 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: ollaimh Date: 20 May 10 - 11:14 AM the critics of the catholic church are not bigots joe, the continuing attack on the abused is despicable and the organization id clearly immoral not amoral.. we had decades of scandal in eastern canada leading to recent settlements. at every stage the catholic authorities covvered everything up. the bishop of antigonish , back in the seventies , published an article in the local newspaper complianing, amomg other things, that little girls try to seduce priests. he reamined there untill several of his priests were finally convicted of criminal offenses. after he had covered up many earlier ones. unbelievable conduct for a bishop and unbelievable conduct by his superiors when many complained about his artiilce and attitudes. the whole organization is corrupt and evil, and desparately needs yearts or LISTENING, and an independant truth and reconcilliation commission. and especially with the murder of about fifty thousand native children. never reported nor recorded in church records , they just didn\t return and the church still won\t reveal where the bodies are. the canadian government kept records separately but also destroyed them , realizing that they might be a problem someday. lucikily the university of british columbia kept copies in their historical archives. the churches(the anglican and united church of canadas also were involved in these residential schools)and the government threatened to sue for the records.. to their credit ubc sent copies to dozens of universities all over the wolrd. they said they are not in the business of destroying historical documents. the churches always claimed that the government asked them to do all this. but those records showed that they petitioned the government for decades to get power over natives. including judicial power. they routinely criminally charged the pagans and fined them by taking their land. these churches still hold thousands of acres of illegally gotten native land or sold it to cronies for a pitance in return for donations or government influence. this has all been publishes and no libel or slander siuts ahve come from the churches--they know well they will be cross examined in open court. these churches denied native children health care and death rates of fifty per cent resulted. this happened up to the mid to late seventies. they routinely put the children infected with smallpox and tuberculosis in dorms with the un infected. of course they all get the illnesses. the superintendent dr bryce said the care was "criminl" and they hounded him from government service and eventually from the medical profession. at every stage the churches used their power to avoid responsibility for sexual abuse and murder. i used to see the native kids get off the school buss with dozens of black and blue bruises. time for catholics to shut up and listen listen listem for years. and make attonement to natives rtather than fight the claims at every turn. they still haven\t returned the bodies. these churches are immoral. if they want to regain any claim to morallity they need to attone on a very massive form, and at the very least nstop calling the critics bigots |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 20 May 10 - 07:06 PM Well, as I said before: Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few, that's bigotry. And yes, that happens frequently here. Certainly, it's not in every message and it's not expressed by every Mudcatter, but there certainly IS a lot of bigotry here, and it often overwhelms attempts to discuss issues rationally. There is plenty of valid criticism, and I have no quarrel with that whatsoever. Almost countless incidents of sexual and physical abuse of children took place in the Catholic Church, and that is indeed worthy of criticism and serious, probing discussion. I was critical of Catholic handling of child molestation as far back as 1985, maybe earlier. But I question the criticism when it strays from the facts and the actual misconduct that took place and drifts into accusations that have little or no factual basis, or when it results in broad generalizations, or when it ridicules my religious faith. I found the "imaginary friend" posts of a while back to be particularly bigoted. ollaimh, if you want to criticize what I say, that's fine - but point to an actual statement I made and THEN discuss it. I have said many times that I agree with most of the criticism posted here, and there are very few incidents discussed here that I deny. What you've said about me so far is just a damn insult, because you have not given any factual basis for your accusations. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 20 May 10 - 07:49 PM I found the "imaginary friend" posts of a while back to be particularly bigoted. Just the one, and I did point out that it was no more than my personal opinion. We all have those. As Akenaton rightly pointed out, I was ranting. Bigotry is when you believe all other opinions to be inferior and/or are intolerant of them. I read yours with interest, agree with a lot of what you say and try to respect that with which I don't agree. I maintain that your accusation of bigotry is unfounded, but I apologise for the offence caused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 20 May 10 - 08:01 PM An interesting article: http://tor.id.au/article.php/20100519025842292?query= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 10 - 12:25 AM If you search Mudcat for the term "imaginary friend," you will see that the phrase has been used dozens of times and become almost a mantra for those who want to ridicule the Christian faith. And in using the term, the posters generally class all Christians with the extreme fundamentalists, holding all up to the same ridicule. Well, many Christians far more sophisticated in their thinking. They are often quite familiar with Joseph Campbell and his Power of Myth work, and they accept it or at least respect the idea that there is a strong element of myth in religious faith - and yet they remain believers. Most of us hold something sacred - and I think that much of what we deem sacred is that which we do not completely understand, what Kierkegaard terms "mystery." The haughtiness of rationalism ignores the mystery of that which we cannot understand - and I think that haughtiness brought about much of the social and ecological damage wrought by the industrial revolution and carried on throughout the twentieth century. Religious thought and practice is one way to explore mystery, but there are also non-religions ways. What we hold sacred, is part of who we are. Perhaps we hold our parents or grandparents sacred, or home, or a special tree, or our marriage. Perhaps it's the work of a particular author, or a work of art, or a special place in nature. For Catholics, the Eucharist and Jesus Christ are sacred; for Protestants, Christ and the Bible; for Jews, the Torah and the Exodus story; for Muslims, the Holy Koran and Mohammed; for Buddhists, statues of the Buddha. All of these sacred things and people and events lead us into a deeper and more appreciative understanding of the mysteries of life. If they are truly sacred, these sacred things are not imposed upon us - they are a real part of who we are. And if others attack that which is sacred to us, they attack us. I've followed the child abuse and molestation crisis in the Catholic Church since the very beginning, long before it hit the general press. And I am outraged at what has happened. I felt betrayed by Pope Paul VI by his refusal to accept birth control in 1968, and the authorities of the Catholic Church have done one outrageous thing after another since then - silencing of theologians, punishing priests and nuns for ministering to gays and lesbians, trying to make an "infallible" statement that women can never become priests, ridiculous grandstanding on the issue of abortion, and on and on and on. By 1995, thirty years after Vatican II, the hierarchy had very little credibility among thinking Catholics. And then the sex abuse crisis hit, and the hierarchy dealt with it abominably. Since 1968, I have had no reason to have any shred of respect for authority within the Catholic Church - and because of this, "authority" is completely outside my religious vocabulary. But I still have my Catholic faith, and it is still sacred to me - even though it is administered by dottering old men who are horribly flawed and oftentimes outright corrupt. But still, my faith is sacred to me, and my life of faith has been a good one. So, when you criticize, criticize the corruption and the crime and and all that is bad within the Catholic Church (and there is a lot) - but remember that there is still an essence of the Catholic faith that lies very deep in the hearts of Catholic people, and that essence is good and sacred. Please respect whatever it is that people hold to be sacred - because if you don't, you fail to respect the people themselves. And if you don't understand something that is sacred to somebody, leave it be - don't try to explain it away or hold it up to ridicule. -Joe- Oh, and you may want to Click here for a series of very honest articles in the National Catholic Reporter that are very critical of the child molestation and abuse scandal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 May 10 - 06:36 AM "Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few," Once again you are evading the issue of what has happened and is still happening Joe. Yes, a few clerics abused children (we don't know how 'few' yet; this week another 190 cases of abuse have been revealed in Ireland, dating as far back as 1950). The condemnation of this that has rightly followed these revelations is not aimed at all Catholics, but, firstly at the abusers, then at the own Church's reaction to these abuses; some of the sharpest critics of the behaviour of the church here at present have been practicing Catholics. The church, as an organisation, hid the abuses and allowed the abusers to continue raping children, bullying the victims into silence with spiritual blackmail - it became an complicit to crimes, before and after the fact. Apart from a few bland murmerings of sympathy, at no time has the church (as an organisation) taken any responsibility for the abuses carried out on children under their care and it's own failure to act on the abuses, either in preventing them or bringing the abusers to justice. While this continues to happen the ordinary, good Catholics and the non-abusive clergy will be caught in the crossfire and will have become victims themselves. Why aren't you screaming this message from the rooftops rather than persistantly putting the whole affair down to a few bad apples? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 10 - 05:02 PM Well, Jim, I usually don't use screaming as a tactic for dealing with problems. I find it ineffective. Screaming helps the people on "your side" know that you're one of them, but it does very little to resolve the problem that the people on the "other side" are causing. There have been apologies - lots of them, some directly from the pope to victims, in face-to-face meetings. There have been huge reparation payments that have made almost all of the U.S. victims into millionaires, and I suppose the same will happen in Europe. But no amount of apology and no amount of monetary reparation will ever be adequate, will ever undo the harm that was done. I admit that I was appalled at the spate of denials and blame-shifting that several Vatican and European bishops attempted this Easter. It was very embarrassing, and one would think these bishops would have learned by now that blame-shifting is no longer believable. I did note that the Pope did not take part in this silliness; and that he did say words of apology on a number of occasions at Easter, while his minions were still desperately trying to shift the blame. One would think that the European hierarchy would have learned a lesson from the experience of the American bishops, but apparently they didn't. So, Jim, what is it that I am supposed to do about all this? I work in the day-to-day operations of a Catholic parish, mostly as a religion teacher. I have always spoken the truth in classes I have taught; and I have regularly challenged speakers in classes I have attended, when I believe they are not speaking the truth. I haven't whitewashed the child abuse and molestation scandal in any way - in classes I teach, or in messages I post here. You may disagree and say that my messages join in the coverup, but take another look and I think you'll see that I have always tried to be truthful and fair. So, Jim, what is it I am supposed to do? Stop teaching religion and serving the poor and change my entire religious focus to the abuse crisis? This sort of thing goes on in the politics of every community, not just the Catholic Church. Crime is a horrible thing, and every community has far too much crime. Some people seem to focus their entire lives on the horror of crime, and they condemn anyone who does not seem to share that horror at what they consider to be an adequate level. Accusing opponents of being "soft on crime" seems to be a mantra of the far right in the United States. What is an appropriate response to crime? If I don't demand that every criminal dies a horrible death, am I "soft on crime"? I live in a community where some people think I'm evil because I vocally oppose capital punishment. Get this straight: I think criminals should be prosecuted and punished, and religious people who molest or abuse children are most certainly criminals. I think reasonable measures should be taken to prevent crime, as long as those measures are not so severe that they paralyze the actions of people who are not criminals. Crime is a bad thing, and dealing with it is a difficult problem. If we become obsessed with it, we allow crime and the fear of crime to destroy us. Somehow, we have to develop rational methods of dealing with crime without allowing those very methods to paralyze us as a society. And yes, crime exists in the Catholic Church, and has existed in the Catholic Church through all of history. Catholics have to deal with it and control it without allowing themselves to be destroyed by their own controls. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 May 10 - 06:36 PM A multitude of Australian cases of sex abuse listed on the Broken Rites web site: http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 May 10 - 07:00 PM A very compelling interview of David Clohessy is the National Director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. http://jjromo.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/an-interview-with-david-clohessy/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 May 10 - 08:33 PM No Joe, there have been no apologies, and no acceptences of guilt - it is exactly as Archbishop Martin said - it has been handled by the heirarchy as something that has nothing whatever to do with them. What can you do? You can stop passing it off as the actions of 'a few bad apples' and recognise it for what it is/was - a church having assisted in the abuse of children and now betraying the trust of the faithful - a culture of abuse within the church, still going strong, it would appear. Paedophiles can be found in any organisation, but if that organisation protects them and allows them to continue abusing, that has to be faced up to and dealt with fully and openly - this has yet to happen. Paying off victims to buy their silence is not acceptible. One of the more unpleasant incidents connected with all this took place at Easter, when one of the victims decided to make a protest at a service led by one of those accused of covering up. She was booed and barracked by the congregation who told her she ought to be ashamed of herself - a victim continuing to be abused by hostile Catholics indifferent to her suffering - shame on them! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 May 10 - 09:51 PM Yeah, Jim, Easter Sunday Mass should be for demonstrations, not worship. If the cause is worthy, then it is an abomination to interfere with a demonstration that interrupts worship. We had people who thought that at our cathedral when Robert Drinan, Jesuit priest and Congressman, was supposed to preach at Mass. They decided it was more important to demonstrate against abortion and heckle the priest as he spoke, because he belonged to a Congress that voted for abortion funding. Before and after Mass, they were standing outside church with buckets of baby dolls drenched in blood. But of course, their cause was important, so it was right for them to interrupt worship and wrong for anybody to try to control them. Bullshit. The pope met with sexual abuse victims in the U.S. and Malta and apologized to them directly, and there have been other apologies from him and other bishops. As I said you cannot apologize enough - but there HAVE been a good number of apologies. For the most part, damages were paid to the victims because they suffered damaged, not to shut them up. But yes, when they received payment, they stopped demanding it. Jim, you're obsessed. I completely agree with you that crime is a bad thing, and that pedophilia in a church is a horrible thing. But life goes on, and it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed with crime. Get a grip. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 May 10 - 03:50 AM "then it is an abomination to interfere with a demonstration that interrupts worship" And it is not an abomination for somebody who name has been linked with child abuse to take Easter Mass - funny thing religion! "The pope met with sexual abuse victims in the U.S." The Pope has all but ignored the abused in Ireland - his actions regarding this has been limited to calling a conference on damage limitation (to the church) "Jim, you're obsessed." Am I Joe; are the people who are clamouring that your church be made to answer for their crimes? Is the fact that the church's behaviour on this matter is criticised on almost a daily basis in our national press an obsession. Is the fact that the church is having to hang on to the right to educate children by the fingernails due to obsession. Is the fact that lifelong Catholics here are now looking sideways at clergymen over a certain age and asking themselves "I wonder if he was at it with the children". I would rather regard it as an obsession to continue making excuses for a religion that has allowed large-scale and long-term child abuse (which has in the past included blaming the victims families). Why do you think that 32% of the population of Ireland no longer trust the word of the church to any degree? Add the don't knows to that figure and you have an organisation in massive decline here. But it's none of my business - it's your church. Yes Joe, life does go on - even the lives that have been ruined and tainted by the actions of the church and the future lives that will be effected by the knock-on nature of abuse - or don't you believe abuse begets abuse? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 04:19 AM Yes, Jim, you're right - but life goes on anyhow. Hold on, Jim. The Pope will go to Ireland sooner or later, and I'm sure he'll apologize. But then what? What's this about "making excuses"? There is no excuse, and nobody is making excuses. Yes, we do have some frightened idiot bishops who are still trying to evade the blame; but by and large the problem has been acknowledged and much has been done to make reparations. No, it isn't over yet. But it's well on its way to a conclusion. What's left is to assess the damage and go on. Yes, there will have to be compensation - but in most cases, the damage was done years ago, and no amount of compensation will heal the damage done. All we can do is go on. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 May 10 - 04:34 AM JIM is obsessed ????????? ...it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed with crime That was a cheap shot, Joe. We're not supposed to post personal attacks, remember? Jim isn't the one who needs to get a grip. And stop being so patronising. This issue isn't going to go away just because you so clearly want it to. Whenever we lump all members of a group together and condemn them all for the misdeeds of a few, that's bigotry You mean like blaming the entire population of Ireland for the actions of "a few" perverts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 04:40 AM Bonnie, most of these crimes took place many years ago. They were horrible things. They shouldn't have happened. But they did. Now what? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 May 10 - 04:41 AM Well, obviously, just forget about it, sweep it under the carpet and move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 05:00 AM And yes, Bonnie, if everyone in Ireland knew that this abuse was happening and nobody did anything about it, then everybody has at least some share of responsibility - whether or not they remained Catholic. There is an aspect of community responsibility for injustice that exists within that community. In Ireland, all who committed the crimes were Irish Catholics. They had Irish Catholic parents, and they had Irish Catholic brothers and sisters - and almost all their victims were Irish Catholics, too. They weren't from Rome. They weren't from America. They were Irish. No, maybe that's not what happened. Maybe the children were abused and nobody knew anything about it but the victims and the abusers and their superiors. But it's my understanding that the deplorable situations described in the Ryan report were known at the time they were happening - that the police and the government and the press knew about these crimes and did nothing. This does not absolve the Catholic Church - but it does seem to me that others had a share in the responsibility. No, I have never said that any aspect of this scandal should be swept under the table. I do wonder how Irish people can transfer the blame to Rome or other places, when it's clear that those who committed the crimes were born and bred in Ireland. I suppose you think we American Catholics should pay for the Irish scandal, too, when we've already paid a couple billion for our own scandal. Of course, crime is wrong - and we should all get on our white horses and spend our entire lives fighting crime. And if we don't join the anti-crime bandwagon and become part of the obsession, then I suppose the obsessives are right in whatever it is they want to accuse us of. And of course, if we step away from our obsession for a moment and look in a mirror, we might find that we ourselves have faults. Then what? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 22 May 10 - 05:07 AM As you said yourself, Joe, it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 05:18 AM Jim, I don't trust the word of the Catholic Church to any degree, either. Since the decree on birth control in 1968, I haven't trusted the Vatican or the bishops, or the pope. But life goes on, and my faith is not in the Vatican or the bishops or the pope. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 07:45 AM Italy bishop testifies in priest sex abuse case "He said he didn't know whether Italian law required him as bishop to inform police about suspected abuse" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_church_abuse UK prayers: "From this prayer we do not exclude those who have committed these sins of abuse. (Catholic Bishops' Conference) "Rather than just saying we acknowledge all the past mistakes, the Church can draw a line under this by accepting liability, meeting the survivors and settling their claims. "It is not about becoming rich, it is about restorative justice." (Anne Lawrence, chairwoman of the Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors (MACSAS) support group) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8695069.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 07:48 AM And, in Brazil: SAO PAULO — A court has ordered the arrest of a Polish priest suspected of sexually abusing a teenager in a Rio de Janeiro suburb and turning his parish home into what the judge described as an "erotic dungeon" for sex with adolescents, authorities said Friday. State prosecutors have accused Marcin Michael Strachanowski, 44, of handcuffing the 16-year-old former altar boy to a bed three years ago in the parish house where the priest lived and threatening to kill the youth if he spoke of the abuse. "I already know the flowers I will place on your coffin," Strachanowski warned, according to prosecutors. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6T2FZuW588xFahgyr8KUJFK1TJAD9FRIKMO0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 May 10 - 12:55 PM "Yes, we do have some frightened idiot bishops who are still trying to evade the blame" Moving on from 'a few perverts' to 'some idiot bishops' only compounds your denial of what took/is taking place. It was the church, from the Vatican down that took part in the cover-up - it was a corporate crime Joe. "it is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who is obsessed with crime" I'm not obsessed with crime; I and many more of us in Ireland are outraged at child abusers and their accomplices refusing to admit to their crimes, let alone being made face the consequences. We are also outraged at the idea that an organisation that has covered up and facilitated child abuse should continue to have access to the body and minds of children. If that is obsessive - guilty as charged. Jim carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 01:11 PM Joe, I don't think you fully appreciate the degree of oppression that Ireland has suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church. I'm not even sure a lot of Irish people do either, such is its efficacy. Much of it has been dressed up as politics and hidden behind other issues, and that is mostly what the rest of the world has seen, particularly the USA. You might not like the way Jim puts it across, but his view of the situation is quite right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 03:42 PM "most of these crimes took place many years ago." As I've pointed out before, so did most of everything else. You ask: "now what?" - some mention of prevention, perhaps? We've seen a few half-hearted 'apologies' and niggardly gestures of compensation, but no talk of actually preventing the inevitable current and future abuse. It won't just go away because a few have got caught at it. The majority of past offences will go unpunished simply through lack of the conclusive evidence required for prosecution, and that sends out a clear message to any current and future abusers. Clearly visible and stringent preventative measures need to be implemented, inspected by independent non-Catholic bodies and rigidly enforced, and if those measures should encroach on the lives of others, they should perhaps consider how they would feel about their own children being raped and beaten. It's a very small price to pay, and no decent human would begrudge it. As for those caught and prosecuted, they should incur the strictest sentences possible as an example to others, and any compensation should be found by the church, the amount being an effective punishment to the church for knowingly facilitating such abuse. That might serve as a warning to other churches or religions or organisations where, undoubtedly, similar things are happening albeit perhaps on a smaller and less organised scale. Call me obsessed by all means, but to refer to your comments about what is sacred to us, I have two small sons whom I would stop at nothing to protect, and whenever I hear of examples of the abuse we are discussing I think of them and feel like weeping. That is what 'sacred' means to me personally, and I have to say I find it slightly offensive to see that instinct compared to someone's religious ideals. I don't much care what people 'believe', but surely the protection of children is a more sacred principal than any of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 03:59 PM Or even 'principle'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 22 May 10 - 04:12 PM We haven't heard much from the fathers..whose tendencies I think would be to go after whoever molested one of their children. Are there reports of fathers going after the molestors? Must be some..not ever kid kept quiet and some had to have been believed. l mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 04:49 PM Well, Bonnie, my experience of the Catholic Church in Ireland was only one week, and I did find it quite oppressive. No doubt, if I were living in Ireland, many in the Catholic Church would consider me a "troublemaker" - that's what many think of me here. I think the next two years will show that the Catholic Church of Ireland was the location of the worst of the sexual and physical abuse - although it happened all over the world, and far too often. I realize that it's hard for all of you to argue with me - and it's hard for people opposing child abuse and molestation to argue with almost any Catholic - because we agree with you. And Catholic priests, bishops, and nuns generally agree with you. When trying to oppose people who basically agree with them, those who are really angry have to do things like disrupting Easter Sunday Mass, as Jim described. The ploy is to manipulate a normally-sympathetic group of people into responding negatively, so you can then "prove" how insensitive and callous the people are - so you then have cause to express outrage at them, just as Jim did. The same ploy happened in my town when the priest-Congressman Robert Drinan spoke, as I described above. Drinan's presence and the sermon he preached had nothing to do with abortion, but the anti-abortion demonstrators heckled him and disrupted the Mass nonetheless, and then expressed outrage when "liberal" Catholics responded negatively. There are some bishops still trying to cover their tracks and evade responsibility for coverups - we saw good evidence of their fancy footwork at Easter. But nobody's covering up child molesters and abusers in the Catholic Church any more - even in Ireland, coverups don't work; and even the stupidest bishop knows that by now. There never has been any sympathy for child molesters and abusers in the Catholic Church. That sort of conduct has no rational connection to Catholic teaching. HOWEVER, the coverups took place because people didn't believe accusations, or because they were afraid that exposure of the crimes would weaken the power of the hierarchy that failed to control the criminal conduct. And you're not going to like this, but I think it's true: there may have been a legitimate reason to fear that exposure of these crimes would cause hysteria and overreaction. The trouble is, the coverups have caused a far worse reaction. There's no question now that the problem should have been dealt with quickly and severely right at the start. And I suppose this isn't a popular thing to say, either, but the fact of the matter is that many, many cases of sexual molestation in the U.S. were handled and compensated generously at the time they were reported. They may not have been handled according to somebody's specifications, but they were handled in good faith. And with the outrage in the first years of this millennium, most of those victims were compensated a second time. It just doesn't make sense to support people who molest and abuse children. No person in his right mind would do such a thing. For the most part, we human beings want to do what's good and right. Unfortunately, it's hard for us to believe that other human beings also want to do what's good and right - so our natural tendency is to demonize those who are different from ourselves. The Catholic Church made a horrible mess of this abuse and molestation scandal, and it still isn't doing a good job of handling it. But the Catholic Church isn't demonic, and most of the people who screwed up aren't demonic. They just screwed up, and now they will have to pay a huge price for their misdeeds. But we all screw up. Remember that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 22 May 10 - 04:58 PM "But we all screw up. Remember that." Yeah, we all 'screw up' Joe. But hands up how many of us have knowingly harbored criminals who rape children.. Anyone here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 May 10 - 05:07 PM my experience of the Catholic Church in Ireland was only one week, and I did find it quite oppressive I don't think you can get any sort of any country or place and the subtleties of how a society works in a week, Joe. It would take several years of being part of the community before you start getting a feel for the undercurrents. Ireland may well be have the worst record for clerical abuse but do be too certain there will be a lot of places that will come close to it. The recent revelations of abuse in the Netherlands, Germany and other European countries are a good indication we haven't seen the end of it all by far. There was an article in one of the papers recently that showed there were an awful high percentage of (European and US) priests that had allegations of abuse made against them stationed in Mexico, a country where paedophilia is apparently not punishable by law. Now how do you think that came about? Yet more allegations of the church sheltering known abusers were flying. It does make you wonder if we can really say it's all in the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 05:55 PM You're right, Crow Sister, not many of us have "knowingly harbored criminals who rape children." Probably none of us, in fact. And that's how we demonize people. We find a fault in them that we don't have and then we state that fault in a way that makes it really sound outrageous, and then we can prove that we're wonderful and the other people are horrible. And it we make enough noise and sound righteous enough, maybe people won't notice our faults. But as long as we continue to demonize people, we cannot work with them to make the world a better place. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 May 10 - 06:14 PM not many of us have "knowingly harbored criminals who rape children." Probably none of us, in fact. But Joe, the point of this thread, or at least one of it's points, is that the Church has. Not 'the Catholics' but the church as an institution has and most likely still does. It certainly is still trying to squirm itself out of taking full responsibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 06:36 PM Well, Peter, as I said about how we demonize people: We find a fault in them that we don't have and then we state that fault in a way that makes it really sound outrageous. Nobody in his right mind "knowingly harbor(s) criminals who rape children," if you put it in those words. But you can take what actually happened and put a bit of "spin" on it, and make it sound really bad. And the result is that you can justify characterizing the other person as a demon. Most of the time, people do things for what they see as valid reasons. Their reasons may actually have no validity and what they do may be "objectively wrong" - but most of the time, they don't see it that way. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 08:20 PM Spin? It's quite difficult to make the raping of children by clergymen sound any worse than it is. Or did they perhaps do it more nicely than is generally reported? I certainly don't need to justify characterising these people as 'demons'. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve the oxygen they consume. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 09:33 PM Exactly what I mean, Smokey. Nobody would dare dispute the fact that there were priests who raped and molested children. That happened. It's a terrible, unavoidable truth. But after that, it gets murky. If you want to squeeze money out of people who didn't commit the crime and had nothing to do with the crime, then you have to put "spin" on what happened. You use phrases like knowingly harbored criminals who rape children, even though you really don't have evidence to back that up. You use language that makes it sound like the offense was universal, even though the actual evidence points to a few people who were guilty and a lot of people who simply bungled the matter. But if you keep using that phrase, "raped and molested children," it get burned into people's minds and they forget all about a sense of proportion and reality. So, a smidgen of reality becomes a universal truth. And the individuals who committed the crimes become representative of the entire group. Now, in all this, I do not mean to downplay the harm that was done to the children who were abused and molested. This was a terrible thing, and it happened to far too many children. If it happened to just one child, it still would have been horrible and inexcusable. I am outraged by the molestation and abuse of children that took place in the Catholic Church, and by the bishops who tried to evade their share of responsibility and cover this up. But in all the rhetoric that has been thrown about in this situation, very little has been said in sympathy with the victims. Very little has been done to explore ways to heal the harm done to the victims. The rhetoric is directed at "the Church," and is meant to destroy "the Church." Our primary response to this crisis should be to heal the harm that was done and to prevent it from happening again. But no, that's not what's happening. It's an opportunity for those who want to attack the entire Catholic Church, for real and imagined offenses. The victims get forgotten in all this. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 22 May 10 - 10:25 PM It's the victims who don't come forward we really have to worry about, but what can be said in sympathy with any of them which would actually do them any good? That sort of horror is virtually impossible to imagine without experiencing it. Anyone in their right mind will feel sympathy for them, and it's impossible to forget them. I imagine that most of them would like to see effective preventative measures being implemented. If I'm not mistaken, the only direct preventative measures suggested on this thread have been by non-Catholics. Absolutely no judgement intended on anyone here, but I couldn't help noticing. As for destroying the Catholic church, no. Mainly because what replaced it could so easily be worse. I would, however, like to see it rendered harmless. Its political and financial power is greater than I can comfortably accept, and on those terms I regard it as a very real potential danger and one that is capable of encroaching on my existence. It's bad enough that governments can do that, but a 'religion'? Sorry, but that's unacceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 10:27 PM "But in all the rhetoric that has been thrown about in this situation, very little has been said in sympathy with the victims. Very little has been done to explore ways to heal the harm done to the victims. The rhetoric is directed at "the Church," and is meant to destroy "the Church." Our primary response to this crisis should be to heal the harm that was done and to prevent it from happening again. But no, that's not what's happening. It's an opportunity for those who want to attack the entire Catholic Church, for real and imagined offenses. The victims get forgotten in all this" The point is the RC church and the faithful have had very little sympathy for the victims, nor have they reached out through the many years to try and identify and heal the victims. The attention has mainly been on protecting the church and its chosen ones. For many Years the priority of the RC church was on protecting, hiding, moving, and promoting the priest criminals, and most suspect many are still inside as there has been little attention to identify these folks inside, or let those from the outside in to find them. The victims were ignored, doubted, forgotten, shoved aside, threatened, minimized, given the run around, blamed for contributing to the abuse, refused information until they banded together to seek redress in the courts and in the public eye. Oh yes, there was recently a few hollow words of appology...unfortunately, much too late to matter to anyone but the faithful (grasping on to every hollow gesture as being significant) and those with blinders on who look mostly at their local situation, in their own church and pew. And, then there are those who cannot get beyond the money paid to punish this tarnished vision of the past and see the real harm caused to the victims. Their real bitterness towards the victims is easy to see. The victims are not the enemy of the catholic church, regardless of the amount of the settlements, nor the impacts on the local churches. The enemy of the roman catholic church are many in positions of power in the inside. The faithful are merely their caretakers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 May 10 - 10:40 PM The point is the RC church and the faithful have had very little sympathy for the victims Oh, no, Ed, that's just not true. But this kind of sympathy is best expressed one-to-one, and it's best not reported in the press. I've found that nuns are in the forefront of people who have dealt directly and sympathetically with victims. Priests and bishops can't do it, because the victims don't trust them - and rightly so. If you talk to Catholics privately, you will find that most are very concerned about the victims of this humiliating, demeaning crime. You will find very few that deny the crimes, and almost none that are unsympathetic. But many Catholics (myself included) don't know any victims of these crimes, so it's hard for us to give sympathy where it's due. If you want to say something like that, you should furnish proof. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 22 May 10 - 11:50 PM "But many Catholics (myself included) don't know any victims of these crimes, so it's hard for us to give sympathy where it's due" Have you sought them out..they are not that hard to find. Try some of the many church abuse support groups. It was not hard for me to find quite a few. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 10 - 12:12 AM Thanks, Ed. I'll open my eyes (and heart) a little wider. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 May 10 - 12:33 AM I think the rank and file catholics are sympathetic. But we still have bozos running around like the papal nuncio in D.C. badmouthing an abuse survivor on the streets. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 12:49 AM A few years ago, the Boston Globe decided to reach out to those abused by priests(some who called in reported it to officials, some did not) and they reached a significant number, who shared their experiences with staff. Just how many churches or RC faithful groups or individuals reach out like this to victims, to fellow abused RC members...as they do to the homeless, sick and poor? If few, why so? Many of these folks (who were or are RCs) cannot be healed by money, publicity, or a hollow appology from Bishops or the pope. However, I believe firmly they can move toward healing with support from those inside the RC church who can reach out to them to listen, to understand, and to reaffirm that they are not at fault (for the abuse or the resulting impact on the RV church) and they have a home within the RC church and with God. A close friend of mine was abused by a priest as a child.He pushed the painful memories to the back of his mind for 40 years and had a happy family with children (and a loyal RC member). I did not know this at the time. However, later in life he became obsessed with the memories, and was sure he was destined for hell because of it. This led to depression, marrage break up, suicide attempts, mental institution hospitalization for years, shock treatment, followed by a loss of memories and years of medications and recovery. He died early, at 55. I firmly believe it was because of the hell he lived on Earth for the last 15 years of his life, because of this childhood abuse. "The experience of having been shunned made many victims and their families even more willing to speak with us, because they were so angry and disappointed and disillusioned as a result of their poor treatment by the church. Then, after our stories began to run, many victims grew even angier, because they realized that the betrayal they had experienced was not an isolated event. If you had wondered whether the ostracism some victims and their families experienced made them reluctant to speak to us, I would say that was not the case; in fact, it made them more eager to share the indignities they had suffered". http://dartcenter.org/content/abuse-in-catholic-church |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 23 May 10 - 01:56 AM Maybe we should make a free CD for people who were abused. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 10 - 02:30 AM A seminary classmate, now a priest, sent me this article from the Boston Globe (click for full article) Celibacy and the Catholic priest By James Carroll | May 16, 2010 Like all Catholics, I gratefully depend on the faithful ministry of the many good priests who serve the church. Yet I offer a broad critique of something central to their lives and identities the rule of celibacy. I write from inside the question, having lived as a celibate seminarian and priest for more than a decade in my youth. Yet when I left the priesthood in 1974, I was more conscious of vowed obedience as the pressing issue than celibacy. I wanted to be a writer, which required a free play of the mind that seemed impossible in the life of orders. But now I see how imposed sexlessness and restrictive authority are mutually reinforcing. Power was the issue. Ironically, in the Bing Crosby glory days, celibacy seemed to convey another kind of power. It was essential to the mystique that set priests apart from other clergy, the Roman collar an open sesame! to respect and status. From a secular perspective, the celibate man or, in the case of nuns, woman made an impression simply by sexual unavailability. But from a religious perspective, the impact came from celibacy's character as an all-or-nothing bet on the existence of God. The Catholic clergy lived in absolutism, which carried a magnetic pull. The magnet is dead. What I only intuited 35 years ago has become an open conviction shared by many: celibacy cuts to the heart of what is wrong in the Catholic Church today. Despite denials from Rome, there will be no halting, much less recovering from, the mass destruction of the priest sex abuse scandal without reforms centered on the abandonment of celibacy as a near-universal prerequisite for ordination to the Latin-rite priesthood. (Near universal because married Episcopal priests who convert are exempt from the requirement. Latin rite because Catholic priests of the Eastern rites are allowed to marry.) No, celibacy does not cause the sex abuse of minors, and yes, abusers of children come from many walks of life. Indeed, most abuse occurs within families or circles of close acquaintance. But the Catholic scandal has laid bare an essential pathology that is unique to the culture of clericalism, and mandatory celibacy is essential to it. Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality, such all-too-common characteristics of today's Catholic clergy are directly tied to the inhuman asexuality that is put before them as an ideal. A special problem arises when, on the one hand, homosexuality is demonized as a matter of doctrine, while, on the other, the banishment of women leaves the priest living in a homophilic world. In some men, both straight and gay, the stresses of such contradiction lead to irrepressible urges that can be indulged only by exploitation of the vulnerable and available, objects of desire who in many cases are boys, whether prepubescent or adolescent. Now we know....(continued) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 23 May 10 - 02:46 AM "But this kind of sympathy is best expressed one-to-one, and it's best not reported in the press." That's your opinion, and I believe that you are very wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 10 - 03:02 AM I may have said that a bit unclearly, Crow Sister. My intention was to say that sympathy is far better expressed face-to-face, than it is in press releases. Surely you'd agree with that. Sympathy that is expressed only in press releases, smacks of insincerity. One suspects that such expressions of sympathy were written by attorneys. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 23 May 10 - 04:28 AM Nobody in his right mind "knowingly harbor(s) criminals who rape children," if you put it in those words. But you can take what actually happened and put a bit of "spin" on it, and make it sound really bad. And the result is that you can justify characterizing the other person as a demon Where is the spin in the way the Norbetine order sheltered Breandan Smyth and put him to work as a councellor of young children Joe ? I've found that nuns are in the forefront of people who have dealt directly and sympathetically with victims Again Joe, individual members of the clergy are no doubt sympathetic to the victims of abuse. But how do you look upon the nuns who wore their corporate hat when they hammered out a deal with the Irish Government about compensation for the victims of abuse suffered in the Industrial Schools? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 10 - 04:32 AM "But after that, it gets murky" No it does not. Priests raped children - a fact established beyond any doubt, and we all have an attitude to this. Non-abusive priests were aware that fellow priests were raping children and did nothing about it - a fact established beyond any doubt; some of them have admitted to this and described the behaviour of their collegues as 'eccentric' or 'odd'. When clerical superiors heard of the abuses they ordered that the cases should be dealt with within the church and should not be reported to the authorities - a fact established beyond any doubt that lies at the heart of the present troubles the Catholic Church is experiencing at the present time. A couple of Bishops who were directly involved in this have resigned; others have refused to do so. Some abusive clerics underwent a period of treatment and were returned to positions where they continued their abusing - a fact established beyond any doubt. In spite of the advice of a therapst that "he should never be allowed to work with children", one of the worst abusers, Brendan Smyth was returned to office and continued to abuse children for a further ten years. The cover-up and allowed continuence of the abuses implicates the whole of the church from the Pope down. He, as a cardinal, signed a document saying that abuses had to be dealt with within the church because "The effects on the Universal Church and THE ABUSER HIMSELF" had to be taken into consideration". Murkiness???. I asked if you would take the same stance if these events had taken place within The Health or The Education Service - you still have not replied, which is answer enough for me. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 10 - 05:54 AM Update on above. The victims of Brendan Smyth are suing Cardinal Brady who has, up to now refused to resign from his position as Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. Brady was aware of complaints against Smyth as early as 1975, but did not report them to the police. Two of the victims were sworn to silence by Brady, and Smyth went on to abuse children for another twenty (not ten, as I originally wrote) years. It has been estimated that about 100 children might have been saved from abuse had Brady taken action at the beginning. A case in which Brady is being sued in his personal capacity by another woman abused by Smyth is currently before the courts. Meanwhile, John Ayres, who is today on his seventh day of hunger strike outside the bishop's palace in Dublin to demand a criminal investigation into the Catholic Church will tomorrow be joined by Kevin Flanagan, whose brother was abused. Not too much murkiness over here! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 May 10 - 05:58 AM Sorry that should read "Victims of Brendan Smyth - far too many for them all to sue him! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 09:19 AM A qurestion that remains unanswered, on a Global scale is, "if well intentioned and non abusing priests, bishops, cadrinals and other church officials had much sympathy for victims, why was there not an outcry (public and otherwise)and real outreach to victims throughout the many years?" The same question could be asked for the faithful...and I am talking about Globally, not just in the USA, nor in one parish or locale? I understand that many folks are concerned about the financial impacts at a local level. What I have seen is a public statement of disgust at the abusers, and genuine frustration with the RC leadership, as the cases broadened. I have also heard of prayers fpor the victims and the abusers during the same service. If a serial killer was offered the same public prayers at the same time as their victims, just how right would that seem to victims families? To me, disgust with church officials and abusers is not the same as genuine sympathy (in action) for the victims. |