prophecies of the Virgin Mary in 1917. The third secret was only disclosed by the Vatican in 2000 and was said to have foretold the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II by a Turkish gunman in 1981. There has been intense speculation ever since that the Vatican withheld part of the secret, which is said to have concerned the Satanic infiltration of the Catholic Church, the rise of an anti-Pope or even nuclear Armageddon. The Holy See claims that it has released the full text of the secret and that it is holding nothing back, but many Catholics are not convinced. Benedict is one of the world's leading authorities on the mystery because as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he was elected Pope in 2005, he was responsible for developing the Vatican's official position on the miracle of Fatima and wrote a scholarly interpretation of the Third Secret. Benedict's visit is heavy with symbolism. He will be in Fatima on May 13 – the same day, in 1917, that the Madonna supposedly first appeared to the children. It is also the date on which Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca came close to killing John Paul II after shooting him in St Peter's Square. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 10 May 10 - 02:03 AM I went to Fatima (in Portugal) a couple of years ago. I was very wary because of the whole hysterical anti-Communist song-and-dance that goes with it, and the "three secrets" told to the 3 children of Fatima who received the "apparitions" of the Virgin Mary in 1917. I was surprised that the shrine didn't display the almost militaristic religious practices I've come to associate with Fatima. The only militaristic thing I saw was an aspect of the evening candlelight procession. The procession was led by a uniformed soldier carrying a neon cross. Two-thirds of the way back was the Eucharist displayed in a monstrance that was carried by a priest. Eight soldiers in various uniforms carried a canopy over the Eucharist/monstrance. I have wondered if Fatima's message of anti-Communism had anything to do with the Fascist government that ran Portugal for most of the 20th century, but I haven't been able to make a connection there. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 10 May 10 - 04:00 PM Axis of Logic http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59789.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 10 May 10 - 04:23 PM Catholic bishops who shelter abusers go unpunished: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1253818&srvc=rss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 13 May 10 - 10:06 PM "Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday called abortion and same-sex marriage some of the most "insidious and dangerous"threats facing the world today" Wow, considering all the evil and issues in the world today, this stement proves to me this man is out of touch. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/13/13933996.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: olddude Date: 13 May 10 - 10:18 PM The pope is out of touch with reality and I am catholic. I question his leadership, even his morality ... the church anymore is in a state of chaos I think... Until some serious steps are taking and some evil people end up in jail I am staying away for awhile. I find myself closer to my faith and to God fishing and being with nature then I do there anymore. It is quite sad actually. Yes there are good people very good people and there are bad people very bad people but far too many bad people lately are ending up in the church and that is a failure of the leadership. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 13 May 10 - 10:31 PM Things are moving in a positive direction. The world is going after Sodano who is somewhere between stupid and evil...I can't place him exactly on a multidimensional scale. New York Times took him on today I think. I hope Maureen Dowd takes him on as her personal cause. The pope has proclaimed that the church is persecuted..by sin this time..not by homosexuals or the media or the Pepsi Generation aka Woodstock. He has not exactly said that the church was the persecutors. First Sodano should go, by hook or by crook, and he will not go easy, then Law, then I think the pope should do the right thing and resign. And Pope John Paul should not be canonized, and that makes me sad because I liked him. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 15 May 10 - 10:24 AM A statement from the pope yesterday: "... attacks against the pope or the church do not only come from outside; rather the sufferings of the church come from within, from the sins that exist in the church. This too has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: the greatest persecution of the church does not come from enemies on the outside, but is born from the sin within the church, the church therefore has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the need for justice. "Forgiveness is not a substitute for justice. In one word we have to relearn these essentials: conversion, prayer, penance, and the theological virtues." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/14/2899738.htm?site=thedrum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: JohnInKansas Date: 16 May 10 - 02:33 AM I tried to scan the rest of the thread to make sure this hasn't been posted previously. If it has, I apologize. Pictures like the one linked have been making the rounds in email (mostly chain) letters that are quite obviously in poor taste, but perhaps the "popularity" of the joke should be of interest as a reflection of "public mood" or something(?). What struck me is that something that once inspired an intended reverence is now passed around as a rather sick joke. The world views the church differently than it did a few years ago, and the shift in views appears among the irreligious, those of other faiths, and those who continue to consider themselves part of it. Time to Replace the Church Window? (View at your own risk.) Usually accompanied by the comment: "It probably seemed like a good idea at the time." While I'm sure that the image will be offensive to many with the comments being applied, I would urge an effort to see it as it was originally intended, before – or while – also reflecting on the meaning being applied by recent emailers. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 16 May 10 - 04:42 AM Aw, I think it's an Anglican window, John. Catholic clergy don't wear cassock and surplice for confirmation (they wear full vestments). Otherwise, the ritual is the same. In fact, I think I found the source of the photo - St. James Episcopal Church on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. You will note that photo number 10, confirmation, is missing. Gee, I've never noticed that church, and I must have driven past it a hundred times. I like the architecture of Wilshire Boulevard, and take that route whenever I can - I never take the Santa Monica freeway, because the surrounding area is so interesting. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: JohnInKansas Date: 16 May 10 - 09:42 PM Joe - I've only seen about three of the emails, and none of them described a source. (I don't get much of that sort of junk mail, so three is a whole lot for a single subject for me.) Of course I couldn't link to an email so that others could see it, so I had to do a web search. Using the "Time to Replace the Church Window" search line immediately popped up a good dozen web pages where the image is posted, none of which - so far as I could tell - actually included the search term. It must be "associated" with the phrase by some other means. Since Google results are ranked almost entirely by "popularity" the number of hits on the first page or two of results probably indicates very wide recent circulation. As I hope was clear, my opinion is just that it's really a shame that something with a simple, clear, reverent meaning has been warped into a "popular" derogatory bit of not-very-funny "humor." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 17 May 10 - 01:06 AM Yeah, I'll bet that links to the photo caused a huge amount of traffic, and that may have crashed the church's Website. That's probably why they took the picture down. Can't say I like 1950s-1960s stained glass like that. I prefer more traditional art on stained glass - or go completely the other way with something like Chagall. An excellent example of Chagall's stained glass is the Union Church of Pocantico Hills in the Hudson River Valley. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 May 10 - 04:06 AM Things seem to have moved on somewhat in Ireland. The church is now fighting tooth-and-nail to retain its grip on education and has been forced to concede (totally unprecedented to my knowledge) that it may be "inappropriate in certain circumstances" to have a Catholic monopoly in Irish schools. Yet still the church seems not to have got the message. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin made a couragous speech condemning the abuse and the way it has been handled, speaking of dark forces within the church "that would prefer that the truth did not emerge", and about "signs of a rejection of a sense of responsibility for what had happened". He suggested that child protection regulations were "not being rigourously followed" and that church academics and publicists are retrospectively analysing the "catastrophe" of child abuse "as if they were totally extraneous to the scandal". His outspoken stance has led to either hostility or complete silence from his fellow clerics. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 17 May 10 - 04:37 AM Joe's comments about Fatima as a fascist rallying point reminded me of what's happened at Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which has similarly become a pilgrimage site as a result of a series of "visions". I was in Mostar (the nearest city to Medjugorje) in the last couple of weeks. Probably related to Medjugorje is the enormous Rio-type concrete cross someone recently put up on the top of the hill obove Mostar. It's sited at the exact point where the Croatian Catholic fascists placed their artillery to blast the city to pieces, with thousands of deaths, in the early 1990s. The whole Medjugorje cult was fake mysticism intended to rally Catholics around the Croatian fascist cause (i.e. the expropriation of half of Bosnia). It's one of the biggest Catholic pilgrimage sites in Europe. I think the moral is that if Catholic kids start having officially-approved visions anywhere in your neighbourhood, it's time to make sure your anti-aircraft guns have enough ammo. A lot of what the Catholic Church did under John Paul II was far worse than raping a few kids, but because mass murder of Muslims and socialists doesn't trigger approved moral outrage under the capitalist sustem in the way that sexual deviance does, it looks like nobody's going to be held to account for it, least of all Wojtyla, the genocidal shit in charge of it all. I thought about going to Medjugorje but decided anything with associations that violent and depressing was a bit much for a holiday. Instead I went to Blagaj, a few miles out of Mostar in the other direction, and by pure fluke hit their annual Muslim festival (around Mevlud, the birthday of Mohammed). There were about 20,000 people there, mainly for the street fair (stalls selling roast meat, Muslim kitsch souvenirs, wooden toys and cheap underwear). The most violent thing about it was a chance to ride on the dodgems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 17 May 10 - 04:43 PM "We want to show our solidarity to the pope and transmit the message that single individuals make mistakes but institutions, faith and religion cannot be questioned," Alemanno told Associated Press Television News. "We will not allow this." Rome's center-right Mayor Gianni Alemanno http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_pope |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 17 May 10 - 04:51 PM "The Vatican and the Holy Father are not bound by this national jurisdiction, both as head of state and as the head of the Church," Ciro Benedettini, vice-head of the Vatican press office told AFP. Comment: At least BP is taking the responsibility of paying for the cost of damages made by folks acting on it's behalf and recognises it is bound by laws of the state it operates in. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Vatican+present+legal+defense+Kentucky+abuse+case/3038996/story.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 17 May 10 - 05:55 PM Two quotes from the same article, posted above by Ed: "The Vatican has been mired in scandal amid hundreds of reports in Europe, the United States and elsewhere of priests who raped and molested children while bishops and Vatican officials turned a blind eye. Benedict's own handling of cases has also come under fire." "Luca Colussi, from the farmers' union Coldiretti, said abuse allegations must be fully investigated. 'But as far we're concerned, our members will always remain close to the Pope as we share the same values.'" Well, it made me laugh, but maybe a warped sense of humour is required.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 02:08 AM Hi, Jack- I hadn't heard the political implications of the Medjugorje shrine. I had wondered why the Vatican withheld approval from the shrine, but all I've read was that the Vatican said the apparitions were "not authentic." I had also heard that the Vatican has made efforts to distance itself from Croatian fascism (but short of an outright condemnation), but I hadn't made a connection between the two. I have seen no reason why the Catholic Church and John Paul II should be blamed for the Croatian atrocities, although it's clear that Croatian clergy have been involved. I know of no indication that the Vatican or John Paul was involved or gave approval or support. Medjugorje is very popular with the pious types in the Catholic Church, and they have tried all sorts of verbal gymnastics to attempt to say that the Vatican "didn't really" withhold approval. Click here for a pretty balanced article from Christian Century by Dr. Denis Janz, associate professor of historical theology at Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana. The article was written in 1987, before the wars that plagued the area in the 1990s. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jack Campin Date: 18 May 10 - 08:25 AM Janz's article was pretty insightful. I hadn't realized Medjugorje was so dissociated from the Vatican - seems to be about as Christian as the Loch Ness Monster. (Most of the tourists heading that way when I was in Mostar were Polish - seems like Polish Catholicism is the least critical variety on earth). The fact that the Franciscans are running Medjugorje (despite having no official sanction) comes as no surprise. Their history in Croatia has been utterly ghoulish. There may be a (somewhat feeble) case to be made for Archbishop Stepinac's behaviour under the Nazis, but the Croatian Franciscans were war criminals of the most appallingly sadistic brutality known from anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 18 May 10 - 09:05 AM Most of the tourists heading that way when I was in Mostar were Polish - seems like Polish Catholicism is the least critical variety on earth. Medjugorje is also very popular among Irish pilgrims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 18 May 10 - 12:44 PM wow joe clam down. people from many areas and backgrounds have every right to criticize the catholic church on child abbuse. the rc has a long history of cover ups and no history of real punishment for offenders unless proven in criminal court. there are in fact many helpfull solutions. i don't think celibacy is the issue, the ussue is the church has never had an arms length oversight group that can dispense discipline. everything has been kept internal--a recipie for corruption. if all accusations were automatically refered with all documentation to an out side arms length authority then things would be properly investigated , greatly reducing cover up and abuse, and speedily ejecting abusers instead of protecting them for decdades. a group that holds such great moral authority over its members has an obligation to do this if it wants to be considered fair. more important to me is the undiscussed deaths of aproximately half the children in native residential schools run all over north america with the participating churches destroying all records they can. get real joe the catholic church has consistently covered up and destroyed the records of abuse.as a result catholics and the church have absolutely no right to attack the critics--they have an obligation to LISTEN for years and years. i know canadian catholics who have good solutions. like a three year period of attoinment is being proposed where the church is required to LISTEN to the abused and the critics without responding. then a three year internal meditation on how to deal with things properly.and of course an artms length abuse investigatory body. but joe with you insistence that it is bigotry to criticize i think its time for you to step down from mudcat. you have to try to maintain some objecytivity. the catholic and several other churches have participated in genocide against canadian natives and have avoided almost all responsibility. you should try the three yrears of listening before you repond again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,ollaimh Date: 18 May 10 - 02:06 PM ps to jim campin. yes many countries have a higher age of consent for people in positions of authority. the age of consent in canada is 21 if the under 21 year old is having sex with a person in authority, including employer, supervisor, teacher and yes preist or other religious leader. many american states have the same kind of provisions, because people in authority should not be using their postion to get sex from even young people who are not minors. i repeat that no one should be attacking the abused . its time for catholics to listen, for a very long time and not talk. a genuine truth and reconcilliation commission would be good, run by non catholic authorities, preferable world wide, not just for sexual abuse but also for the tens of thousands of native children who were denied normal health care and died in residential schools. inspector general bryce said in canada in 1907 that the condiditons were"criminal" for native children. he was dismissed from his job and had his medical licence taken away. thats how evil the system of churches and governments have been and remain. they are just a little more sophisticated now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 03:17 PM "A 2001 report by the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada documents the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the federal government in the deaths of more than 50,000 Native children in the Canadian residential school system. The report says church officials killed children by beating, poisoning, electric shock, starvation, prolonged exposure to sub-zero cold while naked, and medical experimentation, including the removal of organs and radiation exposure. In 1928 Alberta passed legislation allowing school officials to forcibly sterilize Native girls; British Columbia followed suit in 1933. There is no accurate toll of forced sterilizations because hospital staff destroyed records in 1995 after police launched an investigation. But according to the testimony of a nurse in Alberta, doctors sterilized entire groups of Native children when they reached puberty. The report also says that Canadian clergy, police, and business and government officials "rented out" children from residential schools to pedophile rings. The consequences of sexual abuse can be devastating. "Of the first 29 men who publicly disclosed sexual abuse in Canadian residential schools, 22 committed suicide," says Gerry Oleman, a counselor to residential school survivors in British Columbia." From Amnesty Magazine. Read and weep. Christianity has a lot to answer for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 05:48 PM Gee, ollaimh, I think I AM pretty calm in this discussion. I don't deny that that there has been abuse and sexual molestation of children in the Catholic Church, and I don't deny that many of those in authority have covered up crimes or at least have responded to the crimes with appalling ineptitude. It is a scandal, and it is indeed a horrible scandal. Many who should be prosecuted and imprisoned for these crimes have not been prosecuted, and that is wrong. The scandal hit first here in the United States, and we went through the embarrassing stage of "official" denial that the Catholic Church in Europe is now going through. As you can see on this page, the bishops of the United States met in 2002 and commissioned a third-party study of the scandal. The U.S. bishops also instituted a system of strict controls intended to prevent future sexual molestation of children. It wasn't a perfect response and it was far too late, but it was a good and strong response. By 2005, the number of new reports of molestation had dwindled, and generous settlements were paid to most victims within a year or two after that. We still get waves of press reports of sexual abuse cases in the U.S. Catholic Church, but most of these reports pertain to abuses that were reported and compensated years ago. No, we still haven't heard of all the incidents of abuse in the United States. I'm still shaken by a new report I heard last week that I haven't seen in the press. This report, which was "deemed credible" by church authorities, was against a now-deceased priest I knew and liked when I was in the seminary in high school and college. But most of the U.S. incidents have been reported and dealt with. Many of the victims were given generous settlements decades ago, when the "going price" of a settlement was $25,000 to $40,000. Many of those victims received additional payments in recent years, at the "going price" of a million dollars. The US cases reported in the press now, are generally cases that were reported and handled and compensated thirty years ago - but now the press questions whether the response was fast enough and generous enough and whatnot. In the US, the response has now taken place. Now is the time for study and for rational discussion, to find out why the problem happened, how church authorities should have responded, and how to prevent the problem can be prevented in the future. The press has done its job - over a number of years, it has exposed the problem, in all its ugliness. In the Catholic Church in United States, now is the time for study and for healing. The scandal was first exposed in Ireland much more recently, maybe only in the last 2-3 years, and I'm sure that there will be many more reports of abuses. And within the last year, the scandal has come to a head in Great Britain and the European Continent. The "denial" stage hasn't ended in Europe. At Easter, there was a barrage of statements from highly-placed church officials, attempting to downplay the scandal or shift the blame. I heard a number of bishops and cardinals make statements that were incredibly insensitive, incredibly stupid, or both. One wonders where they got the nerve to say outrageous things like that. You'd think they would have learned from the scandal in the US, and that they would have developed a rational and sensitive way of responding by now. But no, several European bishops said outrageous things at Easter, and I can't figure out WHAT they were thinking. Maybe their irrational Easter responses are a good thing - maybe it's an indication that the guilty ones are scared shitless, as well they should be. The shit has hit the fan in the European Catholic Church, and the next few years aren't going to be pretty. OK, so I'm a seminary-trained Catholic lay leader and teacher, and I've worked in the Catholic Church all my life. For the past ten years, I have worked in a women's center run by Catholic nuns, and it's a wonderful place. The parishes I have belonged to have generally been quite good - and when they had problems, I worked hard to solve them. So, what do I do now, in the midst of all this? Do I stop working for the poor? Do I stop going to church? I acknowledge the bad in the Catholic Church and I deplore it, and I have worked against it for years and put up with abuse from Catholics who call me "unfaithful" for raising questions and objections. What am I supposed to do now? Stop everything, and throw out all the good I've known in the Catholic Church, along with the bad? I have been aware of the problem of priests abusing children for thirty years, and I first became involved in working to resolve the problem in about 1985. Now, after all this time, I see that there is now an international wave of outrage against the child abuse and molestation. But, as often happens, the outrage comes like buckshot, and is directed even at those who worked to solve the problem thirty to fifty years ago. The same thing happened to black and white people who worked in the early years of the Civil Rights movement in the US - white civil rights volunteers were condemned because they were white, and early black civil rights leaders were condemned as "Uncle Toms" because they preached tolerance and nonviolence. Americans were condemned as a nation during the George Bush administration, even though more than half the voters cast their vote against Bush in 2000. Americans were condemned for the Vietnam War, forgetting all the dedicated American people who worked so hard and so long to oppose the war. Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few, that's bigotry. And yes, that happens frequently here. Certainly, it's not in every message and it's not expressed by every Mudcatter, but there certainly IS a lot of bigotry here, and it often overwhelms attempts to discuss issues rationally. And that all I'm asking for, a rational discussion, one that argues from the facts and gives credit where credit is due. I seek a discussion that actually attempts to understand and resolve the problem, rather that just wildly firing the shotgun of blame. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 06:16 PM With respect, maybe you should try to take it a little less personally, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 07:28 PM Well, Smokey, I'm not just an observer. I'm in the middle of it. Being Catholic is part of who I am - and it is a good part of who I am, just as the peace movement and the civil rights movement were part of the identity of those who participated. So, yes, I do take it personally. I am appalled that such a thing could happen in my church. I have always been in the "loyal opposition" of the Catholic Church, criticizing countless things - but it has always been MY church. But this isn't a quarrel about women priests or birth control or divorce and remarriage or a thousand other important issues I have debated - this is about a systemic failure. And the leaders of the Catholic Church are responding in ways that are, for the most part, both appalling and incredibly stupid. I never had much faith in the bureaucracy of the Vatican before, but the response of the last six weeks has been outrageous. And still despite all that, most of what I directly experience in the Catholic Church is very good, and most of the people I directly encounter in the Catholic Church are very good. So, how do I balance all that out? And although I totally acknowledge the sex abuse scandal, how do I respond when good people are attacked along with the bad? And yes, I do feel that there are very few people here who have a real understanding of religious faith of the non-fundamentalist variety. It's not a matter of authority or obligation, it's not a matter of doing something you're supposed to do, it's not a matter of passing judgment on anyone - it's part of who you are. -Joe- P.S. Read the post from ollaimh at 12:44 and tell my why I shouldn't take it personally.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 08:31 PM I don't see any good people being attacked; they aren't the problem. Criticism of Catholicism isn't condemnation of all Catholics, though I suppose I can see how it might seem that way sometimes. I'm sure that's rarely the intention on here, although such an emotive subject is almost bound to elicit gut reactions now and again. Read the post from ollaimh at 12:44 and tell my why I shouldn't take it personally.... Because it's not worth it, and life's too short. I hereby absolve you from three years of listening, however grammatically incorrect that might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 18 May 10 - 08:42 PM Well, I agree with the listening part, which I think is very necessary; but I'm also supposed to resign from Mudcat, for some reason... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 18 May 10 - 08:51 PM An interesting perspective on integrity, institutions and on churches. http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/035/Institutional%20Ethics%20-%20An%20Oxymoron%20By%20Joe%20Trull_035_02_.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 18 May 10 - 09:13 PM I'm also supposed to resign from Mudcat, for some reason... Well, you can kiss goodbye to the fast cars, loose women and high living then. Just try to remember to come back and repond after your three years of listening. (To your victims??) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 May 10 - 06:42 AM "Integrity is a precious possession. It is a virtue that no one can take from you—you must give it away" More double-talk by the Vatican: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH9I3NH568g_9CE-MMStuwZ3jgfAD9FPA7RO0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 May 10 - 06:51 AM In it's attempts to avoid any responsibility for the RC priest crimes, and protect the Vatican (not the RC church or faith) it makes me wonder..."Is the Poep Catholic"? I expect this tactic could be the next legal defense, if all other avoidance measures fail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 19 May 10 - 07:04 AM Another link to the court case: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-17-vatican-abuse-defense_N.htm?csp=34 |
