BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM

Hope I am not repeating as a post seems to have disappeared. Anyway, yes I do believe that people can be both perveted and basically good at the same time. We don't know enough yet about the results of brain damage, fetal alcohol sydrome, "bad mommy" syndrome, autism spectrum, drugs taken by mother, chromosomal damage etc. to write the whole person off. People struggle with things we have no idea of and sometimes they don't struggle hard enough and sometimes they do to the end of their capacity and do awful things anyway. We have to protect people from them, and set up safeguards so that others do not have similar opportunities, and we have to do more psychological and neurological testing and case histories etc. so we understand why this happens. A lot of people especially now are surviving with brain problems that would have kept them institutionalized before. A lot of kids being mainstreamed today are going to have problems in society as adults. It is a very complex problem. Once children and vulnerable adults are safe, I think it is OK for us to have some compassion for the perps and see that they can never do this again, but parts of them can be salvaged. Not all people of course, but some. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

"Thank you for making the important distinction between paedophilia and child molestation,"

Hi Smokey - I worked (as a volunteer) for a time in a centre for adult survivors of abuse. I heard stories from heartbroken parents laden with guilt simply at experiencing sexual feelings in response to changing or bathing their infants.. Imagine being a *genuinely* loving parent confronted with such a thing in oneself? How troubling and horrifying that would be?
Would you indulge that feeling if you truly loved your child? I believe not.

As I've said previously, I was sexually assaulted by adults as a child. Fortunately for me, I've not suffered the same kind of psycho-sexual damage that some survivors have, which leads them to be sexually attracted to children themselves. Others do of course, and some pathetic entities choose to indulge their proclivities - but my guess is from my own discussions with other survivors, that there may potentially be just as many who decide not too.

Unfortunately these "good, decent" voices, are unlikely to ever be heard because of the associated filth that do cynically decide to seek out child victims to gratify their sexual dysfunction.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:14 PM

I think it's perfectly possible for a child molester to give the appearance of being 'decent and good' in all the other areas of their life, but that only makes them more dangerous. There is a strong element of addiction in child molestation and addicts can be extremely crafty and resourceful in supporting their addictions, particularly the more intelligent ones. Understand addiction, and you're halfway to understanding child abusers. They can only be stopped by completely removing the opportunities, and in the case of child abusers, should be completely stopped - nothing less is good enough.

Thank you for making the important distinction between paedophilia and child molestation, CS, people tend to forget that. 'Paedophile' comes from the same root as 'Anglophile' and 'Francophile'. I don't think the people we are discussing have a great deal of love for children.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM

"I do think that people can be pedophiles and decent good people both"

Uhuh.. Do you think it's possible for someone to be a serial rapist and a "decent, good person" both. Or a fraudster that cons elderly people out of their life savings and a "decent, good person" both. Or someone who regularly enjoys torturing small animals for their fun and a "decent, good person both"?

I do think *some* people who are defined as 'peadophiles' (which strictly simply means someone who is sexually attracted to children rather than someone who sexually abuses children) can be decent people, those are the peadophiles who choose NOT to sexually molest children for their personal gratification. Those people exist, in the same way that alcoholics who resist alcohol exist.

"Decent, good people" are the ones that exercise control over their selfish impulses to indulge their human weaknesses at the expense of and to the detriment of innocent others. Ordinary people do that everyday, is it too much to ask that Priests do the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:02 PM

I always thought my home parish had escaped the trials, but no...it was there when I was very young...I forget the priest's name..it defnitely was not Father Mulligan, who was the prototype of decent, mumbling Irish priest...Bing Crosby could have played him.

I do think that people can be pedophiles and decent good people both. That is what makes it so awful. I would make sure that once they have faced the civil music, that they never saw a child again, but I would not hesitate to go to Mass, communion, confession, last rites, whatever to them as an adult with full disclosure or enough safeguards in place that abuse would not be possible. I wonder if there is a connection here with alcoholism that is a sad problem among some priests..and many joined the priesthood out of desparate financial circumstances or severe family pressure and should never have been ordained. I am sympathetic to them, but I will not shelter them or enable them. It is too complicated for me, but I think once a priest always a priest and I would not prevent them from doing priestly duties in confined, transparent situations with people who voluntarily came to see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:51 AM

The parents share the responsibility?
In today's world, yes. In the 50s and 60s - the parents had no reason to suspect. It may seem naive but the children who were chosen to help out in the rectory or on Saturday in the church were the "good" little children. Their parents were thrilled that they were chosen.
I often helped out in the rectory when the priests needed mailings done or gifts wrapped. I always helped clean the church and get it ready for Sunday mass.
Luckily, the one priest in our parish who was a paedophile preferred little boys and I only found out about that years later.
My brother knew and always refused to have anything to do with that priest. My brother was considered a problem child. He never told my parents about the priest's actitivites because he didn't know how and they would not have believed him.
The priests of my childhood were almost all veterans of WWII. They served on the front lines as chaplains. They were good decent men. One of them often came to visit us for a meal or just conversation. We trusted them.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:16 AM

"Jim, I don't know of anyone who's been doing that. If there are any, I agree with you."
There have been a fir amount of suggestion on this and on the 'Suffer The Children' thread I started that parents shared the responsibility for the abuse by allowing it to happen -- hence my response here.
Here in Ireland one priest has blamed the children themselves for 'putting temptation in our way'.
The Pope's 'Nuffin' to do wiv me guv' epistle has blamed the abuse on the increased secularisation of the church; completely ignoring tha fact that, though the reports that have disclosed the horrors of what happened only go back a few decades, it is now accepted that abuse has been occurring on a large scale since at least the end of WW2, and almost certainly before that.
The genii that has not yet been let out of the bottle is the almost inevitable research into what happened in all of the other Irish Doicese - now demanding investigation - and the Magdalene Laundries.
Watch this space
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:54 AM

Mary, I tried to post to that thread, and got a 'THREAD CLOSED' message.

Maybe it was just a glitch.

In any case, it's 2am here, I gotta go to bed, but will rejoin the discussion in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM

there is another thread. one arm rigid, right arm, at about 45 degree angle. During Mass. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:39 AM

Well, what is the context, is it done during mass, benediction or some other service?

As I said, I have never heard of this, I have a mental picture of a Nazi salute as one arm held out rigidly, pointing slightly upward.

I've certainly never done any such thing in a Catholic church and if I were asked to do so, I think my attitude would be like your own.

But what is the connection, if any, to the theme of the thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:32 AM

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

See if this works as clicky...

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:26 AM

That was a typo..should have been WWII...

The congretation raises their arms in a gesture that I can not discriminate from a Nazi salute, although perhaps a historian of some sort could. Get any google picture of Nazi salute and that is what it looked like. They did not click their feet together though so maybe that makes it socially acceptable. There are some things civilized people do not do or say. This is at the top of the list. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:19 AM

And yet another church in the Washington State gives the Nazi salute. Sick beyond belief. I will start another thread

The other thread has apparently been closed. Here is what I attempted to post there:

It was not done when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, nor have I seen it until a couple of years ago. How shocking this must be to some WWI veterans

Mary, it wasn't done when I was growing up either, nor do I have the least idea what you're referring to.

Also, I think you have the wrong war.

Could you be more specific? I've been a Catholic for almost 70 years and have never heard of any such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:38 AM

Have any priests or bishops offered to do prison time or house arrest or some sort of reparation?

Have they volunteered to be subjects of psychological testing so that the correlates/antecedants of this pathology can be discovered?

I presume that some have but I have not heard of it.

And yet another church in the Washington State gives the Nazi salute. Sick beyond belief. I will start another thread and no matter who apologizes for this behavior, it does not happen on my watch without me spreading the word about it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:05 AM

That would be a good start, mg.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:58 AM

That would pretty much close down the Boy Scouts.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:20 AM

Hard procedures to see that this does not happen again.

How about some easy ones.

You will never be with a child unattended.

You will never take boys on camping trips.

You will not have sleepovers with boys (duh).

How smart do you have to be? How hard was that? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:33 PM

Jim, your dad must have been a principled guy.

In fairness to Joe, as I suggested earlier, he will have little conception of how monstrously his beloved church has behaved in parts of the world where exploitation has been a little easier than in California.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

Those supporting the church over its covering up the abuse by blaming the victims and their parents are perpetrators of abuse themselves and are now fighting a rearguard battle.

Jim, I don't know of anyone who's been doing that. If there are any, I agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:54 PM

Those supporting the church over its covering up the abuse by blaming the victims and their parents are perpetrators of abuse themselves and are now fighting a rearguard battle.
The Bishop of Galway has now been exposed as being involved directly in cover-up and almost certainly will have to resign - the fact that he has clung on to office by his fingernails and has been supported in doing so had done immeasurable damage to the church, and will continue to do so while he is in office.
The Pope has now been put in the postion of having to explain his own part in the German abuses, and here in Ireland it has been recently suggested that he will be the first pope forced to resign.
Those blaming the victims and their parents appear to be ignoring the power exercised by the clergy.
My father was forced to work away from home because of his going to Spain to fight Franco (the church, with its support for fascism didn't come out of that too well).
While my father was working away from home on a number of occasions (Friday afternoons usually), I saw my mother giving away the tiny amount of money she had in the house to the priest making his collection and left with not enough to feed herself or me and my sister - out of fear for the church.
This was in non catholic England - I am assured by relatives living here in Ireland that things were much worse here and the church's power was absolute.   
One of the only good things to come out of this whole sordid affar is that the church will NEVER occupy that position again - if it survives.
Any body that sanctions abuse and then forces the victim to take a vow of silence doesn't deserve to have any influence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:29 PM

"In understanding all this, it's important to understand that Catholic bishops and clergy and nuns and parishioners are just people - some are bad, and most are mediocre, and some are good. That fact has not been acknowledged in many of the threads discussing this problem, and that is my main objection to these threads."

Joe, it's been acknowledged ad nauseam, usually in response to your posts. It's too obvious for most to bother even mentioning. The truly innocent, save for the victims, are not the subject of discussion. Please credit us with a bit of intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:01 PM

Peter, I would think you are probably right in your suggestion - it would probably account for choir masters, scout leaders, and other groups where paedophilia has intruded.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM

So I guess we will continue the discussion without your input for now.

Joe,
"I pretty-much agree with John MacKenzie, too. I completely agree with John that people are personally to blame - that it's people who committed the crimes, and not the Church."

Joe,
wouldn't you agree the the church assumed a part of the blame when it chose to hide and protect the people who committed the crimes and in fact enabled them to continue committing the same crimes?
Had these priests been given a choice of say a cloister without access to children and being defrocked, I would be more sympathetic.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely - I believe this applies to Rome.

If you are saying that the members of the church who knew nothing (I was one) are not to be condemned, I agree.
M

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM

If you make a claim, beeliner, especially if it is contentious, the responsibility for sourcing it is yours.

Peter, you remind me of J. Wellington Wimpy: "Let's you and him fight."

I don't think that mine are contentious. But since Ake made his assertion first, let him provide substantiation first and then I will do so.

The JW statistic is pretty well documented. The society refuses to release the names, claiming ecclesiastical privilege, but do not dispute the number as far as I know.

I don't believe that the RCC has ever claimed such a privilege unless the information was imparted as part of a sacramental confession, in which case the confidentiality is inviolate.

But I'm not trying to start an argument here, and as I mentioned previously, you also challenged Ake's assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

Thanks SINSULL, that's exactly what I meant. Strange that beeliner couldn't work it out for himself/herself.

To recap, beeliner said to Ake: "And your source for that is what?"

When challenged on his own assertions, he/she says:"I think that a simple google search would provide plenty of reliable documentation of both my claims. I doubt that Ake's could be similarly verified." It beggars belief.

If you make a claim, beeliner, especially if it is contentious, the responsibility for sourcing it is yours. After all, that's what you plainly expect from others.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM

I think that a simple google search would provide plenty of reliable documentation of both my claims.

I doubt that Ake's could be similarly verified.

The key word is 'reliable'.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:05 PM

I think he is referring to your sources for the info you provided on Islamic clerics and the Jehovah Witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:47 AM

Beeliner: while demanding sources from others perhaps you'd take the trouble to provide one or two yourself.

Not an unreasonable suggestion, Peter.

I questioned Ake's assertion because it seems baseless. You questioned it also.

Which of mine would you so categorize?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM

Beeliner: while demanding sources from others perhaps you'd take the trouble to provide one or two yourself.

Penny: of course you're right about celibacy but I would have thought it patently obvious that abusers don't honour their vows. My guess (for which I have no statistical foundation) is that paedophiles entering the church because it offers an effective route to their prey is a bigger problem than priests being driven to paedophilia by the celibacy vows.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 09:47 AM

...these crimes are much more widespread within Catholicism than any other religious group...

And your source for that is what?

Clerical child molestation in Islam is endemic, the rule rather than the exception. Within its hierarchy, murders have been committed over which young boy belongs to which cleric.

Jehovah's Witnesses have files on over 25,000 cases of ADMITTED abuse, not mere accusations. All JW's are clergy by definition.

Admittedly though, the situation within Catholicism is much more horrendous than most Catholics imagined prior to the recent revelations, and the very worst thing that the Church can do at this point is to attempt a whitewash, which they seem to be on the brink of doing. I hope I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:50 AM

Surely celibacy applies to ALL sexual activity involving another person, and not simply consensual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. So a vow of celibacy should be taken to cover these abuse cases, shouldn't it? It isn't a vow to keep from women.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:12 AM

Ake, is it in fact "patently obvious that these crimes are much more widespread within Catholicism than any other religious group"? I haven't seen figures, but would be slightly surprised. And surely celibacy would involve little sacrifice for people whose libidos steer them in directions other than conventional sex, but for whom employment in the catholic church (and in some other institutions) is attractive because of the opportunities for grooming victims?

I am sure no-one could argue with John's point about individual responsibility. But I am much more concerned about the catholic church's institutional complicity in facilitating (I trust Joe is OK with that word?) child abuse.

Whether this mentality extends to the incumbent pope I don't know. The case against him in Milwaukee looks flakey. (If I understand correctly, he did not hear about the errant priest there until some 20 years after the police had decided there was no case to answer.) But I thought the last two paragraphs from the link in my previous post were compelling:

I asked Franz whether it was possible that, as archbishop of Munich in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Joseph Ratzinger was unaware of the scale of abuse in the church.

"I think Joseph Ratzinger had to know it," believes Franz. "I cannot imagine he didn't know. I think at this time the Church tried to sweep it under the carpet. They didn't want anyone to speak badly about the Church.

If Ratzinger did know, that would certainly be consistent with a pattern of closing ranks that has been evident among the bishops in several countries over the past 15 years or so. That article suggests Ratzinger has disappointed fellow catholics in his own home town. Maybe they have invented their concerns, but as Joe might say: "Why would they?"

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:54 AM

I pretty-much agree with John MacKenzie, too. I completely agree with John that people are personally to blame - that it's people who committed the crimes, and not the Church. And it's people who should be prosecuted. HOWEVER - my point about organizational theory is to illustrate how the Catholic Church operates, which is more-or-less the same as every organization. Most organizational heads live under the illusion that they have moral authority, that they have control of their organizations, and that they have a complete understanding of the essence of their organizations. Most often, that's not true - all they know is management. A bishop's office is no place to learn compassion, because bishops do not have direct contact with situations where compassion is required - mostly what people learn in bishops' offices is organizational structure and the use of power. I referred to the organizational structure of the Catholic Church in response to someone's statement about the Catholic Church "allowing their priests to homosexually (and otherwise) abuse children" [it's interesting to study how the word "allow" is used in this thread]. If we are to understand and fix the problem of child molestation in churches, it's important to understand the authority structure of the churches, which is far different from what many people think it is. Very few churches are able to get complete obedience from their clergy and members, and that's certainly the case in the Catholic Church. It's completely ludicrous to think that the Catholic Church can "allow" its clergy to commit crime; or to think that it can "forbid" such crimes and expect to be obeyed (despite the fact that some bishops DO expect to be obeyed). In understanding all this, it's important to understand that Catholic bishops and clergy and nuns and parishioners are just people - some are bad, and most are mediocre, and some are good. That fact has not been acknowledged in many of the threads discussing this problem, and that is my main objection to these threads.

Yes, there are evil bishops and evil functionaries in bishops' offices, but most of the people working in those offices are simply mindless bureaucrats. Yes, there are bishops and functionaries who have committed crimes and deserve prosecution - but there are many others who just didn't see or understand what was happening and followed the demands of the bureaucracy rather than the demands of compassion. For the most part, these latter people paid settlements and dealt with complaints as required, ands even removed most of the offending priests; but failed to do the hard work of setting up procedures that would help prevent this problem from happening again.

So, yes, there were bishops and church functionaries who committed crimes by covering up the crimes of molesting and abusing priests (and to make hairsplitting Peter/Fionn happy, I suppose that at this moment there ARE bishops and priests and functionaries who may be committing crimes at this very moment, but most likely most of them did it last week or earlier). Then there were many who more-or-less did what was required and really did nothing criminal. And there were a few who took strong, assertive action at the root of the problem. Interestingly, one of the bishops who did take strong action against child molesters was Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, a homosexual who paid a former lover a blackmail payment of some $486,000. But it appears that Weakland had actually loved the man who eventually blackmailed him, so that's another matter.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM

I fully agree with John MacKenzie.

These crimes were all perpetrated by individuals who happened to be priests of the Catholic Church.....Let them receive the full force of the law.

It is patently obvious,that as these crimes are much more widespread within Catholicism than any other religious group, something different must be happening there.

The biggest difference by far is the Celibacy Rule.....how can you simply dismiss it without giving any reason?

These priests should be dealt with by the courts, and rather than asking the Pope to resign, we should be asking for a public inquiry into the priesthood, with reference to homosexuality and the celibacy rule.

As I said on another thread, these crimes were not committed by the Pope or the Catholic Church.

For the most part, they were perpetrated against teenage boys by adult men with erections......Go figure.

There is an exceptionally graphic account in today's Times, by a German priest who admits to abusing boys in his care.
His story would make your skin creep, but does not give a sense of abuse of power, just a need for sexual gratification, and unbridled lust.

These people need to be carefully scrutinised before being allowed access to impressionable pubescent boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,SINSULL
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM

Been away - a house concert.
As others have observed, I noted the situation at Preble Street because it seems to me to scream hypocrisy. Support and hide priests who engage in homosexual activities while punishing a group that protects child victims for being proactive for homosexual rights especially when the Directors of that group voted against coming out for gay marriage.
A visit to Preble Street's website will answer any questions about the legality of their operations far better than I can.
Any private donor has the right to choose not to donate. I know many who refuse to donate to the Salvation Army because of their stand on homosexuality. I prefer to recognize the good they do and continue to give them money.
The money is only a part of the shelter's budget. In a year when the economy and unemployment has both reduced donations and increased the use of their facilities, this loss of funds hurt. Not to worry - a fundraising effort from sympathisers has replaced more than half the funds and is expected to cover it all.
Here is a link to the entire story including the diocese letter and Preble Street's response:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/diocese-penalizes-homeless-aid-group_2010-03-23.html

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM

the perpetrator and the victim are equal.

Complete and utter bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM

===We are all guilty of some crime and should be forgiving, undrstanding and active in recognising that the perpetrator and the victim are equal. Olly =====


Sorry if I am being a bit thick; but could 'Olly', or somebody. kindly explain to me WTF that is supposed to mean!?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Olly
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:51 AM

Every organuisation made up of 100 people has 2% rotten and 2% saints

18% support or corroborate the 2% i.e. close proximity support that gives a net work for eveil or corruption of 20% in any organisation also a potenmtial for good of 20% in any organisation

The "floating" 60% dont engage and really are afraid of truth in any situation and prefer to divest their interests and concrn to others. state,Army,Police,Lawes etc etc....The floating,dissengaged group Cause most of the problems due to lack of action when observing wronmg doing . Take for example drugs or petty crimes which people turn the other way about ...this only ebcourages more corruption and allows "permission" by default. We are all guilty of some crime and should be forgiving, undrstanding and active in recognising that the perpetrator and the victim are equal. Olly

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:28 AM

To view the catholic church as 'an organisation' in the business sense, is depersonalise it, and in so doing, attempt to make the blame institutional and not personal.
It wasn't an institution that waved it's dick around and got innocent children to do things they didn't understand to/with it.
These were people, not organisations, they are perverted, and they committed a criminal act, for which they are liable in law. Any person or "organisation" that aids and abets them in the concealment of those illegal acts, is ipso facto, also guilty of an offence.
Prosecute them all, the law is on the side of the children.
Forget the fact that they are churchmen, and remember that they are guilty of corrupt practices.
If they were policemen, firemen, or teachers, they would be locked up by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM

I certainly agree, Penny, that the catholic church is not the only transgressor. I agree too that celibacy is not at the root of the problem.

As for Joe's rhetorical question: "Why would they be (evil)?" I am afraid he's making that point to the wrong person. "Evil" is a concept born out of religion and one that I don't recognise. To me it implies a satanic hand at work.

Joe has simply made a straw man and knocked it over. As an attempt to skirt round the hierarchical abuse of children (which is what occurs when a bishop stifles a child victim's protesting voice) it is pathetic. The abuse happens and Joe knows it happens. It is sheer fatasy to suggest that it can't be happening on the ground that bishops couldn't be that evil.

It is also fantasy to say I see the catholic church as an "unholy conspiracy to lead lead the world to sexual perversion in the name of Jesus." I do see it as an arrogant and manipulative institution that has grown rotten on the excesses of power it has wielded in several countries (but not so much in the US) down several centuries.

Here's the view from Ratzinger's home town.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 08:50 AM

This morning on BBC Radio 4, the Sunday programme, Trevor Baylis, the inventor of the wind up radio, spoke about his abuse at the - I was going to say hands, but that is anatomically wrong - of a Church of England priest. Nothing said about the marital status of the man, but much made of his being six foot tall and Baylis being only 5 at the time. He was told it was part of worship, and secret, and did not tell until his parents were dead. The priest was moved to another parish at some point.

It isn't just the Catholics, and not just to do with celibacy.

There was also a piece about the Pope and how he had, as Ratzinger, brought in that sex with someone under 18 was a clerical crime in the church. (Not sure of the exact terminology.) It did seem odd to me that something which would be a crime in the states' views needed separate identification in the church, and did rather imply that men suspected of this crime would not be expected to be dealt with in secular courts.

Penny

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:43 AM

More to come

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:55 AM

Joe, wasn't it the founder of your Church who declared that it was "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt VII)? You might think your bishops are merely incompetent and have therefore "fucked up" your Church. But the rest of us are of opinion that "By their fruits ye shall know them".

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:32 AM

I think it's the behaviour of the bishops that matters, not whether you want to call them 'fucked up' or 'evil'. The end result is the same. Either way, the abuse still happens and the Church still has some responsibility for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:25 AM

Nope, Peter, the only way to make sense out of the Catholic Church is to view it as an organization, and measure it by the principles of organizational theory. I know you prefer to see it as some sort of horrible, unholy conspiracy to lead lead the world to sexual perversion in the name of Jesus, but your conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense.
People just aren't that evil. They're fucked up, and I'll be the first to say the bishops are fucked up - but they're not evil. Why would they be?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM

Joe, try to stop thinking of your church as a commercial enterprise. Forget its huge banking interests etc and try to imagine it as a fellowship; a source of moral authority. It might take a leap of imagination, but if you go down that track you might begin to remember that bishops, cardinals and popes take upon themselves significant pastoral duties as well as budget-control responsibilities, resources management and all the other stuff associated with business admin. Bishops like to consider themselves a little bit more than "upper management".

Have a look at the case of John Magee. Is he one of those bishops whom you assume to be "just incompetent"? His perverse handling of two abuse cases became the subject of a report by Ireland's National Board for Child Protection. The report's criticisms were so withering that Magee's diocese threatened legal action if it were published. In the face of a public outcry the report waspublished, eventually, and Magee promptly stood down from his clerical duties. He had no alternative. After dithering for a year, Ratzinger has at last accepted Magee's resignation, and Magee now basks in the title of "emeritus bishop."

It would be stretching things to present Magee as an innocent abroad. He spent some 20 years at the very heart of the Vatican, serving for much of that time as private secretary to successive popes. Could he have spent so close to the throne of St Peter for so long, without learning to distinguish between right and wrong?

"Just incompetent"? I would be surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:00 PM

I think we're talking a different language, Smokey - or maybe we have a completely different understanding of the authority of the Catholic Church.
Crime exists in all societies - and the Catholic Church is a society. Crime is an aberrance, a type of conduct that is socially unacceptable. It is not to the advantage of any society or organization to accept aberrant behavior, because it interferes with the operation of the organization. Bishops (with few exception) don't want child molestation or abuse to exist within their domains - it just doesn't make sense for them to want such a thing.

Bishops are the Upper Management within the Catholic Church, and there's an interesting phenomenon about Upper Managers - they expect to be obeyed (and outsiders expect that they will be obeyed) - but they measure obedience by success, not by actual obedience to their dictates. Now, if you've worked in a bureaucracy for any amount of time, you know that's absurd - subordinates pretend to accept whatever a manager says, and then they go and do whatever they think is best. If that didn't happen, organizations would never survive the harebrained theories that managers come up with. Managers live in a different world, so most often this passive-aggressive disobedience of management desires happens very smoothly (and it's a good thing it does). And more often than not, the results are successful, because the people who do the work want their work to succeed.

There's a problem with this, though: miscreants can also take advantage of this system of operation. In the Catholic Church, the child abusers and molesters are ostensibly the most obedient to the dictates of the hierarchy. It's well-known that child molesters are very charming and convincing - that's how they get kids to go along with them. Their charm also works with Upper Management (read: bishops). Child molesters and abusers are experts at ass-kissing, and bishops (and all Upper Managers) are very susceptible to ass-kissing. Upper Managers aren't programmed to react positively to people who say, "Hey, wait! This is wrong!" - so they're much more likely to respond positively to the ass-kissing of the miscreants.

This absurdity works the same in any large bureaucracy - it's just that the Catholic Church is the Ultimate Bureaucracy, since it is old, huge, and entrenched in tradition and illusions of authority. So, not only is the Catholic Church the Ultimate Bureaucracy, it is the Ultimately Absurd Bureaucracy.

I don't think most of the bishops are bad men, even though they mishandled the child abuse and molestation scandal so miserably. It's just that they are Consummate Bureaucrats, people who are almost completely incapable of thinking outside the box. Child molestation and abuse isn't supposed to happen - when it does happen, the Catholic bishops are utterly incapable of dealing with it.

And so, we have this horrible mess. Since the 1960s, many brilliant and dedicated people have spoken out against the problem of abuse and molestation in the Catholic Church. And for the most part, the bishops didn't begin to listen until the beginning of the millennium, when it began to cost them money.

But most of these bishops aren't bad people - they're just incompetent.

I guess I have to put this in strong language so people understand: the Catholic Church is profoundly fucked up - but that doesn't mean the people in it are bad. The administration of the Catholic Church is a huge, absurd bureaucracy. But it's not bad. It's just fucked up.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:59 PM

Fair comment, Joe, though I think you knew exactly what I meant - 'allow' is perhaps the wrong word. However, it's happening and it has been covered up by an unknown number of trusted Bishops, Cardinals or whatever, employed by and working on behalf of the Catholic Church. It has certainly been effectively 'allowed' to continue by some Church officials. How far up (and out) that corruption has spread remains to be seen.

Why indeed would anyonedo that?

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:24 PM

There you go again, Smokey. The Catholic Church doesn't "allow" priests to abuse children. That just doesn't make sense. Why would anyone do that?

I can see Sinsull's question about bishops withholding funds from a shelter; but I can also see that the bishops are between a rock and a hard place, since they're required to support the party line. While most of the homeless charities in Sacramento have Catholic roots, they have been careful to disassociate themselves from the diocese. We do get funds from the diocese at the women's center, but we make sure we're not dependent on those funds. For that matter, it's probably wise for most charities not to be dependent on any one source for funds - you never know when a source is going to back out. Still, we don't advertise what we do that the bishop and other donors might not approve of. That's one of the risks nonprofits have to take - depending on money that often has strings attached.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM

The immorality, as I see it, lies in the Church disapproving of gay marriage with one hand, while the other is allowing their priests to homosexually (and otherwise) abuse children. It looks hypocritical to me.