 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 07:58 AM The more I read about sexual abuse in the RC church and the complicity of the organized structure...the popes, the cardinals, the bishops...the more I ask the question to myself is this church structure worth saving (not to be confused with the question "is the RC faith worth saving"). Joe has posted in praise of good points on "the real RC church" which seems to be a local parish organization fueled by the local faithful, versus the Bishop and Vatican organizational structure. It takes me back to the Sinead interview...in which she seems to say that the organized structure (Vatican, Bishops etc) is rotten and the only way for it to be fixed is for the faithful to take back the RC church from those who have led it to the dismal state it is in today. But, to me, what Joe seems to have posted (if you separate out some of the odd internal RC circular arguments and defensive stuff) seems to be in line with what Sinead and others have said ...Since the Organization seems to have a tight hold on the reigns, with little actual power (organizational, sinancial and policy) residing with the faithful (beyons some local initiatives). But, how this could be done is a puzzle. Maybe an implosion will have to occur before there is an opportunity for real change, beyond the defensive drabble and tearful, though late, appoligies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 May 10 - 06:26 AM "by inferring that this mess is all the fault of the Church....." In the hope that one day you will actually qualify one of your nonsensical statements - didn't the church as a body cover up the abuses and re-assign the abusers to positions where they could continue their abusing. Dnd didn't the Vatican issue orders to deal with the whole affair within the limits of the church? Wasn't it an order from the Vatican that instigated the signing of 'pacts of silence' on the abuses so the crimes went undetected and unpunished? How was/is the church not to blame? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 05:31 AM Did Benedict XVI act out of concern for victims, (after decades of abuse) and published works), concerns to control massive amounts of money the group massed or to save the church and some inside from the consequences of their actions (or a combination of the above)? A couple of notable comments in the article on this "nest of sexual abusers, sancioned by the Vatican" The link to the article is at the end. "Given so much evidence, Benedict XVI, upon arriving at the papacy, ordered Maciel to leave Rome, return "to a life dedicated to prayer and penance" in Mexico and give up any form of public ministry, thus saving the priest from an ecclesiastical trial and especially from civil trials. The institutions of the top Catholic hierarchy and Mexican politics managed to protect Maciel while continuing to ignore the victims"..... ....."Maciel's death won't put an end to the scandal. What is needed is to get inside his organization to see just how far it was complicit in and abetted the crimes of pederasty, drug use, absolution for accomplices and others, although in 2001 then-Cardinal Ratzinger established a 10-year statute of limitations for the latter crime". http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/4016 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 01 May 10 - 04:30 AM Sorry Joe, most commentators in the media and quite a few posters here are defending the abusers by inferring that this mess is all the fault of the Church. As many of the abusers as possible should be charged....clean them out! Frank is right, the Pope should make a stand and condemn thse people. Smokey is also correct that few of the "cover uppers" will be charged, as evidence will be hard to get, but again the Pope should name names and clean up the organisation, The celibacy rule and it's effect in encouraging those of abnormal sexual orientation into the priesthood in such large numbers, must be carefully scrutinised |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 12:19 AM Well, Frank, I don't think anybody is defending "these priests" nowaways. When he was Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it did seem like the Pope dragged his heels at first. Then, finally, it seemed that he "got it" - despite the fact that John Paul II was still supporting Fr. Maciel, the notorious founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Ratzinger started an investigation. And when he became Pope, he banished Maciel. Now it comes out that Maciel was a morphine addict, molested at least 20 seminarians, and fathered children by at least two women....and his followers wanted him declared a saint. Maciel died in infamy, but his legacy lives on in the insidious Legionaries. But it does seem that Ratzinger/Benedict saw the light a couple of years before he became Pope, and started to seriously pursue the molesters. Nowadays, nobody is defending the molesters...but they're still trying to defend the bishops who covered up the crimes. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:43 PM Joe, one solution is for the pope to speak out forcefully against these crimes and to refrain from covering them up. He has made them church policy. Why is he defending these priests? Criticism of this is not bigotry. It is however humane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:59 PM I fear very few of the cover-uppers will ever see the inside of a cell door, unfortunately. Law Courts, quite rightly, require substantial evidence and/or proof to find someone guilty, and I suspect it would not be in abundance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:46 PM Sinead makes some important and logical points about the similar pattern in the global nature of the coverup that most likely had some level of central knowledge and coordination, or even stewadship. It is very likely that some (or many) in powerful positions wanted (and want) it to go away, and contributed to a cover up, because they were involved directly (in the abuse) or less directly, in letting it happen. There are only so many reasons that can be put forward for events that were widespread and spanned long periods in time that can bear any logical weight. RC faith and wanting the RC organization to be clean on this matter holds little water (holy or not so holy)...and I suspect is a route for the church to continue to move downward and dismantle, rather than upward and unify under its orginal purpose. As mg states "The coverup is part of the abuse itself because it allows perps (aka, pervs) to keep perping (aka, perving) and it allows more and more (of it) to happen (globally)"....and it likely is still happening in RC circles in many places in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM It is acceptable to me if they have total homosexual orientation or they have no orientation whatsoever. Or any combination or pattern. As long as they do not abuse children. If they have voluntary, nonabusive adult relationships I don't care with whom. But the coverup is part of the abuse itself because it allows perps to keep perping and it allows more and more to happen. So I would like to see the Pope resign..oh goodness, he is maybe going to apologize they say, but in June. Why wait? I would like the long arm of the law to reach out and put the coveruppers in jail if they are guilty of crimes. And mostly, like someone else suggested, I want any vows of silence on this matter to be officially released by the pope himself. That is so important. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 30 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM I like Sinead as a performer, but this inteview seems like just another stick to beat the Catholic Church. Maybe the Church needs a good beating, but not a word about the actual perpetrators? There are two separate sets of crimes here, the sexual abuse of boys, and the self serving cover up by the offices of the church. Although seemingly linked, the two crimes are very different in nature. The predators are gratifying sexual feelings in the abuse of boys and young men...a crime of sexual assault. The Church were invlved in damage limitation, until they realised the situation was out of control.....they were indeed guilty of a crime, but a very different crime from the one being inflicted on boys and youths by the priests. If we really want to protect children the two crimes must be dealt with separately, as I said above, we could remove the Pope and all his cardinals, but the abuse would continue while the sexual imbalance remains in the priesthood. The priesthood should reflect sexual orientation rates in the real world. Anything else is simply not acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 30 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM You know,I used to be annoyed by Sinead....But, after viewing her interview...it seems she is right on on many aspects of the issue....though her proposed solution may be seen by some as being on the extreme side. I suspect I would be there too, if I had been directly impacted by some of those unholy villians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:22 AM Sinead O'connor on the Maddow showN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:11 AM "Ho, hum.....as I answered Jim Carroll's question THREE times:" The question was would you have put in as much effort defending the school authorities as you have defending the church over its abuses - you still haven't replied, but don't bother - I think I know ther answer. "But I also believe that Jim Carroll is painting the guilt with too broad a brush, because he places blame on the entire Catholic Church" No Joe, we blame the organisation of the church, not the faithful who were as much in the dark as the rest of us. It was the heirarchy instigated a cover-up and organised an escape rout to enable the abusers tyo escape justice and continue their abuse - tell us they didn't. It is also the heirarchy who refuses to take responsibility for their part in the abuses and apologise and make reparation to the victims - tell us it isn't. "Jim and others have said that everyone in Ireland knew what was going on," No we didn't - I have said that the PHYSICAL violence was common knowledge, but the extent and the severity of that violence was not realised until comapratively recently, making it virtually impossible to do anything about it. The violence that was known about was accepted as severe corrrection, such was the power of the church to cover up its own actions. "Jim Carroll and others, why didn't you speak out against the Magdalene laundries and the reform schools when they were still in existence?" There you go again Joe - blaming the rest of us for the sins of the church. For the record - I am a UK citizen who came to live in Ireland in 1998 (just) after the last Magdelene Laundry was closed. I and most of us, had never heard of The Magdelene Laundries until the television film based on the experience of one of the inmates (BBC late 90s) - followed by the feature film 'The Magdelene Sisters' also in the late 90s. Those who knew of their existence believed them to be correction centres where 'fallen women' were sent, not the slave camps they are now recognised as being. So efficient was the cover-up by the religious orders who ran them, we still haven't a full picture of what went on thin them as the Government has washed its hands of holding a full enquiry into them, despite the fact that courts sent girls there as punishment. "I think that everyone who knows of a crime and does nothing about it, has some share in the responsibility for that crime." The last time the discussion sank to this level was when the parents of the victims were accused of knowing that the crimes were taking place and doing nothing about it; on contributer was so upset at this accusation that she withdrew from the thread. "The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago." So what - is there an amnesty on sexual abuse, and isn't this what Simon Weisenthall was constantly being told? "Note however, that he restricts the blame to Catholics, most notably current Catholics." Where on earth did that one come from Joe? I neither said it nor believe it. "For the most part, the sexual and physical abuse problem is over. " Not for the victims it isn't, and it will never be until the church admits its guilt and acknowleges the suffering it has inflicted on innocent children. "The only thing the Catholic Church can do now is to acknowledge responsibility, pay reparations, and set up controls so such a thing does not happen again." And the only thing the rest of us can do is make sure that the church, or any other influentual body never gets into the position where it could continue to abuse and persecute children the way it did. An interesting poll was published in yesterdays Irish Times. In 2001 6% of the population of Ireland had "no trust at all" in the church. By 2004 this had risen to 13% Todays figure stands at 32%, beaten only by the Government and the Banks. I really don't know why decent, honest Catholics are not hammering on the gates of the Vatican demanding that damage inflicted on the church by its persistant prevarication and avoiance of responsibilty, ceases immediately before it brings your church tumbling about your ears. "HERE'S JIMMY!!" I see you appear to have acquired a parrot. Just a reminder Ake, that it is you who hands out conspiricy theories and hidden agendas to back up your otherwise unqualified accusations. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM I knew someone whose mother decided that she was too insane to care for him, actually a really brave and rational decision on her part, and she was right. He was 'put into care' and shuffled from place to place. When asked for his religion he claims 'all of them' - for he would be sent from one 'place of care' to another on a regular basis. For years when an adult and finally out of "care" (the quotes are for a real meaning purpose!) he was stashing food in his bed and other places. He realised that he was so hungry as a child - chronically underfed by these 'good Christians!' that he had developed the habit of stashing any lucky excess 'just in case'. Now THAT is abuse too. Well he discovered rapidly as a youngster that when transferred to a new institution, if he 'converted' to the new brand of magical sky fairy gibberish, HE GOT EXTRA FOOD! Did he get 'done by a priest'? well he was in so many different 'brands' - including RC - and he was so embarrassed that he was very mature when he finally approached a doctor who treated him to stop the bleeding.... you know what I mean ... You can't blame JUST the RCs - but they seem to be getting most of the press at the moment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 11:29 PM Well, there were those rumors that there was saltpeter in our food in the seminary, supposedly to control sex drive...not salt & vitriol, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 09:54 PM Battered? Of course.....but certainly not molested. Typical of the Catholic church, eating the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 29 Apr 10 - 08:34 PM Salt n' vitriol on yer chips?......."HERE'S JIMMY!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM Friday night fish fry at a Catholic church, yes...and I do have many other good childhood RC memories....and none of them "touchy feely", as Ake may be suggesting:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 29 Apr 10 - 08:18 PM This thread is getting much too touche feely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:59 PM Sorry Joe, couldn't resist - I'm possessed by the spirit of a raddled old hippy musician that makes me do bad things and occasionally talk rubbish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:54 PM Touché, Smokey. Battered? Of course.....but certainly not molested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:47 PM Is the fish battered? (sorry, honest I am) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM Hey, Ed, have you ever been to a Friday night fish fry at a Catholic church?? They ain't bad - AND they're the only church that isn't afraid to serve beer with the fish & chips. I will NOT apologize for the Catholic traditional Friday night fish fry. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:36 PM Time for a humour break: I usually lump organized religion, organized labor, and organized crime together. The Mafia gets points for having the best restaurants. ~Dave Beard |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM No, I get it, Ed. I know all about the long-term impact of child abuse. But if the Church did not respond with compassion when the victim first reported the abuse, it's too late. What victim is going to accept compassion and healing from a church that stonewalled him for ten years before even acknowledging an offense? By that time, the only thing the Catholic Church can do is offer a healthy financial settlement and a profound apology - and the victim can use the settlement money to get his treatment from an independent source. The only proper way for the Catholic Church to receive a complaint of abuse or molestation, is to respond immediately with compassion and openness. An immediate denial of wrongdoing is always wrong, and yet the Catholic Church responded with initial denial time and time again. But for the most part, it's over now, and what remains is to clean up a horrible mess. Nobody believes the denials now - they went on for far too long. The only thing the Catholic Church can do now is to acknowledge responsibility, pay reparations, and set up controls so such a thing does not happen again. But on the other hand, despite the fact that some of you are going to misinterpret what I have to say, I do think that we need to explore the idea of the responsibility of a community to control a criminal environment that exists within it. Whenever there is injustice or crime in our community, we ALL have a responsibility to bring that injustice to an end. It's not good enough to pass the blame on to government or law enforcement or school boards or whomever - if we witness injustice and do not speak out at the time the injustice is happening, then we share at least a small part of the blame. If we wait until the injustice has ended and it's safe to speak out, it's too late. Jim Carroll and others, why didn't you speak out against the Magdalene laundries and the reform schools when they were still in existence? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM Joe, read through this site below, (there are many simolar reports accessible through the internet) and really consider your previous statements...especially those I highlighted regarding victims. RC sexual abuse victims are part of those statistics. Just because a child was abused by a "holy father" serving God, does not limit those impacts or statistics. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:21 PM The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago Er, didn't the vast majority of most stuff happen years ago? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:16 PM Many of the abusers (a third seems to be the popular figure) will be former victims, and many victims will go on to be abusers. The cyclical nature of child abuse is well documented and widely accepted as fact. One dodgy priest alone, in convenient circumstances, can easily produce tens of next-generation abusers or maybe more. Consider the historical and future implications of that phenomenon. It needs to be completely stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 29 Apr 10 - 06:52 PM "The direct blame for these crimes, both the molestation/abuse and the coverups, rests on those who actually committed these crimes" So, what is the RC church organization (lets not confuse it more by adding the current RC faithful, former RCs, all Christians and the world community in the dimension) doing to honourably agressively and honestly ferret those people out...those who committed and covered up the molestation and abuse (some that recent cases show recently, and possibly still exists) ..and some folks who are likely still residing within the RC structure...maybe it the higher structures? "For the most part, the sexual and physical abuse problem is over. The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago. Certainly, it's probable that some crimes of abuse and molestation are still taking place, but society has changed and the Catholic Church no longer holds the position of unquestioned authority that it once held. If we dwell too much on the past and focus mostly on extracting reparations for the crimes of those who are now dead or senile, we miss the opportunity to learn what it will take to prevent such crimes from happening in the future". Joe, you just don't get it! I suggest you read up on the broad and long-term impacts of sexual abuse, if not treated. Problems caused by sexual abuse do not go away with time, and if untreated negatively impact those abused, their families society and their children. Where is the compassion and reaching out to heal and provide professional help for those abused. Where have the RC church organization agressively reached out, sought and opened its arms and hearts to those who were abused under it's holy Christian roofs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 29 Apr 10 - 06:22 PM Joe, when you talk about a 'share' of the responsibility, do you mean it literally? I think not, but I can well see why people might misconstrue what you are saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 05:47 PM Ho, hum.....as I answered Jim Carroll's question THREE times: Of course, I believe that those who committed crimes should be prosecuted and punished. I do not defend anyone for covering up a crime, especially a crime against children. I believe that covering up a crime, is a crime in itself - is it not? So, yes, Jim, as I said three times before, I do agree with you and I do believe that both the molesters/abusers and those who covered up the crimes, should be prosecuted and punished. But I also believe that Jim Carroll is painting the guilt with too broad a brush, because he places blame on the entire Catholic Church. Note however, that he restricts the blame to Catholics, most notably current Catholics. He absolves from guilt all those who have left the Catholic Church, even those who knew what was going on. The direct blame for these crimes, both the molestation/abuse and the coverups, rests on those who actually committed these crimes. And, since Jim Carroll brings up what I said long ago, and since he and others have twisted it time and time again, let me say it again. There is a broader, community responsibility for any widespread injustice. I think that everyone who knows of a crime and does nothing about it, has some share in the responsibility for that crime. Jim and others have said that everyone in Ireland knew what was going on, but the Catholic Church was so oppressive that nobody could do anything about it. I replied that perhaps this is Ireland's "original sin," to accept such an oppressive environment and to say nothing. It has often been said that racism is America's "original sin." Does that mean that everyone in America was, is, and ever will be a racist? Of course not - many Americans were victims of racism. But racism was a way of life in America for most of its history, and it still exists. Different people had different levels of blame - but as a whole, the American nation was bound up in a tangled web of racism, and there was no way out until certain members of the oppressed races showed the leadership and courage needed to defy the web of racism. From what I've read and from what (in a limited manner) I've seen myself, the entire nation of Ireland was bound up an an oppressive web of control by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was a powerful and reliable ally in the struggle for freedom from the British, so it escaped the scrutiny it received in other nations - particularly in nations where there is no dominant religious denomination. The Catholic Church and the government of Ireland were in bed together, so both have a share in the responsibility for child abuse and molestation that took place in government-owned schools that were operated by religious orders of nuns and brothers. Mind you, I'm not absolving anybody of guilt here. The primary responsibility for the crimes, lies on the molester/abusers, and on the church (and government) officials that covered up the molestation and abuse. HOWEVER, there needs to be wider vision, an awareness of the failings of society as a whole in neglecting this problem and accepting it as "the way it is." When we point the finger of blame, we must do do with the realization that we ALL are to blame, that we all have shortcomings, that none of us is perfect. As we review what happened, we need to do so with the sober realization that there were children suffering for years and years, and NOBODY did anything to help them. For the most part, the sexual and physical abuse problem is over. The vast majority of the crimes happened years ago. Certainly, it's probable that some crimes of abuse and molestation are still taking place, but society has changed and the Catholic Church no longer holds the position of unquestioned authority that it once held. If we dwell too much on the past and focus mostly on extracting reparations for the crimes of those who are now dead or senile, we miss the opportunity to learn what it will take to prevent such crimes from happening in the future. So, in the end, I'm still asking for what I've asked for time and time again - a focus on preventing future crime, rather than dwelling on the crimes that too place thirty years ago. I am very much afraid for the future of my Catholic Church. Vatican II opened a window of honesty and freedom and individual responsibility, but there are many forces that are trying to close that window. The most vocal lay voices in the Catholic Church, are crying for a return of the authoritarianism and legalism of the past. I can't live under that sort of authoritarianism, but I'm not ready to give away my church to those who want to bring back the old days of oppression and moral triumphalism. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 29 Apr 10 - 05:09 AM What's going on? I tried to log on last night and again this morning with my usual account and I got 'Access Denied'. I just logged on this morning through another location and I find that my most recent post (which agreed with a point that Jim recently made) has been deleted and a thread I began last night about the UK general election has also been deleted. What is the reason for this? Is it because I'm a Guest rather than a member - albeit one who has been posting regularly to this Forum since 2001 and who has never tried to disguise his identity? Or is it because I agreed with Jim?
And I have to say that I'm a little insulted that you would suggest your message may have been deleted simply because you agreed with Jim. We never delete messages for that sort of reason. Oh, here it is - I see a deleted thread titled Labour Loses the Election, and you're the person who started it. We don't allow Guests to start non-music threads. I might have made an exception for you because you are a long-time poster, but the moderator was correct in deleting the thread. If you want more freedom, all you have to do is register. We have had a lot of problems with unregistered Guests, so we keep them under greater scrutiny and control. -Joe Offer- joe@mudcat.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Apr 10 - 03:51 AM "As I said when I answered Jim Carroll's question twice," Joe - again you are being dishonestly evasive about this; you are answering a question I did not ask and are continuing to evade the one I did. There is no question that paedophiles should be tried and, if found guilty, punished by law - we have no disagreement. My question (again) is regarding the church and those of its officers (employees) who co-operated with those paedophiles in their activities by ignoring, covering up and enabling them to continue what they were doing by moving them on to duties that placed them within reach of more children to prey on. You have put up a strong defence of your church throughout these discussions, to my mind, to the extent of shifting the blame elsewhere (the people of Ireland springs readily to mind). Would you have put up a similar defence of the hospital authorities if it had been sick children in their care that had been abused, or the education authorities if the abuse had been taking place in schools? For me, the most distastefully disturbing thing about this horrific affair is that the church has been treated in many quarters as being above the law and above criticism because of its spiritual position. It has totally refused, as a body, to accept any responsibility for what has happened to children under its care. Rather than apologies and admissions of guilt we have been given mealy-mouthed expressions of sympathy, as if the whole thing was really "Nuffin' to do wiv us guv'". What level of responsibility should the church, as a national (and, it would appear) international organisation take for the abuses that have been committed by its officers and employees and on its premises, on children under its care; abuses that would not have been possible to the extent they have taken place, had the church not occupied the position it has up to now? SHOULD THE CHURCH AND ALL THOSE IN OFFICE WHILE THESE ABUSES TOOK PLACE, BE LIABLE TO FULL INVESTIGATION BY THE LAW, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION AND, IF FOUND GUILTY OF COLLUDING IN SERIOUS CRIMES, BE PUNISHED AND MADE LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO THEIR VICTIMS? (Not shouting - don't know how to emphasise my point in any other way) I'm pretty certain that if a doctor or a nurse sexually abused a child while it was in hospital, not only would the abuser be liable to prosecution but both the hospital and and medical authorities would be answerable in some degree; the same would apply if it happened in school. Should this not be the case with the church, especially as the knowledge of the events was widespread enough to be kept secret and treated as 'in house' affairs? So far you have not come anywhere near to answering this; feel free to continue not doing so but please do not attempt to claim that you have. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 10 - 02:19 AM I had a long phone call today that really disturbed me. I heard allegations from a very reliable source that a priest I knew well in high school and college, may well have been guilty of molesting my fellow seminarians. Up until today, I had the feeling that the Milwaukee seminary I attended had escaped these problems, but maybe not. In addition, the infamous Father Murphy was next door at St. John's School for the Deaf, and apparently it was well-known among our faculty that Murphy was molesting students. Apparently, the seminary faculty expected the archbishop to do something about it - but I wonder why the faculty I loved and respected, didn't do something about it. So, I have to take time to think and gather information. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:27 PM I agree. An institution can definitely be immoral. Some immediately come to mind.KKK etc. And priests had to be able not only to be celibate, theoretically it appears, but to inflict some very harsh almost sentences on people..like have your 12th child even if it kills you from childbirth or your husband from overwork, or if the 11 children you have are malnourished, shivering in the winter, unhealthy etc. This is not in the distant past. This was my Catholic education. Plus you get one chance at marriage and if he/she is a monster, there is no alternative, leaving you with the aforementioned 11 kids and no means of support. So priests had to be able and willing to pass on these rules. ANd I have never heard anyone in the church, although I am sure there were some, apologize for them, and say sorry, I know it is rough but that is what GOd wants. So we have the celibacy filtre, and we have the rules and regulations filter. I am sure there are more. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:20 PM Ed T if you read my post of 28 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM - you will see that it was happening (and decried) from the most very early days of the Church - and documented in records still stored in the Vatican archives. Nearly 2,000 years of knowledge of the wrong doing are not abrogated by a few modern statements trying to pin the blame on 'external factors'.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 28 Apr 10 - 10:59 PM Why the RC Organization failed the children, and the RC Faithful There is evidence of a substantial and widespread level of sexual abuse of boys under the responsibility of those in te Roman Catholic church, that extended over a range of time. Cases of sexual abuse were managed with to minimise the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the RC institution and its congregation. When a priest was reported or found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to authorities, nor the famalies of those abused. The desire to protect the reputation of the institution in the eyes of the congregation and was paramount. There was a reluctance to confront or to put the responsibility on priests who offended. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. The immediate danger and long term damage to the children and families affected and to others were disregarded. It is asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time, and that it was seen as a minor personal failing on the part of the priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was and is a criminal offence. The recidivist nature of this sexual abuse was known to many religious authorities. Contrary to the Congregations' claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. Documents and victim statements reveal that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. The risk was seen in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account. When confronted with evidence or allegations of sexual abuse, the response of the RC religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location with no notice to the families, congregations or local church authorities where, in many instances, they were free to abuse again. The safety of children in general was not a consideration. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled offending priests access to children through other roles. The safety of children in general was not a consideration. Priests who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than dismissal from the Order. . The safety of children in general was not a consideration. Sexual abuse was known to senor religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations through a prolonged period. But, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was little visable attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were few, if any protocols or guidelines put in place to protected children from predatory priest behaviour. RC authorities did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as jointly responsible for the sexual activity. Benefit of the doubt was provided to the priest, time and time again. Authoritarian RC systems prevented disclosures by other priests and bishops and served to perpetuate abuse. Even when extensive evidence emerged, the RC authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past. Victims were blamed for the results of large settlements on local parishes. There were few attmpts to reach out to vistims nor families, nor to offer thropy nor healing. Victims were victimized again by this treatment. Some congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by courts on sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings. In fact, neither the bishops, the Vatican, nor local congregations were to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their priests and RC structure perpetrated. Congregational loyalty to the RC church and structure enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children. Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of civil authorities by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue. When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. When cases were reported to civil authorities these reports were delayed resulting in no charges, because of the statute of limitations. Rc authorities dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases. Rather than a formal recognition of the abuse that occurred and the suffering of the victims attempts were made to trivilize the crimes, by stating it the RC sexual abuse is no worse than in society, in other organizations, or the victims were not children. It took many years for the RC church to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective RC organizations failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue. The RC church has not been open on what senior RC personnel were involved in the failure to intervene early and protect children. There is no evidence of any steps to independantly analysis and understand how these failures came about so that steps can be taken to reduce the risk of repeating them. The RC church needs to examine how their ideals became debased by systemic abuse. They must ask how they came to tolerate breaches of their own christian rules and mores, and when sexual and physical abuse was discovered, how they responded to it, and to those who perpetrated it. They must examine their attitude to neglect and emotional abuse and, more generally, how the interests of the institutions and the Congregations came to be placed ahead those of the children who were in their care. Public trust will not be restored until the RC church publically acknowledges that the organization failed the children, not just that children were abused because of individual priest actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:31 PM I believe that the institution is amoral, neither good nor bad. I believe that if an institution is amoral, it is bad. Particularly if it happens to be a religious institution purporting to be good and preaching moral values. The crimes were committed by individuals, not by an institution. Indeed so, but those individuals were representatives of that institution, paid and trained by it. The institution therefore has some responsibility for the abuse beyond that of the perpetrators themselves. The circumstances for the abuse were provided, unwittingly or not, by the institution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM QUOTE http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/beast-file-history-catholic-church-sex-scandal This page has the video of the show segment,and many links (not given here) to the research material ~~~~~~~~~~ The final Beast File for season two looks at the Catholic Church's response to child sex abuse and the 2000-year paper trail of Church documents showing this first became an issue in the years following Jesus' death. Over the years, Vatican officials have blamed child sex abuse by priests on everything from homosexuality to the media. Recently, in a letter of apology to Irish Catholics, Pope Benedict XIV, appeared to blame the abuse on the secularisation and fast-paced change associated with modern society. But as this Beast File shows, modern society has little to do with it and documents linking priests to child abuse go back almost 2000 years. Most of the information for this story was garnered from the following four books, which are great sources for anyone looking for more information. - 'The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican, David Yallop, Constable & Robinson Ltd, London, 2007. - 'Sex Priests and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse', Doyle et al, Volt Press, Los Angeles, 2005. - 'Fallen Order: Intrigue, Heresy, and Scandal in the Rome of Galileo and Caravaggio', Karen Liebreich, Grove Press, New York, 2004. - Peter Damian, 'Book of Gomorrah: An Eleventh-Century Treatise against Clerical Homosexual Practices', Ed. P Payer, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1982. If you want to have a look around online for more information, here is a quick guide. There are a couple of good sites that have translations of and commentary on the Didache. As with many of the documents cited in this Beast File, there are a variety of translations and the usual historical debate over exact dates. If it's information on the Council of Elvira you're after, one of the best places to look is here and this is a great source on the scholar and monk Saint Bede. The last book on the list above is the best source around on the 'Book of Gomorrah', but this article also provides some fantastic background on Pope Leo IX and his response. The 'Decree (or Decretum) of Gratian' by Gratian of Bologna was the first instalment in a series of important canonical texts called the Corpus Iuris Canonici. You can find lots more information and links here. For those interested in the role played by Pope Pius V's 'Horrendum' this commentary in the Independent, helps put it into context. The 'Sacramentum Poenitentiae' is considered the definitive Catholic Church document on child sex abuse and solicitation by priests. Plenty of information and links can be found here, and the full Latin text (for those countless people who still learn Latin) can be found here. The 1917 and 1962 documents we refer to in the Beast File are the 'Code of Canon Law' and the 'Crime of Soliciting' respectively. Information on these texts, as well as former Cardinal Ratzinger's 2001 'Letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith' can all be found on the Vatican website. The recently released 2003 guidelines calling for child sex abuse cases to be referred to police can also be found on the Vatican website here. It should be noted that some of these texts deal with issues such as homosexuality and bestiality as well as child sex abuse. There is also debate in many cases over the exact dates of the earlier texts. We tried to take the most conservative or widely supported dates in the piece but we do recognise that not every historian agrees on the timing. ~~~~~~~~ The show segment showed that originally, the Church writers urged that the offenders be turned over to secular authorities for punishment. The pendulum swung though, and eventually after hundreds of years, the Church began urging that this should all be hidden from the secular authorities, and only handled in secret by the Church alone. Looks it's starting to swing back... UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 28 Apr 10 - 07:29 PM "HOWEVER, I believe that the institution is amoral, neither good nor bad. The crimes were committed by individuals, not by an institution". Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 159-173, 2000 Abstract: As evidence of the extent of the abuse of children in residential care increases, our understanding of this terrible wrong has altered. These assaults are an institutional syndrome, at the same time that they are individual crimes;certain systems of institutional care are conducive to/foster abuse behaviour(acting as 'crucibles' rather than 'honeypots' for rogue paedophiles). A theory of vicarious (institutional) liability is appropriate if we understand a syndrome of institutional abuse in this way, as involving institutional responsibility in addition to individual fault. The recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bazley v Curry found a children's home vicariously liable for sexual assaults of an employee on the basis of responsibility through the creation of risk, ananalysis of and apportionment of liability which is appropriate to the special syndrome of institutional abuse, while encouraging deterrence and providing fair and practical compensation to victims. This analysis/liability is supported by an economic analysis of institutional child abuse and decision making in child protection. After Waterhouse: Vicarious Liability and the Tort of Institutional Abuse Margaret Isabel Hall UBC Faculty of Law |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:53 PM while child molesters may be classed as "mentally ill," that doe not absolve them of their responsibility for their crime. I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:38 PM Paul Burke, there's no defense for molesting or abusing children, and no defense for covering it up. As I said when I answered Jim Carroll's question twice, the people who committed the crimes (including the crime of covering up the offenses) should be punished. HOWEVER, I believe that the institution is amoral, neither good nor bad. The crimes were committed by individuals, not by an institution. And Smokey, I agree that while child molesters may be classed as "mentally ill," that does not absolve them of their responsibility for their crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 05:06 PM I dunno, Smokey. I don't think mentally normal people molest children. That does not mean that child molesters are absolved of responsibility for their crimes - but I do think it's a mental illness. (Joe) Well it's certainly not 'normal', but I think the great majority of abusers know what they are doing, and seem go about it quite intelligently. I think the only way to 'treat' it is as one would an addiction, as that is where the most similarities seem to lie. It does, admittedly, seem apparent that some abusers do not fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are unaware of them. Addicts can often convince themselves of virtually anything if it supports their addiction, and generally, the more intelligent they are, the better they can kid themselves and others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 28 Apr 10 - 04:36 PM If it had been the education authorities or, say, the medical system that had harboured abusers and passed them on to continue their abuses, would we be getting the same excuses for such behavior or would we be hearing demands for punisment and reparation? (JC) No Jim, they would be sacked and punished if a case could be proved against them. Discovery isn't necessarily legal proof though. It might be worth remembering, that some of these church cases might never have come to light had the perpetrators not assumed some immunity from the law, or been given that impression by their 'superiors'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM "My point exactly Jim." D'you want to open a book on getting an answer? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM Joe, PLEASE stop trying to defend an organisation that supports child abusers. The 'homosexual bias' is quite probably an artefact of a situation in which most of the children in close contact with celibate priests and brothers were (are?) male. I suspect that if you broaden from sexual abuse to the equally damaging physical and mental abuse, thus encompassing female- staffed establishments for female prisoners (sorry, children in care), the numbers will even up somewhat. And don't get the idea that people are trying to suggest that child abuse is a characteristically catholic crime, or that abuse by Catholics is more prevalent than abuse by others. What is required is that the Church (which is known to have held inquiries into incidents) makes its archives available to secular prosecuting authorities, and stops protecting criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:55 PM My point exactly Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM "The criminals who actually committed these crimes should have their day in court" Does this include the accomplices who covered up the crimes and let them continue? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 28 Apr 10 - 12:07 PM The figures are perfectly clear, but in the current political climate most people ...and organisations, are afraid to point the finger in the direction of the perpetrators. The criminals who actually committed these crimes should have their day in court, members of the general public who commit rape or abuse young people, are called to account, even if the crimes were committed years ago. When Cardinal Bertone tried to draw attention to the "elephant in the room", the media went ballistic and as damage limitation the Church did not press the point. That's how thought control works and it means that by attempting to lay the blame for the abuse solely on the Catholic Church, the criminals will avoid punishment, the sexual imbalance in the priesthood will be ignored and young folk will continue to be sexually assaulted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 28 Apr 10 - 10:49 AM Jim, In answer to your question at the end of your post I think the answer must be an emphatic 'No' - which is what it must be as far as the church is concerned. The idea that offering to pray for the victims to be comforted somehow without locking the perpetrators up (which I've read in some of the responses from Irish priests and bishops) is simply obscene. I remember reading part of the report and being struck by how the commission were still trying to remind people of the 'good' that had been done by the Christian Brothers - as if somehow they resented even being expected to look into the subject. I've said elsewhere that it wasn't just the priests who have to be called to account - teachers, policemen, politicians, civil servants. social workers, school governors, doctors and all sorts of 'respectable', 'professional' all colluded to cover up the abuse and allowed it to continue as long as it did. Many of these people would also have been themselves involved in organisations that worked with young people in Ireland throughout the period in question - as, of course would many priests. I'm afraid to say I don't think we've seen anything yet. |