BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:02 AM

In many of these cases, parents took the priest or nun's word over that of their children, and all telling Mum and Dad achieved was to get the kid a thrashing.

How many parents would send their kid off for religious instruction with the warning "oh, by the way, the outfit we're sending you to is hooching with perverts"?

These abuser priests know they can count on parents as dumb accomplices.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 09:24 AM

And today the Boy Scouts chimed in:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:20 AM

I dated a man who at the end of WWII lived in Germany. American soldiers gave him and his friends candy in exchange for sex. He is still torn apart about it today blaming himself. He was about 7 and there was no other candy to be had. The Americans were friendly to all the kids. Some took advantage.
Power and opportunity made it possible.
I believe the first line of defence today is for parents to openly discuss the issue with their young children and make it absolutely clear that if anyone approaches them inappropriately, they are to leave and come home immediately and TELL MOM and DAD. Children need to know that their parents will believe, support and protect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:04 AM

Not being a christian, I probably have no right to post, here.

However : Is it known what, if any, abuse of children or other vulnerable persons takes place in the Eastern Churches - Orthodox or Independent - where (with the exception of bishops and abbots) the clergy is expected

to be married (although the celibate priest and deacon is not unknown to these Churches) ?

A comparison, if possible, might be useful if the Western Churches which require clerical celibacy wished to re-examine the question of celibacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

A short but interesting dicussion on BBC Radio 4 this morning

"Is there any linked between celibacy and sex abuse in the Catholic Church?"

between Paul Crawford, Professor of Mental Health Humanities at the University of Nottingham, Mary Raftery, Irish writer and film maker and Fr Dennis Tindall, priest and former Child Protection/Safeguarding Coordinator for the Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle.

link

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:29 AM

Cardinal Brady has admitted his role in what most reasonably-minded people, perhaps including Joe O, would regard as a criminal cover-up, as a result of which Brendan Smyth was free to continue his depravities without constraint. (See the link I provided at the top of the thread,) Why on earth has Ratzinger not sacked him? That would have sent out a slightly stronger signal than all the anguished handwringing in which the hierarchy now indulges (although the anguished handwringing is itself a step advance on the supreme arrogance in which the hierarchy previously indulged).

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM

No need to wonder why the mass of Mudcat posts on this subject are destructive Joe, they see this issue in the same light as they see every other issue.....as political.
Catholic Church= Conservative= bad!
Its the old knee jerk that we see on other threads, where no one can see the wood for the political trees.

The issues are simple, the Church adheres to a rule which makes the abuse of children many times more likely....the celibacy rule....get rid of that, and abuse will dwindle to the rates we see in the real world....still much too high of course!

The Church is badly at fault for the cover up and no amount shedding of crocodile tears or sickening apologies is going to redeem it, but a change in the rule which has been the main cause of the abuse, should make it clear that the Church accepts responsibility.....for the cover up and for the disasterous effects of the rule of celibacy.

This would be something positive and achievable..... without tearing the church apart, which is the real agenda of many on this forum.

You once described my thinking as "warped" I let the remark go on that occasion, but perhaps you should review my position this and other associated subjects like "liberalism" and homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:42 AM

Well, Joe-
1. I have to say I don't understand many incidents where molester priests were quietly transferred. I know that sometimes the priests were given psychiatric treatment and pronounced "cured" and fit for duty.
In other cases, the charges were not believed even though a settlement was paid. This was dramatically portrayed in the Meryl Streep movie doubt. At the end of the movie, you still don't know whom to believe - the nasty, rigid nun that Streep portrays, or the charming, easygoing priest that she has accused of child molestation. Even the child's family don't know what to do or what to believe. I think it's an excellent portrayal of the complexity of the problem.

2. Joe, aren't you aware that in the United States, the vast majority of damage claims are settled out of court? Out-of-court settlements save both sides the delay, uncertainty, and cost of a court trial. There's often some sort of nondisclosure agreement connected to such settlements, and usually some sort of statement that the party paying damages does not admit any guilt. The damaged party is free to accept or reject the settlement, but then has to take the risk that he might lose in a trial. Yes, there is a risk of false accusations - that's one reason for the nondisclosure agreements - but the parties paying damages must feel that the savings of out-of-court settlements outweigh the risk of false claims. Also, remember that a court trial can be traumatic for a victim. It might be compassionate to avoid a trial. In my diocese, the standard settlement amounts were $25,000 and $40,000 - and yes, a nondisclosure agreement was required. I don't believe that parents were requred to agree not to file criminal charges - I'm sure that would have come out in the news if such had been the case. In most cases in my diocese, criminal complaints were filed.

I don't know about statistics on criminal cases (in general, not molestation), but a large number are settled out of court by "plea bargains." In both civil and criminal matters, both sides have to decide whether it's worth their while to go to trial. Most often, it's not.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

I am not a Christian of any kind, so the news that priests, like other human beings, are often corrupted by their power is not *particularly* surprising or dismaying to me. However, I have repeatedly seen two statements about the Church's handling of these cases that, if true, seem to me outrageous:

1. Some priests who got caught were quietly transferred to other places where they still had access to young people. Chastity aside, Christians are supposed to believe that prudence is a cardinal virtue.

2. When priests were accused, the Church sometimes has made monetary settlements out of court. Such an attempt to avoid scandal can only multiply it, by creating an incentive to make false accusations, which in such cases are hard to tell from true ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:42 PM

I just heard on the radio that The Church (perhaps the Pope hiumself, or a spokesperson, etc.) is expilicity and adamantly denying that the celibacy rule has anything to do with the abuse scandal(s).

I beg to differ.

For centuries, the celibate religious life has attracted individuals who, for one reason or another, are resolved not to engage in any sexual activity at all. Certainly, significant numbers of these people would be those who recognize that they have no interest in the limited range of sexual options permitted to them by their church and their larger society.

If I experience "temptations" to act out sexually in a manner that is strictly forbidden under any circumstances, I might very well feel that my only option is to take the vow of celibacy and join up with others like myself.

Not everyone will be able spend an entire lifetime maintaining the resolve they first felt as teenagers. And, even those who do NOT "stray" are likely to experience a degree of fellow-feeling with those among their brotherhood who do cross the line. So, the cover-up phenomemon should not be surprising.

For ages, societal forces inside and outside all churches and authoritarian structures were pretty effective at stifling human sexuality. Nowadays, for whatever reason, society as a whole is no longer unanmimous in this regard. The rule of celibacy has become a recipe for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM

Hi, Jack-
I sometimes think Hans Küng goes a bit too far, but I agree with most of what he has to say. He and Benedict XVI were colleagues as Theology professors at Tübingen, and Benedict seems to have a good deal of affection for him - despite their obvious disagreement. It's an interesting thing about Benedict - he can disagree profoundly with people and still respect them. A 2008 article in Time Magazine says this trait of Benedict's may have caused the death of Catholic liberalism, but I don't think that's the case. We Catholic liberals are alive and kicking.

Another voice to be reckoned with is Richard McBrien, former chair of the Theology department at Notre Dame. His personal Website is http://www.richardmcbrien.com/, and his columns can be found at the National Catholic Reporter, http://ncronline.org/user/16. You will find columns from Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister and a number of others at the same URL - and you will find all of them interesting. McBrien's column used to be carried in a number of Catholic diocesan newspapers. Now that the appointees of John Paul II lead most dioceses, very few diocesan newspapers carry McBrien's column - but McBrien is still out there speaking the truth to those who will listen.

Father Andrew Greeley has been sidelined by an automobile accident, but his Website contains a lot of challenging ideas. I'm not sure how he's able to survive, but Father Ron Rolheiser is still published in a number of diocesan newspapers. And if you want to take a look at a really refreshing Catholic voice (who is really disturbing to bishops), look at Edwina Gateley.

All of these people are far more critical (and far more credible) than most of the Mudcat posts I see on the Catholic Church - but their ideas are constructive, and the Mudcat posts are (for the most part) destructive.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM

Here's somebody who can reasonably say "I told you so".

Hans Küng, 2010

Hans Küng, 2005

A friend of mine is a Catholic who recently had her priest moved (for no sinister reason, he was doing a terrific job) and replaced. The new guy took it upon himself to remove all books by Küng from the parish library. I wonder how far up that initiative came from?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM

Just to clarify... I was not really suggesting that priests NOT do counseling. I agree with Joe that special training should be added to their education, and I also wonder if certain 'types' of counseling should have a different format of some sort. (perhaps supervised...or group.......or even recorded, though that opens a new can of worms.)

and Joe... 20-30% 'creeps'?? Wow...a significant number indeed. I wonder then, if those with 'creepy' attitudes are drawn to the priesthood, or whether celibacy tends some TOWARD creepiness? (then, I wonder what the % might be in Scout leaders or gym teachers)
   In any case, it seems as if the celibacy situation is, as I suspected, a real issue and a contributing factor to problems.

(I try not to wave my arms and expound on "what oughta be done!", as it would make very little difference in discussing the day-to-day practical situation. There are many, many sad situations all over the world with religious groups & beliefs entangled in their ongoing problems, and all *I* can do is have conversations like this in the hope that it will stir some thought.)

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:20 PM

I think those Germans are going to get riled up..and they do not have a monoreligion in Germany...they are not going to be afraid to really speak out, as they should.

How could the priests have figured they would not have gotten caught? Did they know in advance that it would overlooked? Was there that much of a culture that made it OK?

I think the final nail in the coffin is to get 10 or 11 year olds to sign a document agreeing to silence...

And the Church has expended enormous effort in keeping young men and women apart from each other because of "occasions of sin" etc...huge amounts of energy into keeping young people "pure." It just does not add up, unless you see it as the true sin in their minds was with a woman (and even in marriage unless you were actively desiring a child each and every time, no matter the economic or physical circumstances, sex was still a sin). So how could this culture carry on? ANd it was not isolated instances..they were prepared to deal with this happening..as a byproduct of celibacy perhaps? As preferable to relations with adult women or other grown men? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:54 PM

Oh, and Peter Laban, of course I agree with you that offenders should be punished and removed from ministry. You won't find anyone who will disagree with that - so why do people keep throwing out that accusation? What I'm saying is that controls are being instituted that are intended to prevent child molestation before it happens the first time - many of these controls are unproved, and are a repressive burden on those who never would and never will molest a child.

It sounded to me you were tired of all comment and felt the church is attracting undue attention by 'church bashers'. Maybe my reaction was somewhat heated.

The matter is, as Martin pointed out, well beyond the actual abuse. There is a culture of hushing up and moving on, we're long past the point where we're talking about a few isolated cases, there's a pattern that needs to be broken. There's a perception that the hierarchy is only willing to move as a damage limitation exercise, simply because the public outrage has become too strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8572875.stm

Read and be informed. Read the paragraph toward the bottom. THe priest says what I have been saying..in the church I was raised in, and still practice although as a Bad Catholic and not a Good One, he comes right out and says the real sin was being with a woman..not abusing children. That is how people were raised..men especially, probably seminarians especially. It is not just the priests and bishops, it is or maybe was the mothers and not as much the fathers, but the holy mothers.

Once again, here is my song..sung to Boston Burglar

I am a Boston grandmother Catholic as can be
I never thought I 'd see the day my church would fail me
What went on in that sacristy was a great and mortal sin
And now they're coming forward the boys who grew to men

I see him on the altar with his bright and shining face
I should have never let him set a foot within that place
My other sons were different hoodlums one and all
But little Aloyscious I prayed would hear the call

Put the priests in jail and slam the iron door
And tell the other prisoners what they are in there for
Then throw in the bishops and toss away the key
And if I had my druthers they would never be set free

We went to our devotions the priest said let us pray
I guess we all know now it could be spelled another way
God protect the faithful who listened to them preach
And God protect the little boys who fell within their reach

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: MartinRyan
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM

Joe

This crisis is no longer about sexual molestation - and hasn't been for several years. It's about the enthusiastic, systematic willingness of the Catholic Church to protect itself by concealing the abusers and, for many years, by scaring the molested into silence. Ultimately it is the implications of that willingness - and the apparent inability of the church to acknowledge that it, in itself, was WRONG , which will bring the church to its knees - in several senses.

You are quite right that the situation has been a godsend (teehee..) to habitual church-bashers - but, again, that is not the point. Let them have their moment of glory. The real battle is elsewhere.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM

Most priests that I know, cope with celibacy pretty well - but they don't believe priests should be celibate. They accept the rule of celibacy because it's required, but they don't like it. That celibacy rule is why I left the seminary after 8 years of a 12-year program.

My current pastor, born in Ireland, was away from the priesthood for ten years. During that time, he had what I would call normal relationships with women. My previous pastor (born in the US), was away from the priesthood for ten years and was married and widowed. That's not the norm for priests, but it's interesting that I've had two pastors in the last ten years whose contact with women was a lot more normal than one would expect.

As Bill says, there are minor exceptions that allow for Catholic priests to be married in certain circumstances. It has always been the case that Eastern Rite Catholic priests are usually married, but there aren't many Eastern Rite priests in the western world - most are in the Middle East. The other major exception is more recent - the Catholic Church is ordaining Protestant ministers who want to become Catholic. Unfortunately, these married priest are usually distressingly conservative men who are fleeing their own churches because they object to the ordination of women and homosexuals (and generally they seem to object to the respectful treatment of women and homosexuals altogether). So the fact that the Catholic Church is ordaining Protestant refugees, is not a hopeful thing to me.

I do think most priests cope with celibacy, and I don't think celibacy makes them become child molesters. There are a few priests who like being celibate because it frees them from family obligations and allows them to serve their congregations more freely. But I don't think that's the case for most priests - most priests merely cope with celibacy. And then there are the other ones, the people who like the celibacy rule because it shelters and hides their sexual weirdnesses - not only child molesters, but also others who have some creepy attitudes about sex. There are no statistics on this, but I'd guess that among the priests I know, maybe as many as thirty percent fall into this "creepy" category - probably closer to twenty percent, but that's a significant number. A person would be crazy to talk confidentially about a sexual matter with one of these creeps.

While I don't think the celibacy rule creates these creeps, it certainly provides shelter for them. And what's worse, it excludes the vast majority of normal people from the priesthood. Time and time again, I have seen wonderful people leave the priesthood or leave the seminary because they couldn't accept the celibacy rule. Too often, the Catholic Church has turned away men and women who would have made wonderful priests - because the Catholic Church can only accept male celibates. I think I would have made a very good priest, but I left the seminary because I wanted to be a husband and father.

So I think that Bill is right about the celibacy rule. It makes unusual sexual conduct (celibacy) the norm, and excludes all those engage in what is considered normal. Most priests cope with the celibacy rule and conduct themselves quite well, but celibacy is an unnecessar, burden that plays host to a number of problems - not just child molestation.

-Joe-

Oh, and Peter Laban, of course I agree with you that offenders should be punished and removed from ministry. You won't find anyone who will disagree with that - so why do people keep throwing out that accusation? What I'm saying is that controls are being instituted that are intended to prevent child molestation before it happens the first time - many of these controls are unproved, and are a repressive burden on those who never would and never will molest a child.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

People keep saying that the molesting priests should have been controlled so molestation wouldn't happen. Hmmmm. I wonder if any of us would want to live in a society that is so strictly controlled, that crime is impossible.

For godsake Joe, seriously. People keep saying priests who have been found abusers needed to be controled. Not moved on to other positions, like in the case of one of the more horrible abusers who was placed as a counsellor in a boy's school, where they could continue on their abuse.

That's hardly too much to ask is it, next people will be asking the men be brought to the attention of the police so justice could have been done. What society is coming to...

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

People keep saying that the molesting priests should have been controlled so molestation wouldn't happen. Hmmmm. I wonder if any of us would want to live in a society that is so strictly controlled, that crime is impossible.

I didn't like Pope John Paul II. I thought he undid a lot of good that was accomplished by Vatican II. I had a great deal of respect for the bishop my diocese had in the 1980s, a gentle, wise man of integrity. He was replaced by a John Paul II appointee who joined in the work of undoing Vatican II. Luckily, since the Catholic Church largely has local autonomy, I could find many parishes that were largely unaffected by the oppressive reign of John Paul II.

Another thing about John Paul II is that he largely ignored the sexual abuse crisis. I suppose part of the reason for that was that he was in ill health the last ten years of his life. For the most part, he ignored the problem because he didn't believe such a thing could happen in his church, which he saw as perfect.
I'm not totally thrilled by Benedict XVI, but at least he is open to discussion - and he has done something about the child abuse/molestation crisis. But still, his control over my life, and over bishops and priests, is limited - and I am very glad of that.

I don't deny the child abuse and molestation that took place in the Catholic Church. I am appalled by it. Most likely, it is still taking place. I do not believe that any amount of effort can completely stamp out a crime of this nature.

There were Catholic dioceses and institutions and religious orders where child abuse and molestation was allowed to run rampant - in a few places, partly due to the fact that the bishop himself was a child molester. In the diocese next to mine, Santa Rosa, California, the bishop was having a sex affair with a priest. In that diocese, the sexual abuse problem was not handled at all, and there was a horrible mess when it was finally discovered what was going on. Still, most parishes in that diocese were reasonably healthy.

I watch the events very closely in two dioceses, my own Sacramento diocese and the Milwaukee archdiocese where I attended the seminary. I know a good number of the priests in these two dioceses. In my diocese and in Milwaukee, most cases of child molestation were handled years and years ago. A few slipped through the cracks for various reasons. You will find that in most free societies, a good amount of crime goes unpunished. I don't know statistics, but I would guess that in the United States, far more than fifty percent of crimes committed, go unpunished. Some are unpunished due to incompetent law enforcement, but most are unpunished because there was not enough evidence to make a case. That's the way it is in a free society. I accept this - does this mean I favor crime?

Yes, there were a lot of child molestation incidents in my church that went unpunished - but there were a large number that ended up in a priest being removed and prosecuted. In my diocese and in Milwaukee, almost every reported child molester was removed from the priesthood. Some fled the country to avoid prosecution.

But most priests and most bishops did not commit these crimes.

What I ask for at Mudcat is balance, for a realistic view of the nature of organizations and the nature of crime. And for the most part, I don't see that happenening. Still, I think Bill D has a very balanced and realistic perspective. I disagree with him on one item - his suggestion that priests should not do counseling. I think they should be properly trained to do counseling, and they are in many seminaries.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:36 PM

While I agree with a lot of the criticism folks have posted here, I also am sympathetic to Joe's position. He grew up within this church and is attempting every day to do positive things and change what he can.
Joe asks.."So, hey, does anybody have any really good ideas on how to detect and solve the problem of child molestation? "

Yes... I do, but I have NO notion that there is much chance they would be taken very seriously, as some of the problems are built in to the very structure and routines of what the Catholic Church believes and into their basic practices.

One: Although it is, as Joe notes, possible for ANY institution to have its share of abusive, degenerate members, the **Catholic** church has this basic restriction against married priests..(yes, I know there are minor exceptions, but it IS the usual way.) This exacerbates whatever problems already exist. Our evolutionary heritage and basic biology do not recognize 'chastity' as a natural condition. When men and women are housed and taught in an environment of almost all members of their own gender, a different set of temptations are encountered, and 'some' people have less personal resistance. Add to this the common perception among those already tending toward deviant behavior, that 'the church' is an easy way to indulge without serious restrictions, and you get an ongoing problem!
Two:There are a few situations which create opportunity that are specific...for example, confession. Priests hear things which MUST be hard to sublimate, even for those with GOOD intentions. (There is a joke about a Rabbi who is asked to sit in for a priest who is called away....and the joke ends with a friend asking how it went, and the Rabbi replying, "But I did get a few good leads!")
There are, as I understand it, several situations where personal 'counseling' is part of the plan.. (I am NOT familar with all the details)...and it seems to me that this invites tempation.
Three: The very complex and structured hierarchy itself contributes to the tendency to hide, rather than cleanse, problems. Bad publicity is often treated as a worse problem than the offense, and offenders are 'counseled' and 'moved' and records are hidden.

I can't see most of these basic items being radically changed soon.....but that's what I see as would be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

Yet half the world defends Polanski. Different strokes for different folks?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:42 AM

It's not just the Catholic Church, as has been mentioned already, but I will tell you this. It sickens me that people who profess to follow the teachings of the Bible, but only adhere to those they think apply to them, they piss me off.
It sometimes looks as if everyone who is put in a position of trust abuses it. Politicians, Ministers of Religion, Scout Masters, Teachers etc etc.
I know it isn't so, but it's still true, that the church seems to attract more than it's fair share of homosexuals, and paedophiles.
I detest religion, for just that reason, it is impossible to avoid hypocrisy, and live a normal life.
So why do they sit there and pontificate at the rest of us?
Let them set their own house in order.
It's time the light of the law was cast on the obscene practices of these people, both the perpetrators, and those who cover up for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:45 AM

While abuse from individual Priests might have been rife is bad enough, but the cover-ups were part of a much bigger systemic form of moral social and spiritual corruption to do with the whole Church as an organisation top to bottom.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Leadfingers
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

Any organisation when it reaches a 'certain' size will have members who do NOT conform to the same beliefs as the majority = Just look at THIS site - We now have SO many members and guests , that the old
attitudes are lost in a flood of Vituperation and Nastiness !
And Mudcat is only a fraction the size of the Catholic Church !

Sadly it does seem that far too any senior priests hav condoned in covering up abuses within the chuech , in ALL parts of the so called civilised world .

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:28 AM

Joe, no doubt you think your posts above are the essence of sweet reason, but in reality they are a paradigm for what is wrong with the Catholic Church's response to the child-abuse scandals.

You may not mean it, but there is an unwarranted implication behind this question: "...is it easier just to point the finger of blame instead of showing compassion for the victims?"

It is very easy indeed to point the finger of blame at people like Cardinal Brady because their behaviour, and their sheer inability to comprehend what's wrong with it, makes them such easy targets. But pointing the finger does not interfere with my capacity to show compassion for victims. Why would it? But your question becomes even more irrational when one considers the complete lack of compassion shown by Brady when he conspired with children to keep the lid on the torment they had endured.

You ask what I have done to prevent child abuse, and the answer is: nothing. But that doesn't disbar me from criticising those who do encounter it and allow it to continue. It might have been fairer to ask what I would do if I knew that a priest had abused a child. My answer to that I hope I would not behave like Brady did.

You deflect criticism of the church by pointing to abuse elsewhere, and of course abuse does happen elsewhere. Your problem with that analogy is that it is rare, outside the catholic church, for those known to have concealed and accommodated child abuse to be promoted to high office where they are then allowed to remain with impunity until or unless outside pressure becomes irresistable. It is this that makes your church exceptional, and impossible to defend with rational argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM

There are reports in today's UK Guardian (for example) of 10-year old boys being forced to sign papers vowing them to silence - by the church - with the priest in question then going on to abuse boys for a further 18 years.

These relate to the controversy over the presence of now archbishop Seán Brady at the signing of these vows of silence in 1975. Two victims of serial abuser Brendan Smith were asked for a vow of silence, at least one of them was only ten years old at the time. Smith continued his spate of horrendous abuse.

Mind you today's Irish Times reports of a woman sworn to secrecy about abuse in an out of court settlement in 2000, which involved the Bishop of Derry Seamus Hegarty.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:44 AM

reign = rein

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

Joe,
When the hierarchy of an organization is part of the cover-up if not the crime, then the criticism is earned. I have had personal experience with two instances of priests abusing children and in both cases the Diocese chose to move the offender to another parish where abuse occurred again. I do not blame my Catholic relatives for this crime. I do blame the church. One of these was promoted to Monsignor despite his "problem" and is now in federal prison.
Child abuse is horrendous but you and I both know that it was a different world for Catholics in the 50s and 60s. If a nun said I did something, my parents punished me. It didn't matter whether I did it or not. Nuns and priests had close to absolute power over children in their care. That was a time when a girl who was raped kept her mouth shut for fear of being shunned. Pregnant unwed girls were sent to "visit" a faraway relative for a few months. They came back to go on with their lives with no one the wiser (except the poor girl who was forced to give up her child). Abortions happened - I personally know good Catholics who arranged them for their children - but it was done very quietly and illegally.
The world has changed. Catholics, especially US Catholics have changed. Frankly, I see a break coming between Rome and the US.I applaud the courage of the nuns in the US who have chosen to support a national health plan despite the church's stand that it represents government funding of abortions. COnvents in the US have been under fire from Rome for quite a while now. It will be interesting to see if the church can reign them in or watch them form an alternative Catholicism.
I am rambling. Sorry.
One question - do you personally condemn anyone's behavior regarding the child abuse scandal within the churches?
Mary, not trolling. I respect your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Will Fly
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

Yes, in a church with a billion members, there's bound to be corruption mixed with the good.

Joe, I absolutely agree with you on that point. I think the problem is that when the high-ups in the church - bishops, cardinals, perhaps even the Pope - know about it, they seem, (according to several press reports) to cover it up and not really cut it out root and branch.

There are reports in today's UK Guardian (for example) of 10-year old boys being forced to sign papers vowing them to silence - by the church - with the priest in question then going on to abuse boys for a further 18 years. I can understand that there will be rotten apples in every barrel of society. What is disturbing is an apparent real lack of will on the part of the church high hierarchy to admit it and get completely rid of it as far as they can. So - for example - if a priest should commit child abuse in one parish, he should be struck off the priesthood, rather than, say, simply be moved to another parish.

And, yes, it's not just the Catholic church.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Connacht Rambler
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:22 AM

"the broad spectrum of the Catholic Church"

Such gobbledegook.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM

I'm not done yet. I'm sick of this bigotry, this lack of tolerance from people who claim to be progressive, these armchair experts who have no idea what's going on in the broad spectrum of the Catholic Church - but yet they take delight in condemning the whole for the misdeeds of a few.

Yes, in a church with a billion members, there's bound to be corruption mixed with the good. And yes, Catholics are angry about the child abuse and molestation that has taken place, and they've done a lot to attempt to solve the problem - starting in the 1970s in the US. But when outsiders come in with their sweeping condemnations, that's bigotry.

And I'm sick of it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM

There is NO church, in ANY country, which is blameless. A crime is a crime.

And there is no family that is blameless, no school, no government agency, no children's organization, no political persuasion. Child abuse happens everywhere, and it's often covered up or not believed. There is no doubt that it's a horrible crime, and it happens far more often than it should. And it certainly should not happen in a church.

So, hey, does anybody have any really good ideas on how to detect and solve the problem of child molestation? Or is it easier just to point the finger of blame instead of showing compassion for the victims and actually doing something positive to end this plague of child molestation?

If you're going to use phrases like stinking church, this cesspit of mutually protective vested interests, would you care to tell us what YOU have ever done to prevent child molestation?

Yes, it's true that some priests molest children, and some bishops cover up crimes because it's the easy way out and because it protects their interests as "upper management." Some parents molest and abuse children. Some coaches do. Some Scout leaders do. Some uncles do. Some law enforcement officers do (a surprisingly large number). Most don't.

So, quit your fucking bigotry and find a solution to the problem, willya?

And the ugly truth is that there is no solution to this problem. NOBODY knows how to deal with it.

-Joe Offer, who has actually investigated child molesters and barred them from volunteer and paid positions-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:39 AM

I never could be a Catholic but I hate to see the church being dragged through the mud like this.
Will they ever come out of the Dark Ages? The church lasted for 900 years until some Pope decided that priests had to be not married. I love tradition but only if it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:20 AM

Then there's the "the-children-must-accept-their-share-of-the-blame-for-putting-temptation-in-my-way" getout:

BS: Suffer The Children (revisited)

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM

An interesting media perspective on the sketchy and defensive RC Vatican message that "others do it, so it's OK, be happy":http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1172497.html

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

There is NO church, in ANY country, which is blameless. A crime is a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM

It rather looks as though Ratty himself has done his share of covering up in the past.

Much about all of it here:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/

Belief in God/s is one thing, and all well and good for those who need it, but organised religion is quite another. Take away all that cannot be proved, and all that's left is a money-making monster preying on people's vulnerabilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM

this is Blair's Busted Britain
Blaming Tony Blair for kiddy-fiddling clerics is a new one! Well done for the most bizarre non-sequitur yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM

No. Re-read the story. Several young men appeared on TV with the video claiming that they had been abused as children since their early teens and that the abuse continued.
A criminal investigation is underway. Three priests have been suspended by the church.
The video certainly was sensational but the story and investigation involve child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

MSNBC is putting an unacceptable slant on this story. There is NOTHING illegal or (by the standards of most people outside the Catholic Church or Bible Belt America) in any way reprehensible about an older adult having sex with a 19-year-old. And THAT is what Microsoft and the Brazilian media are making a fuss about. Not the (unproved, undetailed, so far completely unverifiable) allegations about sex with 12-year-olds - they have nothing to say about that, since they know no more than we do. They have an agenda that aims at criminalizing homosexuality.

Most of us might find a film of a middle-aged guy in a cassock sodomizing a teenager something less than a turn-on, but a civilized society does NOT make creepiness a crime. Outside the Catholic value system, that film is simply not relevant to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:48 PM

I don't have particular problems with hypocrisy..I think it serves a purpose and people would probably be worse without it as a social barrier. I would not care if I found out the pope or bishops had affairs with adult, consensual partners, male or female, makes me no nevermind, any more than if my dentist or mechanic did. But to not protect children...as Laura whatshername says, the ones who fail to protect others from abuse are the evil ones, more than the abusers. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM

I do not know the state of this pope's soul, but he gives me the heebie jeebies and always has. I just asked why when he was chosen when they had plenty of younger and promising candidates, or if they wanted an older conservative, plenty of those too. Why? Why? Now the chief exorcist of the Vatican is talking about stuff at the very top of the Vatican...what is going on? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Connacht Rambler
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM

There will have to be a clean-out at the top of the Catholic hierarchy, including the Irish Cardinal and the Pope. I am an Irish Catholic and haven't gone to mass for 40 years because I could of the hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

The claim is that this priest has been abusing these young men since they were twelve. What is consensual now was a crime 9 years ago. There is a criminal investigation underway.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM

The pope himself is being drawn into the net, and if he is guilty of coverups, transfers etc. as is suggested, then he needs to go. To jail if recent enough offenses, but I t hink they are too old to be legal. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: bubblyrat
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM

It is not just the Catholic Church ; there have always been "Dodgy Vicars" in the Church of England,you know. As kids,in the local church choir,we used to make jokes about the vicar,the verger,the choirmaster,etc, but we were never afraid because we knew that,if any of them "tried it on",we'd tell our Dads,who would then go round and do some pugilistic "sorting out".And we made sure we were never alone with them !
    Of course,it is different today ; Dads ( if there are any) would be too scared to thump a vicar as they'd probably be jailed for it ( "Old Fashioned" coppers would turn a blind eye and say "he must have tripped and fallen,Your Honour !" )but that was Real Life, and this is Blair's Busted Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM

There can't be any country in the world where it's illegal for a priest to have sex with a 19-year-old, surely? (I thought you might have made a typo, but no, it checks out).

In Brazil the age of consent (for either heterosexual or homosexual activity) is 14.

Looking further down the MSNBC story, the priest was also accused of having seduced a boy aged 12 some time in the past, but instead they chose to make their headline out of something that was no sort of crime, simply because they got it on video.

The Catholic Chursh may not come very well out of this but the media isn't much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM

Take a look at today's headlines. Videos were shown on TV in Brazil of a priest having sex with an 19 year old. It was taken by a 21 year old who claims to have been abused by this same priest for 9 years. He and two other priests have been relieved of their duties and secreted away. Same old crap.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35901985/ns/world_news-americas/

Subject: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM

What next for scandal hit catholic church?

Just a few months ago Cardinal Sean Brady promised to resign if it was established that any act or omission on his part had been a factor in allowing any abuse of children to continue unchecked.

He has now admitted that, while still a young cleric, he witnessed two children - one just ten years old - signing a vow of silence about abuse the child had suffered from a priest (the imfamous Brendan Smyth) who continued to abuse children for a further 20 years.

Logic suggests that the condition Brady required for his resignation has been met. But apparently not. He says he will tender his resignation only if the Pope demands it.

Apologists will say that attitudes were different then; that it was understandably difficult in that earlier climate for priests (who take it upon themselves to pass judgment on the sins of their supine flocks) to recognise the difference between right and wrong. One poster here may well refer to the cardinals and others of the catholic hierarchy as "upper management" - and anodyne term calculated to play down the pastoral-care and morality aspects of the job spec.

I wonder when this stinking church, this cesspit of mutually protective vested interests, will get the simple message that child abuse is not only wrong but also criminal. Brady should have resigned, the Pope should have sacked him in any case and the gardai should have charged him with perverting the course of justice.