BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:44 AM

We must consider what is realistically achievable here.

I should certainly be possible to get the celibacy rule ammended, but changing the core beliefs of the Catholic Church is a different matter all together, and even if this WAS achievable,it is probably not in the interests of society.

Many of the views promoted by the Catholic Church are beneficial to the long term survival of humanity and many of the views expounded by "progressives" and "liberals" have been found to create more problems than they solve

The Church is by its very nature "conservative" and should remain so, if not it becomes simply a cult.

Some of the basic beliefs on how we can survive as a species are not and should not be up for debate.

Many here equate all conservatism with evil, but this is not the case, there is at least as much evil committed by so called "progressive" govts worldwide, as is committed in the name of religion

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 09:02 AM

I don't know what you're sighing about, Joe. There were two problems with your statement that Smokey quoted {{sigh}}.

First, as you reluctantly conceded only after Smokey pointed it out (not that it needed pointing out), the abuse and cover-ups we are talking about are those perpetrated specifically by Catholics. And I think we might take it that your CEO, old Ratzinger himself, is also favourably disposed to the cover-up culture, otherwise he would have had the decency to apologise for it in his recent message to Ireland's Catholics.

Second, "took" in your statement should be deleted and replaced with "are taking". Or are you really satisfied that nothing remains to be uncovered? (That would be surprising given that the Irish experience is encouraging victims to come forward in several other countries.)

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM

To what extent do secretaries & accountants abuse children? I wasn't aware that clerical help was more prone to this than anyone else.

What we have hear is another example of the "Culture Of Fear" that has taken over the U.S. & is rapidly engulfing the rest of the world.

Reliable statistics establish that child molestation is less prevalent than decades ago. Yet people get into hysterics.

Is it an abominable cime? Yes.

Is it The End Of Civilisation As We Know It? Hardly.

Get A Grip! We've been Scared Witless long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

"Many here equate all conservatism with evil,"
I would hope that you can realize that that is a gross overstatement, to say the least. A number of topics under discussion here have brought out the fact that many of us feel that too much of the so-called conservatism on the current political scene is actually extremist, regressive, anti-intellectual, and inhumane.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM

Anyone here know how this is playing out in Poland?

With a culture of secrecy driven by both the Church and its late boss's allies in the CIA, there are higher political stakes there than in Ireland or the Netherlands. The buck can't just stop with Ratzinger - desacralizing the memory of John Paul II would strike a blow at the ideology of American capitalism. You can bet that Reagan's minders knew exactly how much kiddie-fiddling their pal in the Vatican was conniving at.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM

I don't know about Poland but in the Netherlands there are now 238 members of the RC clergy who's names are being mentioned in connection to child abuse, including sexual abuse and physical violence.

source : De Volkskrant, today

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:37 PM

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

That's a cheap comment, Joe, and a personal insult. I would expect better than that from a man of your experience and knowledge. However, I am not offended and this is not a battle of wits.

For the record, I agree with the majority of what you say on this subject and admire your stance in many ways. I have come to respect you through these discussions and have learned much from your insight of the Catholic Church, for which I'm grateful. I don't know about you, but I think respect should be a two way street. Just because I don't subscribe to all your beliefs and opinions does not make me witless.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 07:14 PM

A papal resignation could be a real possibility here.

And if that occurs, it could be the best thing to happen to Catholicism in centuries.

It could drag the Church out of the dark ages and into, if not the 21st or even 20th, at least into the 18th or 19th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 08:36 PM

Too right, but one wonders just how much choice popes actually have over it. I'm surprised he took the job on in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM

Smokey ....Joe was wrong in his remark, you are smart, insightful and always a delight to debate with.

Peter, I'm not at all sure "dragging the Church into the 21st century" would be a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM

Dutch cardinal Simonis stated in an interview about he abuse cases that have come to light : 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst'.

This is the excuse often quoted as one coming from post Nazi Germany when asked how the holocaust was allowed to take place. 'We didn't know'. Why the cardinal used the German phrase which has so much baggage and associations with hypocrisy in the Netherlands instead of a statement in Dutch I don't know. It seems to me it's not the best choice of words in the given situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:54 AM

Sorry Peter, I mistakenly attributed beeliner's words to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:35 AM

By the way. Peter Laban, I wonder if you are the Peter Laban who is a fine piper and with whom I've crossed swords elsewhere (on the subject of Howard instruments). In this thread, at least, we seem to be in tune!

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 01:26 PM

And another head rolls as the Pope accepts the resignation of the Bishop of Cloyne.

Irish Times

The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 06:20 PM

I'm not at all sure "dragging the Church into the 21st century" would be a good thing.

Dragging it into the 21st century criminal justice system would be a good thing.. Still, it's happening, albeit far too slowly. It's good to see that the rest of Europe is waking up to reality too.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

In the early 60s, bishops were threatened with excommunication by John XXIII for making public charges of sex abuse against priests. This remained in effect in 2003 under direction of Cardinal Ratzinger.


"Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"

My point is that Ratzinger was then operating under rules from the Vatican. Excommunication is the harshest punishment the church can inflict on a believer. His choice regarding dealing with abusive priest,guided by his faith, would have been clear.

Observation not opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Crowsister
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM

Gee, how are we all supposed to keep 'constructive' about this stuff, when folk will keep insisting on revealing profound institutional corruption in the Church? Isn't it time we all simply let go of the past and stopped moaning?

Seriously though. Paradoxically I'm not exactly surprised, but yet I'm still utterly gobsmacked..

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

Thanks for that, Sinsull. I notice they covered all eventualities:

"But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'."

Very holy, I'm sure.

Even if it never actually happened with animals, they obviously didn't trust their priests not to do it. And they thought of it.

What next, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM

I agree CS. The problem for me is that it is more than likely that paedophile priests are still being shielded, shuffled around parishes, and a threat to children.


So no one noticed John XXIII mention of bestiality??? I thought for sure the animal rights activists would jump in with both feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:50 PM

Here is an explanation that is what I have been trying to say. It is not just random, oh you will find them in any religion, occupation etc. It is endemic.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:45 PM

MG, you are quite right, you can find 'them' anywhere, but the dog-collar seems to attract more than its fair share, and the church seems to knowingly provide opportunities. Personally I'm in no doubt that it's still happening. They don't stop unless the opportunities are removed.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:02 PM

Isn't it time we all simply let go of the past and stopped moaning?

It's important to the victims that their pain is recognised and the injustice done to them by the original denial of their claims is rectified. The church and the state, we all in fact, owe them that much at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM

From the Guardian article linked in a previous post:

"The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials."

I only just glanced at the actual document. It is pretty heavy slogging, but I might try to read it later.

In fairness to the Church, however, I find it hard to believe that any victim of clerical abuse was required to "take an oath of secrecy AT THE TIME OF MAKING A COMPLAINT.". Somehow that just doesn't ring true.

In such cases, the bishop might suggest that the victim or his/her parents allow the Church to handle the matter internally. If this was agreed to, only then would the oath of secrecy apply, and that would be in the interest of a fair and unbiased investigation and hearing, and would apply equally to everyone concerned.

No Church official including the pope himself would have the authority to require such an oath if the victim chose to decline that option and go to the police; in fact, attempting to impose such an oath might well be a crime in itself.

Now, if the victim agreed to have the Church settle the matter internally, and the result was a 'whitewash', then it's doubtful that the victim would feel obligasted by such an oath and highly unlikely that any excommunication would ensue. Indeed, in many such cases one of the parents might not even be Catholic, in which case threats of excommunication would be meaningless.

I may be splitting hairs here, I just don't believe that the situation would have been as stated in the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CSister
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:12 PM

"It's important to the victims that their pain is recognised and the injustice done to them by the original denial of their claims is rectified. The church and the state, we all in fact, owe them that much at least."

Yes Peter. My prior post was made in bitter irony - but I didn't make that clear. I don't think it's time we all stopped moaning by any means. That'd be like Hitler saying: "Hey c'mon guys. So, we made a bit of a boo boo! Get over it man. Can't we all just have a group hug now?"

This stuff has been going on forever, it's destroyed numberless lives. There is no way to be 'positive' about this stuff if we keep trying to deny victims ongoing suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM

Isn't it time we all simply let go of the past and stopped moaning?


I am not going to go back and see who posted this. I am a Catholic man, and I want to state unequivecolly that we certainly MUST NOT let go of the past and stop moaning. While I never witnessed any of this, and the harshest critics still must admit that the percentage of priests that did this is below 5%, still we must root out the perpetrators, and destroy the culture that permitted this to happen. That is the only chance there is for redemption and to rebuild the confidence in the Church.

But most importantly, we owe a debt to those injured. The Church, and ones faith, is where one should feel safest and most secure. During the time children are asking essential questions and becoming adults, is the time they are most vulnerable. These "priests" that took advantage of these children are sick animals and must be purged. The culture in our Church that hid this, and did nothing must be changed. There can be no equivocation, or mitigation, of this guilt.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM

The relevant bits have been outlined in the original document.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:18 PM

Csister, I was composing when you posted. I didn't realize it was a tongue in cheek comment, but I should have. Still, my comment stands.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM

I feel compelled to quote an excerpt from the handbook of the Christian faith.

"Suffer the little children"

It certainly rings hollow, in the light of what those poor kids went through, at the hands of those perverts.

To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington, 'Just because a man wears clerical robes, it doesn't mean it's safe to leave him alone with your kids.'

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM

John,
I am assuming you are being facetious. For those who don't know "suffer" in this use means "allow. Although I vaguely remember a horror/mystery novel based on the misinterpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CSister
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:47 PM

Hey Mick, no probs. My fault. But in any event - I really appreciated your post from a devout Catholic's perspective. That's the kind of stuff that I want to hear from Catholics! The bulk of my family were Catholic, and I have great empathy for anyone with a deep spiritual calling. But I really don't dig the idea that those of us angered by these revelations of corruption, are somehow being "destructive".

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:00 PM

[i]Yes Peter. My prior post was made in bitter irony - but I didn't make that clear.[/i]

I thought so, I thought you couldn't be serious. It was a good time to make the point about the victims though. Because that's where the focus should be, they have been denied too long and they deserve at least some healing by seeing their pain acknowledged and those responsible, those responsible for the abuse and those responsible for sheltering the abusers, held accountable.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM

The church helped create these sick animals, from boyhood up. You can't just root out bad priests and the worse bishops. You have to start rooting out sick mothers and fathers and nuns.

Supposedly St. Michael the Archangel came down from heaven and told people to keep what is good about their religions and throw out the rest. What is cruel is the stance on divorce and birth control. what used to be good was at least a beautiful liturgy and beautiful songs. Well, that has changed forever. I don't know how people become fanatics, but that is what we have to find out. I was raised to be a fanatic, but it didn't take. I have to force myself to do whatever Catholic stuff I do or don't do, except that I do believe in prayers in Latin and tithing and being a decent person. I also believe in encouraging marriage, including for gay couples, but not ruining people's lives with the laws about it.

And can't Catholics think for themselves? Not those my age and older. Maybe younger ones, but they had better still come up with the "right" orthodox answers. You can think but only if you come up with what they want you to think.

So it is a big mess. Happy Easter. And be sure and make the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday because you will get a plenary indulgance. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:13 PM

In my circles I don't hear many saying that those calls for justice are being destructive. There are some that wish they didn't have to hear it, and some that are angry at those piling on because they would see us gone, but virtually every person in my own faith community wants this disease rooted out.

In my own opinion, and it is purely that, I think that this stuff makes a very good case for allowing married clergy, and for the ordination of women. What we are suffering from is a problem that has become inbred culturally. It is, in my opinion, an inability to acknowledge that men don't have all the answers.

What I don't appreciate is those with an agenda against the Church, to use this to try and undermine the good that is done. I think of my time spent going to Mass, and traipsing the grounds of Boys Town, USA, and soaking myself in the legacy of Father Flanagan. He was a fine man that cared about kids. His work goes on today. There are many cases of Catholic religious men and women working to alleviate poverty around the world. I look at the work of Mother Theresa, and can find no fault in it.

So, Csister, I want the disgusting stench of the actions of these people purged. I want the culture changed. And I want to get on with my quest to understand that which is not, IMO, understandable.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:17 PM

To me it is understandable. Take a delicate boy, scare him to death about sex with women and hellfire etc.etc. Pray constantly for his vocation. Put him in a seminary at age 13. Don't give him any contact with women. It could be quite possible he does not see that as a problem. In the meantime his sexual development is stunted, he is perpetually a 13 year old scared to death of many things and perversion just oozes out. I bet a good 90% of the abusers don't really realize what they did, and if they do, consider it superior to having fall into the snares of a woman. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

here is a real scandal..the Cuban priest who cavorted on the beach. Now he was relieved of his administrative duties, could not say Mass in the parish etc. They had no problem dealing with a man and a consenting woman. That is the horror to them.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1896581,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:23 PM

"Take a delicate boy, scare him to death about sex with women and hellfire etc.etc. Pray constantly for his vocation. Put him in a seminary at age 13. Don't give him any contact with women."

Huh? What planet are you posting from?

It's been my experience that MOST - possibly not all - seminaries not only allow but even encourage their students to have active social lives, including dating women if they wish to do so. That was certainly the case at St. Bede's in Peru, Illinois when I was there. We had dances frequently, the girls from the local hospital being invited. (No, we DIDN'T dance with one another if they failed to show up!)

The reason for this is - or should be - obvious. If one's priestly vocation is in doubt, it is better to recognize that before rather than after ordination.

Now, Trappist monks and similar institutions may have different rules. But I do not know of much child abuse in such venues, nor have I heard of 13-year-olds being accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM

THis was in the olden days. Priests can date women? Or is it seminarians? When were you there? I am all for it, but I would like to see them married if they choose. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:06 PM

It's interesting that they make more fuss about a normal relationship.

Brainwashed children can (or could) be silenced, and animals can't talk. Adult women are consequently perceived as more of a threat to their credibility, and therefore their pocket. That's why I see the (allegedly) large compensation payouts as a positive thing - hit them where it hurts and they might even do something about it. Eventually.

Not fast enough for me though - even as I write, I know that somewhere there is an innocent child going through (real) hell at the hands of some disgusting pig in a cassock. It could be prevented, but only with drastic measures. Bring 'em on, I say. Quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:20 PM

Wait until these investigations reach developing nations..especially those with AIDS. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM

"THis was in the olden days. Priests can date women? Or is it seminarians? When were you there? I am all for it, but I would like to see them married if they choose. mg"

WHAT was in the olden days? Your scenario or mine?

Who said priests could date women? Junior college level students in seminaries are about as far from the priesthood as pre-med students are from being physicians. They have taken no religious vows whatever, and I don't know of any seminary for DIOCESAN priests that places limits on their social life during their free time, within the bounds of decency, of course. Strip clubs and crack houses are definite no-nos.

I was there a long time ago, and only briefly, but I agree with you that the Church should admit married men to the priesthood, and it does, and always has, in all of the Eastern rites, and more recently in the Western or 'Latin' rite under certain circumstances, mainly clergymen from other denominations wishing to convert.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:36 AM

From the link at the top of the thread:

In December, Sean Brady told a reporter that he would feel obliged to resign if any act or omission on his part "had allowed or meant that other children were abused".

If the cardinal needs a little more encouragement before deciding to yield up the trappings and privileges of his high office (as he will inevitably have to do) it looks as though he is getting it.

The (London) Times, 27 March 2010

In this case Ratzinger has managed to make his mind up within a matter of weeks, which is real progress. It took him more than a year to decide that he needed to accept the resignation of John Magee, the bishop of Cloyne and previously secretary to Paul VI and John Paul II. Interesting though that whereas Magee apologised and stood down as soon as his lamentable handling of abuse allegations was exposed, Brady is clinging on until the bitter end.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: banjoman
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:03 AM

I have read and re read this thread, and having been a practising catholic for almost 67 years I have to admit to having serious doubts as to the how the church is governed . There can be no excuse whatever for the abuse of children either within the church or outside and the perpertrators of such actions should be brought to account regardless of their position.
However, it is easy to forget about the vast amount of good works being done at grass roots level in the church both by clergy and laity. The actions of the perverted few must not be allowed to obscure this.
Overall, my thinking has come around to believeing that the original message of Christ was a very simple one of love and respect for ones neighbour, and that this has become obscured over time by pomp and ceremony - a Pharisitacal approach? - which is exactly what Jesus preached against. He also said that anyone who abused children should have a mill stone tied around their neck and they been thrown into the sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:10 AM

I think it's because of the good works the church does, and the good morals that it preaches, that this is so shocking.
Problem now is to prevent a seige mentality from taking complete hold, otherwise the chances of Catholic churchgoers looking at it dispassionately, will rapidly decrease.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:45 AM

He also said that anyone who abused children should have a mill stone tied around their neck and they been thrown into the sea.

No he didn't. You mean Mark 9:42, and Jesus was warning against something rather more general than what you most likely mean by "abuse".

He would probably have seen opening a bank account for a child as being just as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 12:19 PM

Here in Maine we are shaking our heads in wonder. The Catholic Church has revoked funds pledged to the Preble Street Shelter which offers food and housing to homeless men, abused women and runaway teens. They are desperate for money - my company regularly fundraises for them and donates food and clothing. In addition, they were forced to return any unspent money.
A Homeless Advocacy group under the Preble Street umbrella supported the Gay Marriage Amendment in Maine. Preble Street's directors voted not to. They have no control over the Homeless Advocacy group.
The group pointed out that most of the runaway teens it helps are gay and escaping families who can't except them.
The bishop says they have violated a written agreement promising to uphold the church's moral and social values.
Meantime the shelters remain full, the food still goes out the door and children are provided a safe haven but with less dollars. They suffer over an inexplicable political statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM

Well, call me a hardhearted so-and-so, but I don't see (1) what this has to do with clerical child abuse, (2) what excatly 'under the Preble Street umbrella' means if, as you say, the shelter has no control over the advocacy group. They are either affiliated or they are not.

Runaway teens should be returned to their parents, unless of course they are being physically abused. If they simply don't like the standards of behavior their parents impose, they should seek legal emancipation, in which case they would be expected to be self-sustaining like any adult.

It seems to me that any church or religious body should be free to fund or not to fund as they wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 04:59 PM

in which case they would be expected to be self-sustaining like any adult.

Indeed, Beeliner- the noble profession of prostitution is crying out for such motivated young people.

Churches are free to fund or not to fund as they wish. In this particular case it seems to be their wish that is being questioned, not their freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM

Smoke, I left home at 17, not due to conflict with my parents, just because I wanted my own life, worked until I was 65, held a wide variety of jobs, some of which I was better at than others, some of which I liked more than others.

During that time, I applied for unemployment maybe two or three times, but was never without work long enough to collect any benefits.

Prostitution never crossed my mind. Nor can I imagine that it would have had I been homosexually oriented.

Please understand, I'm not knocking the shelter, and I support, both morally and financially, such institutions. I just don't see the connection with clerical child abuse. Nor do I understand why it would shelter runaway minors. Is that legal? I dunno, just asking. Maybe I've led too 'sheltered' a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 06:15 PM

No disrespect intended Beeliner. I'm in the UK, and the great majority of our child prostitutes are runaways. It's a problem here. Maybe the opportunities for employment are different here.

The connection with clerical child abuse is the morality of the Catholic Church, or lack of it, in its priorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:03 PM

None inferred, Smokey. As I said, though not naive, my exposure to life's underside has been limited, thank the Lord. Nor have I lived in the UK. Nor, when I have visited there, have I seen many young people whom I would suspect, by their appearance and demeanor, of being child prostitutes. I certainly do not doubt that they exist in substantial numbers, but I can't help wondering how the law deals with such a situation.

I still fail to see, however, any 'immorality' on the part of the RCC in picking and choosing the social organizations it wishes to aid financially, based on those organizations' associations.

Personally, I've always considered same-sex marriage a non-issue, because the solution seems so obvious. You just have, at the state level, civil unions for everyone, leaving the traditional aspects of marriage to the churches entirely. Let those denominations, and independent churches, who are willing to marry same-sex couples do so, and let those who refuse continue to refuse. Problem solved.