 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM Restoration of the soul to a state of grace. I'm lost for words... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM I'm lost for words... If you don't believe in the soul or the spiritual, that is understandable. Billions of us do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:37 PM I think incest has been a problem in the past at least..the common situation of semi-alcoholic father, continually pregnant mother, handy daughter. The birth control issue has caused so much misery to so many people. Is religion supposed to make us miserable? Unhealthy? Dead? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:41 PM The guest post above with my fingerprints on it (6 April,6:59am) was indeed from me, using someone else's PC and forgetting to log in. Sorry. Beeliner, I don't know what rendered Smokey speechless, but what leaves me lost for words (well nearly) is the fact that a laity can be dumb enough to think its priests have the power to restore souls to a state of grace. It is precisely because you billions of catholics (so many couldn't possibly be wrong, eh?) do believe your priests wield such power that the paedophiles among them have been able to get away with so much. It takes a brave sheep to speak out against a shepherd who can restore souls to a state of grace just by dressing up in a stole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 06 Apr 10 - 07:17 PM Peter, you are obviously entitled to your opinion on the forgiveness of sins, but the relevance to the theme of the thread is remote. The sole basis for such a belief is John 20:22-23. We take Christ at His word. Were it not for this commission there would be no such belief. I've already given examples of how sacramental absolution exists apart from civil responsibility for one's crimes. A penitent can certainly confess his sins directly to the Father in private prayer, but in sacramental confession one actually hears the words of absolution, and one is able to receive advice to how to deal with one's moral shortcomings. Making a good confession and then receiving the Lord in the Eucharist feels like taking about 20 hot, soapy showers in a row. But I understand that those who have not had the experience find it hard to understand. If such procedures seem 'dumb' to you, then you probably shouldn't be a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or an Anglican/Episcopalian. I'm hoping that there will eventually be an upside to this horrible scandal and that the Church will make significant changes. Eliminating the sacrament of reconciliation will not be one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM Peter, you are obviously entitled to your opinion on the forgiveness of sins, but the relevance to the theme of the thread is remote. Beeliner, I argued way up the thread that the sacrament of confession, and the power it invests in priests, has been a major factor in enabling the abuse to continue. Is that of no relevance in this thread? And do not even you begin to question the whole confession mularky now it is plain that a finite proportion of your forgivers of sins have been going from parish to parish sexually assaulting children? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:47 PM I came accross this recent web commentary from a Boston area survivor of RC clergy childhood sexual abuse...I found it compelling, so I post it here to share: Survivor of Clergy Sexual Abuse in Boston: The Catholic Church Leaders Have Not Cleansed the Cancer of Child Sexual Abuse Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sat, 03/27/2010 - 1:48pm. * Guest Commentary by GARY BERGERON FOR BUZZFLASH.COM As a survivor of clergy abuse from the Boston area, it is of no surprise to me that the issue of clergy abuse has resurfaced on the front pages of newspapers across the globe, reaching the leader of the Catholic Church and rearing its ugly head. It was almost 8 years ago at the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston, that I found myself asking one simple question, "What's next?" One year ago, after Pope Benedict met with a few survivors here in the United States, I again found myself asking the same question, "What's next?" The truth and the facts which caused the resignation of Cardinal Law 8 years ago, are the same truths and facts of today. The documents released a decade ago, are the same documents that the general public are amazed to read today. The only thing different is the time that has past and the names of some of the church leaders. Almost a decade ago, as thousands of survivors struggled to open the door and shed a light on childhood clergy abuse, the Catholic Church had an opportunity to open their doors, release their records. The leaders of the Catholic Church had an opportunity to cleanse the cancer of childhood sexual abuse from their institution and break the cycle of silence. Instead, the world was told by Vatican officials that the abuse of children by priests was an "American Catholic Church" issue. The Vatican officials were wrong. The Catholic Church, and the world, has an opportunity to open up a dialogue on childhood sexual abuse. Hopefully this will not be another opportunity missed. The question of "What's next" wasn't rhetorical for me a decade ago, it is not rhetorical for me now. The world is waiting for an answer, and so am I. Gary Bergeron is a clergy abuse survivor from the Greater Boston area who traveled to the Vatican with his father, also a survivor of clergy abuse, in 2003. He is the author of "Don't Call Me A Victim, Faith, Hope & Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church." He is currently working on his next book titled: "Finding Peace, One Man's Journey." (BuzzFlash Note: We called Gary, who lives in the Northeast, to confirm his E-Mail to BuzzFlash. In a discussion, he told us that he is not looking for vengeance, but wants the Catholic Church hierachy to answer the question of what it will do to prevent child sexual abuse from continuing. Gary said that he wanted his grandchildren to be protected from what happened to him and his father, and that the occurence of child sexual abuse -- and the Church cover-ups -- in so many nations indicates that this is a widespread institutional pathology that needs immediate remedial action). http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3103 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 10 - 08:52 PM As in all sacraments, the healing or spiritual effect is believed to come from God, not from the priest - the priest is merely a functionary. There's an element of commitment about admitting your wrongdoing out loud, rather than just keeping it between you and God and assuming you're forgiven. The "seal of confession" does give a feeling of safety. It's rare that what a person admits in confession could be material evidence in a court procedure, but the secrecy of confession has been challenged occasionally in courts in the US and other locations. I don't know of a situation where a priest has bowed to government pressure and revealed what was told him in confession - it's one of those things that is simply not done, no matter how corrupt the priest is. In the seminary, we were told that we needed to do everything we could to convince the penitent to admit his crime to government authorities. We were also told that if a person was unwilling to admit his crime to the criminal justice system, that would be grounds for a priest refusing absolution - but that the priest still couldn't inform "the authorities" about the crime. The sacrament of reconciliation (confession) only grants forgiveness if the penitent is truly sorry for his sin, and is resolved not to do it again. I suppose you can get all wound up about the possibility of somebody telling a priest in confession about some horrible crime that he intends to commit - but this is something that occurs very rarely, if at all. I would bet it's something that most priests have never heard. Perhaps there are times when a priest's testimony might be convenient evidence in a criminal trial and might help lead to a conviction or longer sentence - but using the testimony of what priests hear in confession as a crime prevention tool, would probably seem nonproductive to most prosecutors and law enforcement officers. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:50 PM If you don't believe in the soul or the spiritual, that is understandable. Billions of us do. And 'billions' of us don't, Beeliner, but I'm open to the possibility of being wrong. Are you? I see "restoration of the soul to a state of grace" as being relieved of some or all of the guilt which is a normal consequence of doing something 'wrong'. Sociologically, I think that is a most unhealthy phenomenon. Fifteen showers would be much more beneficial. I prefer to hang on to my guilt, I see it as a very useful behavioural modifier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:57 PM Early American Behaviour Modifier http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2259680980084696379fCjIWc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM Hmm.. delightfully mediaeval - I wonder if they do them in mahogany.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 10 - 04:51 AM Joe I expected either an acceptance or a rebuttal of my points on the 'law unto itself' attitude prevelant in the Catholic Church, then and now - I got neither. Today's Irish Times carries horrific descriptions of the abuse carried out by Father Smythe on one of his young women parishoners. On the many occasions after he raped her he beat and berated her for not acknowledging that he was "carrying out God's wishes". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 07:18 AM An interesting opinion piece: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1175697.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:30 AM An article (from a christian perspective) on state interests versus clerical...though dated, (1986): http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=998 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM Another, more recent US ruling: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n17_v33/ai_19206224/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:39 AM ...the priest is merely a functionary. Do you (Joe) really believe this is how most catholics view confession? In any case I still don't see how it helps, when confessing one's sins to a god, to bring a potential paedophile into the loop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM Jim Carroll, I think it's clear that especially in Ireland, certain powerful elements in the Catholic Church haughtily considered themselves and their church to be above the law. No question there - and it happened in certain sections of the US, too. I think this was the case in Ireland because the nation was so universally Catholic. Religions behave themselves better when they have competition, and when they do not have close ties to government. It's clear that the Catholic Church and the Irish government were in bed together - and that's been the case in many "Catholic" nations. In Spain and Portugal and many Latin American nations, this has led to Church support of dictators and the wealthy. In the US, where the Catholic Church is large but still a minority, the Church has tended be more likely to speak out for justice on labor and immigration issues, civil rights, peace, and a number of other things. But in Ireland and other Catholic countries, it has seemed that the Catholic Church was a functionary of the government - or (especially in Ireland) that the government was a functionary of the Catholic Church. There are elements of that in Poland, too. Still my point in the other message was about Canon Law, which you unfairly painted as a separate system of law that was meant to supersede civil law - and that's not the case. There may be a few areas where canon law is in contradiction with the laws of some nations; but for the most part, canon law covers only internal church functions and issues. Canon Law is the code of internal regulations of the Catholic Church. And there is nothing in Canon Law that permits or condones the molestation or abuse of children. Also, I think that in most cases, it is erroneous to point to Rome as the responsible party in the coverup or failure to discipline in child molestation cases. Rome HAS stepped in as of late because of the failure of local dioceses, but this sort of matter is in general the responsibility of the local bishop. This is due to that fact that local bishops are largely autonomous. It does appear that in Ireland, the archbishops in Dublin and Armagh held much tighter control than you'll see in other countries. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is a loose affiliation of independent bishops. They sometimes agree to act together, but generally are fierce in holding onto their independence. In Ireland, it appears that until very recent times, the Catholic Church was ruled quite strictly by the Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of All Ireland in Armagh. Poland also has a particularly strong Primate. If there is a Primate of the Catholic Church in the United States, it's merely a titular office. The President of the USCCB, currently Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, does serve as a spokesman for the US bishops, but doesn't wield a whole lot of power outside his archdiocese. There was a time when the archbishops of many major Catholic cities in the US were in bed with the city government, particularly in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. And yes, this did lead to city police departments ignoring crimes committed by priests. That hasn't been the case in the US for a long time, however. The National Catholic Reporter has an excellent editorial on this issue. I think it clearly reflects the thinking of progressive American Catholics. Most of us progressive Catholics have been Catholics all our lives, and we want to think well of our Church. We've known a lot of good in our church, but we've also seen some of the bad. We want to believe that there is some rational explanation for what happened, and for why the bishops failed to put a stop to this scandal fifty years ago. So far, the bishops have not given an explanation that satisfies me. anyhow, here's the text of the National Catholic Reporter editorial: Credibility gap: Pope needs to answer questionsAn NCR Editorial - Mar. 26, 2010 The Holy Father needs to directly answer questions, in a credible forum, about his role -- as archbishop of Munich (1977-82), as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1982-2005), and as pope (2005-present) -- in the mismanagement of the clergy sex abuse crisis. We urge this not primarily as journalists seeking a story, but as Catholics who appreciate that extraordinary circumstances require an extraordinary response. Nothing less than a full, personal and public accounting will begin to address the crisis that is engulfing the worldwide church. It is that serious. To date, as revelations about administrative actions resulting in the shifting of clergy abusers from parish to parish emerge throughout Europe, Pope Benedict XVI's personal response has been limited to a letter to the Irish church. Such epistles are customary and necessary, but insufficient. With the further revelations March 26 [2] by The New York Times that memos and meeting minutes exist showing that Benedict had to be at least minimally informed that an abuser priest was coming into the archdiocese of Munich and that he further had been assigned without restrictions to pastoral duties, it becomes even more difficult to reconcile the strong language of the pope in his letter to Irish bishops and his own conduct while head of a major see. No longer can the Vatican simply issue papal messages -- subject to nearly infinite interpretations and highly nuanced constructions -- that are passively "received" by the faithful. No longer can secondary Vatican officials, those who serve the pope, issue statements and expect them to be accepted at face value. We were originally told by Vatican officials, for example, that in the matter of Fr. Peter Hullermann, Munich Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger approved the priest's transfer to the archdiocese, but had no role in the priest's return to parish ministry, where he again molested children. Rather, it was Fr. Gerhard Gruber, archdiocesan vicar general at the time, who, according to a March 12 Vatican statement, has taken "full responsibility" for restoring the priest to ministry. Gruber, subsequent to his statement, has not made himself available for questions. We are told, moreover, that the case of Hullermann is the single instance during Ratzinger's tenure in Munich where a sexually errant priest was relocated to a parish where he could molest again. If true, this would be a great exception to what, in the two-and-a-half decades NCR has covered clergy abuse in the church, has been an ironclad rule: Where there is one instance of hierarchical administrative malfeasance, there are more. Given memos and minutes placing the pope amid the discussions of the matter, we are asked to suspend disbelief even further. Context of mismanagement The first reported clergy sex abuse stories, dating back in NCR to 1985, focused on the misconduct of priests who had been taken to court by parents of molested children -- parents who had gone to church officials, but received no solace. Instead, what they received from church officials was denial and counter accusation. Almost from the beginning of the coverage of these trials, it was clear the clergy sex abuse story had two consistent components: the abusing priest and the cover-up by the bishop. The story grew as more survivors of abuse came forward. What soon became evident was that this was not primarily a story of wayward priests, but of an uncannily consistent pattern by individual bishops. In nearly every instance, bishops, faced with accusations of child abuse, denied them, even as they shuffled priests to new parishes, even as they covered up their own actions. The story was first flushed out in the United States and soon across Canada. By the year 2000, sex abuse accusations were turning up across the globe. In the United States, the scandal flared anew in 2002 when a judge released thousands of pages of documents dealing with the sex abuse scandal in the Boston archdiocese. Suddenly, ordinary Catholics had access to the patterns involved in the cover-up and to the unfiltered language of memos and legal depositions and letters that outlined how church officials sought to protect perpetrators and marginalize their victims. All at once, the public outrage was commensurate with the hierarchy's outrageous behavior. The story would repeat itself around the country: Wherever documents were released or legal authorities conducted investigations, the depth of clerical depravity and the extent of hierarchical cover-up were far greater than previously acknowledged by church authorities. Knowing they had an unprecedented crisis of credibility and facing potential multibillion-dollar liability, the U.S. bishops met in Dallas in June 2002. The whole world, represented by more than 800 members of the press, was watching. There the prelates unveiled what came to be a "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." It was intended to protect children from molestation, establishing a "one strike and you're out" policy for offending priests. It did nothing, however, to hold accountable individual bishops who engineered the cover-up. By early 2001, responsibility for managing the church's response to the ongoing crisis was delegated to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. The Vatican, by then, viewed the crisis as beyond the boundaries of any one national church. Crisis crosses borders In the last decade the story has not gone away. Rather it has continuously reared its head in nation after nation, especially in those countries with a free press and independent judicial system. A dominant characteristic of this story is that where and when it has emerged it has done so without the aid of church hierarchy. To the contrary, it has taken lawsuit after lawsuit, investigative report after investigative report, to bring this horrendous story to necessary light. Another part of the pattern of this dispiriting tale is that church officials have never been in front of the story. Always late, always responding, and, therefore, at every step of the way losing credibility. This seemed to be the case once again with Benedict's pastoral letter to Irish Catholics. By the time he issued the letter, the story had moved to his native country, Germany, and had touched him personally. In the past two months, there have been more than 250 accusations of sex abuse in Germany. From the German Catholic viewpoint, the pope's failure to mention anything about these abuse cases has pained them deeply and added to suspicions that the former archbishop of Munich has lost touch with his people. Inexorably, a story that began with reports on trials in a few U.S. cities a quarter century back has now moved up the Catholic institutional ladder -- from priests to bishops to national bishops' conferences and to the Vatican itself. This last step is the one we see emerging this month. The new focus is unlikely to end anytime soon. Time for answers The focus now is on Benedict. What did he know? When did he know it? How did he act once he knew? The questions arise not only about his conduct in Munich, but also, based also as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A March 25 Times story [3], citing information from bishops in the United States, reported that the Vatican had failed to take action against a priest accused of molesting as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school from 1950 to 1974. Correspondence reportedly obtained by the paper showed requests for the defrocking of the priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, going directly from U.S. bishops to Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican secretary of state. No action was taken against Murphy. Like it or not, this new focus on the pope and his actions as an archbishop and Vatican official fits the distressing logic of this scandal. For those who have followed this tragedy over the years, the whole episode seems familiar: accusation, revelation, denial and obfuscation, with no bishop held accountable for actions taken on their watch. Yes, there is a depressing madness to this story. Time after time, this is a story of institutional failure of the deepest kind, a failure to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a failure to put compassion ahead of institutional decisions aimed at short-term benefits and avoiding public scandal. The strategies employed so far -- taking the legal path, obscuring the truth, and doing everything possible to protect perpetrators as well as the church's reputation and treasury -- have failed miserably. We now face the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in church history. How this crisis is handled by Benedict, what he says and does, how he responds and what remedies he seeks, will likely determine the future health of our church for decades, if not centuries, to come. It is time, past time really, for direct answers to difficult questions. It is time to tell the truth. -Joe- This article is right on the borderline of our one-screen (32-inch) size allowance for copy-pastes, but I think it's still within the limit. Oh, and we haven't heard the end of the sordid story of Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ. Click here for more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 07 Apr 10 - 05:13 PM Joe, I'm in tune with your last post and the editorial you pasted into it. But there is one point that the editorial did not cover, and it touches on your suggestion that the trail might not have reached the Vatican. The bit that is missing is the letter urging secrecy (on pain of excommunication) that Ratzinger sent to all bishops worldwide in 2001. For me, that alone makes his position untenable. Here's the link again: Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret Incidentally the aloof Vatican response at the end of the article would just add fuel to the flames if they ran it again in the present climate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 06:34 PM Some interesting views on homosexual sexual abuse, from Fr Donald Cozzens in the Boston Globe. here Easy-print version FOCUS The clergy's buried truths Prevalence of male teenage victims in scandal points to other issues By Donald Cozzens, 4/28/2002 "As the abuse scandal continues to rock the US Catholic Church, priests, whether heterosexual or gay, cope with skyrocketing stress and plummeting prestige. Owing to the details of the revelations, gay priests are in the public eye as never before, many of them no doubt bracing for an anti-gay backlash. At the same time, lay Catholics are discussing the role homosexuality plays in the abuse of teenage boys and wondering how the current turmoil will affect the priesthood and the church itself. But there is one essential element of the scandal that has not gotten the attention it deserves: Most priest abusers are not pedophiles -- adults whose sexual drives are almost exclusively directed toward pre-pubescent boys and girls. Rather, they fall into the category of ephebophiles (from ephebeus, one of the Greek nouns for a post-pubescent youth). Both pedophilia and ephebophilia are criminal, and in the eyes of most religious traditions, immoral. As the distinction takes hold, it is accompanied by the disturbing realization that most of the reported victims of priest abusers are not children, but teenage boys. It's been two years since I wrote about the large number of sexually oriented gay men in our seminaries and presbyterates (the priest fraternity in a given diocese). The denial that greeted my report, though diminishing, remains strong. Even raising the issue led to allegations that I was attacking the sanctity and reputation of the priesthood. It's impossible, of course, to accurately determine the percentage of gay men among the nearly 25,000 priests active in the priesthood and in our seminaries. Studies suggest that perhaps 30 to 50 percent of priests (especially those under 50) are homosexual in orientation, compared with about 5 percent in the population at large. In the United States alone, more than 20,000 priests have left active ministry since 1970, most to marry. While gay priests have also resigned in significant numbers, the priesthood has lost a sizable proportion of its heterosexually oriented members. A number of gay priests report that they entered the priesthood as a way to deal with their orientation, though that is not how they thought of it then. For some, this was an attempt to put their sexuality on the shelf, so to speak, to avoid coming to terms with their orientation by embracing wholeheartedly a life of celibate service. Such tactics, we know now, don't work over the course of time; they actually subvert healthy maturation. But what difference does it make if 30 to 50 percent of priests are gay? The rule of mandatory celibacy appears to make the issue of orientation a moot point. In reality, it is far from that." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM I am totally fine if 100% of priests are gay and if they have adult partners or relatioships. I don't buy this post-pubescent thing..what are they talking about? Anyone who reaches teenage years? Are they counting 13 year olds in with children or teens? A 17 year old is one thing and could smack the priest to kingdom come, but a 13 year old is quite often very childlike...what is meant by post-pubescent, other than a weasel word? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 10 - 08:19 PM If I remember correctly Mary, a large percentage of the victims in the Boston clergy abuse scandal were aged between 14 and 17. As explained earlier, Paedophiles are generally attracted to children who are pre pubescent....up to 10 or 11 years of age, often much younger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:02 AM "Catholic Church haughtily considered themselves and their church to be above the law." Not only in Ireland Joe - the Pope is highly unlikely to ever have to answer accusations made against him about his knowledge of sexual abuse and a wider picture (Switzerland, Canada, Cyprus) is emerging every day. "It's clear that the Catholic Church and the Irish government were in bed together " An unfortunate choice of words which conjurs up all sorts of interesting pictures in the circumstances! "it has seemed that the Catholic Church was a functionary of the government" It is fairly obvious that the case was the opposite and that the Government was a servant of the Catholic Church. Akenaton If these crimes were 'homosexual' rather than power or degradation driven, doesn't it hold that, as the vast majority of rapes are hetrosexual, then all hetrosexuals are potential rapists? Can't help noticing that you aqre still shufffling your way around the basic questions in your quest. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:07 AM Well, Ake, you do have a point. The article you quote talks about "large number of sexually oriented gay men in our seminaries and presbyterates (the priest fraternity in a given diocese)." Up above in this message, Ed_T quoted a previous message (that I couldn't find), where I told of my seminary experience. In my sophomore year of college, there was a "sexual charge" to the atmosphere, and I sometimes felt I was the only straight guy there. I have no qualms about homosexuality, but I feel very uncomfortable in a sexual atmosphere when it seems that all everybody is interested in, is "hitting on" somebody else - of the same or opposite sex. It certainly didn't seem to be a healthy atmosphere for a seminary - and I'm very glad the faculty did something about it. Still, there's a vast difference between homosexual or heterosexual contact between two people of the same age, and two people of vastly different ages - especially if one of those people is still an adolescent. I don't think there's a need for a male, celibate priesthood - but, if that's the rule, then I think priests should follow the rule or leave the priesthood. The fact that they're forbidden to marry, does not give priests permission to have sex with either gender outside marriage. And Peter, I agree that there needs to be an explanation of the secrecy orders. The Pope and the bishops have a lot of explaining to do. So far, their explanations haven't really told the story. I'm willing to accept a rational explanation - I suppose there are many people here who cannot accept any explanation, but for me, an admission from a pope or bishop that "I screwed up" would be a very good start. It's time for the bishops to take things out of the passive voice and say something more than "mistakes were made." But on the other hand, I do think that there is a need for forgiveness and reconciliation - what this Catholic sacrament of reconciliation (confession) is all about. Our culture is too oriented toward condemning and destroying (or at least punishing instead of healing) those who did wrong, and I don't think our society really has much of a concept of forgiveness. We keep pushing for an expansion of capital punishment and for longer prison sentences, and we seem to have no other answer to crime. Our philosophy seems to say that if my neighbor has done something wrong, then he is an evil and worthless person, and I have a right and perhaps an obligation to destroy him. We've built a society that puts a high value on mistrust and vengeance, a society that puts little faith in the value of admitting a mistake and beginning again. Well, I think it's a good and healthy thing to admit that "I screwed up" when I did - but then it's up to others to accept my admission and my resolve to do better next time, and for them to allow me the chance to have another try. But since our society does not believe in repentance and reconciliation, we have created a situation where people cannot admit guilt - because if they DO admit guilt, others will feel there is justification for destroying the wrongdoer. And in this particular situation, billions of dollars in reparations are being paid by parishioners who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing, and the priests and bishops who did wrong aren't paying a penny. there's something cockeyed here. South Africa and some other nations acknowledged this dilemma after atrocities, and have set up truth and reconciliation commissions. These commissions allow people to admit their guilt and apologize without fear of punishment. These commissions have not been an absolute success, but they do seem to be a possible tool for healing a widespread and endemic injustice. Our society still finds value in prosecuting war criminals from World War II, a war that ended 65 years ago this August. I fully acknowledge that many horrible things were done during WWII, and it is unjust that some people have escaped prosecution all these years - but isn't there a point where it's better for us to stop pursuing vengeance and start the pursuit of healing? So, I just don't know what's the answer to this child molestation and abuse problem. I do know that it's time for the pope and the bishops to give some straight answers. I've seen admissions of molestations for years, and lately some admissions of coverups - but as far as I can see, not one bishop has ever attempted to explain why these coverups happened. It's time for the to tell the truth, the whole truth. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 08 Apr 10 - 09:15 AM Another interesting perspective from a respective opinion writer, on two Canadian Parishes which have been impacted by RC church abuse....and where the bishops did not meet up to standards of responsibility nor decency..in fact at least one (Bishop Lahey, who recently handled compensation payments was recently charged with bringing child porn to Canada, from the USA). http://silverdonaldcameron.com/columns/?tag=colin-campbell A question?What is the RC process to "defrock an ordained priest" and how complex is it? I ask, because I recently read the following: "Defrocking a priest, or dismissing them from the priesthood, is difficult, even if sexual abuse is proved in a court case. Canon Law from Rome dictates that ordination, properly received, never becomes invalid. Priests can apply to be laicised, or return to a lay state, for example, if they wish to marry, but circumstances for dismissal must be exceptional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 10 - 01:33 PM Well, Ed, here's the whole section on "Loss of the Clerical State" from the Code of Canon Law. As you can see, it's clear as mud.
CHAPTER IV : LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 09 Apr 10 - 03:26 PM This is new. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=10332336&page=2 There is a signature on a document from the pope, who must must go. I think he is lying through his teeth. This priest tied up boys and abused them, said he tried to abuse every boy who sat on his lap. One would ask why they were on his lap. This was in 1980s. Oh but we didn't know as much then. The hell we didn't. I did and every sensible person did. Laws were in place at the time. There is no reason at all that shameful pope, former head of the Inquisition office, should remain as any sort of spiritual or even administrative leader. Joe, don't bother. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 09 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM Here's the blicky for mg's link: ABC News And here's a more comprehensive report on the same (California) case, which contains further links: Los Angeles Times For the first time, mg, I begin to see a possibility that your wish may be granted. No doubt this latest document was leaked by someone in the US hierarchy.If so, that whistleblower will not be alone and we may expect further revelations. A likely explanation for such leaks would be that elements within the hierarchy now accept that Ratzinger's early departure, damaging as that would be, would not be as damaging as his staying in office. My issues with Ratzinger are more about his arrogant and reactionary behaviour in his previous job than about his handling of these various abuse scandals. But he is inextricably associated with attitudes to child abuse that are morally corrupt and many will doubt that the Augean stables can be thoroughly cleansed while he remains in office. If he works this out for himself, fine - he will go, and his church will have a chance to put the past behind it. If he does not, there is little prospect that he could be deposed. In which case the church may need to steal itself for a growing avalanche of unhelpful leaks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:40 PM Is there a mechanism for deposing a pope? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM See JP1, some would say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM Yeah I meant short of killing him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:54 PM Tricky then... although, given that they write the rules and they interpret those rules, I expect they can do anything they want to really, as long as they can produce miles of obscure and verbose justification for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:34 AM "Is there a mechanism for deposing a pope?" Following revelations that the Pope signed a letter saying that the interest of the Catholic Church took precedence over the sacking of a paedophile cleric, atheist Richard Dawkins has announced that he intends to serve an arrest warrant on him during his planned visit to Britain. If he goes ahead it should at least clear up whether or not his position places him above the law, but don't hold your breath! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 11 Apr 10 - 12:24 PM Just been reading that studies have found, people of "homosexual orientation" make up between 20 and 50 percent of the priesthood. Given the very high volume of homosexual assaults(not paedophelia, paedophelia is in fact quite rare in the Church)do you not think that this represents a link between male homosexuality and the abuse of post pubescent teenagers and young adults. Let the perpetrators be brought to justice....find out the truth about the sexual behaviour of priests. The cover up was a separate crime which should also be investigated, but even if the pope was forced to resign, the abuse of youths would continue until a proper balance of sexual orientation is struck among priests. The longer I live, the more I become convinced that homosexual practice and the abuse pubescent boys is linked. Scrap the rule and ordain married heterosexual priests....the abuse will fall sharply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: beeliner Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM "Is there a mechanism for deposing a pope?" Not that I'm aware of, unless of course it could be shown that the pope was elected fraudulently, as was the case with antipopes of the past. The pope can resign at any time for any reason or no reason. It's doubtful that Dawkins will be able to get within a mile of him. Also, he does a great disservice to his fellow atheists by portraying himself as a slimeball. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:42 PM Richard Dawkins has become a caricature of himself and does aetheism no favours at all. Christopher Hitchens proselytises our cause to far greater effect. Somewhat to my surprise Hitchens seems to be joining forces in the the proposed pope sting. Even if the law is with the pranksters, it is quite likely that such an initiative would be counter-productive in terms of the public reaction. But if the idea is pursued, it may persuade Benedict to rethink what at best was always going to be a tricky visit to Britain. I doubt if he would want to get into one of those fiascos such as befell Pinochet and Mugabe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:17 AM "Given the very high volume of homosexual assaults" Do you mean assaults 'by' homosexuals or those inflicted 'on' homosexuals, encouraged by homophobia such as your own? You continued to ignore the FACT that by far the greatest number of sexual assaults are hetrosexual and carried out on women by men - therefore making all men potential rapists (do I have your logic right?). Where does your 'high volume' come from? The longer I live ther more I become convinced that homophobia, or any obsession with the sexual behaviour of others, stems from some peoples' deep insecurity of their own sexuality. "Richard Dawkins has become a caricature of himself" I have no particular brief for Dawkins, but I do welcome the possibility of a test of the Pope's immunity from the law. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM And you might like to add sometyhing about the accomplices to the crimes committed against children - are they homosexuals as well, or just casual onlookers? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 14 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM Interesting reading on the topic: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Apr 10 - 03:02 PM This might work better: Ed T's link As the thread has been revived, it's worth noting this response to Cardinal Bertone's comments on Monday: French government condems Vatican" As the BBC's even-handed religious affairs correspondent put it: the Vatican has yet to learn that when it is in a hole it should stop digging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:59 PM As most may have guessed, Jim Burroway, the author of the article linked to by Ed, is a very ACTIVE....homosexual activist As Mr Burroway is himself a homosexual, the validity and integrity of the article must be in question. I posted THIS elephant on the other thread, it contains more reasonable conclusions and statistics from the John Jay study into clerical sexual abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 14 Apr 10 - 08:09 PM Are you saying homosexuals can't be trusted to tell the truth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:30 AM I suppose there's a difference in definition here. It does appear that the majority of the children molested by male priests were male. Akenaton classes those molesters as "homosexual." I think most of us would call the molesters "molesters," and not class them with what we consider to be "normal homosexuals." Adults who have sex with children are what used to be called "sexual deviants," although I haven't heard that term used much lately. It's having sex with children that is the deviant behavior, and it doesn't really have anything to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:40 AM Activists of any persuasion can never be trusted to tell the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:06 AM Joe...I would agree with your definition, if were were discussing "paedophiles" in the usual sense ....that is deviants who prey on young pre-pubescent children. Most commentators have realised that what has been happening in the Catholic church,is not "paedophilia", but the sexual abuse of male teenagers and young adults by adult male priests....(homosexual assault) As I think you as a supporter of religion should know, the paedophilia issue is being used as a smoke screen to divert attention away from this homosexual abuse and on to the offices of the church. The Church has been cowardly in the cover up of abuse, and of allowing homosexuals to become priests for financial reasons and to make up diminishing numbers of heteros.....while opposing homosexual practice in its teaching. As can be seen from these threads, the agenda is, "here is a chance to break religion", and more importantly, break the conservative stance taken by the church on sexual, moral and social issues. Religion, especially in the US is the main defence against unfettered "liberalism" with all the social problems it produces and as such will always be in the "front line". Perhaps you should re-examine your Religion and your politics, to determine which means more to you. Only Jesus Christ could reconcile the two in todays climate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:29 AM Sorry, ake, but you're not likely to find me on your side. Whether the victim is sixteen years old or six, that victim is still a child. I think most people wouldn't call it child molesting if an eighteen-year-old had sex with a child of 16 - but if the perpetrator were thirty years of age, people would call it child molestation and a crime - whether the two were of the same or opposite sexes. If people of approximately the same age have consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex, most people would call that normal. If their ages are vastly different and one is a child, most people would call that sexually deviant child molestation. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:33 AM You're dancing on the head of a pin Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:45 AM "Activists of any persuasion can never be trusted to tell the truth." Homosexuality is a way of life, not a political party or a cause. What are homosexuals 'active' in - and are hetrosexuals 'activists' as well? I notice this morning that the church is desperately backpeddling on the suggestion that the abuse was a homosexual crime. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Apr 10 - 06:17 AM Most commentators have realised that what has been happening in the Catholic church,is not "paedophilia", but the sexual abuse of male teenagers and young adults by adult male priests....(homosexual assault) You must have been very selective in your reading, Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:23 AM Ake You continue to ignore questions and to qualify your outrageously bigoted statements. Most commentators recogonise no such thing and continue to refer to it as CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE and not homosexual assault. The church itself has now backpedaled desperately from a Vatican statement that the problem was a homosexual one rather than one of paedophelia by members of the church. I have to say that you are one of the most blatently dishones bigots I have ever come across. QUALIFY YOUR STATEMENTS AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS or stand exposed as a homophobioc bigot without even the common sense to attempt to hide your bigotry. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM It's odd that for some that discussions/perspectives of homosexual activists are ruled out by some...regardless of the content...while discussions/perspectives of RC church activists/apologists (when convenient to a point) ....regardless of the material cited or logical thinking (or lack of it) ... should be considered? (Unfortunately often what's been said and cited is missed). A point is that adult minor (or child) sex is illegal and should never occur...and is especially significant when the adult is in a position of authority over the minor (children are not in a position or of an age to consent)...whether in a day care, a school or a church, or elsewhere....trying to water it down by naming it a differently is mere deception...whether done by the RC church, its agents or others with another agenda. Adult male to minor sex is obviously a perverted homosexual act...just as adult male to female minor sex is a perverted heterosexual act. But, that does not mean that the adult molester is either a homosexual or heterosexual in life outside this deviant act. Just as homosexual acts in closed situations (for example, in prison) make a person a homosexual when the participants are removed from those sexually closed situations. The RC church rules out celibacy (a sexually closed situation) as a cause of the significant number of perverted acts....without citing any logical reasoning behind it....many accept it as fact. Increasingly, some in the RC church blame it on homosexuality... without any logical reasoning cited. I suggest both need more fact based scrutiny. But, that would require a real desire for change, rather than a mere defence of the status quo and the brand. Yes there may be many homosexuals inside the RC church....and many don't like it. But, does that logically mean this is the cause of deviant sexual behaviour? It kind of reminds me of the lack of logic in the statement that smoking grass leads to heavy drug use, because those on heavy drugs smoked pot as children. Yes, and logically most drank milk as children also. |