BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:15 AM

But when outsiders come in with their sweeping condemnations, that's bigotry.

And I'm sick of it.

-Joe Offer-

It seems to me that much of the condemnation, both in Mudcat and in the world at large, is coming from people who were raised in the church. Are these outsiders?

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

Neil, when the only goal is to destroy and condemn, I think it becomes bigotry. There is no doubt in my mind that the molestation and abuse of children was a horrible thing. We have to find out why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. But what's happening here at Mudcat is a feeding frenzy. There's no attempt to understand - it's all about blame and destruction.

My friend Sister Esther, who's about 80, is disgusted with the role of the "upper management" of the Catholic Church in California dioceses in the sex abuse scandal. She told me quite sternly (as close as I can recall), "Don't kid yourself, Joe. They knew all about it. We told them time and time again about priests who were molesting children, and they did nothing."

Don't expect me to defend the bishops or the child molesters. That's not at all what I think, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm disgusted, too. Nonetheless, I'm not going to run away. I'm going to stick around and see that the mess is cleaned up.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:47 AM

Jack,
Hopefully, parents have learned that they have to prepare their children NOT to become victims and not to take the word of any adult over their child's.
Scout leaders, teachers, priests and just recently a pediatrician have all been involved in sexual abuse of children. When my son was in school I insisted on the right to walk into his class at any time any day just to be sure all was well. And I did it.I also watched very closely when an adult took an unusual interest in him.
On the other hand, I never allowed any child into my home without his parent's express permission. I ran several programs for children in my neighborhood and was extremely careful both to protect the children and myself.
An ugly reality.

Joe - that is so sad. Imagine being helpless to protect the children you teach. Again, we are talking about a time when girls were either married or nurses and teachers and nuns were servants to the church and little more.

I am an ex-Catholic and have many bitter memories of the nuns who taught me. But some were great women who genuinely loved the children in their care and did all they could to support them.
M

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 10:57 AM

when the only goal is to destroy and condemn, I think it becomes bigotry. There is no doubt in my mind that the molestation and abuse of children was a horrible thing. We have to find out why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. But what's happening here at Mudcat is a feeding frenzy. There's no attempt to understand - it's all about blame and destruction.

I think you're a bit easy dismissing the discussions here as a 'feeding frenzy'. I think these discussions are in reaction to problems they occur in the societies we live in.

Discussion here are a response of the ever growing number of cover-ups that are coming to light, in Ireland the involvement of cardinal Brady in hushing up the young victims of Brendan Smtyh and the other cases quoted above, the ever more cases emerging in Germany, yesterday the Dutch papers were full of the cover up of abuse at a RC institute for blind children (here). A distinct pattern is growing ever more distinct.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 11:10 AM

Peter, people do things for reasons. It's not just that they're evil people who need to be shamed and condemned. There's a reason behind all of this, and it needs to be understood. When we demonize certain groups, what we're saying is that those groups are different from us - we could never do something horrible like that.

We all can cause horrible harm. We need to understand that, or we're doomed to doing just that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM

I think the responses here have been fair, and deserved, Joe.
You say "There is no doubt in my mind that the molestation and abuse of children was a horrible thing."
Now there's a word in there you cannot vouch for, and that's the word "WAS" It IS an horrible thing, and I bet you a pound to a pinch of snuff that it's not gone away, nor will it. They either need to allow priests to marry, or not allow them to be alone with vulnerable people, children OR adults.
As for that "horrible thing" part, I find that a mild condemnation. It's more than horrible, it's disgusting, it's depraved, and it's illegal. As for the attempts of the church hierarchy to keep it "in house", words fail me.
Sorry Joe, I'm not anti Catholic, if anything I may be anti religion, but I would never deprive a believer of his or her the comfort, that their faith gives them.
However, this fiasco, will do far more to disillusion the faithful than I could, and I think, that in a way, this is why they cover it up.
I believe there was a a little local difficulty when the Bible was first printed in English, as those in power didn't want the common herd to be able to understand the word of God. Well I think we may have a similar thing going, with the desire to suppress, and deny, the truth about the bad apples in the holy Catholic barrel now.
They're only the common people, no need for them to know about this matter!!

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM

It's not just that they're evil people who need to be shamed and condemned. There's a reason behind all of this, and it needs to be understood. When we demonize certain groups, what we're saying is that those groups are different from us - we could never do something horrible like that.

Joe, to me it seems we aren't saying they are different from us. The unfortunate core of the matter is the behaviour church (hierarchy) , which not only seems to think but behaves like they are different from us and different rules apply to them. And for that reason refused so long (and now only reluctantly and under huge public pressure) to take responsibility for the cover up of abuse or have offenders prosecuted under the law of the land.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM

"When we demonize certain groups, what we're saying is that those groups are different from us"

No, we're saying that the Church as an extremely powerful organisation orchestrated an intentional cover-up of profound evil that was rife in it's heart. The Church is different from me, as it's much bigger - bigger on a phenomenal scale, and these actions that this massive powerful organisation took in knowingly, willfully and routinely sheltering and assisting evil-doers amongst its own ranks, were themselves evil.

Catholics as individuals are not to blame for the evil actions routinely taken by a corrupt organisation that they trusted in.
I also have a lot of time for genuinely spiritual Christians as individuals. But I do not conflate individuals and organisations.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:33 AM

Full text of Benedicts Pastoral Letter to the Irish Catholics

First reaction in irish Times which als ocontains links to Cardinal Brady's address

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 01:54 PM

Missed this earlier when quickly scanning today's Irish Times: a profile of the abuser Brendan Smyth who is at the centre of the present controversy surrounding Cardinal Brady. For those not familiar with the case.

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

It's a scandal in itself that Brady isn't already sacked and behind bars. Trying to understand why all this happens has done nothing to prevent it and is largely a waste of time, save for academic interest and for future reference. Remove the opportunities and it stops. That is how to prevent it. We all know there is no shortage of abuse outside the Catholic Church, but it has nothing to do with what is under discussion. As an organisation, the Catholic Church has proved it cannot be trusted, and its representatives should not be allowed anywhere near children, ever. That may seem harsh, but just one more abused child is one too many for me. The decent members of that church, as it's been said before, have been betrayed by it, but that cannot be undone and I feel very sorry for them. There is, however, nothing to stop them continuing to be the good people that they are.

Besides which, I'm of the opinion that indoctrinating children into believing that they have to live the rest of their lives depending on an 'imaginary friend' (and other such drivel) is, in itself, no less than child abuse. Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age by all means, but to attempt to take away that choice is abuse of an insidious and cruel kind. However, that is no more than my personal opinion and probably not strictly relevant here.

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

Oh! This is Mudcat, dont let relevancy get in the way of a good old rant! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM

The following is part of a reaction from the One in Four group of survivors of clerical abuse:

"Pope Benedict has passed up a glorious opportunity to address the core issue in the clerical sexual abuse scandal: the deliberate policy of the Catholic Church at the highest levels to protect sex offenders, thereby endangering children. The pope speaks on only of the failures in the Irish church, and neglects the role of the Vatican. If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial,"

quote taken from this article

I think this sums up well how people (in Ireland) feel about the issue, as far as I can gather from the reactions I have heard so far. .

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:44 PM

It looks to me as though Ratty is digging his hole deeper and deeper.. His blaming of secularism is nothing short of ridiculous, but given how far removed from reality the man is, is hardly surprising. Still, I'm sure a bit of earnest praying will fix everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

Do you really expect the Pope to say that "It is the deliberate policy of the Catholic Church to protect sex offenders"?

The cover up was an attempt by the Church to protect itself from financial claims.
I believe in America, the Church is paying out in excess of a million dollars to victims. These huge payouts are sure to motivate a series of false claims, complicating the matter further.

All the abuse was perpetrated by individuals, and should be dealt with through the courts.
The celibacy rule should be abandoned, as it encourages into the priesthood people with psychiatric and sexual issues.

It seems madness for a church which promotes family life and values, to continue with a rule which contradicts those very values.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM

A million dollars doesn't seem excessive to me - turn it into sterling and it's not really much at all for what many of the poor sods had to endure, let alone the effect on the rest of their lives. True, the money has been previously taken from/donated by parishioners, but my thinking is that they have been swindled and will probably be more careful where they throw it in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:22 PM

"The pope speaks on only of the failures in the Irish church, and neglects the role of the Vatican. If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial,"

Yes, I observed the overiding agenda in that piece, of the Vatican completely severing itself from the actions of the "Irish Church".
Very telling.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM

Corporate thinking, CS. 'Tis what one would expect, sadly. That's why they're the most successful business on earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM

Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM

The Dutch Bishops have made a statement saying Pope Benedict's pastoral letter, although explicitly addressing the situation in Ireland, should be read as applying to the situation in the Netherlands as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 05:39 AM

"most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes."

Yes, the discussion moved on quite some time ago to why the Church covered up crimes of it's Priests. As to what motivated the Priests, it was Peadophilia. Paedophiles rape children, not adults who aren't getting sex with other adults. During my time as a single person, children never began to seem sexually attractive to me. YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Will Fly
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 05:45 AM

Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes.

I don't think it's rocket science to have some idea of the complexities that might motivate men to abuse children.

The main point that has been discussed in this thread and in the media generally is how a set of men at the highest levels of the church - men who are supposed to be Christians, who are supposed to religious and proclaiming God's word on Earth - men who are supposed to be setting examples of goodness and morality - can be so dishonest as to try to sweep the mess under the carpet rather than deal with it honestly and openly, and cut it out swiftly and cleanly.

The hypocrisy of such a stance is breathtaking, given the scale of the problem. This is why it's been discussed to such an extent. What motivates the Catholic Church is precisely the point.

I should add that, though I'm not in the slightest bit religious, and have never been, my attitude to all this would be exactly the same had it occurred in any other organisation or institution, regardless of religion. I can only guess at the upset all this must cause to committed Catholics, and I'm sympathetic to it, but please don't try and fudge the issue by saying it's just another chance for some of us to get at the church and religion. It's not.

I worked for many years in a university. Some years ago, a member of staff was found to have child pornography on his office computer. After being interviewed and having admitted downloading it, he was instantly dismissed and left that day. No shilly-shallying, no moving him from one department to another. The university, with a large population of (mainly) young people acted properly. Surely the church should do the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:38 AM

Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes.


I think the church is not doing itself any favours at this point by responding the way it does.

The official line hastily distanced itself from the uttering of Msgr Maurice Dooley this but as the man spoke on radio to many people he was the face of the problem, the face of a church favouring a legalistic 'there's nothing we did wrong' approach over a more compassionate one. How can you not wonder about what motivates people like that?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:59 AM

Kevin Myers' The State of Ireland 1975 : a strange and demented place

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 02:50 PM

All the abuse was perpetrated by individuals

Ake, like Joe you are recognising one crime but overlooking another which is far more serious. The crime you recognise is the abuse of children by individual priests and other religious. As Joe has argued, this crime is broadly comparable with similar abuse by certain individual scoutmasters, teachers and others who are put in authority over children, except that priests have always enjoyed exceptional advantage arising from their unique role in sacramental absolution.

I would not blame the catholic church for this crime any more than I would blame the scouting movement. I recognise that paedophiles have sometimes sought positions in such institutions to gain access to their prey rather than to fulfil any sort of vocational calling. I don't particularly castigate such institutions where they have allowed paedophiles to slip through the net, and I am cautious about how the abusers should be punished. I assume it is only a matter of good fortune that I don't have paedophilic tendencies myself and I recognise that many abusers are also victims of abuse.

(Child abuse within families, which exceeds all the abuse by strangers, priests and others put together, is a separate matter and does need empathetic handling to take account of factors such as any value there may be in maintaining the family unit.)

The crime you overlook is the crime of institutional complicity: a determination to cover up even the most depraved abuses which has often extended to a demonising of those who have been brave enough to complain about what they have endured. In this respect the catholic church has behaved with overwheening arrogance and has completely lost its moral compass. It is utterly inexcusable. If Ratzinger had an ounce of moral decency about him he would sack Brady and then, on the basis that the buck stops with him, tender his own resignation.

Unless there is a gesture on that kind of scale the catholic church in Ireland is dead in the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 03:14 PM

Very well said Peter!


It certainly would be a good thing if the Church accepted responsibility for the shameful cover up...no doubt about that!

I think it might be a stretch from that, to demanding the Pope's resignation.
Pope Benedict seems one of the more thoughtful and intelligent Popes who have held office during my lifetime and although many might see him as "conservative", I feel he has no option if he wishes to adhere to the Church's basic principles.....which are NOT all bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:02 PM

Seems to me, that most here are more interested in what motivates the Catholic Church, than what motivated the bastards who actually committed these disgusting crimes.

I'm more interested in stopping it happening, Ake. Knowing what motivates the perpetrators won't achieve that. It won't achieve anything; the majority of child molesters don't stop whilst ever they have the opportunity to continue, whatever their motivation may be. On the other hand, understanding what motivates the Catholic Church to cover up their crimes and further their opportunity is a valuable key to some degree of prevention, surely?

You are dead right about the church accepting responsibility. Responsibility and blame are two quite different things, and the church seems to have virtually no sense of responsibility, or ever has had, as far as I can see. Words are just words - actions talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:24 PM

"institutional complicity" is a good term. It is the reason there have been court judgments against the church and the church has paid some very large settlements and fines.
Although 'individuals' are the ones breaking the rules, the institution creates the complex of rules, attitudes, opportunities and responses TO rule breaking that exacerbate the sick tendencies OF individuals.

To some, the very structure of certain institutions (not just the Church) make a certain amount of abuse inevitable. If that is the case, the possible cures are quite a topic for debate. Reorganize? Reduce? Restrict? Remove? There are NO easy answers when the institution is seen as a necessary thing, while its organization and basic principles are seen as elements of the problem.

Joe Offer has chosen what is possibly the hardest path....trying to work within the institution and improve it, while disagreeing with many of the historical patterns and 'teachings'.
I don't think I envy him the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:03 PM

"I should add that, though I'm not in the slightest bit religious, and have never been, my attitude to all this would be exactly the same had it occurred in any other organisation or institution, regardless of religion"

Yes Will. But it doesn't.....does it?    At least not to the same extent as it seems to occur in the Catholic Church and of course the difference is the Celibacy Rule, a rule which encourages people of unorthodox sexual orientation into the priesthood.

The victims of this abuse were for the most part pubescent teenage boys and the perpetrators adult men.
I do not believe that paedophiles target children of a different sex than that which they are sexually orientated towards.
The latest paedophile ring in the UK was exclusively homosexualhere
Get rid of the Celibacy Rule, encourage marriage and family values in the priesthood and watch abuse rates tumble.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:31 PM

They'd certainly drop, but not disappear by any means. Then there's the sadistic violence, which is another thing to consider.

The celibacy rule was an entirely financial thing when they started it, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Greg B
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 09:43 PM

Joe, I support you in your struggle.

Heaven knows, I spent significant time in apolgia for my own mentor, John Moriarty FSC, who did so much for me--- and made one feeble attempt on my virtue.

But as I've run across one, two, three, six, twelve of the young men he groomed and exploited, my views have changed.

These are not "isolated incidents" or a matter of "a few bad apples."

The fire that is guys like John, like John Powell SJ, like Dale Fushek, like hundreds of others has jumped the Atlantic and ignited in Ireland, in Germany, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Italy...

The wheel, as Bob said, is "still in spin."

In a choice between the clergy, and their victims, I choose the latter.

Yadda yadda anti-Catholic yadda.

We have met the enemy.

And he is "us."

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 02:38 AM

Greg names Dale Fushek, founder of the popular Life Teen youth ministry program; along with popular teacher and a best-selling religious author John Powell, SJ. I'd add Covenant House founder Fr. Bruce Ritter to the list. These were very popular, nationally-known priests who worked with youth and molested them. These men were loved and idolized - and they betrayed the young people who loved them.

As I said above, the "weirdness count" among priests is maybe 20-30% - these are the priests I wouldn't trust my children with. Trouble is, the ones who are the most prolific child molesters, usually don't seem weird at all. They are most often very charmong and convincing, and they seem to have the highest of morals The most successful child molesters aren't the type who condemn people for immorality - it's the weird ones who do that, and that makes them suspect.

I have to say that there isn't a high "weirdness count" among bishops - for some reason, a good number of bishops (maybe 20-30%) are just bastards. There are plenty of bishops who are darn good people, but a 20-30% bastard count is awfully high - and it affects a whole lot of Catholics if their bishop is a bastard. As far as I can tell, it is the bastard bishops who are most likely to cover up stuff like child molestation - power is the primary consideration of a bastard bishop, and a child molestation scandal is a serious threat to a bishop's power.

Now, there are situations in every diocese that the bishop should have handled better, but most of those were honest mistakes or things that looked far worse than they actually were. I would guess there were ten to twenty out of some 200 dioceses in the United States where there were systematic coverups of child molestation. Please remember, also, that each diocese is largely autonomous. The Pope has very limited control over what goes on in dioceses other than his own, which is Rome.

The news coverage has been such that it seems like all priests were molesters, and all dioceses had coverups. The problem was (and is) very serious, but it is not universal.

It does seem to have been far more widespread in Ireland, due to a long chain of dictatorial archbishops in Dublin. The first message in the thread questions actions in 1975 by Cardinal Sean Brady of Armagh, who is now Primate (chief bishop) of all Ireland. I don't think there's enough information to make a decision about Brady's actions in 1975. It may be one of those "looks worse than it was" situations, or it could be an intentional coverup. I'll wait and see.

Somebody above said there's no need to understand the reasons behind child molestation. I can't agree with that. If you don't understand a criminal activity thoroughly, you'll never be able to figure out how to control that sort of crime. Shooting "bad guys" with guns just isn't very effective.

But still I wonder what the Catholic Church is supposed to do with all of this. There's no doubt that the crime was significant and widespread, and Catholics are reeling from the effects of this scandal. But is wallowing in guilt the only thing society will allow us to do now? Should we all walk around with "kick me when I'm down" signs pinned to our backs? Nobody in this or any other Mudcat thread, has tried to deny the molestation incidents or the coverups. People in this thread have been jumping all over all Catholics, holding sacred traditions up to ridicule, and generally battering those few of us who dare to try to bring some balance to the discussion.

Crime happens all around us. Some people direct their entire focus on the terrible things in our society, and they live their lives in fear and mistrust. They accuse others of being "soft on crime," implying that those who don't dwell on crime must be in favor of it. NOBODY favors crime. NO CATHOLIC favors the crimes of molestation and abuse and coverups that took place in the Catholic Church.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:36 AM

I don't think there's enough information to make a decision about Brady's actions in 1975. It may be one of those "looks worse than it was" situations, or it could be an intentional coverup. I'll wait and see.

The situation Brady found himself in in 1975 is known as was his function and role in it.

Cardinal Brady himself has declared that armed with hindsight he should have acted differently. The victims of Brendan Smyth obviously disagree. Specialists in canon law like msgr Maurice Dooley on the other hand are quick to declare that the Cardinal did nothing wrong at all at all.

Whether or not one feels Seán Brady should have acted in 1975 hinges on how you weigh the obligation of those involved to report the abuse to the Gardaí as opposed to swearing two abused children to secrecy.
You may or may not choose to consider the argument that at that time people didn't know how to deal with child abuse (see an interesting letter to the editor in Saturday's Irish Times).

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM

"Catholics are reeling from the effects of this scandal. But is wallowing in guilt the only thing society will allow us to do now? Should we all walk around with "kick me when I'm down" signs pinned to our backs?"

Is anybody blaming people who happen to be Catholic for Church policies? I know I'm not and have never done so. Though I think you Joe, may have suggested something along those lines in arguing elsewhere that all Catholic Irish people must have in some way been complicit to abuse carried out by Priests and the cover-ups organised by the Church, and thus equally - as individuals - bare the burden of guilt for the Church's actions.

As for guilt, yes absolutely. Anyone who has been a knowing and willful accomplice to the abuse of children should be feeling very guilty about it. But most especially those in positions of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:34 AM

Even Catholic priests must make their confession. To whom did the guilty parties, confess this one? Or did they in commomn with most others I know of, confess to a few small omissions, get absolution. Then go right on sinning?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 06:08 AM

I've been trying to keep out of these threads, but I'd like to add a UK perspective to a few points.

I think Joe O is a) very fortunate in the dioceses he describes, b) describing a tolerant and forward looking type of church setup that quite frankly I just don't recognise, c) sounds like a real Christian person, doing his his best.

I got out in the mid-80s after 15 years as an active lay adult in England, when it became apparent that the church (over here at least) was rapidly lurching back from the progress made in Vatican 2. Self & spouse were always on the extreme liberal wing, and read widely - the names that spring to mind were Schillebeeckx (sp?) and Kung.

But always lurking in the background was the figure of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - a certain Cardinal Ratzinger - who even back then seemed to be applying the brakes as hard as he could. It became easier for him after the demise of Paul VI.

We were friends with an ex-professor from one of the Rome colleges - Hubert Richards - whose original surname indicated his German origins; and he was also warning of the conservatism to come if his compatriot reached high places.

The English church is not that autonomous, Joe: IMO there is much more emphasis on the universality and uniformity aspects of the church, and bishops have had their knuckles rapped for not falling into line. Many like us, who could no longer see any forward movement, simply gave up.

Now we live in an area of England where Catholicism never died out: it was tolerated and hidden but always there through the proscribed years. That gives a totally different slant to the perception of local clergy, who still (OK some of them, probably) have a fortress mentality. Any innovation is regarded with deep suspicion.

As to the child abuse thing, my spouse, who went through the whole education system / altar boy thing, says he never encountered anything of the sort himself. Nor did I perceive any oddity in the various priests we encountered.
It did however leave him with a very odd view of "normal" man-woman relations which has taken many years to accept and reverse.
Not aided by stupidities like the small print of Humanae Vitae.

I was long ago forced to the conclusion that the celibacy rule (which is a late, and arguably spurious add-on) did nothing for the healthy development of Catholics in general and their pastors in particular.

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 06:45 AM

"Besides which, I'm of the opinion that indoctrinating children into believing that they have to live the rest of their lives depending on an 'imaginary friend' (and other such drivel) is, in itself, no less than child abuse. Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age by all means, but to attempt to take away that choice is abuse of an insidious and cruel kind."

I have to say that I agree with that, 'Smokey' (although I'm not sure that I would have expressed it quite as 'robustly' as you). If it was up to me all education would be secularised immediately. We pay far too much respect, and give far too much leeway, to organised religions of all kinds. And now that one of the largest of those organised religions has been shown that it cannot be trusted with the physical and mental well-being of our children it's time for society re-evaluate the role of those religions within it.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:03 AM

"Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age"

Yeah, then those who find they have a genuine spiritual calling (and there will always be those who are called to seek) will actively seek out and find their way to a path that helps them personally evolve as human beings, rather than cleaving unquestioningly to a dogma instilled from infancy by whatever religious institution happens to weild the greatest power and influence over their community.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:58 AM

Indefensible as it is, celibacy is a red herring. The real problem is the corrupting effect of power. As far as I know, the catholic herarchy's alleged gift of absolving sin exists nowhere else in Christianity, reformed or unreformed, and puts priests above and beyond the laity. A step nearer divinity.

Priestly power is now ebbing away by the day, as catholics increasingly challenge the myth. As their power fades - and already we see the cardinals, bishops and priests being pushed on to territory where they never intended to be - the child-abuse issue will recede too.

The problems are not always evident in the US - particularly on the east and west coasts - where there has long been a readiness to question church authority. In post-colonial Ireland, by comparison, it was a very different story, even in living memory - as evidenced by Peter Mullan's film "The Magdalene Sisters" (2003) set around 1964.

The institutional abuse seen in that film in homes run by the Sisters of Mercy might well have been found in similar non-church institutions at that time. What is far more shocking is the film's depiction of what happens when a whole society places itself in cowed subservience to a rotten hierarchy.

Only a few years earlier Dublin's Archbishop McQuade had required the dismissal of a public librarian on the basis that as a protestant she should not be in a position to influence young minds. In those days, the archishop could not return from overseas travel without being greeted at Dublin airport by the prime minister. (Hard to imagine in northern California, Joe?!)

Ireland's emergence from the dark ages has been faster than the speed of light, and many other countries will have taken note. The catholic hierarchy is being reduced to its proper place in society regardless of the Vatican's resistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:24 AM

I posted before seeing Wolfhound person's very perceptive comments, showing and explaining the extent to which attitudes can differ between one country, or one diocese, and another. Incidentally my daughter was an altar girl in a catholic parish – her choice, with no influence or interference from me – and encountered no problems at all. (A priest resigned, but it was on account of an allegation that was never publicly pursued.)

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:58 AM

IIRC, Peter, altar girls were one of the prohibitions in England that came in as we were heading for the exit. Female eucharistic ministers were bad enough; the same as with female Anglican clergy now, there were church members who couldn't cope with this, even if the individuals in question were nuns.

Paws

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:21 PM

"celibacy is a red herring. The real problem is the corrupting effect of power."

I agree that celibacy is a red herring.

But I'd say rather that the 'real problem' is that positions of power are attractive to corrupt people.
And moreso positions of unquestioned power over vulnerable kids, are going to be extremely attractive to paedophiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:49 PM

Peter K (Fionn)- you say The problems are not always evident in the US - particularly on the east and west coasts - where there has long been a readiness to question church authority.

I see it a bit differently. It seems to me that progressive Catholics are more at home in the Midwest U.S., which has a higher percentage of American-born priests. For a century, the east and west coasts were served by a large number of "The FBI" (foreign-born Irish priests), and they set a repressive tone to many of the dioceses in the east and west. The last of the Irish priests came in the late 1970's, and then priests came from third world countries. In recent years, most American-born priests have come from conservative seminaries, and the progressive seminaries (like the one I attended) have closed. I've gotten to the point where I don't trust a priest under fifty years old - and it seems the remaining Irish priests are the progressive ones nowadays.

I'm not sure there's much hope for us Catholic progressives. We keep trying, but it seems we're dying off.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: olddude
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

AS a Catholic, one can only hope that changes occur sooner than later. So many years and still the abuse goes on ... get the church up to date in the 21 century and get rid of the Celibacy thing, it does no good for anyone. Allow women to be priest, do the things to make the church a better place for everyone and a safer place for everyone ... one can only hope

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM

I would be willing to wear a Kick me I'm Catholic sign. I grew up in a household where my mother was very attracted to religious abuse and caused great problems for our family. I think the church rewards this behavior and people (she was a Baptist by birth with a Baptist preacher father) are attracted to sicknesses in the church like moths to a flame. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:13 AM

Somebody above said there's no need to understand the reasons behind child molestation.

No they didn't!

If you don't understand a criminal activity thoroughly, you'll never be able to figure out how to control that sort of crime.

Not true.

Shooting "bad guys" with guns just isn't very effective.

Also not true, though no-one has suggested anything of the sort, and I certainly wouldn't condone it.

NO CATHOLIC favors the crimes of molestation and abuse and coverups that took place in the Catholic Church.

Blatantly not true, otherwise this discussion would not be taking place.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:48 AM

A direct quote from you, Smokey: Knowing what motivates the perpetrators won't achieve that. It won't achieve anything; the majority of child molesters don't stop whilst ever they have the opportunity to continue, whatever their motivation may be.

I said this: "NO CATHOLIC favors the crimes of molestation and abuse and coverups that took place in the Catholic Church." You claim this is blatantly not true.
Your evidence?

Why would anyone favor crimes of molestation and abuse, and covering up those crimes? Well, I suppose the perpetrators might, but that's obvious. I suppose you could say THAT about almost any crime.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:20 AM

You quote me partially and out of context Joe. I did not say there is no need to understand the reasons behind child molestation.

The rest speaks for itself; the perpetrators are Catholic therefore your statement obviously isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:08 AM

[sigh]

Whatever, Smokey.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:21 AM

What's the phrase?

"I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

G'nite.

Oh, and 100!!!!!!

-Joe-