Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....

Peter K (Fionn) 17 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM
SINSULL 17 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM
Jack Campin 17 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM
bubblyrat 17 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,mg 17 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM
SINSULL 17 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM
Connacht Rambler 17 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,mg 17 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM
GUEST,mg 17 Mar 10 - 01:48 PM
Jack Campin 17 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM
SINSULL 17 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM
Gervase 17 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM
Smokey. 17 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM
Rapparee 17 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM
Ed T 17 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 18 Mar 10 - 04:20 AM
kendall 18 Mar 10 - 04:39 AM
Joe Offer 18 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM
Joe Offer 18 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM
Connacht Rambler 18 Mar 10 - 08:22 AM
Will Fly 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM
SINSULL 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM
SINSULL 18 Mar 10 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 18 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 18 Mar 10 - 09:28 AM
Leadfingers 18 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 18 Mar 10 - 09:45 AM
John MacKenzie 18 Mar 10 - 11:42 AM
SINSULL 18 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM
Bill D 18 Mar 10 - 12:36 PM
Joe Offer 18 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 18 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM
Joe Offer 18 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM
MartinRyan 18 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,mg 18 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 18 Mar 10 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,mg 18 Mar 10 - 03:20 PM
Bill D 18 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM
Jack Campin 18 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM
Joe Offer 18 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM
PoppaGator 18 Mar 10 - 05:42 PM
Joe_F 18 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM
Joe Offer 19 Mar 10 - 03:42 AM
akenaton 19 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 19 Mar 10 - 04:29 AM
Emma B 19 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM
Bryn Pugh 19 Mar 10 - 08:04 AM
SINSULL 19 Mar 10 - 08:20 AM
SINSULL 19 Mar 10 - 09:24 AM
Jack Campin 19 Mar 10 - 10:02 AM
GUEST,Neil D 19 Mar 10 - 10:15 AM
Joe Offer 19 Mar 10 - 10:20 AM
SINSULL 19 Mar 10 - 10:47 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 19 Mar 10 - 10:57 AM
Joe Offer 19 Mar 10 - 11:10 AM
John MacKenzie 19 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 19 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 19 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 20 Mar 10 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 20 Mar 10 - 01:54 PM
Smokey. 20 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM
akenaton 20 Mar 10 - 05:10 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 20 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM
Smokey. 20 Mar 10 - 05:44 PM
akenaton 20 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM
Smokey. 20 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 20 Mar 10 - 06:22 PM
Smokey. 20 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM
akenaton 21 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 21 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 21 Mar 10 - 05:39 AM
Will Fly 21 Mar 10 - 05:45 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 21 Mar 10 - 08:38 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 21 Mar 10 - 08:59 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 21 Mar 10 - 02:50 PM
akenaton 21 Mar 10 - 03:14 PM
Smokey. 21 Mar 10 - 06:02 PM
Bill D 21 Mar 10 - 06:24 PM
akenaton 21 Mar 10 - 07:03 PM
Smokey. 21 Mar 10 - 07:31 PM
Greg B 21 Mar 10 - 09:43 PM
Joe Offer 22 Mar 10 - 02:38 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 22 Mar 10 - 04:36 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 22 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM
John MacKenzie 22 Mar 10 - 05:34 AM
Wolfhound person 22 Mar 10 - 06:08 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 22 Mar 10 - 06:45 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 22 Mar 10 - 07:03 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 22 Mar 10 - 07:58 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 22 Mar 10 - 08:24 AM
Wolfhound person 22 Mar 10 - 09:58 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 22 Mar 10 - 01:21 PM
Joe Offer 22 Mar 10 - 01:49 PM
olddude 22 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,mg 22 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM
Smokey. 23 Mar 10 - 12:13 AM
Joe Offer 23 Mar 10 - 01:48 AM
Smokey. 23 Mar 10 - 02:20 AM
Joe Offer 23 Mar 10 - 03:08 AM
Joe Offer 23 Mar 10 - 03:21 AM
akenaton 23 Mar 10 - 04:44 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 23 Mar 10 - 09:02 AM
Greg F. 23 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM
frogprince 23 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM
Jack Campin 23 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 23 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM
Smokey. 23 Mar 10 - 02:37 PM
beeliner 23 Mar 10 - 07:14 PM
Smokey. 23 Mar 10 - 08:36 PM
akenaton 24 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 24 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM
akenaton 24 Mar 10 - 04:54 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 24 Mar 10 - 07:35 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 24 Mar 10 - 01:26 PM
Smokey. 24 Mar 10 - 06:20 PM
SINSULL 25 Mar 10 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,Crowsister 25 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM
Smokey. 25 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM
SINSULL 25 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM
GUEST,mg 25 Mar 10 - 01:50 PM
Smokey. 25 Mar 10 - 02:45 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 25 Mar 10 - 03:02 PM
beeliner 25 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,CSister 25 Mar 10 - 03:12 PM
Big Mick 25 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM
Smokey. 25 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM
Big Mick 25 Mar 10 - 03:18 PM
John MacKenzie 25 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM
SINSULL 25 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM
GUEST,CSister 25 Mar 10 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 25 Mar 10 - 04:00 PM
GUEST,mg 25 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM
Big Mick 25 Mar 10 - 04:13 PM
GUEST,mg 25 Mar 10 - 04:17 PM
GUEST,mg 25 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM
beeliner 25 Mar 10 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,mg 25 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM
Smokey. 25 Mar 10 - 07:06 PM
GUEST,mg 25 Mar 10 - 07:20 PM
beeliner 25 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 27 Mar 10 - 07:36 AM
banjoman 27 Mar 10 - 08:03 AM
John MacKenzie 27 Mar 10 - 09:10 AM
Jack Campin 27 Mar 10 - 10:45 AM
SINSULL 27 Mar 10 - 12:19 PM
beeliner 27 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM
Smokey. 27 Mar 10 - 04:59 PM
beeliner 27 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM
Smokey. 27 Mar 10 - 06:15 PM
beeliner 27 Mar 10 - 07:03 PM
Smokey. 27 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM
Joe Offer 27 Mar 10 - 08:24 PM
Smokey. 27 Mar 10 - 08:59 PM
Joe Offer 27 Mar 10 - 10:00 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 27 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM
Joe Offer 28 Mar 10 - 12:25 AM
Smokey. 28 Mar 10 - 01:32 AM
MGM·Lion 28 Mar 10 - 02:55 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 28 Mar 10 - 04:43 AM
Penny S. 28 Mar 10 - 08:50 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 28 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM
John MacKenzie 28 Mar 10 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,Olly 28 Mar 10 - 11:51 AM
MGM·Lion 28 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM
Smokey. 28 Mar 10 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,SINSULL 28 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM
akenaton 28 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM
Joe Offer 29 Mar 10 - 02:54 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 29 Mar 10 - 05:12 AM
Penny S. 29 Mar 10 - 07:50 AM
beeliner 29 Mar 10 - 09:47 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 29 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM
beeliner 29 Mar 10 - 11:47 AM
SINSULL 29 Mar 10 - 12:05 PM
beeliner 29 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 29 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM
beeliner 29 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM
SINSULL 29 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM
Penny S. 29 Mar 10 - 02:01 PM
Smokey. 29 Mar 10 - 05:29 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Mar 10 - 05:54 PM
beeliner 29 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 29 Mar 10 - 08:33 PM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 12:20 AM
beeliner 30 Mar 10 - 12:58 AM
Smokey. 30 Mar 10 - 01:05 AM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 01:38 AM
beeliner 30 Mar 10 - 02:19 AM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 02:26 AM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 02:32 AM
beeliner 30 Mar 10 - 02:39 AM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM
beeliner 30 Mar 10 - 02:54 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Mar 10 - 07:16 AM
SINSULL 30 Mar 10 - 08:51 AM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,CS 30 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM
Smokey. 30 Mar 10 - 02:14 PM
GUEST,CS 30 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,mg 30 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM
Smokey. 30 Mar 10 - 03:26 PM
akenaton 30 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 30 Mar 10 - 08:42 PM
Smokey. 30 Mar 10 - 10:33 PM
Smokey. 30 Mar 10 - 11:02 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 31 Mar 10 - 04:26 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Mar 10 - 05:44 AM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 01:18 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 31 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM
GUEST,mg 31 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 01:58 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 31 Mar 10 - 02:02 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 02:24 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,mg 31 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM
Kenny B (inactive) 31 Mar 10 - 03:01 PM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 10 - 03:29 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 31 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,mg 31 Mar 10 - 03:56 PM
Smokey. 31 Mar 10 - 04:54 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 05:00 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 10 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,mg 31 Mar 10 - 05:31 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM
beeliner 31 Mar 10 - 06:17 PM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 06:32 PM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 10 - 06:45 PM
akenaton 31 Mar 10 - 07:13 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Apr 10 - 09:34 AM
GUEST,CS/Crowsister 01 Apr 10 - 07:22 PM
GUEST,CS/Crowsister 01 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM
akenaton 01 Apr 10 - 08:40 PM
akenaton 01 Apr 10 - 08:45 PM
Smokey. 01 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM
Joe Offer 02 Apr 10 - 02:39 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Apr 10 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 02 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM
Ed T 02 Apr 10 - 12:27 PM
Joe Offer 02 Apr 10 - 01:23 PM
Ed T 02 Apr 10 - 02:14 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 02 Apr 10 - 02:47 PM
akenaton 02 Apr 10 - 03:00 PM
GUEST,Crowsister 02 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM
akenaton 02 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM
GUEST,Crowsister 02 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM
akenaton 02 Apr 10 - 04:45 PM
Smokey. 02 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM
Smokey. 02 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM
beeliner 02 Apr 10 - 06:24 PM
Smokey. 02 Apr 10 - 06:30 PM
akenaton 02 Apr 10 - 06:47 PM
beeliner 02 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM
Smokey. 02 Apr 10 - 08:25 PM
Ed T 02 Apr 10 - 09:18 PM
Joe Offer 03 Apr 10 - 02:04 AM
akenaton 03 Apr 10 - 03:20 AM
akenaton 03 Apr 10 - 03:36 AM
akenaton 03 Apr 10 - 03:48 AM
akenaton 03 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 03 Apr 10 - 06:21 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Apr 10 - 10:51 AM
akenaton 03 Apr 10 - 11:16 AM
akenaton 03 Apr 10 - 11:35 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 03 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM
Ed T 03 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM
open mike 03 Apr 10 - 02:44 PM
Joe Offer 03 Apr 10 - 02:58 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 03 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 03 Apr 10 - 04:04 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,mg 03 Apr 10 - 05:44 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM
Ed T 03 Apr 10 - 06:46 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 06:57 PM
Jack Campin 03 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 07:15 PM
Joe Offer 03 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 09:35 PM
GUEST,mg 03 Apr 10 - 09:38 PM
GUEST,mg 03 Apr 10 - 10:01 PM
Smokey. 03 Apr 10 - 11:24 PM
Joe Offer 04 Apr 10 - 03:45 AM
GUEST,Crowsister 04 Apr 10 - 07:30 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 04 Apr 10 - 08:49 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 04 Apr 10 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 04 Apr 10 - 09:10 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 04 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 04 Apr 10 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 04 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM
GUEST,mg 04 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 04 Apr 10 - 02:56 PM
GUEST,CS 04 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM
GUEST,CS 04 Apr 10 - 03:23 PM
Smokey. 04 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM
Jim Carroll 04 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM
Joe Offer 04 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM
Smokey. 04 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM
Joe Offer 04 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM
Smokey. 04 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM
Smokey. 04 Apr 10 - 08:32 PM
GUEST,mg 04 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM
Ed T 04 Apr 10 - 10:12 PM
GUEST,CS 04 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM
frogprince 04 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM
Joe Offer 05 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Apr 10 - 04:16 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 05 Apr 10 - 04:19 AM
akenaton 05 Apr 10 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,CS 05 Apr 10 - 07:48 AM
akenaton 05 Apr 10 - 08:14 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 05 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM
Ed T 05 Apr 10 - 08:52 AM
Ed T 05 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM
beeliner 05 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Apr 10 - 09:52 AM
akenaton 05 Apr 10 - 10:25 AM
akenaton 05 Apr 10 - 10:27 AM
Ed T 05 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM
Jim Carroll 05 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM
Ed T 05 Apr 10 - 05:23 PM
Joe Offer 05 Apr 10 - 10:39 PM
Smokey. 05 Apr 10 - 11:04 PM
Smokey. 05 Apr 10 - 11:37 PM
Joe Offer 05 Apr 10 - 11:47 PM
GUEST,mg 05 Apr 10 - 11:51 PM
Smokey. 06 Apr 10 - 12:17 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM
GUEST 06 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM
beeliner 06 Apr 10 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,CS 06 Apr 10 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,mg 06 Apr 10 - 02:21 PM
Smokey. 06 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM
beeliner 06 Apr 10 - 03:39 PM
Smokey. 06 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM
Ed T 06 Apr 10 - 03:56 PM
beeliner 06 Apr 10 - 03:59 PM
Ed T 06 Apr 10 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,CS 06 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM
Ed T 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM
Smokey. 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM
beeliner 06 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM
GUEST,mg 06 Apr 10 - 04:37 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 06 Apr 10 - 06:41 PM
beeliner 06 Apr 10 - 07:17 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 06 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM
Ed T 06 Apr 10 - 08:47 PM
Joe Offer 06 Apr 10 - 08:52 PM
Smokey. 06 Apr 10 - 10:50 PM
Ed T 06 Apr 10 - 10:57 PM
Smokey. 06 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Apr 10 - 04:51 AM
Ed T 07 Apr 10 - 07:18 AM
Ed T 07 Apr 10 - 08:30 AM
Ed T 07 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 07 Apr 10 - 08:39 AM
Joe Offer 07 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 07 Apr 10 - 05:13 PM
akenaton 07 Apr 10 - 06:34 PM
GUEST,mg 07 Apr 10 - 08:06 PM
akenaton 07 Apr 10 - 08:19 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 10 - 04:02 AM
Joe Offer 08 Apr 10 - 04:07 AM
Ed T 08 Apr 10 - 09:15 AM
Joe Offer 08 Apr 10 - 01:33 PM
GUEST,mg 09 Apr 10 - 03:26 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 09 Apr 10 - 08:28 PM
mousethief 09 Apr 10 - 09:40 PM
Smokey. 09 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM
mousethief 09 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM
Smokey. 09 Apr 10 - 10:54 PM
Jim Carroll 11 Apr 10 - 06:34 AM
akenaton 11 Apr 10 - 12:24 PM
beeliner 11 Apr 10 - 08:02 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 11 Apr 10 - 08:42 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Apr 10 - 04:17 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM
Ed T 14 Apr 10 - 12:55 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 14 Apr 10 - 03:02 PM
akenaton 14 Apr 10 - 04:59 PM
mousethief 14 Apr 10 - 08:09 PM
Joe Offer 15 Apr 10 - 02:30 AM
akenaton 15 Apr 10 - 02:40 AM
akenaton 15 Apr 10 - 03:06 AM
Joe Offer 15 Apr 10 - 03:29 AM
akenaton 15 Apr 10 - 03:33 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Apr 10 - 05:45 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 15 Apr 10 - 06:17 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Apr 10 - 08:23 AM
Ed T 15 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM
Joe Offer 15 Apr 10 - 03:53 PM
akenaton 15 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Apr 10 - 02:44 AM
akenaton 16 Apr 10 - 03:07 AM
akenaton 16 Apr 10 - 03:23 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 16 Apr 10 - 03:28 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Apr 10 - 05:23 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM
Joe Offer 16 Apr 10 - 05:59 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 16 Apr 10 - 06:07 AM
Joe Offer 16 Apr 10 - 06:27 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 16 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 17 Apr 10 - 10:33 AM
akenaton 17 Apr 10 - 11:59 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM
akenaton 17 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM
Jack Campin 17 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Apr 10 - 03:00 PM
akenaton 17 Apr 10 - 04:44 PM
akenaton 17 Apr 10 - 05:18 PM
akenaton 17 Apr 10 - 05:35 PM
Joe Offer 17 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM
Ed T 17 Apr 10 - 09:05 PM
Joe Offer 18 Apr 10 - 12:12 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Apr 10 - 04:50 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 18 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM
GUEST 18 Apr 10 - 07:05 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 18 Apr 10 - 10:55 AM
Ed T 18 Apr 10 - 11:29 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 18 Apr 10 - 12:12 PM
Jim Carroll 18 Apr 10 - 03:07 PM
Ed T 18 Apr 10 - 03:32 PM
Ed T 18 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM
akenaton 18 Apr 10 - 06:58 PM
Ed T 18 Apr 10 - 07:52 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Apr 10 - 03:44 AM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 03:57 AM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 19 Apr 10 - 05:12 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Apr 10 - 06:07 AM
Ed T 19 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 11:11 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 19 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 19 Apr 10 - 11:57 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Apr 10 - 12:13 PM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 12:52 PM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 19 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 19 Apr 10 - 01:06 PM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM
akenaton 19 Apr 10 - 01:45 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Apr 10 - 02:31 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Apr 10 - 03:12 PM
Joe Offer 19 Apr 10 - 03:46 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM
Joe Offer 19 Apr 10 - 04:31 PM
Smokey. 19 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM
akenaton 20 Apr 10 - 03:58 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 20 Apr 10 - 04:28 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM
Royston 20 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM
Stringsinger 20 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 20 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM
Royston 20 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM
GUEST,mg 20 Apr 10 - 03:03 PM
Ed T 20 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM
GUEST,mg 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM
Royston 20 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM
GUEST,mg 20 Apr 10 - 05:28 PM
Royston 20 Apr 10 - 05:52 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Apr 10 - 06:05 PM
Ed T 20 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM
akenaton 20 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM
akenaton 21 Apr 10 - 04:14 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Apr 10 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 21 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM
Lox 21 Apr 10 - 06:30 AM
Ed T 21 Apr 10 - 12:16 PM
akenaton 21 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 21 Apr 10 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,mg 21 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM
Ed T 21 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM
mousethief 21 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM
akenaton 21 Apr 10 - 05:00 PM
akenaton 21 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM
Joe Offer 21 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM
Ed T 21 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM
GUEST,mg 21 Apr 10 - 07:50 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Apr 10 - 07:56 PM
Ed T 21 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM
Ed T 21 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM
akenaton 22 Apr 10 - 01:37 AM
akenaton 22 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 01:58 AM
akenaton 22 Apr 10 - 03:13 AM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 03:59 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Apr 10 - 04:02 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 22 Apr 10 - 05:03 AM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 06:41 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Apr 10 - 07:09 AM
Jack Campin 22 Apr 10 - 09:12 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Apr 10 - 09:46 AM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 02:05 PM
Ed T 22 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM
mousethief 22 Apr 10 - 03:32 PM
Ed T 22 Apr 10 - 04:30 PM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Apr 10 - 05:06 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 05:10 PM
Ed T 22 Apr 10 - 06:00 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 06:09 PM
Ed T 22 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM
Ed T 22 Apr 10 - 07:13 PM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 07:41 PM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 07:44 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM
GUEST,mg 22 Apr 10 - 08:01 PM
Joe Offer 22 Apr 10 - 08:10 PM
Smokey. 22 Apr 10 - 08:44 PM
mg 22 Apr 10 - 11:12 PM
Joe Offer 23 Apr 10 - 12:30 AM
mg 23 Apr 10 - 01:42 AM
mg 23 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM
mg 23 Apr 10 - 01:54 AM
akenaton 23 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Apr 10 - 04:05 AM
akenaton 23 Apr 10 - 04:12 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Apr 10 - 05:39 AM
akenaton 23 Apr 10 - 06:48 AM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 06:51 AM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Apr 10 - 07:10 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 23 Apr 10 - 07:47 AM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 08:27 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 01:31 PM
GUEST,mg 23 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM
Joe Offer 23 Apr 10 - 06:06 PM
Smokey. 23 Apr 10 - 06:21 PM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 06:45 PM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 06:54 PM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 07:03 PM
mousethief 23 Apr 10 - 07:07 PM
Joe Offer 23 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM
Smokey. 23 Apr 10 - 07:46 PM
GUEST,mg 23 Apr 10 - 07:48 PM
mousethief 23 Apr 10 - 08:07 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Apr 10 - 08:38 PM
Ed T 23 Apr 10 - 08:43 PM
Joe Offer 23 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM
Joe Offer 23 Apr 10 - 10:49 PM
Jim Carroll 24 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM
akenaton 24 Apr 10 - 02:16 AM
akenaton 24 Apr 10 - 03:39 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 24 Apr 10 - 03:55 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Apr 10 - 06:04 AM
GUEST,CS 24 Apr 10 - 06:15 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Apr 10 - 06:28 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 24 Apr 10 - 08:39 AM
Ed T 24 Apr 10 - 03:58 PM
mg 24 Apr 10 - 04:03 PM
Ed T 24 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM
Ed T 24 Apr 10 - 04:21 PM
akenaton 24 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM
Ed T 24 Apr 10 - 05:59 PM
mousethief 24 Apr 10 - 06:13 PM
Joe Offer 24 Apr 10 - 06:48 PM
mg 24 Apr 10 - 07:18 PM
akenaton 25 Apr 10 - 03:13 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 25 Apr 10 - 04:39 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Apr 10 - 04:47 AM
mg 25 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM
Smokey. 25 Apr 10 - 04:40 PM
Joe Offer 26 Apr 10 - 03:42 AM
akenaton 26 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM
Ed T 26 Apr 10 - 02:34 PM
Jim Carroll 26 Apr 10 - 02:48 PM
akenaton 26 Apr 10 - 03:14 PM
Ed T 26 Apr 10 - 04:41 PM
Smokey. 26 Apr 10 - 04:50 PM
GUEST,mg 26 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM
Jim Carroll 26 Apr 10 - 08:00 PM
Smokey. 27 Apr 10 - 01:21 PM
Joe Offer 27 Apr 10 - 10:30 PM
Ed T 27 Apr 10 - 10:48 PM
Ed T 27 Apr 10 - 11:00 PM
Smokey. 27 Apr 10 - 11:17 PM
Joe Offer 27 Apr 10 - 11:56 PM
mg 28 Apr 10 - 12:53 AM
Smokey. 28 Apr 10 - 12:53 AM
Joe Offer 28 Apr 10 - 01:59 AM
Ed T 28 Apr 10 - 05:30 AM
Joe Offer 28 Apr 10 - 06:35 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Apr 10 - 09:02 AM
Ed T 28 Apr 10 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 28 Apr 10 - 10:49 AM
akenaton 28 Apr 10 - 12:07 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM
GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 28 Apr 10 - 01:55 PM
Paul Burke 28 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Apr 10 - 02:07 PM
Smokey. 28 Apr 10 - 04:36 PM
Smokey. 28 Apr 10 - 05:06 PM
Joe Offer 28 Apr 10 - 05:38 PM
Smokey. 28 Apr 10 - 05:53 PM
Ed T 28 Apr 10 - 07:29 PM
The Fooles Troupe 28 Apr 10 - 07:37 PM
Smokey. 28 Apr 10 - 09:31 PM
Ed T 28 Apr 10 - 10:59 PM
The Fooles Troupe 28 Apr 10 - 11:20 PM
mg 28 Apr 10 - 11:27 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 10 - 02:19 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Apr 10 - 03:51 AM
GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 29 Apr 10 - 05:09 AM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 10 - 05:47 PM
Smokey. 29 Apr 10 - 06:22 PM
Ed T 29 Apr 10 - 06:52 PM
Smokey. 29 Apr 10 - 07:16 PM
Smokey. 29 Apr 10 - 07:21 PM
Ed T 29 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM
Ed T 29 Apr 10 - 07:36 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM
Smokey. 29 Apr 10 - 07:47 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 10 - 07:54 PM
Smokey. 29 Apr 10 - 07:59 PM
akenaton 29 Apr 10 - 08:18 PM
Ed T 29 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM
akenaton 29 Apr 10 - 08:34 PM
Smokey. 29 Apr 10 - 09:54 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 10 - 11:29 PM
The Fooles Troupe 29 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Apr 10 - 08:11 AM
GUEST,Neil D 30 Apr 10 - 10:22 AM
Ed T 30 Apr 10 - 02:19 PM
akenaton 30 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM
GUEST,mg 30 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM
Ed T 30 Apr 10 - 05:46 PM
Smokey. 30 Apr 10 - 05:59 PM
Stringsinger 30 Apr 10 - 06:43 PM
Joe Offer 01 May 10 - 12:19 AM
akenaton 01 May 10 - 04:30 AM
Ed T 01 May 10 - 05:31 AM
Jim Carroll 01 May 10 - 06:26 AM
Ed T 01 May 10 - 07:58 AM
Ed T 01 May 10 - 09:11 AM
mg 01 May 10 - 01:33 PM
Ed T 01 May 10 - 01:52 PM
Jim Carroll 01 May 10 - 03:17 PM
Jim Carroll 01 May 10 - 03:20 PM
Joe Offer 01 May 10 - 04:12 PM
GUEST,mg 01 May 10 - 04:32 PM
Joe Offer 01 May 10 - 06:09 PM
The Fooles Troupe 01 May 10 - 07:14 PM
Joe Offer 01 May 10 - 07:42 PM
The Fooles Troupe 01 May 10 - 08:08 PM
The Fooles Troupe 01 May 10 - 08:13 PM
Amos 02 May 10 - 12:58 PM
Ed T 02 May 10 - 03:23 PM
Jim Carroll 03 May 10 - 05:18 AM
GUEST,mg 03 May 10 - 01:09 PM
Jim Carroll 03 May 10 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,mg 03 May 10 - 03:41 PM
Ed T 03 May 10 - 07:36 PM
Joe Offer 03 May 10 - 11:21 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 06:31 AM
Smokey. 04 May 10 - 03:32 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 04:10 PM
Smokey. 04 May 10 - 05:11 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 06:06 PM
Smokey. 04 May 10 - 06:27 PM
Joe Offer 04 May 10 - 07:32 PM
Smokey. 04 May 10 - 08:02 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 08:09 PM
Smokey. 04 May 10 - 08:30 PM
mg 04 May 10 - 09:17 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 09:32 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 10:26 PM
Ed T 04 May 10 - 10:32 PM
akenaton 05 May 10 - 03:09 AM
Joe Offer 05 May 10 - 04:08 AM
Ed T 05 May 10 - 06:24 AM
Ed T 05 May 10 - 07:01 AM
akenaton 05 May 10 - 05:17 PM
Smokey. 05 May 10 - 05:31 PM
akenaton 06 May 10 - 02:10 AM
mousethief 06 May 10 - 02:53 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 06 May 10 - 03:45 AM
GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 06 May 10 - 09:03 AM
Jim Carroll 06 May 10 - 01:07 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 06 May 10 - 01:38 PM
Jim Carroll 06 May 10 - 02:55 PM
Joe Offer 06 May 10 - 03:26 PM
Smokey. 06 May 10 - 03:55 PM
Ed T 06 May 10 - 03:58 PM
akenaton 06 May 10 - 04:08 PM
Joe Offer 06 May 10 - 05:03 PM
Jim Carroll 06 May 10 - 05:33 PM
Ed T 06 May 10 - 05:49 PM
Joe Offer 06 May 10 - 06:26 PM
akenaton 07 May 10 - 03:01 AM
Jim Carroll 07 May 10 - 02:47 PM
Ed T 07 May 10 - 06:36 PM
Joe Offer 08 May 10 - 01:54 AM
akenaton 08 May 10 - 02:34 AM
Jim Carroll 08 May 10 - 03:12 AM
Ed T 08 May 10 - 07:41 AM
Joe Offer 08 May 10 - 09:42 PM
mg 09 May 10 - 07:44 PM
Ed T 09 May 10 - 08:19 PM
Ed T 09 May 10 - 08:22 PM
mg 09 May 10 - 09:07 PM
Ed T 09 May 10 - 09:23 PM
Joe Offer 10 May 10 - 02:03 AM
Ed T 10 May 10 - 04:00 PM
Ed T 10 May 10 - 04:23 PM
Ed T 13 May 10 - 10:06 PM
olddude 13 May 10 - 10:18 PM
mg 13 May 10 - 10:31 PM
Ed T 15 May 10 - 10:24 AM
JohnInKansas 16 May 10 - 02:33 AM
Joe Offer 16 May 10 - 04:42 AM
JohnInKansas 16 May 10 - 09:42 PM
Joe Offer 17 May 10 - 01:06 AM
Jim Carroll 17 May 10 - 04:06 AM
Jack Campin 17 May 10 - 04:37 AM
Ed T 17 May 10 - 04:43 PM
Ed T 17 May 10 - 04:51 PM
Smokey. 17 May 10 - 05:55 PM
Joe Offer 18 May 10 - 02:08 AM
Jack Campin 18 May 10 - 08:25 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 18 May 10 - 09:05 AM
ollaimh 18 May 10 - 12:44 PM
GUEST,ollaimh 18 May 10 - 02:06 PM
Smokey. 18 May 10 - 03:17 PM
Joe Offer 18 May 10 - 05:48 PM
Smokey. 18 May 10 - 06:16 PM
Joe Offer 18 May 10 - 07:28 PM
Smokey. 18 May 10 - 08:31 PM
Joe Offer 18 May 10 - 08:42 PM
Ed T 18 May 10 - 08:51 PM
Smokey. 18 May 10 - 09:13 PM
Ed T 19 May 10 - 06:42 AM
Ed T 19 May 10 - 06:51 AM
Ed T 19 May 10 - 07:04 AM
ollaimh 20 May 10 - 11:14 AM
Joe Offer 20 May 10 - 07:06 PM
Smokey. 20 May 10 - 07:49 PM
Ed T 20 May 10 - 08:01 PM
Joe Offer 21 May 10 - 12:25 AM
Jim Carroll 21 May 10 - 06:36 AM
Joe Offer 21 May 10 - 05:02 PM
Ed T 21 May 10 - 06:36 PM
Ed T 21 May 10 - 07:00 PM
Jim Carroll 21 May 10 - 08:33 PM
Joe Offer 21 May 10 - 09:51 PM
Jim Carroll 22 May 10 - 03:50 AM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 04:19 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 22 May 10 - 04:34 AM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 04:40 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 22 May 10 - 04:41 AM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 05:00 AM
Bonnie Shaljean 22 May 10 - 05:07 AM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 05:18 AM
Ed T 22 May 10 - 07:45 AM
Ed T 22 May 10 - 07:48 AM
Jim Carroll 22 May 10 - 12:55 PM
Smokey. 22 May 10 - 01:11 PM
Smokey. 22 May 10 - 03:42 PM
Smokey. 22 May 10 - 03:59 PM
mg 22 May 10 - 04:12 PM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 04:49 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 22 May 10 - 04:58 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 22 May 10 - 05:07 PM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 05:55 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 22 May 10 - 06:14 PM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 06:36 PM
Smokey. 22 May 10 - 08:20 PM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 09:33 PM
Smokey. 22 May 10 - 10:25 PM
Ed T 22 May 10 - 10:27 PM
Joe Offer 22 May 10 - 10:40 PM
Ed T 22 May 10 - 11:50 PM
Joe Offer 23 May 10 - 12:12 AM
mg 23 May 10 - 12:33 AM
Ed T 23 May 10 - 12:49 AM
mg 23 May 10 - 01:56 AM
Joe Offer 23 May 10 - 02:30 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 23 May 10 - 02:46 AM
Joe Offer 23 May 10 - 03:02 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 23 May 10 - 04:28 AM
Jim Carroll 23 May 10 - 04:32 AM
Jim Carroll 23 May 10 - 05:54 AM
Jim Carroll 23 May 10 - 05:58 AM
Ed T 23 May 10 - 09:19 AM
Ed T 23 May 10 - 09:28 AM
Smokey. 23 May 10 - 05:09 PM
Smokey. 23 May 10 - 06:29 PM
mg 23 May 10 - 07:12 PM
Ed T 23 May 10 - 07:14 PM
mg 23 May 10 - 07:57 PM
Smokey. 23 May 10 - 09:31 PM
mg 24 May 10 - 02:07 AM
Bob the Postman 24 May 10 - 09:20 AM
Smokey. 24 May 10 - 05:52 PM
Smokey. 24 May 10 - 07:36 PM
Smokey. 24 May 10 - 07:54 PM
Joe Offer 24 May 10 - 08:54 PM
Smokey. 25 May 10 - 12:43 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 25 May 10 - 03:04 AM
mg 25 May 10 - 05:06 AM
Smokey. 25 May 10 - 01:29 PM
Joe Offer 25 May 10 - 06:49 PM
Smokey. 25 May 10 - 08:16 PM
ollaimh 03 Jul 10 - 09:38 PM
ollaimh 03 Jul 10 - 10:21 PM
akenaton 04 Jul 10 - 04:03 AM
Ed T 04 Jul 10 - 10:35 AM
ollaimh 06 Jul 10 - 02:04 PM
ollaimh 06 Jul 10 - 02:09 PM
Greg B 06 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM
ollaimh 06 Jul 10 - 08:43 PM
Joe Offer 07 Jul 10 - 01:05 AM
Jack Campin 09 Jul 10 - 01:14 PM
Joe Offer 09 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM
Ed T 25 Jul 10 - 09:49 AM
Ed T 25 Jul 10 - 09:55 AM
Amos 25 Jul 10 - 10:16 AM
GUEST,mg 25 Jul 10 - 02:44 PM
Jim Carroll 25 Jul 10 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 11 Aug 10 - 04:08 PM
Jack Campin 20 Mar 12 - 07:50 PM
GUEST,mg 20 Mar 12 - 09:17 PM
GUEST 21 Mar 12 - 07:33 PM
mg 21 Mar 12 - 11:22 PM
Jack Campin 26 Jun 12 - 09:34 PM
ollaimh 27 Jun 12 - 11:22 AM
GUEST,mg 27 Jun 12 - 03:11 PM
GUEST,mg 27 Jun 12 - 03:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Oct 14 - 11:30 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 23 Oct 14 - 07:54 PM
Jack Campin 06 Feb 16 - 07:04 PM
GUEST,mg 07 Feb 16 - 12:29 AM
Amos 07 Feb 16 - 12:44 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Feb 16 - 03:18 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 09:34 AM

What next for scandal hit catholic church?

Just a few months ago Cardinal Sean Brady promised to resign if it was established that any act or omission on his part had been a factor in allowing any abuse of children to continue unchecked.

He has now admitted that, while still a young cleric, he witnessed two children - one just ten years old - signing a vow of silence about abuse the child had suffered from a priest (the imfamous Brendan Smyth) who continued to abuse children for a further 20 years.

Logic suggests that the condition Brady required for his resignation has been met. But apparently not. He says he will tender his resignation only if the Pope demands it.

Apologists will say that attitudes were different then; that it was understandably difficult in that earlier climate for priests (who take it upon themselves to pass judgment on the sins of their supine flocks) to recognise the difference between right and wrong. One poster here may well refer to the cardinals and others of the catholic hierarchy as "upper management" - and anodyne term calculated to play down the pastoral-care and morality aspects of the job spec.

I wonder when this stinking church, this cesspit of mutually protective vested interests, will get the simple message that child abuse is not only wrong but also criminal. Brady should have resigned, the Pope should have sacked him in any case and the gardai should have charged him with perverting the course of justice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM

Take a look at today's headlines. Videos were shown on TV in Brazil of a priest having sex with an 19 year old. It was taken by a 21 year old who claims to have been abused by this same priest for 9 years. He and two other priests have been relieved of their duties and secreted away. Same old crap.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35901985/ns/world_news-americas/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM

There can't be any country in the world where it's illegal for a priest to have sex with a 19-year-old, surely? (I thought you might have made a typo, but no, it checks out).

In Brazil the age of consent (for either heterosexual or homosexual activity) is 14.

Looking further down the MSNBC story, the priest was also accused of having seduced a boy aged 12 some time in the past, but instead they chose to make their headline out of something that was no sort of crime, simply because they got it on video.

The Catholic Chursh may not come very well out of this but the media isn't much better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: bubblyrat
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM

It is not just the Catholic Church ; there have always been "Dodgy Vicars" in the Church of England,you know. As kids,in the local church choir,we used to make jokes about the vicar,the verger,the choirmaster,etc, but we were never afraid because we knew that,if any of them "tried it on",we'd tell our Dads,who would then go round and do some pugilistic "sorting out".And we made sure we were never alone with them !
    Of course,it is different today ; Dads ( if there are any) would be too scared to thump a vicar as they'd probably be jailed for it ( "Old Fashioned" coppers would turn a blind eye and say "he must have tripped and fallen,Your Honour !" )but that was Real Life, and this is Blair's Busted Britain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM

The pope himself is being drawn into the net, and if he is guilty of coverups, transfers etc. as is suggested, then he needs to go. To jail if recent enough offenses, but I t hink they are too old to be legal. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

The claim is that this priest has been abusing these young men since they were twelve. What is consensual now was a crime 9 years ago. There is a criminal investigation underway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Connacht Rambler
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:41 PM

There will have to be a clean-out at the top of the Catholic hierarchy, including the Irish Cardinal and the Pope. I am an Irish Catholic and haven't gone to mass for 40 years because I could of the hypocrisy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:46 PM

I do not know the state of this pope's soul, but he gives me the heebie jeebies and always has. I just asked why when he was chosen when they had plenty of younger and promising candidates, or if they wanted an older conservative, plenty of those too. Why? Why? Now the chief exorcist of the Vatican is talking about stuff at the very top of the Vatican...what is going on? mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:48 PM

I don't have particular problems with hypocrisy..I think it serves a purpose and people would probably be worse without it as a social barrier. I would not care if I found out the pope or bishops had affairs with adult, consensual partners, male or female, makes me no nevermind, any more than if my dentist or mechanic did. But to not protect children...as Laura whatshername says, the ones who fail to protect others from abuse are the evil ones, more than the abusers. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

MSNBC is putting an unacceptable slant on this story. There is NOTHING illegal or (by the standards of most people outside the Catholic Church or Bible Belt America) in any way reprehensible about an older adult having sex with a 19-year-old. And THAT is what Microsoft and the Brazilian media are making a fuss about. Not the (unproved, undetailed, so far completely unverifiable) allegations about sex with 12-year-olds - they have nothing to say about that, since they know no more than we do. They have an agenda that aims at criminalizing homosexuality.

Most of us might find a film of a middle-aged guy in a cassock sodomizing a teenager something less than a turn-on, but a civilized society does NOT make creepiness a crime. Outside the Catholic value system, that film is simply not relevant to anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM

No. Re-read the story. Several young men appeared on TV with the video claiming that they had been abused as children since their early teens and that the abuse continued.
A criminal investigation is underway. Three priests have been suspended by the church.
The video certainly was sensational but the story and investigation involve child abuse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM

this is Blair's Busted Britain
Blaming Tony Blair for kiddy-fiddling clerics is a new one! Well done for the most bizarre non-sequitur yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM

It rather looks as though Ratty himself has done his share of covering up in the past.

Much about all of it here:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/

Belief in God/s is one thing, and all well and good for those who need it, but organised religion is quite another. Take away all that cannot be proved, and all that's left is a money-making monster preying on people's vulnerabilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

There is NO church, in ANY country, which is blameless. A crime is a crime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM

An interesting media perspective on the sketchy and defensive RC Vatican message that "others do it, so it's OK, be happy":http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1172497.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:20 AM

Then there's the "the-children-must-accept-their-share-of-the-blame-for-putting-temptation-in-my-way" getout:

BS: Suffer The Children (revisited)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:39 AM

I never could be a Catholic but I hate to see the church being dragged through the mud like this.
Will they ever come out of the Dark Ages? The church lasted for 900 years until some Pope decided that priests had to be not married. I love tradition but only if it makes sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM

There is NO church, in ANY country, which is blameless. A crime is a crime.

And there is no family that is blameless, no school, no government agency, no children's organization, no political persuasion. Child abuse happens everywhere, and it's often covered up or not believed. There is no doubt that it's a horrible crime, and it happens far more often than it should. And it certainly should not happen in a church.

So, hey, does anybody have any really good ideas on how to detect and solve the problem of child molestation? Or is it easier just to point the finger of blame instead of showing compassion for the victims and actually doing something positive to end this plague of child molestation?

If you're going to use phrases like stinking church, this cesspit of mutually protective vested interests, would you care to tell us what YOU have ever done to prevent child molestation?

Yes, it's true that some priests molest children, and some bishops cover up crimes because it's the easy way out and because it protects their interests as "upper management." Some parents molest and abuse children. Some coaches do. Some Scout leaders do. Some uncles do. Some law enforcement officers do (a surprisingly large number). Most don't.

So, quit your fucking bigotry and find a solution to the problem, willya?

And the ugly truth is that there is no solution to this problem. NOBODY knows how to deal with it.

-Joe Offer, who has actually investigated child molesters and barred them from volunteer and paid positions-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM

I'm not done yet. I'm sick of this bigotry, this lack of tolerance from people who claim to be progressive, these armchair experts who have no idea what's going on in the broad spectrum of the Catholic Church - but yet they take delight in condemning the whole for the misdeeds of a few.

Yes, in a church with a billion members, there's bound to be corruption mixed with the good. And yes, Catholics are angry about the child abuse and molestation that has taken place, and they've done a lot to attempt to solve the problem - starting in the 1970s in the US. But when outsiders come in with their sweeping condemnations, that's bigotry.

And I'm sick of it.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Connacht Rambler
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:22 AM

"the broad spectrum of the Catholic Church"

Such gobbledegook.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Will Fly
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

Yes, in a church with a billion members, there's bound to be corruption mixed with the good.

Joe, I absolutely agree with you on that point. I think the problem is that when the high-ups in the church - bishops, cardinals, perhaps even the Pope - know about it, they seem, (according to several press reports) to cover it up and not really cut it out root and branch.

There are reports in today's UK Guardian (for example) of 10-year old boys being forced to sign papers vowing them to silence - by the church - with the priest in question then going on to abuse boys for a further 18 years. I can understand that there will be rotten apples in every barrel of society. What is disturbing is an apparent real lack of will on the part of the church high hierarchy to admit it and get completely rid of it as far as they can. So - for example - if a priest should commit child abuse in one parish, he should be struck off the priesthood, rather than, say, simply be moved to another parish.

And, yes, it's not just the Catholic church.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:40 AM

Joe,
When the hierarchy of an organization is part of the cover-up if not the crime, then the criticism is earned. I have had personal experience with two instances of priests abusing children and in both cases the Diocese chose to move the offender to another parish where abuse occurred again. I do not blame my Catholic relatives for this crime. I do blame the church. One of these was promoted to Monsignor despite his "problem" and is now in federal prison.
Child abuse is horrendous but you and I both know that it was a different world for Catholics in the 50s and 60s. If a nun said I did something, my parents punished me. It didn't matter whether I did it or not. Nuns and priests had close to absolute power over children in their care. That was a time when a girl who was raped kept her mouth shut for fear of being shunned. Pregnant unwed girls were sent to "visit" a faraway relative for a few months. They came back to go on with their lives with no one the wiser (except the poor girl who was forced to give up her child). Abortions happened - I personally know good Catholics who arranged them for their children - but it was done very quietly and illegally.
The world has changed. Catholics, especially US Catholics have changed. Frankly, I see a break coming between Rome and the US.I applaud the courage of the nuns in the US who have chosen to support a national health plan despite the church's stand that it represents government funding of abortions. COnvents in the US have been under fire from Rome for quite a while now. It will be interesting to see if the church can reign them in or watch them form an alternative Catholicism.
I am rambling. Sorry.
One question - do you personally condemn anyone's behavior regarding the child abuse scandal within the churches?
Mary, not trolling. I respect your opinions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:44 AM

reign = rein


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM

There are reports in today's UK Guardian (for example) of 10-year old boys being forced to sign papers vowing them to silence - by the church - with the priest in question then going on to abuse boys for a further 18 years.

These relate to the controversy over the presence of now archbishop Seán Brady at the signing of these vows of silence in 1975. Two victims of serial abuser Brendan Smith were asked for a vow of silence, at least one of them was only ten years old at the time. Smith continued his spate of horrendous abuse.

Mind you today's Irish Times reports of a woman sworn to secrecy about abuse in an out of court settlement in 2000, which involved the Bishop of Derry Seamus Hegarty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:28 AM

Joe, no doubt you think your posts above are the essence of sweet reason, but in reality they are a paradigm for what is wrong with the Catholic Church's response to the child-abuse scandals.

You may not mean it, but there is an unwarranted implication behind this question: "...is it easier just to point the finger of blame instead of showing compassion for the victims?"

It is very easy indeed to point the finger of blame at people like Cardinal Brady because their behaviour, and their sheer inability to comprehend what's wrong with it, makes them such easy targets. But pointing the finger does not interfere with my capacity to show compassion for victims. Why would it? But your question becomes even more irrational when one considers the complete lack of compassion shown by Brady when he conspired with children to keep the lid on the torment they had endured.

You ask what I have done to prevent child abuse, and the answer is: nothing. But that doesn't disbar me from criticising those who do encounter it and allow it to continue. It might have been fairer to ask what I would do if I knew that a priest had abused a child. My answer to that I hope I would not behave like Brady did.

You deflect criticism of the church by pointing to abuse elsewhere, and of course abuse does happen elsewhere. Your problem with that analogy is that it is rare, outside the catholic church, for those known to have concealed and accommodated child abuse to be promoted to high office where they are then allowed to remain with impunity until or unless outside pressure becomes irresistable. It is this that makes your church exceptional, and impossible to defend with rational argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Leadfingers
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM

Any organisation when it reaches a 'certain' size will have members who do NOT conform to the same beliefs as the majority = Just look at THIS site - We now have SO many members and guests , that the old
attitudes are lost in a flood of Vituperation and Nastiness !
And Mudcat is only a fraction the size of the Catholic Church !

Sadly it does seem that far too any senior priests hav condoned in covering up abuses within the chuech , in ALL parts of the so called civilised world .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:45 AM

While abuse from individual Priests might have been rife is bad enough, but the cover-ups were part of a much bigger systemic form of moral social and spiritual corruption to do with the whole Church as an organisation top to bottom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:42 AM

It's not just the Catholic Church, as has been mentioned already, but I will tell you this. It sickens me that people who profess to follow the teachings of the Bible, but only adhere to those they think apply to them, they piss me off.
It sometimes looks as if everyone who is put in a position of trust abuses it. Politicians, Ministers of Religion, Scout Masters, Teachers etc etc.
I know it isn't so, but it's still true, that the church seems to attract more than it's fair share of homosexuals, and paedophiles.
I detest religion, for just that reason, it is impossible to avoid hypocrisy, and live a normal life.
So why do they sit there and pontificate at the rest of us?
Let them set their own house in order.
It's time the light of the law was cast on the obscene practices of these people, both the perpetrators, and those who cover up for them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

Yet half the world defends Polanski. Different strokes for different folks?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:36 PM

While I agree with a lot of the criticism folks have posted here, I also am sympathetic to Joe's position. He grew up within this church and is attempting every day to do positive things and change what he can.
Joe asks.."So, hey, does anybody have any really good ideas on how to detect and solve the problem of child molestation? "

Yes... I do, but I have NO notion that there is much chance they would be taken very seriously, as some of the problems are built in to the very structure and routines of what the Catholic Church believes and into their basic practices.

One: Although it is, as Joe notes, possible for ANY institution to have its share of abusive, degenerate members, the **Catholic** church has this basic restriction against married priests..(yes, I know there are minor exceptions, but it IS the usual way.) This exacerbates whatever problems already exist. Our evolutionary heritage and basic biology do not recognize 'chastity' as a natural condition. When men and women are housed and taught in an environment of almost all members of their own gender, a different set of temptations are encountered, and 'some' people have less personal resistance. Add to this the common perception among those already tending toward deviant behavior, that 'the church' is an easy way to indulge without serious restrictions, and you get an ongoing problem!
Two:There are a few situations which create opportunity that are specific...for example, confession. Priests hear things which MUST be hard to sublimate, even for those with GOOD intentions. (There is a joke about a Rabbi who is asked to sit in for a priest who is called away....and the joke ends with a friend asking how it went, and the Rabbi replying, "But I did get a few good leads!")
There are, as I understand it, several situations where personal 'counseling' is part of the plan.. (I am NOT familar with all the details)...and it seems to me that this invites tempation.
Three: The very complex and structured hierarchy itself contributes to the tendency to hide, rather than cleanse, problems. Bad publicity is often treated as a worse problem than the offense, and offenders are 'counseled' and 'moved' and records are hidden.

I can't see most of these basic items being radically changed soon.....but that's what I see as would be necessary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM

People keep saying that the molesting priests should have been controlled so molestation wouldn't happen. Hmmmm. I wonder if any of us would want to live in a society that is so strictly controlled, that crime is impossible.

I didn't like Pope John Paul II. I thought he undid a lot of good that was accomplished by Vatican II. I had a great deal of respect for the bishop my diocese had in the 1980s, a gentle, wise man of integrity. He was replaced by a John Paul II appointee who joined in the work of undoing Vatican II. Luckily, since the Catholic Church largely has local autonomy, I could find many parishes that were largely unaffected by the oppressive reign of John Paul II.

Another thing about John Paul II is that he largely ignored the sexual abuse crisis. I suppose part of the reason for that was that he was in ill health the last ten years of his life. For the most part, he ignored the problem because he didn't believe such a thing could happen in his church, which he saw as perfect.
I'm not totally thrilled by Benedict XVI, but at least he is open to discussion - and he has done something about the child abuse/molestation crisis. But still, his control over my life, and over bishops and priests, is limited - and I am very glad of that.

I don't deny the child abuse and molestation that took place in the Catholic Church. I am appalled by it. Most likely, it is still taking place. I do not believe that any amount of effort can completely stamp out a crime of this nature.

There were Catholic dioceses and institutions and religious orders where child abuse and molestation was allowed to run rampant - in a few places, partly due to the fact that the bishop himself was a child molester. In the diocese next to mine, Santa Rosa, California, the bishop was having a sex affair with a priest. In that diocese, the sexual abuse problem was not handled at all, and there was a horrible mess when it was finally discovered what was going on. Still, most parishes in that diocese were reasonably healthy.

I watch the events very closely in two dioceses, my own Sacramento diocese and the Milwaukee archdiocese where I attended the seminary. I know a good number of the priests in these two dioceses. In my diocese and in Milwaukee, most cases of child molestation were handled years and years ago. A few slipped through the cracks for various reasons. You will find that in most free societies, a good amount of crime goes unpunished. I don't know statistics, but I would guess that in the United States, far more than fifty percent of crimes committed, go unpunished. Some are unpunished due to incompetent law enforcement, but most are unpunished because there was not enough evidence to make a case. That's the way it is in a free society. I accept this - does this mean I favor crime?

Yes, there were a lot of child molestation incidents in my church that went unpunished - but there were a large number that ended up in a priest being removed and prosecuted. In my diocese and in Milwaukee, almost every reported child molester was removed from the priesthood. Some fled the country to avoid prosecution.

But most priests and most bishops did not commit these crimes.

What I ask for at Mudcat is balance, for a realistic view of the nature of organizations and the nature of crime. And for the most part, I don't see that happenening. Still, I think Bill D has a very balanced and realistic perspective. I disagree with him on one item - his suggestion that priests should not do counseling. I think they should be properly trained to do counseling, and they are in many seminaries.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

People keep saying that the molesting priests should have been controlled so molestation wouldn't happen. Hmmmm. I wonder if any of us would want to live in a society that is so strictly controlled, that crime is impossible.

For godsake Joe, seriously. People keep saying priests who have been found abusers needed to be controled. Not moved on to other positions, like in the case of one of the more horrible abusers who was placed as a counsellor in a boy's school, where they could continue on their abuse.

That's hardly too much to ask is it, next people will be asking the men be brought to the attention of the police so justice could have been done. What society is coming to...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM

Most priests that I know, cope with celibacy pretty well - but they don't believe priests should be celibate. They accept the rule of celibacy because it's required, but they don't like it. That celibacy rule is why I left the seminary after 8 years of a 12-year program.

My current pastor, born in Ireland, was away from the priesthood for ten years. During that time, he had what I would call normal relationships with women. My previous pastor (born in the US), was away from the priesthood for ten years and was married and widowed. That's not the norm for priests, but it's interesting that I've had two pastors in the last ten years whose contact with women was a lot more normal than one would expect.

As Bill says, there are minor exceptions that allow for Catholic priests to be married in certain circumstances. It has always been the case that Eastern Rite Catholic priests are usually married, but there aren't many Eastern Rite priests in the western world - most are in the Middle East. The other major exception is more recent - the Catholic Church is ordaining Protestant ministers who want to become Catholic. Unfortunately, these married priest are usually distressingly conservative men who are fleeing their own churches because they object to the ordination of women and homosexuals (and generally they seem to object to the respectful treatment of women and homosexuals altogether). So the fact that the Catholic Church is ordaining Protestant refugees, is not a hopeful thing to me.

I do think most priests cope with celibacy, and I don't think celibacy makes them become child molesters. There are a few priests who like being celibate because it frees them from family obligations and allows them to serve their congregations more freely. But I don't think that's the case for most priests - most priests merely cope with celibacy. And then there are the other ones, the people who like the celibacy rule because it shelters and hides their sexual weirdnesses - not only child molesters, but also others who have some creepy attitudes about sex. There are no statistics on this, but I'd guess that among the priests I know, maybe as many as thirty percent fall into this "creepy" category - probably closer to twenty percent, but that's a significant number. A person would be crazy to talk confidentially about a sexual matter with one of these creeps.

While I don't think the celibacy rule creates these creeps, it certainly provides shelter for them. And what's worse, it excludes the vast majority of normal people from the priesthood. Time and time again, I have seen wonderful people leave the priesthood or leave the seminary because they couldn't accept the celibacy rule. Too often, the Catholic Church has turned away men and women who would have made wonderful priests - because the Catholic Church can only accept male celibates. I think I would have made a very good priest, but I left the seminary because I wanted to be a husband and father.

So I think that Bill is right about the celibacy rule. It makes unusual sexual conduct (celibacy) the norm, and excludes all those engage in what is considered normal. Most priests cope with the celibacy rule and conduct themselves quite well, but celibacy is an unnecessar, burden that plays host to a number of problems - not just child molestation.

-Joe-

Oh, and Peter Laban, of course I agree with you that offenders should be punished and removed from ministry. You won't find anyone who will disagree with that - so why do people keep throwing out that accusation? What I'm saying is that controls are being instituted that are intended to prevent child molestation before it happens the first time - many of these controls are unproved, and are a repressive burden on those who never would and never will molest a child.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: MartinRyan
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM

Joe

This crisis is no longer about sexual molestation - and hasn't been for several years. It's about the enthusiastic, systematic willingness of the Catholic Church to protect itself by concealing the abusers and, for many years, by scaring the molested into silence. Ultimately it is the implications of that willingness - and the apparent inability of the church to acknowledge that it, in itself, was WRONG , which will bring the church to its knees - in several senses.

You are quite right that the situation has been a godsend (teehee..) to habitual church-bashers - but, again, that is not the point. Let them have their moment of glory. The real battle is elsewhere.

Regards


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8572875.stm

Read and be informed. Read the paragraph toward the bottom. THe priest says what I have been saying..in the church I was raised in, and still practice although as a Bad Catholic and not a Good One, he comes right out and says the real sin was being with a woman..not abusing children. That is how people were raised..men especially, probably seminarians especially. It is not just the priests and bishops, it is or maybe was the mothers and not as much the fathers, but the holy mothers.

Once again, here is my song..sung to Boston Burglar

I am a Boston grandmother Catholic as can be
I never thought I 'd see the day my church would fail me
What went on in that sacristy was a great and mortal sin
And now they're coming forward the boys who grew to men

I see him on the altar with his bright and shining face
I should have never let him set a foot within that place
My other sons were different hoodlums one and all
But little Aloyscious I prayed would hear the call

Put the priests in jail and slam the iron door
And tell the other prisoners what they are in there for
Then throw in the bishops and toss away the key
And if I had my druthers they would never be set free

We went to our devotions the priest said let us pray
I guess we all know now it could be spelled another way
God protect the faithful who listened to them preach
And God protect the little boys who fell within their reach


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 02:54 PM

Oh, and Peter Laban, of course I agree with you that offenders should be punished and removed from ministry. You won't find anyone who will disagree with that - so why do people keep throwing out that accusation? What I'm saying is that controls are being instituted that are intended to prevent child molestation before it happens the first time - many of these controls are unproved, and are a repressive burden on those who never would and never will molest a child.

It sounded to me you were tired of all comment and felt the church is attracting undue attention by 'church bashers'. Maybe my reaction was somewhat heated.

The matter is, as Martin pointed out, well beyond the actual abuse. There is a culture of hushing up and moving on, we're long past the point where we're talking about a few isolated cases, there's a pattern that needs to be broken. There's a perception that the hierarchy is only willing to move as a damage limitation exercise, simply because the public outrage has become too strong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:20 PM

I think those Germans are going to get riled up..and they do not have a monoreligion in Germany...they are not going to be afraid to really speak out, as they should.

How could the priests have figured they would not have gotten caught? Did they know in advance that it would overlooked? Was there that much of a culture that made it OK?

I think the final nail in the coffin is to get 10 or 11 year olds to sign a document agreeing to silence...

And the Church has expended enormous effort in keeping young men and women apart from each other because of "occasions of sin" etc...huge amounts of energy into keeping young people "pure." It just does not add up, unless you see it as the true sin in their minds was with a woman (and even in marriage unless you were actively desiring a child each and every time, no matter the economic or physical circumstances, sex was still a sin). So how could this culture carry on? ANd it was not isolated instances..they were prepared to deal with this happening..as a byproduct of celibacy perhaps? As preferable to relations with adult women or other grown men? mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM

Just to clarify... I was not really suggesting that priests NOT do counseling. I agree with Joe that special training should be added to their education, and I also wonder if certain 'types' of counseling should have a different format of some sort. (perhaps supervised...or group.......or even recorded, though that opens a new can of worms.)

and Joe... 20-30% 'creeps'?? Wow...a significant number indeed. I wonder then, if those with 'creepy' attitudes are drawn to the priesthood, or whether celibacy tends some TOWARD creepiness? (then, I wonder what the % might be in Scout leaders or gym teachers)
   In any case, it seems as if the celibacy situation is, as I suspected, a real issue and a contributing factor to problems.

(I try not to wave my arms and expound on "what oughta be done!", as it would make very little difference in discussing the day-to-day practical situation. There are many, many sad situations all over the world with religious groups & beliefs entangled in their ongoing problems, and all *I* can do is have conversations like this in the hope that it will stir some thought.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 04:42 PM

Here's somebody who can reasonably say "I told you so".

Hans Küng, 2010

Hans Küng, 2005

A friend of mine is a Catholic who recently had her priest moved (for no sinister reason, he was doing a terrific job) and replaced. The new guy took it upon himself to remove all books by Küng from the parish library. I wonder how far up that initiative came from?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM

Hi, Jack-
I sometimes think Hans Küng goes a bit too far, but I agree with most of what he has to say. He and Benedict XVI were colleagues as Theology professors at Tübingen, and Benedict seems to have a good deal of affection for him - despite their obvious disagreement. It's an interesting thing about Benedict - he can disagree profoundly with people and still respect them. A 2008 article in Time Magazine says this trait of Benedict's may have caused the death of Catholic liberalism, but I don't think that's the case. We Catholic liberals are alive and kicking.

Another voice to be reckoned with is Richard McBrien, former chair of the Theology department at Notre Dame. His personal Website is http://www.richardmcbrien.com/, and his columns can be found at the National Catholic Reporter, http://ncronline.org/user/16. You will find columns from Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister and a number of others at the same URL - and you will find all of them interesting. McBrien's column used to be carried in a number of Catholic diocesan newspapers. Now that the appointees of John Paul II lead most dioceses, very few diocesan newspapers carry McBrien's column - but McBrien is still out there speaking the truth to those who will listen.

Father Andrew Greeley has been sidelined by an automobile accident, but his Website contains a lot of challenging ideas. I'm not sure how he's able to survive, but Father Ron Rolheiser is still published in a number of diocesan newspapers. And if you want to take a look at a really refreshing Catholic voice (who is really disturbing to bishops), look at Edwina Gateley.

All of these people are far more critical (and far more credible) than most of the Mudcat posts I see on the Catholic Church - but their ideas are constructive, and the Mudcat posts are (for the most part) destructive.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 05:42 PM

I just heard on the radio that The Church (perhaps the Pope hiumself, or a spokesperson, etc.) is expilicity and adamantly denying that the celibacy rule has anything to do with the abuse scandal(s).

I beg to differ.

For centuries, the celibate religious life has attracted individuals who, for one reason or another, are resolved not to engage in any sexual activity at all. Certainly, significant numbers of these people would be those who recognize that they have no interest in the limited range of sexual options permitted to them by their church and their larger society.

If I experience "temptations" to act out sexually in a manner that is strictly forbidden under any circumstances, I might very well feel that my only option is to take the vow of celibacy and join up with others like myself.

Not everyone will be able spend an entire lifetime maintaining the resolve they first felt as teenagers. And, even those who do NOT "stray" are likely to experience a degree of fellow-feeling with those among their brotherhood who do cross the line. So, the cover-up phenomemon should not be surprising.

For ages, societal forces inside and outside all churches and authoritarian structures were pretty effective at stifling human sexuality. Nowadays, for whatever reason, society as a whole is no longer unanmimous in this regard. The rule of celibacy has become a recipe for disaster.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

I am not a Christian of any kind, so the news that priests, like other human beings, are often corrupted by their power is not *particularly* surprising or dismaying to me. However, I have repeatedly seen two statements about the Church's handling of these cases that, if true, seem to me outrageous:

1. Some priests who got caught were quietly transferred to other places where they still had access to young people. Chastity aside, Christians are supposed to believe that prudence is a cardinal virtue.

2. When priests were accused, the Church sometimes has made monetary settlements out of court. Such an attempt to avoid scandal can only multiply it, by creating an incentive to make false accusations, which in such cases are hard to tell from true ones.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:42 AM

Well, Joe-
1. I have to say I don't understand many incidents where molester priests were quietly transferred. I know that sometimes the priests were given psychiatric treatment and pronounced "cured" and fit for duty.
In other cases, the charges were not believed even though a settlement was paid. This was dramatically portrayed in the Meryl Streep movie doubt. At the end of the movie, you still don't know whom to believe - the nasty, rigid nun that Streep portrays, or the charming, easygoing priest that she has accused of child molestation. Even the child's family don't know what to do or what to believe. I think it's an excellent portrayal of the complexity of the problem.

2. Joe, aren't you aware that in the United States, the vast majority of damage claims are settled out of court? Out-of-court settlements save both sides the delay, uncertainty, and cost of a court trial. There's often some sort of nondisclosure agreement connected to such settlements, and usually some sort of statement that the party paying damages does not admit any guilt. The damaged party is free to accept or reject the settlement, but then has to take the risk that he might lose in a trial. Yes, there is a risk of false accusations - that's one reason for the nondisclosure agreements - but the parties paying damages must feel that the savings of out-of-court settlements outweigh the risk of false claims. Also, remember that a court trial can be traumatic for a victim. It might be compassionate to avoid a trial. In my diocese, the standard settlement amounts were $25,000 and $40,000 - and yes, a nondisclosure agreement was required. I don't believe that parents were requred to agree not to file criminal charges - I'm sure that would have come out in the news if such had been the case. In most cases in my diocese, criminal complaints were filed.

I don't know about statistics on criminal cases (in general, not molestation), but a large number are settled out of court by "plea bargains." In both civil and criminal matters, both sides have to decide whether it's worth their while to go to trial. Most often, it's not.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM

No need to wonder why the mass of Mudcat posts on this subject are destructive Joe, they see this issue in the same light as they see every other issue.....as political.
Catholic Church= Conservative= bad!
Its the old knee jerk that we see on other threads, where no one can see the wood for the political trees.

The issues are simple, the Church adheres to a rule which makes the abuse of children many times more likely....the celibacy rule....get rid of that, and abuse will dwindle to the rates we see in the real world....still much too high of course!

The Church is badly at fault for the cover up and no amount shedding of crocodile tears or sickening apologies is going to redeem it, but a change in the rule which has been the main cause of the abuse, should make it clear that the Church accepts responsibility.....for the cover up and for the disasterous effects of the rule of celibacy.

This would be something positive and achievable..... without tearing the church apart, which is the real agenda of many on this forum.

You once described my thinking as "warped" I let the remark go on that occasion, but perhaps you should review my position this and other associated subjects like "liberalism" and homosexuality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 04:29 AM

Cardinal Brady has admitted his role in what most reasonably-minded people, perhaps including Joe O, would regard as a criminal cover-up, as a result of which Brendan Smyth was free to continue his depravities without constraint. (See the link I provided at the top of the thread,) Why on earth has Ratzinger not sacked him? That would have sent out a slightly stronger signal than all the anguished handwringing in which the hierarchy now indulges (although the anguished handwringing is itself a step advance on the supreme arrogance in which the hierarchy previously indulged).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Emma B
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

A short but interesting dicussion on BBC Radio 4 this morning

"Is there any linked between celibacy and sex abuse in the Catholic Church?"

between Paul Crawford, Professor of Mental Health Humanities at the University of Nottingham, Mary Raftery, Irish writer and film maker and Fr Dennis Tindall, priest and former Child Protection/Safeguarding Coordinator for the Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle.

link


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:04 AM

Not being a christian, I probably have no right to post, here.

However : Is it known what, if any, abuse of children or other vulnerable persons takes place in the Eastern Churches - Orthodox or Independent - where (with the exception of bishops and abbots) the clergy is expected

to be married (although the celibate priest and deacon is not unknown to these Churches) ?

A comparison, if possible, might be useful if the Western Churches which require clerical celibacy wished to re-examine the question of celibacy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 08:20 AM

I dated a man who at the end of WWII lived in Germany. American soldiers gave him and his friends candy in exchange for sex. He is still torn apart about it today blaming himself. He was about 7 and there was no other candy to be had. The Americans were friendly to all the kids. Some took advantage.
Power and opportunity made it possible.
I believe the first line of defence today is for parents to openly discuss the issue with their young children and make it absolutely clear that if anyone approaches them inappropriately, they are to leave and come home immediately and TELL MOM and DAD. Children need to know that their parents will believe, support and protect them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 09:24 AM

And today the Boy Scouts chimed in:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

In many of these cases, parents took the priest or nun's word over that of their children, and all telling Mum and Dad achieved was to get the kid a thrashing.

How many parents would send their kid off for religious instruction with the warning "oh, by the way, the outfit we're sending you to is hooching with perverts"?

These abuser priests know they can count on parents as dumb accomplices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

And I'm sick of it.

-Joe Offer-

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Full text of Benedicts Pastoral Letter to the Irish Catholics

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

quote taken from this article

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

All the abuse was perpetrated by individuals

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Very well said Peter!


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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Joe, I support you in your struggle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yadda yadda anti-Catholic yadda.

We have met the enemy.

And he is "us."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paws


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

"Let them decide for themselves at a responsible age"

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Paws


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

I agree that celibacy is a red herring.

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

No they didn't!

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

Not true.

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

[sigh]

Whatever, Smokey.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

What's the phrase?

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

G'nite.

Oh, and 100!!!!!!

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

We must consider what is realistically achievable here.

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

Is it an abominable cime? Yes.

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Anyone here know how this is playing out in Poland?

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

source : De Volkskrant, today


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

A papal resignation could be a real possibility here.

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Irish Times

The Guardian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


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

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

Observation not opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Very holy, I'm sure.

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

What next, I wonder?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

From the Guardian article linked in a previous post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


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

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

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

The relevant bits have been outlined in the original document.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

"Suffer the little children"

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Huh? What planet are you posting from?

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

From the link at the top of the thread:

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

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

The (London) Times, 27 March 2010

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

More to come


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

That would be a good start, mg.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:26 PM

Would you indulge that feeling if you truly loved your child? I believe not.

I think maybe there are some people who don't appreciate or perhaps even distinguish the difference between sexual feelings and love.

Unfortunately, I've no idea exactly what point I'm actually trying to make with that statement.. I'll 'ave me tea and think about it..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM

Uncomfortable fact for apologists on this thread.

In a study on sexual abuse by priests in the US(Boston I think), very few of the victims were young children, the vast majority being teenage males and young male adults, all of whom had passed puberty.....Go figure.

I am sure that Paedophilia in the sense of pre- pubescent children as victims is very much rarer than we are led to believe.

Much of what we are seeing in the Catholic Church is simply opportunistic homosexual behaviour......Change the Celibacy Rule, encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood, and the problem will solve itself.

BTW.....If I had ever developed any of the ideas mentioned above about children, my own or anyone elses.....I would certainly taken measures to safeguard them....like blowing my brains out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:42 PM

Hot air, Ake. You have no way of knowing how you would have behaved if you'd had the misfortune to be born with a paedophilic libido. If you think you're Mr Perfect, that could be because you've never been tested.

Your suggestion that the existence of homosexual relations means child abuse is "rarer than we are led to believe" is absurd. Are you claiming that victims who claim to be nine or ten years old are in reality beyond the age of consent?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:33 PM

In a study on sexual abuse by priests in the US(Boston I think), very few of the victims were young children, the vast majority being teenage males and young male adults, all of whom had passed puberty.....Go figure.

I reckon that's down to nothing more than opportunity. I also think that there is a lot more bisexuality about than most would care to admit, though not necessarily conscious or active.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:02 PM

A couple of grim reminders of what we are talking about for anyone who missed them the first time around:

Sisters of 'Mercy'

Michael O Brien (victim)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM

I see akenaton is still wearing his homophobe hat.
It is not a homosexual problem - it is an opportunistic abuse of power by clerics against children put in their care. Juggling with figures is a way of placing the blame elsewhere, nothing more.
So far we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. The government here in Ireland has refused to hold an enquiry into the events surrounding the Magdelene Laundries - all the victims were women. We have no idea of the extent of the abuses and against whom they were perpetrated beyond the time limits set by the enquiries held so far. We have no idea of the abuses carried out in diocese not yet examined.
"Change the Celibacy Rule, encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood, and the problem will solve itself" is nothing more than disingenuous bigotry.
Are we to assume that the problems of the church heirarchy who readily colluded in the crimes and allowed the criminals to escape justice and continue their abuses will also 'solve themselves'? And those clerics who knew what was happening and did nothing; where do they fit into akenaton's grand 'homo' plan - homosexuals themselves, closet homosexuals - what?
Smokescreens like this are a sure-fire guarantee that these criminals will escape justice (bar the few token resignations we have seen so far), things will remain the same and the cycle of abuse will start all over again.
These were opportunistic acts of power - they did it because they could; and they are expressions of contempt rather than of sexual preference.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:26 AM

Much of what we are seeing in the Catholic Church is simply opportunistic homosexual behaviour......Change the Celibacy Rule, encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood, and the problem will solve itself.

Many of the victims of abuse were girls, do not paint this as an issue of homosexuality. It isn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:44 AM

"encourage heterosexuals to take up the priesthood,"
I don't know too much about the mechanics of church recruitment - are priests recruited on a 'sex preference' basis?
Should the church advertise specifically for 'hetrosexuals', or maybe substitute 'homosexuals' into the old wording of 'No Irish - non-whites, Asians, foreigners etc... need apply'.
As much as akenaton would wish it otherwise, homosexuality is legal; what are the civil liberty issues of making them the targets of bigotry and exclusion such as his?
Maybe we should take the giant step forward of making homosexuality illegal again.
Or maybe even the Nigerian (final) solution???
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:18 PM

Never heard such a pile of shite in my life!.....Of course it had to do with sexual preference......Teenage boys and adult males, a homosexual's wet dream.

You people should foget you're political dogma if you really want to protect our children.

I said heterosexuals should be ENCOURAGED into the priesthood, by abandoning the Celibacy Rule, to allow priests to lead a normal sexually fulfilled life in a family setting.
That would strengthen, not weaken the Church.
That does not mean that homosexuals should be banned from the priesthood, but at the moment all heteros who want a normal sex life, are virtually banned.
I dont want the criminals to evade prosecution, quite the reverse, blaming the Church for the abuse does excuse the crime. The church was guilty of cover up, in an attempt to protect itself from litigation brought on by MEN abusing mainly TEENAGE BOYS....These tactics were disgraceful and inexcusable but the fact remains, that the abuse was personal to every man who committed it.

You want to stop most of it? Change the rule that causes most of it.
"Celibacy" is simply a convenient place for these people to hide.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:34 PM

Jim Carroll...Did you read the German priest's description of his abuse of a teenager in his care....It was reported in the Times

It was disgusting, but as far as I could see, absolutely nothing to do with power and everything to do with sexual gratification.

The priest had convinced him self that he was "comforting" a young friend.....no coersion, no threats, just unadulterated lust.

You are the apologist on this thread


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:44 PM

Never heard such a pile of shite in my life!.....Of course it had to do with sexual preference......Teenage boys and adult males, a homosexual's wet dream.


In a lot of cases it also had to do with availability.
Girls were abused when abusive priests had easy access to them. I am sure some of the abusers were homosexual but it's nonsense attributing all abuse to homosexuals. Predators like Brendan Smyth went for whoever they had access to, irrespective of gender.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM

I never buy these it's all about power and never about sex arguments. It just does not fly with me.At some point it is about sex, sex that we don't understand, urges that we do not have but it is a sexual condition.

I think the church does not want heterosexuals, it wants nonsexuals and that is what the whole religion has tried to do certainly in my lifetime, neuter us all, through segregation of the sexes, through shame, through linking sex with unending poverty-stricken reproduction, through all sorts of other methods. It works sometimes, and sometimes it fails horribly.   

Read Andrew Sullivan..he is very rational I think. Sinead O'Connor, who has been ordained a priest by a legally qualified bishop, and who am I to say if it took or didn't take, has also been writing some good pieces. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:58 PM

Of course I dont attribute all abuse to homosexuals, nor do I think all abuse is sexual, but the vast majority of sexual abuse cases involve adult men and teenage boys...fact.

Please don't put words in my mouth Peter.

I do not believe that in general terms sexual abuse is carried out irrespective of gender.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:02 PM

Please don't put words in my mouth Peter.

How else do you want me to read your suggestion the situation would get better if only the church enrolled more heterosexuals into the priesthood?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:24 PM

I never suggested that all abuse was committed by homosexuals, but you attributed the following to me.

"but it's nonsense attributing all abuse to homosexuals."

I do think the majority of sexual abuse is committed by homosexuals, given the published figures available

It seem obvious to me, that the Celibacy Rule will attract people with sexual "issues" into the priesthood.

Do you think celibacy a normal lifestyle?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:32 PM

I missed Mary's post, but I rather agree with what she says!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM

This is something I don't get. They can't seem to get their act together when priests are abusing little/older/boys/girls.

Watch the power of the church assemble though when some old Irish Catholic, who has supported the church his entire life, wants someone to sing Danny Boy at his funeral. Then the whole church operation springs into action to prevent such an awful, unthinkable act. It can and does act with great agility and power.

That is why we are all halfway crazy. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

I think Mary, that the Church's unwillingness to act against those criminals, had more to do with attempting to prevent lawsuits than in assisting them to evade prosecution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:01 PM

I have read all the posts on this subject with interest.
To me the policy solution adopted by the Scout movement and the Boys Brigade and many youth sports assositions that adults should never be allowed to be on their own with minors both for the minors and the adults mutual protection should be universally adopted and advertised. There would be problem in some cases with confession but im sure that could be suitably covered with a trusted lay person be in close attendance.
The past is gone and should be learned from
Kenny B


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:29 PM

Our pastor has a pretty good solution to the problem of kids being alone with a priest in confession - he sits with the child in a pew in the corner of the church. He and the child are both out in the open where everyone can see, but they're out of earshot. That seems to work quite, well, and still fulfills the requirement that a person should be able to go to the sacrament in private. The kids seem to like it that way - it's much less daunting than going into a little room. Fr. Mike feels more at ease, too, since it relieves him from any suspicion.

I was a Cub Scout leader through the 1980s, when there was a lot of press coverage of sex abuse problems in the Scouts. Every Scout leader felt like a suspect at the time - it wasn't a good feeling. The Boy Scouts of America adopted a nationwide "two-deep leadership" policy, that required all activities to be supervised by two adults. That took a big burden of suspicion off us leaders. It also make it much easier for us to conduct activities - one leader could lead the program, while the other one handled emergencies and discipline issues and other needs. It was a simple, reasonable, and effective solution to a serious problem - and it had unexpected side benefits that made programs run much more smoothly.

The Scouts also did better screening of volunteers, and got legislation passed that allowed and required fingerprinting and criminal records checks on people who worked with children.

That's what's needed in this situation - reasonable solutions that are effective and easy to carry out, solutions that show respect for the vast majority of clergy and youth leaders who are completely innocent of any sort of misconduct with children. Restrictions that treat every clergyman and every volunteer as suspect, are not a good idea. There has to be a better solution.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:41 PM

Joe, in plain language and in a spirit of sincerity, why does the Catholic Church see the Celibacy Rule as so very important.

It does not seem to make sense to me, being unfair the people who who see being a priest as vocational, yet who who wish to live a "natural" life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

Watch the power of the church assemble though when some old Irish Catholic, who has supported the church his entire life, wants someone to sing Danny Boy at his funeral. Then the whole church operation springs into action to prevent such an awful, unthinkable act. It can and does act with great agility and power.

Maybe just an aside to this thread but I wouldn't think 'the whole church operation springs into action' when funeral arrangements are concerned. That is pretty much something that's in the hands of the Parish Priests. I only ever get inside a church for the funerals of friends, musicians mostly and have never seen restrictions placed on the goings on (although I am aware that in some places the local priest can put his foot down). In fact I have heard music played, have played music inside churches, I have witnessed how the PP put on his civvies and 'let the family have the hall' for Tom Munnelly's funeral and presided over a secular service that included a rake of singers.

I have been at a concelabrated mass for a local singer/dancer which was presided over by an old friend and neighbour of the deceased (a former missionary priest) who spent his time on the altar reminiscing and telling stories how they in their young days travelled the country chasing music and telling stories 'like we were in a pub' (as someone remarked after). That service ended with the priest remarking it wouldn't be in the spirit of the deceased to let this turn into a funeral, after which he called for a half set to be danced in front of the altar (by some of the finest dancers in Clare with Jackie Daly playing a blast of reels up in the choir gallery).

I don't know how anyone else's experiences are, my eyes were certainly opened   by these goings on to the fact the church can on occasion muster a liberal streak when the situation arises.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM

If we cant trust ourselves to be alone with children, then we're truly fucked!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:56 PM

We haven't eaten touched on the sadistic stuff..Christian Brothers etc.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7082705.ece
An article about a priest, now a Bavarian bishop, who not only beat girls in an orphanage, but yanked them out of bed. Now, what is a male doing in a girls' dormitory.

I keep saying, unless we see this problem, or this mass of related problems, as endemic, there can be no healing.

And there can be no doubt that dealing with ornery teenagers can try th patience of a saint. maybe some people were called to priesthood or religious life but not called to work with teenagers or children.

We have to cut through the shame factor too. I am for naming names if guilt is absolutely sure. It would of course shame all of us, ad there are things I have done that I wouldn't want put on a billboard, but I think we have to do it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:54 PM

Ake, you might find these interesting:

A Brief History of Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church

The History of Catholic Celibacy

As they say, if you want to know what's going on, just follow the money..

The celibacy rule itself has nowadays become a part of a generally unhealthy attitude to sex within the Catholic Church which is all to do with planting guilt in the minds of their followers as a means of control and manipulation. Only the Church can alleviate that guilt, of course, making people falsely psychologically dependant. Its success is varied but its effect is horribly obvious, certainly to any observant outsider.

I agree completely that the celibacy rule needs to be scrapped, but it's the rule that does the damage, not the celibacy. None of the sexual abusers are celibate, after all, or appear to have ever intended to be. I seriously doubt whether any cleric is literally celibate, though I admit finding out would be somewhat impossible, which is only one of many reasons why it's such a daft rule, except for the financial angle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:00 PM

Just as an add on to what Peter has been saying....I was brought up as a Scottish Presbyterian(now an atheist), our ministers were all hard uncompromising men whos dry theology would bore folks to tears.

As a young stonemason I was given the job of building the new alter in the big Catholic Chapel in the nearest town.

I cut all the stone by hand and transported it to town where my labourer and I built the stones in situe. I was amazed by the conduct of the two local priests who spent most of the time telling jokes and having a few drinks with us.

In fact, when the alter table was finished, we all sat on the marble top and polished off almost a bottle of whisky and a carrier bag of canned beer. :0).

Our joyless ministers would have been shaking their grey heads in disapproval.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM

Thank you Smokey, very informative although it does not answer the question as to why the Celibacy rule is still so important to the Catholic Church....in fact your links bring the ruling even further into question, as it is evidently not part of original Catholic theology.


I also found an interesting little snippet which appears to bear out what I was saying about celibacy being a convenient hiding place for homosexuals and other sexually unorthodox types.

"By far the group that has the highest rate of HIV infection of any occupation is Catholic priests from gay relationships. It is logical that many gay men would choose the priesthood in an attempt to deny their natural sexual orientation."

I agree with you that celibacy per se is not the problem, but the "Rule" provides a place in Catholicism for those who are neither celibate nor sincerely religious


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:30 PM

Akenaton asks if I can explain the reason for the requirement for celibacy for Latin Rite priests in the Catholic Church. Well....keep in mind that I have argued against the celibacy rule and male-only priesthood all of my life; and that I might well be a priest today if it weren't for the celibacy rule. So - I might not be the best person to give an explanation of the celibacy rule. I wouldn't try to explain the male-only priesthood, because I can see no logic in the explanations I've heard.

The practice of celibacy began among monks, who originally lived as hermits. You can see vestiges of this in the movie Into Great Silence. The French Carthusian monks in this documentary live and work in silence in separate buildings, gathering only for prayer and Mass and certain other community activities. Non-contemplative priests and brothers and nuns who belong to religious orders, live and eat and work and pray together in a community house. They consider the community to be their family, and marriage and children and family finances would not work in a religious community structure. Celibacy can work very well in a religious community, and it is an inherent and necessary part of the life of a religious order. There are a few nontraditional religious orders (like the Taize community) that have accommodated married couples and families. Members of religious orders feel they are called to celibate life within a community. It gets really messy if they aren't celibate, and we have seen in the press how disastrous the results can be.

Secular (diocesan) priests take a promise of celibacy when they are ordained, but it is not an inherent part of their priesthood. They do not have the benefit of a religious community to sustain them and to provide family relationships, so the life of a diocesan priest can be very lonely. The rationale is that celibacy frees a priest to serve his community, 24/7/365. There's truth in that - American diocesan priests celebrate Mass every morning, make hospital visits and do office work during the day (with time out for golf), attend meetings in the evenings, and sometimes get up in the middle of the night to administer the sacraments to people who are dying. They work from dawn to dusk on Saturdays and Sundays, and they're quite busy the rest of the week. That kind of life can be very hard on a family - clergymen from other denominations somehow make it work, but that may be because they have a wider base to recruit from because they don't restrict ordination to celibate males only. Non-Catholic clergy typically serve much smaller congregations, so their workload may be such that they can actually have a family life.

I do know some priests who function very well under the rule of celibacy. Typically, they have a good network of friends and a healthy social life - without sex. Oftentimes, they will have one or more close female friends. This can sometimes become a sexual relationship, but then it gets messy. As long as the requirement for celibacy remains in force, a man can't function as a priest and not be celibate. And to be very clear about this, the rule of celibarcy does not allow any sexual contact or fondling - no sex with women, no sex with men, and no sex with children. I would say that priests generally have a fair amount of sympathy for their brother priests who have trouble with the celibacy requirement, and they're likely to tolerate priests having sexual relationships with men or women - at least for a time.

I do not personally know any priests who have any tolerance at all for priests who have sex with children or teenagers. I have worked in the Catholic Church all of my life and I have known hundreds of priests and nuns, many of them very well. I have never, ever heard any talk from priests or nuns that expressed any tolerance for anyone who commits crimes against children.

Most diocesan priests I know follow the rule of celibacy, but they consider celibacy to be an unnecessary burden. They do their best to follow the rule, but they find it very hard. The younger generation of priests are largely very conservative, and they talk about celibacy as being a "gift" - but priests my age largely think they're full of shit.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:31 PM

I think you can be sincerely religious and still have serious sexual problems to the point of abuse. They are not really incompatible. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM

Thank you for your honest answer Joe, there are still things which I do not understand, like how can the church see celibate priests as "better servants to their community" than the ones who share the lifestyle of those they serve?

In addition, why are priests who believe in celibacy as a virtue, termed "conservative".....surely such unreasonable beliefs should be classed as "radical"

This may be a good time for people like yourself to start pressing for a change in the rule, if you wish to see a stronger and more importantly a better Church.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM

Boy, that opens a can of worms, Mary. I've seen many "religious" people who are heavily burdened with psychosexual problems. But for them, their religion seems to be part of their psychosis.

If there is no joy in a person's religious faith, that's not what I would consider faith. Maybe it fits the general definition of faith, but it's certainly not what I've experienced as faith. I see religious people who are judgmental and selfish and full of anger and prejudice and weird sexual thinking - to me, these things are the very antithesis of true religious faith. For me, faith is about joy and generosity and love of fellow man.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:17 PM

They work from dawn to dusk on Saturdays and Sundays, and they're quite busy the rest of the week.

They are also required to spend several hours of each day in private prayer. This called 'saying the office'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:21 PM

Ake, the Catholic Church sees celibate priests as better servants to their community because they can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a salary that wouldn't support a family.

I've fought against the celibacy rule all my life, so your suggestion that "this would be a good time to start" is moot.

I said that our young neoconservative priests see celibacy as a gift, while priests my age tend to see it as a burden. Our neoconservatives are trying to hearken back to an ideal Catholic Church of the 1950s that never really existed. They tend to have a very unrealistic view of life and sexuality. I did battle with some of these Young Conservatives in a class last summer, and got myself reported to the bishop's office. No action was taken against me, although I was subjected to a flood of platitudes about how I should learn to tolerate (and respect) these young priests who are the "future of the Church." Bullshit.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:32 PM

Joe, if that is the real reason for the retention of the Celibacy Rule, then it is an absolute disgrace and does reflect badly on the Catholic hierarchy.

However I feel there must be more to it than that.

The reason that a suggested people like you pressing for change now, is that the current furore over child abuse in the Church must give your stance additional leverage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:45 PM

Well, Ake, most priests I know, live lives that would be very hard on family life. Many of them DO live lives that are totally dedicated to serving their congregations. My pastor had to borrow forty bucks from me on Sunday because he had given all his own money to the poor.
He once said from the pulpit, "If I don't have money to give to the poor, I get it from Joe Offer. I don't know if I've ever remembered to repay him." No, he hasn't repaid me, but I'm proud to help him in his charity - but if he had a wife and children, I'm not so sure that they'd be so happy.
Some priests accumulate a lot of money and live very comfortable lives, but many take their dedication very seriously. It's a hard way to live, but many of them do it very honorably.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:13 PM

I understand your point Joe and I'm sure there are many good and dedicated people in the priesthood, but the C. R. appears to be doing more harm than good to the Catholic Church, by affording homosexuals and paedophiles a safe haven to commit crimes against young people.

Like Mary, I dont believe this abuse is "part of Catholicism" or a "power thing", it is something which can be fixed.....with the will.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:34 AM

"I do not believe that in general terms sexual abuse is carried out irrespective of gender. "
Based on what evidence?
"by affording homosexuals and paedophiles a safe haven to commit crimes"
One is legal, the other is a crime except in your distorted mind.
Homeosexuals are in no need of a 'safe haven' - they are not criminals any more - we have moved out of the Stone Age (or some of us have).
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS/Crowsister
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:22 PM

Just a reminder to all concerned with the issue of church cover-ups of peadophile priests - not to get sidetracked into a "are all gays homo's and does celibacy turn you homo" discussion.

Fascinating as that might be - for another thread for people interested in men putting their winkies in other men's bum holes...

Otherwise if someone simply want us to agree with their formula here it is: yes I believe you it's amazing now I finally understand I've been so blinkered until now but obviously all homosexuals are latent peadophiles and anyone celibate will naturally turn gay! So everyone that's a priest will become a pederast and want to bugger altar boys. Phew, glad we got that one sorted. No need for any more threads on the matter!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS/Crowsister
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:25 PM

A second request not to allow yet another thread be turned into a gay-bash fest. Cheers...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:40 PM

We are discussing on this thread, clerical child abuse.

Most of the abuse is perpetrated by men on pubescent teenagers.

That is not paedophilia as most of us would understand it, but homosexual assault.

Please try to get your facts straight.

If those posts are an example of your sense of humour, then bring back Benny Hill!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:45 PM

I take it, YOUR agenda is to kick fuck out of the Catholic Church.
If that is the case, you run the risk of offending many more people than I do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 11:10 PM

"He who kick church, break toe."

(Confucious 551-479 BCE)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 02:39 AM

Ake, whether the victim is eight or fourteen years of age, it's still a horrendous crime. It just doesn't make sense to make a distinction between pubescent and pre-pubescent victims.
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:44 AM

"Most of the abuse is perpetrated by men on pubescent teenagers."
On what do you base this homophobic statement? - pre-1970 abuse, Magdelene Laundries, diocese not yet investigated?
Shame on those who would use the abuse of children to display their particular brand of bigotry
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM

Ake, A bit of reading


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:27 PM

"Many pedophiles often prefer children close to puberty who are sexually inexperienced, but curious about sex"

Source. Profile of a Pedophile, By Charles Montaldo,
http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm


Wow, heavy stuff from Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League?
http://theweek.com/article/index/201440/Catholic_leader_Gays_not_pedophiles_are_the_problem


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 01:23 PM

Please don't think that the "Catholic League" speaks for the Catholic Church, although they sometimes claim to. They represent only the extreme right wing of the American Catholic Church.
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 02:14 PM

It is unreasonable to be confused, as to who speaks for the RC church. The Pope and his organization seems to say it is somewhere in Rome.   Many individual RC members often claim it is not the Pope nor the Vatican. Some claim it is the local the Bishops and local structure. Then there are others say it is the individual RCs or the parishes. Then there are those who point to the results of large meetings, where issues are discussed, and sometimes resolved...on paper, that is.

And, then there are the outspoken folks...some right wingers, some left wingers,the defenders (right or wrong) , the apologists, single issues folks, alternative folks, back to the bible folks, back to the old church folks, those who select the convenient message, community active folks, those who don't want to focus on any issues (only faith), those looking out, those looking in, those pissed off by the pristly scandal, those directly impacted by the priestly scandal, the mystics, charismatic folks, "women priests in waiting", " married men in waiting, Christmas, Easter Ash Wednesday baptism, marriage and funeral attenders, those who go to church 'cause it kinda looks good (because of the neighbours or the kids) , or those who do so "cause their parents did so, and "it seems like the right thing to do".

And, then there are those who actually pay attention to God's and Christ's messages messages....that often seem to get lost in the worldly affairs of Christianity and the RC church.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 02:47 PM

Vatican priest compares reaction to abuse scandal to Holocaust

Some nerve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:00 PM

Peter...What are you trying to say? Only an idiot would maintain that no girls are subjected to sexual abuse by priests, but the fact remains that the vast majority of this abuse was perpetrated against teenage boys and young males by adult men.
In my book that is not paedophilia, but homosexual assault.

Joe...I'm surprised by your remarks. As a father of four, of course I am horrified by paedophilia and the sexual abuse of young people, my remaqrks on pubescence were to illustrate the difference between paedophilia and homosexual abuse, not to excuse either.

My stance in these threads is to protect children and get to the truth of why this disgusting behaviour is so rife, not nfurther a political ideology, like that which is regurgitated daily by so many here.

These people care not a fig for children's welfare, or homosexual's welfare(on another thread)...Only for their dogmatic determination to impose their view of the world on everyone.

This thread is not about the abuse of children to them, it is simply a chance to attack what they see as a "conservative" church and a "conservative" Pope.

In today's Times, Mr Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist and author of "The God Delusion", is quoted as saying.......
"There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something very much worse."

It is my belief that the thing which Mr Dawkins fears is "Orwellian liberalism" as practiced by 90% of the Mudcat membership.
An endless search for a mythical equality, regardless of the effect this may have on the future of society, dismissal of any sense of personal or community responsibility, and a dogmatic determination to hold the party line at all costs, never resorting to reason or objective thought......this creed will ensure that what should be a free, proud and inspirational species, will evolve in their image, as weak willed, dumb automatons.

Ed....Thanks for having the honesty and the bravery to post the links.
I think you may be one of the handful of real liberals here.

Joe..(again)....Why did you feel obliged to traduce Ed's links by attributing them to "right wing thought" as if it were some sort of disease.....this is exactly the problem in discussing all these issues, the truth comes from all wings, as does deceit.
Labelling opinions as "wrong" simply because they are held by the wrong person or group is not liberal.....it is the most severe form of reaction......Ake


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Crowsister
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM

Yes Ake, you are correct, it's all about homosexual men and people knocking the poor old church, it's got nothing to do with Priests raping children it's only dogmatic fake "liberals" who assert that, but their lying of course because it's some guff about their "ideology" or something. Yes, you're brilliant and everyone else's opinions are rubbish. I was so blinkered before, but now I see the light. Gays, "liberals", homosexuals, HIV, "liberals", homosexuals bla bla bla.

Next please...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM

You illustrate the point I just made, very well Crowsister.

Dont worry too much about the "light", I see from your other posts that when this phenomenon has occurred in the past, before long the darkness descends again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Crowsister
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM

"You illustrate the point I just made, very well Crowsister."

Cheers Ake, like I said, you're the best. Once I was a blinkered dogmatic "liberal" with a rigid political ideology determined to silence and oppress others on folk music forums, but I'm all better now thanks to you!

I blame anal sex.. years upon years of it between consenting adult males warped my poor tiny mind. Never again I say :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:12 PM

And once again you choose to ignore the abuse agaoinst women that is common knowledge yet still to be made fully public.
Clerical abuse was was purely opportunistic - they took what was readily available.
It is akin to same sex liasons among convicts, public schoolboys, servicemen and others where other-sex partnerships are restricted - or are these situations riddled with homosexuals as well.
Please let me be there when you tell your friendly neighbourhood oil-rig worker is gay!
And once again - where do those who colluded with the crimes fit in - gay sympathisers, latent homosexuals.
I wonder what Joe or any devout Catholc thinks of the suggestion that his church is a haven for gays encouraged by enforced celibacy.
Where is your evidence for any of this?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:45 PM

The Church is not evil....merely craven!
The situation in the priesthood is well known to the leaders of Catholicism....they just dont know what to do about it.

Over 100.000 priests have left the church to marry, in the last 20 years, leaving an un- representative number of homosexuals in the priesthood.

"liberal" laws make it impossible to use "positive" discrimination.
A Christian street preacher in Glasgow was fined £1000 for saying that "homosexuality was a sin".

Priests Choose to be in their situation.....convicts do not!

As for the other groups you mention, I dont believe there is a problem with homosexual abuse in the services and I hardly think it is fair to bring the fantasies of children into your grubby attempt at defending your stance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM

It seems to me from reading various reports, testimonies, Vatican documents, etc., that practically every sort of abuse imaginable has been perpetrated under the protective umbrella of the Catholic Church over the years. Entirely accountable for, as Jim rightly says, by opportunity. The same happens in every other walk of life too, but less so due to the lack of the (sometimes unwitting, sometimes intentional) support network provided by the Church and their somewhat creative use of 'God's law', which, whenever they can get away with it takes precedence over real law. I can't for the life of me see why it's relevant what proportion of it is homosexual abuse - it all needs to be stopped as quickly as possible, and such is the diversity of the problem, there is no easy solution to be found by singling out one form of abuse by one subgroup, whatever size it happens to be. Eliminating homosexuality or celibacy in the priesthood would never, for example, prevent nuns from beating young girls half to death or torturing babies.

The only way to prevent the abuse is to completely remove the opportunities. Half measures are merely half solutions - and then only if you're lucky. The only way for the Church to regain its credibility(?) is to do this themselves voluntarily and pull out of all care situations until such time as they can prove to have tidied up their act and convinced humanity that they can be trusted. Yes, it's drastic and would disappoint a lot of good, honest, and well intentioned people, but that is part of the crime committed by the abusers and those who have knowingly not prevented them or assisted in bringing them to proper justice for whatever reason. The many good and decent people who were unfortunate enough to be born into Catholicism have been done an unimaginably huge disservice.

Just as an aside - I'm certainly no expert, but from what I understand of 'Jesus', his advice would be for them to donate their colossal wealth to the poor, particularly as that's where an awful lot of it came from, one way or another.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:07 PM

Sorry Ake, didn't see your post - I knew a bloke who'd joined the Merchant Navy on leaving school at 16, and was obliged to sleep with a broken bottle in his hand for years..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:24 PM

"I'm certainly no expert, but from what I understand of 'Jesus', his advice would be for them to donate their colossal wealth to the poor, particularly as that's where an awful lot of it came from, one way or another."

I'm no expert either, and perhaps someone else has other figures. I've seen the 'colossal' wealth estimated at 15-20 billion US dollars. That's about $15-20 per Catholic.

I spent more than that for lunch for myself and my wife at Ruby Tuesday's today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:30 PM

I'm glad you aren't poor Beeliner.

Their true wealth is a moot point and impossible to find out, but bear in mind that most countries have huge national debts, and the Catholic Church doesn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 06:47 PM

That's all right Smokey!   I rather like it when you don't see my posts......Makes life so much easier!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:40 PM

Their true wealth is a moot point and impossible to find out, but bear in mind that most countries have huge national debts, and the Catholic Church doesn't.

Well, I'm not sure that it's either of those (i.e. moot or impossible to determine), the figures I quoted were not just made up, the point is, the Church is its membership, not its clergy, hierarchy or financial managers, though all of those, assuming they're Catholics, are part of the membership.

The thing most non-Catholics don't realize is that only one collection per YEAR - it's called 'Peter's Pence' - goes to the Vatican to be used as the pope sees fit - and it's the SECOND collection that Sunday, the proceeds from the regular collection staying, as always, in the parish, though there might be some sharing within the diocese at the bishop's discretion.

The idea that the Church is getting rich at the expense of the faithful is ridiculous..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 08:25 PM

So.. back to clerical abuse then..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 09:18 PM

Interesting information on the topic of child abuse molestation:


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:04 AM

Ed's Link has some interesting information. It's from the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis, and it seems very credible and unbiased. Here's an excerpt:
    The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."

    By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

I think, Ake, that it shows that most people think you're wrong. Molestation of pubescent and pre-pubescent boys and girls may have different motivations, but "normal" homosexuality and "normal" heterosexuality are not the cause of the molestation of teenage boys and girls - this is predatory behavior, not the normal sexual drives of mature adults.

There is some evidence that some priests have sex with teenage boys and girls because the priests have not achieved sexual maturity, and are not capable of normal relationships with mature adults. There is some argument that a 12-year education in a totally male environment may delay sexual maturity for some seminarians. I didn't have that problem - my Catholic seminary encouraged us to have contact with women. But I fell in love with one of those women and married her.

A few messages above, Ed T. asked a very good question: Who is it who speaks for the Catholic Church? Officially, the Pope (in consultation with the bishops) speaks for the entire Catholic Church. Individual bishops speak officially for their dioceses - in consultation with priests and lay members. And pastors speak for their parishes, in consultation with representatives of the laity. In reality, they don't do as much consultation as they're supposed to do.

But there are many others who claim to speak for the Catholic Church. Right-wing Catholics invest heavily in media - in the US, almost all of the so-called "Catholic" broadcasting is dominated by right-wing Catholics, funded heavily by German Catholic brewery families and the original owner of Domino's Pizza. The Catholic press in the US is mixed, but tends to be led by the publishing houses of religious orders, who tend to be progressive (or at least moderate). The publishers of Catholic religious education texts tend to be moderate. The social services are led predominantly by progressive Catholics. Progressive Catholics also tend to dominate protest movements like the ongoing protests at the School of the Americas (Fort Benning, Georgia), the death penalty protest movement, and the immigration reform movement. And of course, right-wing Catholics dominate the anti-abortion movement. Right-wing Catholics have been in the forefront of the movement opposing gay marriage, and left-wing Catholics have been very active in promoting the dignity of homosexuals.

So, it's a mixed bag.

The Catholic League and Mother Angelica's EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) are two organizations who are very strong in their claim to represent "true" Catholicism - and personally, I think they're both full of shit. Most priests and many bishops would agree with me. Oh, and in certain sectors of the Catholic Church, it has become fashionable to accuse opponents of having a "homosexual agenda," even if the opponent never speaks of homosexuality. Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles is frequently accused of having a "homosexual agenda" (particularly because he favors immigration reform), and there's a priest in my town who frequently throws out that accusation against his enemies. Once again, I think it's bullshit.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:20 AM

Most polls conducte on these issues, are influenced heavily by what is being promoted by media and pressure groups.

Most people are simply afraid to say what they really think, for fear of legal action......as in the Glasgow preacher case, or due to pressure to conform to artificial norms.

The Mudcat "liberal" goldfish bowl, is an interesting place, but hardly representative of public opinion.

One can hardly tune in to any entertainment broadcasts without seeing homosexuals promoted to an unrepresentative extent, of their lifestyle presented as positive and "cool".

The very real health, psychiatric and lifestyle problems associated with homosexuality, for a large part of that community, are never made clear to the public.

Whether you like to admit what seems obvious or not, the Church and society must stop looking for excuses, make sure abusive priests are charged and if guilty convicted. this would pave the way for a public enquiry into why homosexual abuse is so widespread in the priesthood.

If these measures are not put into place, then the Church's opponents here will have been proved correct, the criminality will indeed be seen as endemic to Catholicism.

Justice must be seen to be done, even if doing so turns up truths which are hard for many here to swallow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:36 AM

Credible and unbiased Joe? Are we reading the same link?

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about you, if you cannot see what that article really is

How's this for a credible and unbiased opening paragraph?

"Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women."


It continues in the same vein, voicing lots of half baked opinions and propaganda.

To get to the truth of the Church's current problem, we must first understand the difference between paedophilia and sexual assault.

Problem is, too many just do not want to make that distinction!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:48 AM

Smokey, your 6:03 post seems to be saying that because there has been a wide range of different types of abuse taking place in the Church, that most of it can simply be put down to "oppotunity".

This argument does not stand up, due to the matter of sexual orientation.
As I've said many times, the vast majority of sexual abuse has been against one gender, and generally one age group.

There is absolutely no evidence that abusers generally, attack victims of a gender to which they are not sexually orientated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM

Sorry for all the typos....rushing out to work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:21 AM

Some thoughts on Post Catholic Ireland


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:51 AM

"How's this for a credible and unbiased opening paragraph?"
What planet do you occupy?
The mythology of the 'black rapist' fed many of the lynchings in the southern US (did you never hear of the 'Scotsboro Boys' incident and many hundreds like it that were grimly envisioned in Billie Holliday's 'Strange fruit') and continues to be bogey man there and here in the UK "Coming over here to take our jobs and women..." It is these that have fed the propaganda machine of the BNP and The Klan down the decades - "Half baked opinions and propaganda." get real.
Likewise, the image of Jews kidnapping children to use in their 'human sacrifices' has been part of our culture at least since the time of 'Hugh of Lincoln' and, like with the black southerners, has fed many pogroms throughout the Western world.
"I dont believe there is a problem with homosexual abuse in the services and I hardly think it is fair to bring the fantasies of children into your grubby attempt at defending your stance."
Same sex liasons have longg been recognised facts within any single-sex circumstances; the merchant navy is well known for it as are public boarding schools.
I was fascinated to see your interpretation of is as "homosexual abuse", nobody but yourself has described it as such - it has nothing to do with either 'homosexuality' nor 'abuse' - it is usually consentual and experimental opportunism practiced by those deprived of the company of other sexes, and widely accepted as such, apart from by people like yourself with your 'lynch mob' mentality.
As for my "grubby attempt at defending your stance", it is you who has used the suffering of children to espouse you bigotry against a way of life which is now accepted throughout the civilised world. Your disingenuity is underlined by continually refusing to address the questions raised here.
I repeat WHERE DO THE ACCOMLICES TO THE ABUSE WITHIN THE CHURCH stand in all this - are they not part of the problem that will be 'solved' by removing the celibacy rule and if so, how will they be 'solved'.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:16 AM

The only question which requires an answer is, "why is there so much homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church"

If the leaders of that church do not make a determined effort to have the guilty priests convicted and instigate a wide ranging inquiry into the Celibacy Rule and and its effects in facilitating that abuse, then I shall have no option other than to agree with you and find the Church authorities just as guilty as the perpetrators.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:35 AM

and by the way Jim.....If you dont understand the purpose of that paragraph and indeed the rest of the article, you should not be discussing this subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 12:40 PM

"The only question which requires an answer is, "why is there so much homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church""
No - that's the only question you choose to address - the rest you choose to ignore.
You have my answer with the public school, prison, services analogy, which you have carefully ignored. - now let's hear yours.
Perhaps you can tell us why 'The Catholic Church "is affording homosexuals and paedophiles a safe haven to commit crimes" - I'm sure there are many devout Catholics who would be interested in your answer.
You have never told us your religious inclinations; do I hear the sound of the cock crowing thrice?
Your postings are very reminiscent of the hypocricy that cast down practicers of sex outside marriage, whatever form it took, into the fiery pit while it was rampant within the ranks of the clergy, protected by the silence of their fellow clergymen and colluded in by the hierarchy.   
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM

Speaking on the BBC24 news channel today (Dateline London) Johann Hari, who writes for the (London) Independent, Huffington Post etc, claimed that in 1981 Ratzinger had ordered that a veil of strict secrecy was to be drawn over all church inquiries into child abuse. I thought he was perhaps overstating the case a little, but an internet search quickly produced evidence to support Hari's assertion:

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

This might explain a matter that puzzled Penny S earlier in the thread: namely what was significant about Ratzinger having child rape classified as an offence in "church law" when it was already an offence under the criminal codes of most countries in the world. It would seem that the catholic church was indeed firmly (and as it has turned out, fatally) committed to keeping all matters concerning its criminal priests securely in-house.

Today there is dismay in Dublin that the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion said this morning that the catholic church in Ireland had lost all credibility.(BBC report) The archbishop of Dublin does seem to have been a heroic exception with his strident criticisms of how some of his colleagues have responded to the crisis. But it is hard to see how the archbishop of Canterbury, or anyone else outside the catholic church, could take any other line when the lamentable performance of Brady and Co has brought such sharp dissent even from within (as further evidenced in Peter Laban's link to the Irish Times take on a post-Catholic Ireland).

Like Jim Carroll, I cannot for the life of me see what Ake is railing against in that paragraph he posted from one of Joe's links.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM

A puzzling event....if isolated, then OK. But, I fear it was not:

Rome took 12 years to defrock U.S. priest

By MATT SEDENSKY The Associated Press
Sat. Apr 3 - 4:53 AM

The future Pope Benedict XVI took over the abuse case of an Arizona priest, then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood, according to church correspondence.

Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 1990, members of a church tribunal found that the Rev. Michael Teta in Arizona had molested children as far back as the late 1970s. The panel deemed his behaviour — including allegations he abused two boys in a confessional — almost "satanic."

The tribunal referred his case to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005. But it took 12 years from the time Ratzinger assumed control of the case in a signed letter until Teta was formally removed from ministry, a step only the Vatican can take.

As abuse cases with the pontiff's fingerprints mushroom, Teta's case and that of another Arizona priest cast further doubt on the church's insistence that the future pope played no role in shielding pedophiles.

Teta was accused of engaging in abuse not long after his arrival at the Diocese of Tucson, Arizona, in 1978. Among the allegations that would later be part of settlements: He molested two boys, ages 7 and 9, in the confessional as they prepared for their First Communion.

Bishop Manuel Moreno eventually was made aware of the allegations and held a church tribunal for Teta, which determined "there is almost a satanic quality in his mode of acting toward young men and boys."

Teta was removed from ministry by the bishop, but because the church's most severe punishment — laicization — can only be handed down from Rome, he remained on the church payroll and was working with young people outside the church.

At the time, Ratzinger headed the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the office that typically handled cases of abuse in confessionals. The church considers those more serious than other molestations because they also defile the sacrament of penance.

In a signed letter dated June 8, 1992, Ratzinger advised Moreno he was taking control of the case, according to a copy provided to the AP from Lynne Cadigan, an attorney who represented two of Teta's victims.

Five years later, no action had been taken.

"This case has already gone on for seven years," Moreno wrote Ratzinger on April 28, 1997, adding, "I make this plea to you to assist me in every way you can to expedite this case."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: open mike
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:44 PM

There is a story on a radio show that takes place at St. Elizabeth's Parish...the story on NPR is told from the point of view of a priest named Wall, who was a "fixer" who was sent to parishes
when other priests were removed due to allegations..

He was transferred to St. Bernard's and in 4 years, with 4 scandals
he replaced 4 monks, his career path was driven by other's mistakes.

the interview can be heard on http://www.thisamericanlife.org/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:58 PM

There have been some questions about Catholic Church law and the sexual abuse crimes. Church law applies to functions within the church, and does not supersede civil law - they are in different arenas. A priest cannot be removed from the priesthood by a civil law procedure - that's a matter for church courts. A Catholic cannot be excommunicated in a civil law procedure, and a civil court cannot withdraw a theologian's license to teach.

A bishop can remove a priest's "faculties" to that the priest is not allowed to function as a priest - but only Rome can "laicize" a priest and declare that he is no longer a priest.

I've had some interest in the case of Lawrence C. Murphy, who served at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from 1950 to 1974. The Archbishop of Milwaukee forced Murphy to resign in 1974, because of allegations of sexual abuse of children at the school. After that, Murphy lived in a home his family owned in far northern Wisconsin. He was never given an official assignment as a priest after his removal in 1974, but he served occasionally as a vacation substitute, celebrating Mass at various churches in his area. There were no incidents of sexual misconduct reported after 1974.

In 1995, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland received complaints about the fact that Murphy had not been removed from the priesthood, and Weakland initiated church court proceedings against Murphy in 1996. Murphy was terminally ill, and appealed to Rome on the grounds of ill health. Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith honored the appeal and cancelled the court trial. Murphy died in 1998.
As to why Father Murphy was never defrocked, a Vatican spokesman said that "the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties." He said that Father Murphy's poor health and the lack of more recent accusations against him were factors in the decision.

I have particular interest in this case because I attended St. Francis Seminary from 1961-70, right next door to St. John's School for the Deaf. The brother of a friend of mine attended St. John's, and my friend worked for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. I didn't know Fr. Murphy or anyone at the School for the Deaf, and I think I met my friend's brother only once. Still, this was happening right next door to where I was living.

One NewYork Times Article says:
    Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998, still a priest.
As far as I can determine, Murphy celebrated Mass as a substitute in parishes near his home, but never again was employed as a priest in a regular assignment.

Should Cousins have taken stricter action against Murphy in 1974? Probably, but there were no precedents at the time, and nobody knew how such cases should be handled. Cousins was archbishop during the years I was in the seminary, and I liked him very much. In general, his policies were very humane - and he was disliked by the right-wing Catholic forces in Milwaukee.

A chronology from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee seems to indicate that after Murphy was removed from the School for the Deaf and moved to Superior in 1974, the restrictions placed upon Murphy were gradually forgotten - Weakland replaced Cousins as Archbishop in the late 1970s, and apparently Weakland did not become aware of Murphy's situation until 1995.

At the time I attended the seminary next door, I thought it unusual that there was a Catholic school for the deaf right there, and we had not knowledge of what went on there. Nobody spoke of it, and nobody knew any of the faculty and staff there. It seemed to me that we as seminarians should be doing volunteer work there and learning about serving deaf people. Now I wonder if Murphy intentionally kept his school separated from the rest of us, for his own protection. The problems at the school did not become public knowledge until 1974, four years after I left Milwaukee. Apparently, the Milwaukee press gave a lot of coverage to Murphy's story at that time - so what happened was not done in secret.

So, I dunno.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM

Thanks for the explanation about church law, Joe. Also I don't have any issue with the Murphy case on the basis of what I've read so far and what you have just added. I accept that there is sometimes a place for compassion and that this was such an instance. I thought the same about Megrahi's return home to Libya, and I'm not very enthusastic about cases being pursued against octogenarians who had minor roles in Nazi death camps.

But Ed T's last post above brings the whole Vatican conspiracy right up to Ratzinger's door. And for me he is completely nailed by his letter to all bishops in 2001 (see report I linked to in my previous post). What was that if not direct interference in the criminal law?

Among Ireland's most prominent opinion formers it is now almost a given that catholicism is in its death throes in that country. If so, its writ will soon not run beyond the world's most under-developed third-world communities. The pope will be visiting Britain later in the year, and he would have done well to avoid that visit becoming an unmitigated disaster even without the Archbishop of Canterbury's extraordinary contribution this morning (again linked in my previous post). I wouldn't be surprised if he feels like retiring, but can see that his resignation now might do even more damage than hanging in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:04 PM

In fairness, the Archbishop of Canterbury quickly apologised for his remarks

While the head of the Church of Ireland calls the comment 'thoughtless and hurtful'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:32 PM

Smokey, your 6:03 post seems to be saying that because there has been a wide range of different types of abuse taking place in the Church, that most of it can simply be put down to "opportunity".

My point was that the distribution of types of offence, for example more abuse by priests on youths than by priests on young girls, correlates with the circumstances in which it was possible to happen. There are many times more opportunities available for priests to abuse youths than to abuse girls, and the reported incidents seem to reflect that, showing a larger proportion of same sex (m-m) abuse overall. To put it another way: if priests were only ever left with 6 - 10 year old girls, that is where all the abuse would be, and I think that many of them (but not all) would be the same priests. I think Ed's link explains it far better than I ever could.

My other, and main, point in that post was that half-preventing some of the abuse just isn't good enough, whatever the overall demographic distribution and sexual orientation of the overall abuse is. It's all profoundly and equally wrong and it all needs to be stamped out. Remove all opportunity. Personally I don't care who gets offended, put out of work, faith shattered, whatever. They should be glad to make that sacrifice for the sake of protecting children from such treatment, and to ensure the credibility and maybe the survival of their church.

The children are more important.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:44 PM

I want the pope to go, unless someone can prove to everyone's satisfaction that he was not responsible in this Arizona case. Bishop Moreno apparently wrote to him when he was in the other office, CDF or whatever the former Inquisition office is called. Direct letter beseaching him to take action. No response for years and years. I can't remember if that was the case with 7 and 9 year old boys in confessional preparing for first communion.

I want him gone. Is there a sign up sheet or do we have to write to our often useless cardinals and bishops?

Don't bother calling me a fallen away Catholic. I am a practicing Catholic, but would hardly be called a good one. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM

I'll be very surprised if he hasn't shuffled off his mortal coil by Christmas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:46 PM

One of the RC defense commenyts I often hear, regarding sexual abuse of minors is: statistically, priests abuse fewer children than that which occurs in the general population.

To me, this is a red herring defense....crafted and oft en repeated in loyal RC websites and presentations.   

It's kind of like saying that "if policemen murder citizens at a lower rate than in the general population, than it's OK."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM

For 'statistically', read 'irrelevant bollocks'...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:57 PM

To clarify in case of misinterpretation, I mean that any defence beginning with the word 'statistically' is likely to be irrelevant bollocks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM

Among Ireland's most prominent opinion formers it is now almost a given that catholicism is in its death throes in that country. If so, its writ will soon not run beyond the world's most under-developed third-world communities.

Not quite. Ratzinger presided over the worst haemorrhage of adherents the church has ever seen by refusing to budge over celibacy in Latin America. That was a gift to the Protestant evangelicals.

The last holdout is likely to be Poland. Which is also the place we've heard the least news from over these abuse scandals. Anybody seriously believe Polish priests are any better?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 07:15 PM

The statistics prove it, Jack.

Maybe the Polish Bishops are more efficient.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:22 PM

Mary is all upset about an Arizona priest/molester who wasn't defrocked (laicized). I'm wondering if it really matters. If a priest has his faculties taken away by his bishop and is not allowed to function as a priest, what's the difference?

The more frequent reason for laicization is for priests who voluntarily leave the priesthood and want to get married. That sort of laicization doesn't happen very often, either - so the former priests get married in a civil or nondenominational ceremony.

I think I'd rather not see lifelong priesthood at all. Most parishes have plenty of men and women who could do a wonderful job of presiding at liturgy and administering the sacraments - but there's no reason why they should have to do it for a lifetime and as celibates; and there's no reason why they should have to be trained forever. the "mystique" of the priesthood has failed. i think we'd be far better off being led in prayer and liturgy by "normal" people.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:35 PM

Mary didn't mention laicization, she was annoyed because Ratzinger did nothing to stop the abuse or acknowledge it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 09:38 PM

No. I am not upset about a priest not being defrocked. I have never called for any priest to be defrocked. Even in this case where the situation was called "satanic" by someone. I want the pope to be depoped because of his failure to do anything that I am aware of in this situation. Someone has produced a letter they wrote to him personally asking for a prompter (like as in years) response because the priest was considered dangerous. As in abusing a 7 year old and 9 year old boy in the confessional. That is a bit serious. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 10:01 PM

Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article7086620.ece

Maureen Dowd has also spoken up several times.

We are not talking about the failings of some psychologically deranged priests. We are talking about bishops, cardinals, and a pope who could not or would not pull the plug on this..assign them to an accounting office or have a constant watchguard on them when they interact with anyone, but no contact ever with children or teens.

An article about the former Bishop or maybe Cardinal of Portland Oregon..asked why he didn't warn parishioners when a priest was reassigned (and probably in the time duration when he should have been on a sex offenders registry) he said he didn't want to embarrass him. Jesus, Mary and Joseph and all that is holy. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:24 PM

Good article, mg.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:45 AM

Mary, if you think the pope should be ousted because of the Arizona case that was cited by Ed T. (03 Apr 10 - 01:22 PM) and you claim it's not that you want the priest/molester defrocked, then perhaps you should actually read the article. The priest was removed from ministry years before, and the issue in question that was to be handled by Rome, was laicization (popularly referred to as "being defrocked.")

Smokey, since you are defending Mary, you might want to read the article as well - it's posted right in this thread.

The issue in the Archdiocese of Munich that took place when Ratzinger was archbishop - that is still a real question. The Arizona situation is not so significant - if the priest is no longer allowed to function as a priest, what's the difference if he hasn't been laicized? If the diocese has already taken action and removed the person from functioning as a priest, what's the big deal about having a higher court in Rome add emphasis by laicization? I think it's far better if these things are handled on a local level - it would be ludicrous to have every criminal case end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, wouldn't it? But if the local level fails to do justice, then it's up to a higher court to supersede the lower levels.

The Timesonline article written by Andrew Sullivan is titled I believe you’ve killed the church, Holy Father. It is quite dramatic, and plays a little loose with the facts. How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974? Sullivan's article makes it appear that Fr. Murphy was allowed to carry on until 1996 — "two decades later, with Murphy’s victims now at the 200 mark." In actuality, Cousins removed Murphy from ministry in 1974, and the only church function Murphy was allowed to perform after 1974 was to celebrate Mass as a substitute priest. There were no victims reported after 1974. The Murphy situation was certainly horrible, with a priest molesting deaf children from 1950-74 - but it appears that Archbishop Cousins handled the situation quickly after it was first reported in 1974, and removed Murphy from his position of school director almost immediately. For the sake of full disclosure, let me admit that I knew Archbishop Cousins and I really liked him. He seemed to be a man who did things right.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Crowsister
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:30 AM

"How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?"

Heavens!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:49 AM

At Easter Mass in the Vatican this morning, a leading cardinal has dismissed the child-abuse issue as "gossip".

GOSSIP ???!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:04 AM

In this morning's Irish Times:

A leading cardinal, addressing Pope Benedict at the start of an Easter Sunday ceremony, said the Church would not be influenced by what he called "petty gossip" about sexual abuse of children by priests.

"Holy Father, the people of God are with you and will not let themselves be influenced by the petty gossip of the moment, by the trials that sometimes assail the community of believers."


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0404/breaking1.html


He's worried about the trials that assail the "believers". Not those suffered by the victims. It assails belief, all right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:10 AM

At Easter Mass in the Vatican this morning, a leading cardinal has dismissed the child-abuse issue as "gossip".

GOSSIP ???!
!

The term was in fact introduced into the debate by the Osservatore Romano and Benedict himself at the start of Holy week, a week ago.

Article


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM

And now it's been introduced into the headlines around the world...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:33 AM

Not that it matters much but it really already did a week ago


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM

I meant to add that the gossip line seems for the moment the official dismissal of any allegations of covering abuse and letting priests connected with abuse in positions that allowed them direct contact with children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM

Wait until we hear from developing nations. If this can and has happened in the Netherlands, where there is not the poverty you can find elsewhere, although it exists everywhere, where there is not the desparation, wait until we hear from the Philipines and Uganda especially..and we have been hearing about situations in Uganda for a long time, more involving nuns being abused, but I think also younger and perhaps teen women.

How did priests figure they would not be discovered? Or was the temptation too great to override that? How did all of these numerous bishops think that it was OK to pass these people along or not report them to child abuse people..certainly by the 1980s it was required if it was a school situation and certain people were obligated to report abuse. Was there some secret training that bishops had that let them to uniformly it seems to act in this way? Did they confer with the same upper management person? Did they act individually? If they acted individually how come there don't seem to be many people turned over to police? How many abusers were turned over to police? What prevented more?

There are many unanswered questions. If each bishop made the decision by himself, how could we gotten so many numb... assembled to think this way? That they were above the law. That this could go on on their watch. That they could pass criminal behavior on to other parishes?

I can't figure it out and I will not apologize for the bishops, although I wonder how many had perhaps the same problem? I don't know. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 02:56 PM

I saw Sullivan's article before seeing the link here and thought it was way over the top, particularly where it referred to the Murphy case, in which respect Joe has pointed up a crucial deception.

But every time I start to feel sorry for this wretched pope he reawakens my fury by ignoring the whole cover-up outrage. At the same time he supinely allows others at the Vatican to conduct a suicidal rearguard action. Thus his own pastor presents the hierarchy as victims with his antisemitism analogy (an analogy he now seems to have drawn by accident). And the dean of the cardinals' college dismisses serious allegations as "idle chatter."

Joe showed just how trite the defensive mindset can get with his ludicrous question: "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" The stupid boy obviously didn't realise that the archbishop was only miming.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:18 PM

"Thus his own pastor presents the hierarchy as victims with his antisemitism analogy (an analogy he now seems to have drawn by accident). And the dean of the cardinals' college dismisses serious allegations as "idle chatter."

Joe showed just how trite the defensive mindset can get with his ludicrous question: "How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?" The stupid boy obviously didn't realise that the archbishop was only miming."

Aye, Peter.

As an aside what concerns me is that some here appear to be assuming that all the posters concerned by the Church's cover-ups are anti Cstholic & anti Christian. I'm not. I considered being Baptised a few years ago. But found another path. I've ever found beauty and wonder in the Christian mystical writings. On my Catholic Grandmother's grave, I'm profoundly glad I never bound myself to such a filthy and rotten institution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 03:23 PM

That post was clumsily edited, but not wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 05:12 PM

"How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?"

What are you smokin', Joe?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:03 PM

"How does a deaf person know that Milwaukee Archbishop Cousins "yelled at him" in 1974?"
How did a deaf child know he was being shouted at? Oh, come on - many ways, as has been pointed out.
It seems very sad to me that someone should question the word of a child - not of a journalist - in defence of the indefensible - the systematic rape of children and the persistant collusion by fellow clergymen and the hierarchy in order to not only allow the perpetratory escape justice, but to continue his offences.
For me , the most relevant part of the article was this:
"He will not quit, of course. And he will not personally repent for these personal failings in public. This is all "petty gossip" fomented by enemies of the church. It's old news. He has reformed things. He has, in the words of the Vatican, "nonresponsibility". Others will take the fall for those crimes of the past. And the broken souls and bodies that remain out there — the scarred victims of this abuse of power — where are they this Easter? What place do they have on this, our holiest day?"
And the Catholic church will continue to be led by somebody who has directly colluded in the rape of children.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM

I knew Archbishop Cousins, Peter and Jim and Crowsister. He was a gentle man, and he never "yelled" at anybody. Andrew Sullivan took a cheap shot and went for drama instead of truth. It's pretty easy for an unscrupulous reporter to put words in the mouth of a deaf person, isn't it? It was a terrible thing that Fr. Murphy molested boys at St. John's School for the Deaf from 1950 until it came to the attention of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in 1974. Archbishop Cousins first learned of the sexual abuse in 1974, and he removed Fr. Murphy from ministry in 1974. Cousins handled the situation as it should have been handled.

The local police department of the City of St. Francis should have prosecuted Fr. Murphy, but didn't. The St. Francis PD was the ultimate small-town police department, and its officers were most likely too incompetent to handle issuing parking tickets very well. As I recall, they DID have a very good team in the local bowling league, but that's about it. Even the Milwaukee Police Department was known for its incompetence and racism and "old-boy network" attitudes at the time. But there is no evidence that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee handled the case inappropriately. There were many, many child molestation cases that the Catholic Church handled badly (and sometimes criminally), but there is no evidence to show that this one one of them. But Andrew Sullivan chose to go for the cheap shot nonetheless. Take an impartial look at Sullivan's article, and you'll see it's riddled with bias.

Unfortunately, Fr. Murphy moved to another diocese after he was removed from ministry, and Cousins retired in 1977. Murphy lived in the Superior Diocese, as far north as you can go in the US without going to Alaska. Very few people in southeastern Wisconsin have ever been to Duluth-Superior. It's too cold, and too far away. Murphy and his offenses were forgotten up there in Northern Wisconsin, and he was allowed to serve as a substitute priest (celebrating Mass only) for many years, until his situation came to the attention of Cousins' replacement as Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, in 1995.

But both Weakland and Cousins were bishops who did things right. They may not have done things exactly the way some people might demand, but there is no evidence that Murphy was able to molest any children after he was removed from ministry in 1994. The auxiliary bishop in Milwaukee during most of the time in question was Richard Sklba, another bishop who insisted on doing things right (and my favorite Theology professor).

Even then, I have to say that Weakland was a homosexual, and he paid a former lover over $400,000 when the man threatened to expose him. And I was very disappointed that Sklba had approved the blackmail payment.

There is good and bad in the Catholic church - and there are people who are both good and bad, just like in real life. None of us is perfect, and none of us handles every situation perfectly. Yes, the sexual molestation and child abuse in the Catholic Church was horrific, and more of the scandal will be uncovered in the coming years. The problem was partly bungled, and partly covered up by intent. Whatever, the whole thing is a terrible scandal and a terrible mess.


But on the other hand, there is much good in the Catholic Church. I have a love-hate relationship with my pastor. He is a horrible administrator, and he was a terrible boss when I was his employee. But he's a good pastor, and he has a lot of compassion. At Mass on Holy Thursday this last week, I looked over and saw him giving a shoulder massage to an 80-yr-old priest who was celebrating Mass with him. After Mass, he gave the Sacrament of the Sick to a woman who has been in pain most of the last ten years; and I saw him ministering gently to another sick person today.

Last Monday, my boss took me on a tour of the Loaves and Fishes Dining Room in Sacramento, where she worked for 12 years until she came to the women's center where I do volunteer work. My boss, Sister Judy, has been a nun for fifty years. As we walked through the complex, many homeless men and women came up to talk with their legendary Sister Judy - some of the homeless people even kissed her on the lips. Judy was really in her element among the homeless, and I was half-afraid she wouldn't come back with us to our safe women's center, where most of our guests actually have a place to live.

There has been great wrongdoing in the Catholic Church, and I'm sure we haven't seen the end of it - and probably never will. Nonetheless, there is great good done in the Catholic Church. It's important to look at both sides of the coin. Andrew Sullivan didn't do that, probably because it doesn't sell newspapers.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM

It's a pity all that goodness comes at such a cost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM

Yeah, Smokey, but that's the way it is in all of life, no matter who or where we are. None of us is all good, and none of us is all bad.

The goodness doesn't come at the "cost" of child molestation, however. Child molesters did the molestation, and selfish and incompetent and cowardly bishops covered it up - not all bishops, but enough so that it made a horrible mess of things.

But most of the people (Christian and otherwise) who work with the poor and homeless, the aging and the suffering, are courageous and generous people who had no responsibility whatsoever for the molestation of children - so, why blame them for this mess? Would you accept a kiss from a homeless person?

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:11 PM

Who is blaming them? Not me, for sure. I generally like them. I think they've got a very bad deal out of all this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:32 PM

Would you accept a kiss from a homeless person?

Joe, I spent most of the 70s playing in rock bands.. ok, now things may be different, but then again I'm not a nun.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 08:46 PM

I think you are dead wrong about Andrew Sullivan. He is one journalist that I follow. He is an anguished Catholic. He is not trying to sell stuff. He is a gay anguished Catholic who calls himself a sinner. I don't personally think he goes for cheap shots. He seems quite rational to me, but he is a like a dog on a bone. He is not going to let go of this, for reasons that I think are highly moral and not for his career or whatever. Let's find another scapegoat instead of him..and no one is putting down the decent and heroic people who are doing all sorts of good deeds..and quite likely the pedophiles did many good deeds too.

And I think we have to stand and be counted here. I think we must call for resignations, and I believe the pope's; it looks like John Paul II was involved in coverups so there goes his canonization as far as I am concerned although I liked him....I think we must insist on every known abuser meeting with experimental psychologists as well as others to determine what causes this. I think we must have our eyes wide open to this perhaps not being a problem of lonely, unsocialized repressed men and perhaps something more sinister. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:12 PM

Research has demonstrated an association between child sexual abuse and a subsequent increase in rates of childhood and adult mental disorders.

People with a history of sexual abuse are much more likely to experience higher rates for childhood and adult mental disorders, personality disorders, anxiety disorders and major affective disorders post-traumatic stress disorder,    anxiety disorders, chronic depression, substance use problems, personality disorders,    suicidal tendencies, psychotic symptoms (e.g. delusions and hallucinations), low self-esteem, guilt and a feeling of being tainted, increased tendancies to do self-harm, dissociative disorders, difficulties in relationships and at work.

My rant:

So, if the RC church, and its members, do so much good in the world, why did they not reach out to those whom they knew were abused by RC priests? When those abused came forward, and as cases were confirmed, why did the church and its members not proactively offer sympathy, compassion and professional treatment?

My observation was the abyse claims were first ignored, then doubted and the victims were publically marginalized, attempts were made to cover-up the crimes…in some cases the victims were blamed for the abuse….attempts were made to belittle the seriousness of the offenses (for example, through using population statistics, and by saying they were not children when the offenses occured, but prepubscent young people). When they took actions through the courts…the church and many members blamed the victims for the financial results on the local churches. ...and still do (if they could take an objective view).


So….where were these good caring people…reaching out with compassion to help heal and treat those subjected to chuld abuse under the hand of those in a position of authority inside the RC church?

It may be that other organizations (and those involving other clerics) did no better when it comes to reaching out and helping to heal those impacted by child sex abuse, at their institutions hands. But, many of these groups do not have members agressively defending and "selling the brand" of the good works their organization and membership do in the world.

Some information on the impacts of child sexual abuse:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/5/416

http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/child-sexual-abuse


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM

Joe, please stop assuming that none of us believe that there are "good people" in the church. When my grandmother was in a coma, her Catholic prayer group prayed for her around the clock until she came out of it. Her own Priest was with her through thick and thin during her illness and it was her Christian faith that kept her together during months of sickness and pain (with no painkillers) prior to her death. She chose to become a Catholic, against her parents wishes, at sixteen because she was called to. The ordinary and good people, are victims of this self-serving and deeply morally corrupt cover-up organised by the church's hierachy. I feel very sorry for these people. And as I say, I'm glad it's not me having my faith rocked right now. But I have nothing but contempt for a supposedly spiritual *organisation* which secretly colludes in the activities of paedophile members.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: frogprince
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:48 PM

Joe, I've found almost all that you've said here to be at least measured and reasonable. But I can't quite swallow this: A priest molests deaf children for 20+ years. An effort is made to prevent him from continuing to commit more heinous acts. But the son of a bitch is allowed, in a "limited" way, to continue to appear as a spiritual leader, a representative of the church and of Christ himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM

This article and this article make it appear that Archbishop Cousins may have been yelling at the child-molesting priest, not at the deaf students. the quote:
    Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, two more victims of Murphy, said in an interview last week that they remember seeing Archbishop Cousins yell, and Murphy staring at the floor.
It seems to me that Andrew Sullivan misquoted the interview of Budzinski.

Frogprince, I think if the Milwaukee Archdiocese had its way, Fr. Murphy would not have functioned as a priest at all after he was removed from his position. There is no indication that he served as a priest anywhere near Milwaukee after his removal. But he moved to the remote area near Superior, as far away from Milwaukee as you can go and still be in Wisconsin. In the meantime, Milwaukee got a new archbishop, and I imagine Murphy was forgotten. If he had applied for permanent assignment in Superior, I would hope he would have been checked out. But since this was just fill-in service, celebrating Mass when the regular priest was absent, he went unnoticed for twenty years. And apparently he led some weekend retreats, which are often locally organized and not official functions. It wouldn't happen that way with the restrictions that were put in place after 2000, but there were no set procedures for handing child molestation cases in the 1970s. Child molestation was known to happen occasionally at the time - but until this last decade, the extent of the problem just wasn't known. And even though Murphy did continue to function on a limited basis after his removal from the Milwaukee Archdiocese, he did not get a permanent assignment in the other diocese, and there are no reports that he molested anyone after his removal.

That being said, it should also be noted that it took many, many years for the deaf students to get the attention of the Archdiocese. It appears that the previous Milwaukee archbishop, who later became Albert Cardinal Meyer of Chicago, had been told of the allegations sometime between 1955 and 1963, and Meyer sent Murphy on retreat and "then put him back in the school to undo 'the harm he had done.'" Meyer had the reputation of being a man of integrity, but apparently he did not take the allegations seriously. At the time, I and most Catholics (and most Catholic priests and bishops) thought it unthinkable that priests or our grandmothers could ever commit a crime. As a result, it took a long, long time for the deaf students to get the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to take them seriously. But when they got the attention of Archbishop Cousins, Cousins removed Murphy within a matter of months.

Ed T says:
    So, if the RC church, and its members, do so much good in the world, why did they not reach out to those whom they knew were abused by RC priests? When those abused came forward, and as cases were confirmed, why did the church and its members not proactively offer sympathy, compassion and professional treatment?
Ed, my Sacramento diocese, and my former Archdiocese of Milwaukee and many other dioceses did handle child molestations cases with compassion. Victims of child molestation in the Sacramento diocese were given no-hassle settlements of $25,000 and $40,000 and offered counseling and psychiatric treatment. If complaints were found to be credible, priests were removed from ministry and sent for treatment - at the time, child molesters where thought to have a treatable mental illness. The cases were referred to civil authorities for criminal prosecution when it appeared that the conduct was criminal. A few cases fell through the cracks even in the "good" dioceses - but there were a number of dioceses that actively covered up child abuse and accused the victims and did all the horrible things we've heard about. In most cases, the allegations of misconduct we've heard are true - but when things are handled the right way, it doesn't make the newspapers. I don't deny the allegations that have been made against molesting priests and coverup bishops - most of them are absolutely true. All I ask for is a balanced perspective, an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal.

I don't know what to think about Pope Benedict in this matter yet, particularly with the allegations that he failed to discipline a molester priest when he was archbishop of Munich. So far, I think Benedict's actions as pope have been appropriate.

As for Pope John Paul II, I think it's clear that he did wrong, and I am completely opposed to his canonization as a saint. The right-wing religious order, the Legion of Christ, founded in Mexico in 1940 by Fr. Marcial Maciel. By the late 1990s, it was widely know that several seminarians had reported that Maciel had molested them, but John Paul continued to support Maciel. The only excuse I can think of, is that maybe John Paul was too sick to be fully able to comprehend the seriousness of the charges against Maciel. John Paul was very ill with Parkinson's disease for the last ten years of his papacy, and I don't think he was capable of doing his job. After John Paul died and Benedict was elected Pope, Maciel was almost immediately removed from public ministry, allowed only to celebrate Mass in private and to live in seclusion until his death. In recent years, more evidence about Maciel's molestation offenses have come to light, and it was learned that he fathered children by a number of women. And I can't figure out how in the world John Paul didn't see what was so evident to the rest of us. So, I think JPII was dead wrong - but I haven't made up my mind about Benedict yet. Right now, what I say about him is that he isn't as bad as I expected him to be - and I do think that Benedict "did the right thing" about Maciel, after the many years that JPII neglected that problem.

-Joe-

Here (click) is a YouTube video of an undated ABC report on the Maciel situation. Note that at the time, both Ratzinger and John Paul did not accept the allegations against Maciel. If they had acted against Maciel when the allegations first became public in 1997, the Catholic Church would have a lot more credibility. Do take notice of how debilitated John Paul appears in the video.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:16 AM

"Child molesters did the molestation....."
And a church that has placed itself above the law (in fact has invented their own law as an alternative) harboured and protected them and allowed them to carry on with their abuse.
The Pope's epistle proved to the world that this mindset is very much in place in the Vatican, and that if the abuse carried out hadn't taken place on the scale that it did, this wouldn't have registered on their Richter Scale. The church, from top to bottom, were fully aware that these rapes and physical abuses (significant that these haven't really entered the equasion to any great degree) were taking place and their only action was to protect the abusers by moving them on to continue their 'little weaknesses' - even to the extent of forcing the victims to sign declarations of silence.
ALL the crimes committed by the church should be exposed in their entirity, punished fully and the influence that it once held should never be returned to it.
The disturbing backdrop to all this is that the Catholic church is fighting tooth-and-nail to retain access to the minds of Irish children through their schools. If not the minds - why not their bodies - it's happened before?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 04:19 AM

All I ask for is a balanced perspective, an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal.

You will realise that in the light of everything that went down it's very hard to balance the few 'no-hassle settlements' you mention with how the church in Ireland handled things in that respect : they sent two 'tough as nails nuns' (description from the other negotiators) who hammered out a deal that capped the financial responsibility of the church in such a way that the state and taxpayer were effectively responsible for any financial compensation of victims of abuse that took place in the church run industrial schools.

Only after reports that revealed the extend of the abuse were published and the pressure of public opinion became too strong most of the orders (though not all) agreed to shoulder the financial burden. Not before some orders made sure the majority of their assets were put out of harm's way though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:01 AM

What a furore from the religiphobes!

Isn't the important thing to cut the rates of abuse in the Church, then there would be no need for any sort of cover up.

The Church is run as any other organised religion, like a huge corporation, the people who run it will always have a corporate mindset.
That said there are literally hundreds of millions who simply could not function in society without spiritual aid.....are they to be left to suffer because "liberals" do not like the conservative nature of religion.
This very conservatism is what gives strength and hope to the needy, most of whom just do not understand the huge changes in society, changes which look to most of them as utter madness.

As I have said, it looks like most of the abuse reported so far has not been paedophilia as we generally understand it, but homosexual abuse of teenagers.....this needs to be addressed!

Having said that, there are cases of paedophilia showing up and a very good start in reducing such abuse would be to employ priests who have an understanding and empathy with children.

Change the celibacy rule, vet all new entrants to the priesthood for psychiatric problems and sexual abuse history.

Admit responsibility for a bad rule and tighten up the system.....then get back to doing a very necessary job

Jim Carrol.....I am an oft admitted atheist, who tries to understand the needs of others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 07:48 AM

"Isn't the important thing to cut the rates of abuse in the Church, then there would be no need for any sort of cover up."

There is never any "need" for a cover-up on the contrary there is always a "need" for transparancy. Other organisations like the education system deal with abusers properly. You're never going to utterly eliminate the abuse of power by those in power either, however many checks are in place, there will always be those who will slip through. Thus it's essential that any organisation that others are expected to trust in, demonstrate they are trustworthy by dealing efficiently with such problems - rather than trying to cover their own backs by offering silence, protection and shelter to depraved and dangerous individuals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:14 AM

I would agree with that, my use of the word "need" was wrong, but I'm sure you understand my meaning.

These crimes should be dealt with through the courts, although getting corroborating evidence could be difficult in most of the cases.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BShttp://mud: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM

It's pretty easy for an unscrupulous reporter to put words in the mouth of a deaf person, isn't it?

On reflection you might like to retract that unfounded smear, Joe. (Wisconsin: victim speaks out)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 08:52 AM

"an acknowledgement that most Catholic laity and priests and bishops are as outraged as everyone else about this scandal"

Likely not as outraged by the victims and their families?

I suspect that the scandal had a number of impacts:
1) Outrage and distrust in the RC heirachy by many members of the RC church
2) Outrage and concern about the local financial impact....and a focus on dealing with the new financial reality.
3) Embarassment and reduced sense of trust by the laity...some who have left or have looser ties with or ttust in   the central RC organization....this could stimulate significant future change.
4) Attempts to save the brand, demonize those questioning the RC organization (including the media) ....much like defense lawyers attempt to convince the public that what happened , could not have happened, or was really not representative or all that bad ....read some of the defenses on the web and by the Vatican.
5) As to the priests and bishops....I suspect they either had their suspicians that this was happening or knew it was happening all along...though the magnitute may have been an eye opener. I suspect there is embarassment by priests or nbishops who were not involved or complacent (likely to varying degrees).

Joe O makes reference a case of a local compassionate reaching out to those who were violated by priests. While what he describes seems like a genuine attempt to help victims...I have not seen similar actions where I live, and I suspect it is an anomoly, rather than a reflection of what occured in most other locals.   

As to the discussion of whether good people do good things...it's a no brainer...yes, they do....and they do so regardless of what organization they are affiliated with or bound by. Yes, there area vast number of good priests and bishops....and maybe events will separate the good from the bad....as its hard to believe that some guilty folks and those complacient are not still in power positions within the RC church heirachy.

A more meaningful discussion would be did the Vatican, the RC structure and priests and bishops doing to help victims? I do not feel they have stood up to the challenge....and possibly are still far from the mark....beyond saying we are sorry....which likely rings hollow when they are still in the defensive and denial mode.

I have noted that in the past few weeks a few bishops and priests have broken ranks with the Vatican and have said some good things....expressing their personal outrage and remorse....and committment to help heal those violated and rebuild a stronger church....none of the defensive bunk. That is a small sign of rebuilding trust.....versus what is happing with the Vatican.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM

For immediate release: Sunday, April 4, 2010

Lofty statements from Vatican officials do not change the facts

Statement by Barbara Blaine, SNAP President 312-399-4747

Lofty statements from Vatican officials do not change the facts.

Deeply wounded victims and our family members need comfort and healing but instead receive reprimands and insults. When we speak up and tell how our childhood innocence was shattered by sexual assaults by priests it is not "petty gossip." Learning that church officials, including the Pope, failed to intervene to protect us as children has rubbed salt into our wounds. The track record of the Pope has been to cover up and seek silence about the sex crimes by priests. The Pope has said very little and taken no decisive action to rid the church of the sexual predators nor to offer justice to victims. While Sodano and other church officials keep claiming the Pope has done so much the victims still seek concrete action from the Pope.

SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world's largest and oldest support group for victims of clergy sexual abuse. Founded in 1988, SNAP has over 9,000 members.

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/canadaworld/article/1006707

http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2010_statements/040410_lofty_statements_from_vatican_officials_do_not_change_the_fact


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:36 AM

Personally, I think the 'petty gossip' remark was pretty much the last straw.

My faith in my Church is hovering near zero.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:52 AM

"What a furore from the religiphobes!"
After a silence fromour resident homophobe.
"I am an oft admitted atheist, who tries to understand the needs of others."
As long as those 'others' sexual practices ar te same as your own - of course.
Jim Caroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:25 AM

One thread at a time please! :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:27 AM

You've already been well stuffed on the other!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM

Joe O made this observation awhile back on another post:
".... in many dioceses there is a strong homosexual culture among a certain small (but significant) faction of priests - in certain circles of priests, you'd think you were in the Castro District of San Francisco. Conduct is overtly sexual and flirtatious. "Straight" priests feel very uncomfortable in such circles, and can often seek friendship with parishioners instead of with classmates if this sexual culture is too strong. I would guess from the overtly sexual attitude of priests in these factions, that celibacy is not important to them. As I said above, there was a time in my sophomore year of college when this sexual atmosphere was very strong, and it felt unhealthy to me until a number of people were removed by psychological screening. While I was in the seminary, I did not know of any students being sexually active. Some did go on dates with women, but I never heard of male-male dating. I never, ever heard talk of anybody even thinking about having sex with children, or professors having sex with high school or college seminary students".

Joe's personal observations indicate a homosexuality community within the RC church (not surprising) , but does not indicate a link between those from the homosexua group within the RC church and the child sex abuse(I am unsure if anyone followed up on those comitting crimes, as to their sexual preference in society, after leaving the church).

I suspect some are confused as to whether the male sexual child abuse was in the RC church was situational homosexuality or dispositional homosexuality (see the attached link with observations on the prison homosexuality scene for the difference). If it was mostly situational, (as within prison) then could the impact of celebacy not be a valid theory?

Access to the complete document is not online. But the site does give one an idea of the observations....and possibly more rersources exist on the topic online.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/crmrev9&div=9&id=&page=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 01:07 PM

"One thread at a time please!"
You are the one who insists on turn this into a homophobic rant rather than what it is - clerical and church-sanctioned abuse.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:23 PM

This may help some who arev confused by the issue of homosexuality....that is not the center of the thread topic...though it ic likely related in the discussion....in some way.

http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/faq


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:39 PM

So, Peter (Fionn), we have two accounts of an interview of Budzinski: I suppose they could be two different interviews, but it seems to me that they probably describe the same incident. The NY Times article says:
    Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, two more victims of Murphy, said in an interview last week that they remember seeing Archbishop Cousins yell, and Murphy staring at the floor.
The details make me think this is the more credible story.

Jim Carroll, in a typically dramatic overstatement, says: And a church that has placed itself above the law (in fact has invented their own law as an alternative) harboured and protected them and allowed them to carry on with their abuse.

The "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous. Canon law is a system of internal rules for the Catholic Church. It does not supersede or countermand civil criminal law. Canon law covers church procedures, not government procedures. You make it sound as if it were wrong for an organization like a church to have internal rules. Nothing in Catholic canon law prohibits civil authorities from prosecuting crimes. That's just silly for you to imply otherwise.

The facts of the matter are bad enough, Jim. There's no need for your exaggeration. It does appear that the coverup was far more widespread in Ireland than in other countries, because it was the highest-ranking bishops in Ireland who were doing the coverups. Yes, coverups happened in dioceses in the US and in other countries, but certainly not in the majority of dioceses - except that in Ireland, it appears that there were serious coverups in almost every diocese.

And as I read the authority structure of the Catholic Church, the primary responsibility for oversight (or lack of oversight) in this matter lies in the individual dioceses, and not in Rome. For the most part, dioceses are autonomous; so 'the buck stops' in the office of the local bishop - for the most part. Rome has some oversight authority, but not as much as is implied in many posts here.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:04 PM

The "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous. Canon law covers church functions. It does not supersede or countermand civil criminal law. Canon law covers church procedures, not government procedures.

Failing to report a crime is an offence in most countries. Priests do not report crimes confessed to them to the relevant authorities. Church law/policy habitually obstructs the course of justice in this manner, and in the eyes of the church, supersedes criminal law.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:37 PM

Regarding 'coverups' - we are only aware of the ones which failed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:47 PM

Oh, yes, Smokey, I suppose the "seal of confession" is one exception. It's honored by government in the U.S. and in Ireland, but not in all nations. Such an exception is also granted to medical personnel, psychiatrists, and professional counselors. It wouldn't be quite fair to have a counselor required to reveal what is told to them in confidence in a professional counseling session. Would you speak freely to a psychiatrist if you were aware the psychiatrist was obliged to report your statement to the police?

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 11:51 PM

Counselors for some time have had to report certain things in order to prevent murders etc.

And the church did place itself above the law. Would they have voluntarily turned people over to the police if there had not been public pressure? Did they? mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 12:17 AM

I'm not aware of anyone who can legally withhold information from the authorities about an active child abuser in this country. Obviously the priest's crime never gets discovered as long as he is silent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:52 AM

"They "invented their own law as an alternative" passage is ludicrous."
The hierarchy of the church (including at least two popes) knew crimes were being committed yet they did not report them to the authorities - they moved the criminals on to commit further crimes - they forced the victims of those crimes to sign agreements not to speak about their experiences to anybody other than officers of the organisation that contrived in the committing of the abuses - not one of them has been prosecuted for collusion in those crimes.
Which part of this do you deny happened Joe, and if none, what other explanation do you have other than the existance of an organisation that considers itself above and not answerable to the law?
If it were employees in the education system who had acted in the above manner after having continuously and over a very long period sexually and physically abused the children in their care, would you be as understanding and ready to forgive as you apparently are of the clergy and hierarchy of the church?
akenaton
So far you have:
Described the objectors to the rape and abuse of chidren as "religiphobes!"
Suggested that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles.
Described the church as providing a safe haven for "homosexuals and criminals"
Perhaps you would like to go for a 'full house' and tell us how guilty you believe the victims of these abuses were for the crimes committed against them?
Smokey
"Regarding 'coverups' - we are only aware of the ones which failed."
No; we are only aware of the ones that have been investigated so far that have failed. The brief of the investigating bodies covered a very limited time period and a tiny number of dioceses, yet it is reported that these abuses certainly went back, at the very least to the end of the Second World War, possibly throughout the twentieth century and were widespread throughout the church.
The Government here has to date refused to investigate similar offences committed against young women who were sentenced by the authorities to work in the Magdelene Laundries - also run by the church.
Tip of the iceberg.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 06:59 AM

Joe, in one of those reports Budzinski and another witness described Cousins yelling in the presence of Murphy. In the other, Budzinski told people at a meeting that Cousins yelled at him when there was seemingly no other victim present. Even if Budzinski was lying through his teeth both times, your comment about Sullivan would still be out of order.

Your recent comments, and your reference to the (slightly catchpenny but entirely justified) headline on Sullivan's article, more than ever convince me that you have no grasp of the damage that has been done, and is being done, to Ratzinger's "one true church" beyond your own local community and your own immediate experiences; damage that emanates not from the behaviour of individual errant priests but from attitudes and policies which Ratzinger had a direct role in entrenching.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 01:28 PM

Priests do not report crimes confessed to them to the relevant authorities.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, it has to be a sacramental confession for the 'seal' to apply. The priest must be wearing the stole and the admission must be for the specific purpose of obtaining absolution, which the priest might, at his discretion, withhold or make conditional.

In the latter case, the condition could be that the penitent turn him/herself in to the authorities and confess the crime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:18 PM

"The priest must be wearing the stole"

I see, is that some comedy hat, that makes it all alright or something? Honestly I find myself removed farther and farther away from formal Christianity. Give me Thomas a Kempis any day over this utter bollox.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:21 PM

True that confessions don't get reported.

But stuff you find out because someone reports it you of course should report.

Keep reading Andrew Sullivan. He is printing stories now of the abused.

And now they are talking about how abusers were sent to Alaska to Native communities.

Not even the tip of the iceberg. Oh, there could be real icebergs there couldn't there. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM

Jim - 'Tip of the iceberg' is exactly what I meant. We do not yet know the true extent of the cover-ups and probably never will, because where it has been truely successful it will remain covered up. Long may the process of discovery continue, but any statistics based merely on what has so far been discovered are an unreliable indicator of the extent of the abuse in terms of distribution or quantity, hence my earlier remark about Poland, and in previous threads about Africa and India.

Beeliner - Yes, that is exactly what I meant by 'confession'. The priest fails to report his knowledge of a crime to the authorities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:39 PM

I see, is that some comedy hat, that makes it all alright or something?

Makes WHAT all right?

The stole is a vestment, a strip of cloth worn around the neck to indicate that a sacrament of the Church is being performed.

Receiving absolution does not mean that the penitent is released from responsibility for the consequences of his/her sin. That's why the confessor might make the absolution conditional on submission to civil law and punishment.

That's certainly what I would do were I a priest hearing a confession of child molestation. Under those circumstances, if the offender refused to do so, there would be no absolution. But the priest cannot reveal the details of the confession under any circumstances, period.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM

And the effect of absolution is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:56 PM

"Would you speak freely to a psychiatrist if you were aware the psychiatrist was obliged to report your statement to the police"?

If doctors and social workers were not required by law to report any signs or expressions of child abuse to the police, many more children would suffer child abuse....some which was similar to what was seen under the protection of agents of the RC churrch.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: beeliner
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 03:59 PM

And the effect of absolution is?

Restoration of the soul to a state of grace. That alone should encourage the penitent to do the right thing and face civil justice.

My original point was that simply going to one's priest, say at his office or rectory, and confessing a crime does not in itself obligate the priest to silence.

In such a situation the priest should say, "You've got to go to the police and admit what you've done. I'll get my coat and go with you."

Obviously, that was not done in the instances we have been discussing here, and that is shameful, for the individuals involved and for the Church as an institution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:01 PM

I suspect we will see beyond the tips of the icebergs all around the world. The more you seek, the more you find.


Nearly 2,700 call German church abuse hot line:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNOfSa1jBGKk_KjTBCQ6rTFoqJ7AD9ETNU201


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM

"Makes WHAT all right?"

FFS, the centre I worked in exacted high standards in its volunteers, why couldn't the freaking Priest-ery bollox.
How many of us are supposed to stay 'reasonable' now?

I've lost lt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 04:09 PM

A few years back, a RC priest friend of mine (we went to university together, and were close at that time) told me that through church confessions that incest was rampant in his parish. I told him that I felt he had a moral obligation to go to authorities. He said he could not, because of his RC church obligations. I suggested he not name names, but advise the police or social workers of thealarming incidence of incest that he wa aware of, so they could reach out to those impacted. He told me that it was not church policy to do that. I can't certify that his interpretation of local RC church policy was correct, at that time. But, this always struck me as an unchristian face of the RC church.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 questions


    An 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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

    Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:

    • 1ƒ by a judgment of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;
    • 2ƒ by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
    • 3ƒ by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.

    Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.

    Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.

    Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.

The basic idea is that priesthood is forever - if it was validly received in the first place. That being said, the priest can be "removed from the clerical state," for the reasons stated above (which are not very clear to me) - and apparently, this can only be done by Rome. A local bishop can also remove a priest's "faculties," thereby removing his permission to function as a priest.
A later section of the Code gives a list of punishable offenses, but does not specify the punishment. Here's part:

    TITLE V : OFFENCES AGAINST SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS

    Can. 1392 Clerics or religious who engage in trading or business contrary to the provisions of the canons, are to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.

    Can. 1393 A person who violates obligations imposed by a penalty, can be punished with a just penalty.

    Can. 1394 ß1 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, ß1, n. 3, a cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state.

    ß2 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 694, a religious in perpetual vows who is not a cleric but who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae interdict.

    Can. 1395
         ß1 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (i.e., sexual immorality) which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

         ß2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

    Can. 1396 A person who gravely violates the obligation of residence to which he is bound by reason of an ecclesiastical office, is to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding, after a warning, deprivation of the office.

    TITLE VI : OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND LIBERTY

    Can. 1397 One who commits murder, or who by force or by fraud abducts, imprisons, mutilates or gravely wounds a person, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with the deprivations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336. In the case of the murder of one of those persons mentioned in can. 1370, the offender is punished with the penalties there prescribed.

    Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

    TITLE VII: GENERAL NORM

    Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

The bold print and brown italics are mine - the brown italics indicate an explanation I inserted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM

See JP1, some would say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:15 PM

Yeah I meant short of killing him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:53 PM

I suppose we can identify four major types of male molesters - there must be differences, because the acts are so different:
  • those who molest pre-pubescent boys
  • those who molest pre-pubescent girls
  • those who molest pubescent boys
  • those who molest pubescent girls
  • All of these share one characteristic - an adult molesting a child. There are other factors, such as the type of sexual contact and whether the victim is willing or unwilling, so I guess our distinctions could be endless. But no matter how many distinctions you make, one thing is clear - all of them are adults who have sex with children - and that's clearly a huge difference from two consenting adults having homosexual or heterosexual sex. The deviance comes in with the age of the victim, and the victim's inability to give full, informed consent.

    Rome's first response to the current sex abuse crisis, was to target homosexuals; and Rome instituted restrictions on homosexuals entering and attending seminaries. Right-wing Catholics were triumphant, because they have long blamed the troubles of the Catholic Church on the "homosexual agenda" of liberals. "Homosexual agenda" has become a buzzword for anything conservative Catholics don't like.

    But Rome got shot down early on that one, because it's clear to most of us that homosexuality is not the reason for child molestation. There are still a few conservative idiots trying to blow that horn, but Rome has largely backed off its attempt to blame child molestation on homosexuals. It's very obvious that the vast majority of homosexuals wouldn't dream of having sex with a child.

    There are still forces in Rome that try to blame child molestation on liberalism, and the relaxation of sexual attitudes and taboos. The conservatives like that argument, too - but it's dropping into the background. It's very obvious that the vast majority of liberals wouldn't dream of having sex with a child.

    The loudest voices now are shouting that the blame for molestation lies in the fact that the molesters are Catholic, and that the Catholic Church is nothing but an international child molestation conspiracy. It's very obvious to me that the vast majority of Catholics wouldn't dream of having sex with a child.

    And some blame priesthood, as if ordination had some power that induced the tendency to molest children into a man. And others blame celibacy, as if not having sex with a mature, adult partner would cause a person to want to have sex with children (celibacy may create a haven for those drawn to molesting children, but it seems clear to me that celibacy and child molestation are separate matters. Indeed, true celibacy makes child molestation impossible).

    So, it seems that in all this, people have been barking up the wrong tree, wasting all their energy pointing the finger of blame at false targets and proposing solutions that destroy their favorite targets without actually solving the problem of child molestation.

    Maybe it's time to stop all the finger-pointing at false targets, and to ask the difficult questions required to find a solution to this terrible web of crime.

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 15 Apr 10 - 04:52 PM

    Solution?   Simple!....get rid of the celibacy rule and get some normal people into the priesthood....anyone who wishes to give up their sex life .....for whatever reason is not normal.

    There are a large number of cases of homosexual abuse of young people in the church.
    There are a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the priesthood.

    Put these two facts together, stop navel gazing and get it fuckin' sorted...if you dont, the "liberals" will crucify you and your church.

    They encouraged the liberalisation of homosexuality in society, your church used it to fill the gaps in the priesthood and now the church is being pilloried (perhaps rightly) by the same people who's ideology caused the problems in the first place.

    You seem to be completely taken in by the "liberal" agenda Joe...don't you realise that people who need religion also need order in society, permanence,conservatism?

    They dont want some fuckin' new age cult!

    Time to start asking yourself some pertinent questions I think.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:44 AM

    "Solution?   Simple!....get rid of the celibacy rule and get some normal people into the priesthood"
    You sound just like the priests dictating to the rest of the world what we should be doing with our sex lives - mind your own business. Who are you to dictate what is 'normal' and what isn't?
    And still you remain silent on your pronouncements.
    A blatent homophobe and a closet Christian.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:07 AM

    "A blatant homophobe and a closet Christian"

    :0)   and which is the most evil do you think? :0)

    Just to set the record straight, the teachings of the philosopher Jesus were fine if a trifle simplistic...if Jesus was alive today I'd be his friend.

    In fact there are a couple of guys on here who could well be candidates for the second coming! :0)


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:23 AM

    Just thought, could we have a female Messiah?

    Remember how they taunted and cursed Jesus?

    Could it be Miss Sarah? :0)

    Shouldn't like to be a "liberal" on Judgement Day if she's the one :0)


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:28 AM

    "anyone who wishes to give up their sex life .....for whatever reason is not normal."

    And anyone with an extreme interest in other people's sex lives isn't normal either.

    Catholicism isn't the only religion where celibacy can be a part of one's spiritual discipline. It has an extremely long history within Hinduism and Buddhism too - though as with Catholicism, it's only a percentage of very devoted practitioners who take that path as a life-choice.

    Within Buddhism, apart from those dedicated to a Monastic ascetic existence, many perfectly ordinary people will choose to undergo a period of celibacy for deepening their spiritual experience. Celibacy, alongside abstinence from and relinquishing of other 'wordly' or sensual attachments is quite usual world-wide, for those called to dedicate their life towards a spiritual focus rather than a worldly one.

    There is a long history of such strict personal disciplines within the world's spiritual and mystical paths - many hundreds if not thousands of years of it in fact.

    Just because you, as a non-spiritual atheist will never be able to understand such a calling and just because it doesn't happen to suit your personal political agenda, doesn't make such spiritually motivated people "abnormal".


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:23 AM

    " and which is the most evil do you think?"
    Six of one.... The first is somebody who persecutes somebody for being different, the second is a hypoctite who likes to hear cocks crowing.
    JIm Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM

    Bringin' It All Back Home, from today's Irish Times.
    Jim Carroll

    POPE ENGINEERED COVER-UP OF CHILD SEX ABUSE, SAYS THEOLOGIAN
    Irish Times Religious Affairs Correspondent
    THE POPE has been accused by a leading theologian of engineering a worldwide cover-up of clerical child sex abuse in the Catholic Church and of having made worse everything that is wrong in the church.
    The accusations have been levelled by Pope Benedict's longtime critic and former colleague, Swiss theologian Fr Hans Kung, in an open letter to the Catholic bishops of the world, published in this newspaper today.
    It is devastatingly critical of the pope and urges the bishops not to be silent where the current church crisis is concerned but to set about reform and call for another Vatican council.
    Timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of Benedict's election as pope next Monday, Fr Kung says in the letter "there is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005)".
    He continues: "During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that Congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes {epistula de delictis gravida ibus), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the secretum pontificium, the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical pen-alties.
    "With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed urbi et orbi by the dean of the College of Cardinals [Cardinal Angelo Sodano]."
    Fr Kung says that "when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his [Benedict's] pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken".
    Such missed opportunities included, he says, "rapprochement with the Protestant churches", "reconciliation with the Jews", "the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims", and "reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America".
    Also missed was "the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV" and that of making "peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research".
    He says that "with a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic 'Vicar of Christ' who combines the church's legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict's policy of restoration has failed."


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:59 AM

    Crow Sister, that's one of the more thoughtful defenses of celibacy I've seen. Celibacy is often not much of a problem for men and women in religious orders, because they choose to make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience - those vows are an integral part of membership in a religious order (although the "obedience" idea has changed radically in many orders).

    But most priests are "secular" priests, attached to a particular diocese instead of to a religious order. These priests earn a salary and manage their own expenses, and they live on their own and not in a religious community. They make a solemn promise of celibacy before they are ordained, but celibacy has never been an integral and logical part of diocesan priesthood. As a result, most diocesan priests I know, look on celibacy as a burden they had to accept because they wanted to become priests. But very few priests that I know, see celibacy as something necessary for priesthood (most of my priest friends would like to see women ordained priests, too). so, it's a tough row to hoe for many of them, and it's the reason why I and many others left the seminary.

    While I don't think celibacy causes child molestation, it eliminates a lot of sexually normal people from the "gene pool" that provides candidates for priesthood. That makes the proportion of sexually abnormal people higher, and creates a situation that is more comfortable for sexual deviates.

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 06:07 AM

    For me, it is quite simple;

    In most civilised countries, it is against the law to suppress crime from the relevant authorities. Ergo, it is a crime to order your employees not to report serious crime by other employees if you are aware of it.

    Quite simply, I wonder how the Pope can now visit other countries without relying on diplomatic immunity?

    the thought of him being welcomed by our politicians when he visits the UK later this year is not an image I am looking forward to seeing. Politicians will be tolerant of this cover up merchant for one cynical reason; He still has followers who are so brainwashed that they believe he cannot do wrong, and these misguided souls have votes.....

    the dichotomy here is interesting; I don't believe in a police state any more than anybody else, but if I made a stance to say that anything said to me regarding crime whilst sitting in a large box was information I cannot pass onto the authorities, I would be in breach not only of the law, (which is not infallible of course) but also in breach of common decency and civilised behaviour.

    Like I said on another thread before it was deleted, if any good is to come of this it is for people to wake up to how organised religions really are an irrelevant paper tiger. they only have power because people bestow that power in them. if politicians felt ignoring them would not lose votes, they would not get the time of day from anybody...

    Your choice, your perpetuation of control mechanisms or your realisation that it is possible to enjoy life without feeling guilty about it. After all, you won't be judged in the afterlife 'cos guess what???


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 06:27 AM

    None of your messages in the "Catholic come all-ye" thread were deleted, Willie. There are no deleted messages in that thread at all. Your message may not have "taken" - that happens sometimes because of a technical glitch.
    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
    Date: 16 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM

    Joe,

    If there has been a technical glitch, then I apologise. I have had posts removed before, and had my IP address suspended for a while. I found this to be a "friend" posting as me, which can't happen now as I have moved house. (he was more outrageous than I am, and I try to get debate going by not holding back.....) So when I couldn't see them, (and somebody did post to support a view I put forward?) then I feared the censor.....

    Regards,

    SW.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Peter K (Fionn)
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:33 AM

    There's a lot of logic in the recent posts from Joe and Crow Sister.

    The Vatican is now saying the Pope would like to meet victims of child abuse during his visit to Malta, but "has a very busy schedule." They really know how to send out the right signals.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:59 AM

    Joe......"While I don't think celibacy causes child molestation, it eliminates a lot of sexually normal people from the "gene pool" that provides candidates for priesthood. That makes the proportion of sexually abnormal people higher, and creates a situation that is more comfortable for sexual deviates."

    Isn't that exactly what I have been saying?
    Where we seem to disagree, is in the definition of the abuse which has been perpetrated.

    While I agree that there has been paedophilia practiced by a very small number of deviant priests, the rates of paedophelia in the church seems to be almost equal to paedophelia rates in society at large.

    The vast amount of sexual abuse in the Church has been perpetrated by homosexuals, against teenage boys and young adult males.
    This is an accepted fact....accepted by all except our resident religion bashers, who see this scandal as a handy stick to beatup the church with.

    The church has many faults and the self serving cover up was disgraceful, but for members here to ignore the evidence and contend that the cover up was the worst crime, is disingenuous in the extreme.

    If the whole hierarchy of the Catholic church were to resign tomorrow and leave the make up of the priesthood as it is....the abuse would continue unabated.

    I say, the important thing is to ensure the rates of abuse fall, that is the only way children can be protected.

    I cite the celibacy rule as a weakness; by that I dont mean that "celibacy causes sexual abuse".....that is a ridiculous statement, if someone decides to become celibate and live a celibate life, then that is a personal choice and of course it does not "cause" sexual abuse.
    The difference is that to be a priest, celibacy is mandatory, and as such attracts, as you say, "abnormal people into the gene pool"


    I agree 100%!!   get married men with families into the priesthood, men who understand about real life and about children, people who respect our young folk, many of whom are deprived and disadvantaged,
    men who do not just think of boys and youths as sex objects.
    It is reckoned that at least 25% of priests have homosexual orientation.

    As I have said on other threads, homosexuals do not have the constraints to their sexual behaviour that generally come with producing and rearing a family ....I say again they have thrown away the rule book.
    Time for the church to take a lead in these matters, not be led by the nose like the rest of society......into "something very much worse than religion" as Mr Dawkins contends.....Ake


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM

    akenaton
    You continue your homophobic diatribe and ignore requests to qualify your outrageously bigoted statements.
    As long as you continue to do so I will continue to point this out.
    Your attitude is no better than racism.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM

    Jim.....I have yet to read any ideas from you on how to stop the abuse of boys and youths by homosexual priests.

    When you start putting forward some effective ideas on how to stop that abuse, then I will accept that you are sincere in what you write.

    All I hear from you is a blatant attack on religion....religion which many millions worldwide love and need.

    Who are you to deny them their crutch?......God?

    or a bigot with a chip?


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM

    Akeneton
    Not long before I left London I did some electrical work in Soho, a few doors away from the Admiral Duncan Pub.
    Some time afterwards the Duncan was nailed-bombed by Neo Nazi David Copeland in a homophoebic attack; 3 died, 70 were wounded and maimed. I met some of the staff of the Duncan while I was working in the area, I don't know how they fared in the attack
    I detest all forms of bigotry, It damages lives, it maims and it kills.
    As far as I am concerned your persistant unsubsatantiated homophoebic statements that the clerical child abuse is homosexually generated (even the Catholic church have backpeddaled from this), is part of the bigotry that allows such things as the Duncan bombing to happen - as I said, it is no different than the racism that made it possible for five Nazi thugs to murder Stephen Lawrence and get away with it.
    If you have evidence, (that other apologists for the clerical abuse have failed to produce) that these are homosexual crimes, please produce it. As it stands, they are, and by and large, are accepted as being paedophelic acts perpetrated as displaysd of contempt for children placed in the care of abusers.
    How would I prevent such things happening again - I would ascertain that no individual or organisation ever gains control over peoples' minds or bodies to allow them to carry out such acts the way the church has been allowed to. What I would not do is to create diversions as to the cause of the atrocities that heve ruined the lives of many thousand children.
    Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is legal throughout the civilised world - it remains a crime in the minds of bigots like yourself. Suggesting that homosexuality leads to rape and paedophilia is, as far as I am concerned an act of abuse in itself and should be criminalised. Do you honestly believe that if homosexuality led to paedophelia and rape it would remain legal?
    You have never admitted to being a Christian but your attitude reeks of religious fundamentalism - substaniate your claims, or continue to be part of the bigotry that ruins lives - simple as that.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jack Campin
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM

    As I pointed out, the CofE also has a very large proportion of homosexual priests. But it doesn't seem to have a significant child abuse problem (either of the sexual kind or just plain bullying and violence).

    The difference is that the CofE doesn't have locally hegemonic power anywhere these days. An abuser priest in the CofE (of whatever sexual orientation) has no effective protection from secular law enforcement.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 03:00 PM

    Dictionary definition:
    Paedophilia, sexual attraction of adults, mainly men, towards children of either sex.
    So if paedopilia is a 'mainly men' tendency and hetorsexual rapes are overwhelmingly commited by men - shouldn't we men all be locked away somewhere to make the world a safer place?
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 04:44 PM

    Not all men Jim, just you......to safeguard reasoned debate! :0)


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:18 PM

    Sorry Jim...I missed your first post.

    The Boston clerical abuse case instigated a study into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, its findings are readily available on line, giving statistics and tables with the ages of victims ect

    As I've repeatedly said the perpetrators were adult males, the victims in the main, were teenage boys and youths. How can you possibly contend these crimes were anything but homosexual assault.

    Your ideas on controlling the abuse are absurd.
    "I would ascertain that no individual or organisation ever gains control over peoples' minds or bodies"

    I take it you are being serious?.....Exactly how do you propose to "ascertain no individual or organisation ever gains control over people's minds or bodies"?   Do you not realise that we are continually psychologically manipulated by one organisation or another....most political or financial in origin.

    You yourself seem to be completely controlled in your thinking by "liberal" ideology, promoted as a diversion by the Captains of Capitalism.

    If you are not even trying to make sense, why bother to post at all?

    I never knowingly lie on this forum, and I have already told you that I am an atheist who understands the religious needs of others.
    I was never baptised, dont go to church,or hold any religious affiliations whatsoever.
    I do not hate Christians nor homosexuals, I leave the hatred to those who are easily manipulated.
    If you are interested in viewing hatred, just go to some of the UK political threads, or the Sarah Palin "hate fests"....there's no accounting for personal taste.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 05:35 PM

    Jack...I dont know if there are so many homosexuals in the Church of England priesthood, as they do not have the celibacy rule.
    can you produce any figures on that?

    It is pretty well accepted that the CR encourages homosexuals into the RC priesthood, where their single status can be disguised as celibacy, in many...not all, cases.

    Also the mix of "married with children" priests with those who are homosexual, would make the concealment of any crimes of abuse more difficult, leading to less abuse.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM

    I've read the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) quite regularly since it was first published in 1964. I've always found it to be honest in its reporting of information, although sometimes I find it a bit strident in its opinions. Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister is a regular contributor on the NCR Website, and her opinions are always very thoughtful. Take a look at her March 15 column on sex abuse. I think you'll be surprised to find something like this in a publication that calls itself Catholic. Chittister doesn't provide the answers that I'd like to learn, but she certainly asks probing questions. I'm afraid that only the bishops can answer why this whole thing happened - and I haven't heard a satisfactory answer from them yet. I get the feeling that a lot of bishops are very puzzled by all this, too - how did this horrible thing happen, and why didn't somebody do something long ago to stop it?




    I wanted to say something more about "secular" diocesan priests and celibacy. What I think we all need, even more than sex, is family. We need a home to go home to, people who will speak with us with total honesty but without threat. Our families are what keep us human. Religious sisters and brothers and priests have a sort of family in the religious communities where they live. I work for two nuns, and they have had a close, honest friendship for almost fifty years; and I used to work for two other nuns who had the same kind of wonderful, healthy, lifelong friendship. They are sustained by these close relationships, and the are happy, balanced, earthy, passionate women who really make a difference in this world - they've spent their lives teaching high school girls and serving the poor. Religious communities of men do not seem to be quite as supporting as women's religious communities, but some are very good.

    But secular diocesan priests have no such community or family life, and they often live lives of extreme loneliness. Their parishioners put them on a pedestal, and it's hard for secular priests to find anyone who will be honest with them. With my 8 years of seminary experience, I "speak their language," so I often make it a point to be bluntly honest with priests. Most times, they really appreciate that. If not, I usually find they're people who cannot be trusted.

    But this is a point to consider, that celibacy forces secular priests to live lives of extreme loneliness. It gives them too much time to brood, and I find that they can develop some really strange perspectives. I figure it's my job as an ex-seminarian to keep them honest. I haven't been able to reach the younger, neo-conservative priests, however - they are far too wrapped up in their own ideology, far too thrilled with their own self-image as priests. I think that many of them are powder kegs, ready to explode - and they make me very worried.

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:05 PM

    "But secular diocesan priests have no such community or family life, and they often live lives of extreme loneliness"

    Let's not forget, these folks are human...and have the same human social needs that we all share, regardless of faith or vocation. I wonder just how many turned to alcohol?


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:12 AM

    Lots, Ed. Alcoholism among priests is a big problem. I've told more than one priest that he can't go out among the public if he's tipsy or smelling of alcohol. Believe it or not, they listen.

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:50 AM

    Akenaton
    You don't hate homosexuals - you pity them because they don't share your sexual preferences - not hatred but contempt.
    You ignore the fact that homosexuality is not the same as paedophilia,
    a form of lying.
    You evade questions such as if homosexuals are potential paedophiles, why aren't hetrosexuals potential rapist - a form of lying.
    From the beginning of this you have used the abuse of children to forward your crusade against a legal and widely acceptible way of life - that is despicable.
    If the object of your contempt was tranfered from homosexuality to racism you would be identified with the Klan or the BNP.
    Well done.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Peter K (Fionn)
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM

    The Boston clerical abuse case instigated a study into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, its findings are readily available on line

    Whose study are you talking about Ake, and would it not be a simple courtesy to provide a link? You really provide little evidence to support your sweeping generalisations, yet at the same time you are quick to demand evidence from others. And why is it so important to you that child abuse should be put down to homosexuality, except that it would fortify a prejudice that seems to be distorting your judgment?

    The problem in the Catholic church will not be solved by pigeon-holing the abusers but by a fundamental rethink, from the present papal incumbent down, so that in future the voices of children will be heard, and those who abuse children will find no shelter but will be treated as the criminals they are.

    Meanwhile Benedict continues to mumble weasel words ("Malta loves Christ, who loves his Church, which is his body, even if this body is wounded by our sins...") while managing to evade meeting anyone abused by his priests.

    Pope avoids commenting on sex scandal


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:05 AM

    "those who abuse children will find no shelter but will be treated as the criminals they are."

    Yes, I would agree with that Peter, but the problem would be that by pinning all of the blame on the offices of the Catholic Church, the abusers....those who actually committed the crimes will evade proper punishment, which should of course include permanent dismissal from the priesthood.

    Sorry about the link, but it can be googled under Boston clerical abuse. There are many links, the main link being the producers of the study The John Jay College of criminal justice...sorry if I've got the whole name slightly wrong, but to a net savvy chap like you it should be easy-peasy :0)

    Nice to talk to you again, hope your doing well...Ake


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Peter Laban
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 10:55 AM

    Fintan O'Toole comments in the Irish Times

    And I intend to agree with him on a lot of his points, the homosexuality debate, the celibacy thing, the anti-church argument it's all smoke and mirrors that takes away attention from the core issues.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:29 AM

    "...permanent dismissal from the priesthood"...and dismissal from church sanctioned activities involving children...in any country?


    http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1177793.html


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Peter K (Fionn)
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:12 PM

    Whoops - I was too quick to judge the old reactionary: Pope meets abuse victims


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:07 PM

    For those who doubt that SOME journalists don't do a good job, this remarkable piece by one of Ireland's best, Fintan O'Toole, from yeterday's Irish Times.
    Sorry about the length,
    Jim Carroll

    THE TRUTH IS THAT CLERICAL ABUSE AND COVER-UP ARE NOT ABOUT RELIGION OR SEX, THEY ARE ABOUT POWER

    In a week when the Pope's right-hand man pointed to homosexuality as the cause of paedophilia, Fintan OToole looks at the church's response to the child abuse cover-up and asks what it is all about

    THERE IS A word that became current towards the fag end of the Northern Ireland conflict, when evil had been reduced to banalities. An atrocity against one community would often be met on the other side, not with either outright support or condemnation but with "what-aboutery". Yes, some would shrug, this is terrible but what about Bloody Sunday? What about Enniskillen? What about Cromwell?
    That this form of moral evasion had its very own name was a mark of how pitiful and des¬perate it was. Even those who engaged in it knew that it was a last refuge. When the inde¬fensible could not be defended, the only remaining strategy was to present the perpe¬trators as victims, and those who criticised atrocities as hypocrites. As evidenced by this week's attempt by Pope Benedict's right-hand man Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, to blame homosexuals for the crisis in the church, what-aboutery is now the mainstay of the Vatican's response to the continuing revelation of its global strategy of covering up the abuse of children by priests.
    For a short period leading up to the issuing of Pope Benedict's pastoral letter to the Irish faithful last month, the Vatican seemed to be inching towards some tentative reflection on its own moral responsibility for the protection of abusers. But as the flood of allegations has risen ever closer to the Pope's own door, humility has been replaced by an aggresive backlash.
    The church leadership has now adopted a three-fold strategy: blame the victims; invoke anti-Catholic persecution; and identify modernity as the root of the problem. Benedict him¬self began the process of blaming the victims in his Palm Sunday sermon when he spoke of not allowing oneself to be "intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion". This was not an accidental or thoughtless phrase. It was directly echoed on Easter Sunday by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, former Vatican secretary of state and currently dean of the College of Cardi¬nals.
    He urged Benedict not to be dismayed by "the petty gossip of the moment, by the trials that sometimes assail the community of believers". In one magisterial phrase, the sto¬ries of those who were attacked as children and the demands for accountability are dismissed as malicious tittle-tattle.
    The next step of painting the church leader¬ship, not as powerful people with questions to answer, but as innocent victims of persecution, was taken by the preacher to the papal house¬hold, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa.
    Showing that no strategy is too tasteless to be deployed, he cited a letter from a "Jewish friend", comparing attacks on the church's record on child abuse to "the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism". Cantalamessa himself linked demands for accounta¬bility in the church to the "herd psychology" and the search for a scape¬goat through which "the weakest ele¬ment, the different one" is victimised. The ironies in this exercise in self-pity are almost beyond satire.
    Redefining the Pope, his cardinals and his bishops as the "weakest" members of society would be peculiar in any context. But in the context of child abuse, it is gro¬tesque. And claiming the status of "the dif¬ferent one", the outsider who suffers from stereotyping and discrimination, is a bit rich for a church that is happy to per¬petuate, as Bertone did this week, the vile stereotype that identifies homosex¬uality and paedophilia.
    If the church insists on drawing analogies with anti-Semitism, it might be well advised to avoid the subject of its attitudes to gay people altogether. Underlying all of this, however, is a more considered strategy of con¬structing an intellectual framework within which an official narrative of the crisis can emerge. That narrative is self-consciously reactionary. The church was fine when it had authority in society. That authority was challenged by liberalism, free thinking and sexual openness, and paedophilia is the result.
    In his pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, Bene¬dict could not have been more explicit about this. He urged the faithful to understand the crisis as a consequence of "new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularisation of Irish society".
    "Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people's traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values."
    As an explanation for paedophile priests and for the abysmal institutional response to their crimes, this bears hardly a moment's scrutiny.
    In the Irish context alone, we know from the Ryan report that systematic child abuse by Catholic brothers, priests and nuns goes back at the very least to the 1930s and almost certainly beyond. We know from the Murphy report that "there is a two thousand year history of Biblical, Papal and Holy See statements showing aware¬ness of clerical child sex abuse... it is clear that cases were dealt with by Archbishop McQuaid in the 1950s and 1960s
    And even if one were to accept the highly dubious contention that paedophile priests are a result of the move towards greater sexual openness from the 1960s onwards, how would that explain the most damaging aspect of the scandal - the cover-up by bishops and the Vatican?
    These strategies may be as desperate as they are clumsily evasive. But they are argu¬ably necessary to the survival of the church's current power structures. For if the organised cover-up of child abuse is not about petty gossip, not about victimising a defenceless Pope and not about secular modernity, what is it about? This is a question to which Benedict cannot give an honest answer because that answer would threaten the very system he embodies.
    Some liberal critics of the church often fail to answer the question, too. They may blame Catholicism itself, as if other belief systems did not end up justifying vile crimes. They may blame celibacy, as if the vast majority of attacks on children were not perpetrated non-celibates – often indeed by the child's own parents. The truth is that child abuse and cover-up are not primarily about religion or sex. They are about power. The bleak lessons of human history are that those who have too much power will abuse it. And that organisations will put their own interests above those of the victims.
    The behaviour of the institutional Catholic church in Ireland and around the world is certainly a stark example of both of these truths. But it is not the only example, even in contemporary Ireland. The Irish Amateur Swimming Association, for example, gave coaches the power to do what they liked to children and then engaged in a process of denial that was, albeit on a much smaller scale, essen¬tially the same as that of the bishops.
    The problem is not swimming, any more than it is Catholicism. It is power.
    The church's combination of temporal authority, spiritual control and a closed, internal hierarchy created the power that cor¬rupted it. The backlash of the past few weeks has merely confirmed what was already over¬whelmingly likely: that Benedict is entirely incapable of grasping this reality, let alone altering it. He has spent much of his career crushing dissent and rolling back the anti-hier¬archical spirit of Vatican 2. His solution, as he suggested in his pastoral letter, is more of the same - more obedience, more authority, more resistance to secular modernity.
    Those who looked to the Pope to respond to one of the most profound crises in the history of the church now know they will have to look elsewhere."

    WHAT BERTONE SAID
    Last Monday, while on an official visit to Chile, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, said it was homosexuality, not celibacy, that is linked to paedophilia.
    Cardinal Bertone also said Pope Benedict would be taking more surprising initiatives regarding the sex abuse scandal, but he did not elaborate.
    "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have shown, i have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia."
    "This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree, in percentage terms," he said.
    "The behaviour of the priests in this case, the negative behaviour, is very serious, is scandalous."


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:32 PM

    "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have shown, i have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia."

    Now, that is an odd statement (if accurate and in context) for the Vatican's secretary of state to make, (a posting that one would assume logical thinking would be a requirement)?


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM

    An interesting perspective on gay priests and sexual activitity by priests in the RC church.


    http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hWkHRpryiakC&oi=fnd&pg=PA171&dq=celibacy+and+paedophilia%2Bstudies&ots=zkYb0HFBc4&sig=


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:58 PM

    Jim quotes in his last post.

    "THE TRUTH IS THAT CLERICAL ABUSE AND COVER-UP ARE NOT ABOUT RELIGION OR SEX, THEY ARE ABOUT POWER"

    If this is indeed the case, why is the vast majority of the abuse perpetrated against Young MEN and teenage BOYS.
    Why does the issue of power not apply in the form of sexual abuse against girls, in anything like the same numbers.

    Before anyone lays the abuse on "OPPORTUNITY", it is clear that abusers do not attack victims to whom they are not sexually orientated, whether they have opportunity or not.

    The last big child abuse ring in the UK was exclusively homosexual
    and all the abuse perpetrated against male children.
    Members of the ring also searched for adult homosexual partners, leaving messages in public lavatories etc.
    The leader of this ring was, believe it or not, Chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland.....ex Stonewall youth project....

    From The Times...."He cut an impressive figure when, in 2000, he was called to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood to advise the Local Government Committee on "ethical standards in public life". He commented on equality issues and debated the controversy surrounding the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Invitations to Downing Street and the Royal Garden Party followed."

    Full details HERE


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 18 Apr 10 - 07:52 PM

    "it is clear that abusers do not attack victims to whom they are not sexually orientated, whether they have opportunity or not"

    I am not sure that this theory holds as much weight as it may seem at first glance?

    I suspect if you dangle a young girl, a young boy or an older man or older woman in front of many of those in prisons...the young boy, or older man would not be the first choice...just a thought.

    I suspect most young alter helpers were young boys in the past RC church.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:44 AM

    Akenatin
    As you seem intent on turning yet another thread into yet another of your gay-bashing exercises - from the same Irish Times: and then perhaps explain your 'vast majority' - or ignore it, as is your wont.
    Jim Carroll

    'THERE IS NO RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP'
    The cardinal's link between homosexuality and paedophilia is debunked by six psychiatrists who) spoke to Kate Holmquist
    ONE IN 25 Catholic priests in the US has been formally accused of sexually abusing minors, according to research commissioned by the US Catholic bishops. We don't have comparable research for Ireland, but between the Ryan and Murphy reports, we can surmise how realistic the US research is.
    Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone has tried to blame "homosexuality".
    "You've got to be kidding," was the reaction of Dr Alan Dibble, a clinical psychologist in Co Meath, who has worked with paedophiles and sex offenders in the US and Ireland for the past 20 years.
    "There is no research to back up what he said. Five per cent of the world's population is gay and to put us all in that category is appalling... This is a mighty inflammatory remark to make based on 'being told', for someone in such a highly responsible position. Is the Vatican bringing old scientifically debunked myths out of the closet in order to avoid confronting the weaknesses inherent in a hierarchy without transparency and without self-reflection on the extreme stresses inherent in the human loneliness of the priesthood?" He adds: "As the Vatican has attempted to back-track on the cardinal's comments... and with their history of minimising the issue of child sexual abuse in the church by blaming others for scapegoating them, the Vatican is using the same cognitive distortions therapists teach child sexual abusers not to use - such as whitewashing, rationalising, minimising and excuse-making as a way to avoid taking personal responsibility," Dibble says.
    Five other psychiatrists and psychologists interviewed by The Irish Times agreed there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia, among them Prof Patricia Casey of UCD and the Royal College of Psychiatrists of Ireland. "It has never been demonstrated scientifically. Paedophilia is an attraction to minors - male, female or both."
    Prof Harry Kennedy, clinical professor of forensic psychiatry at TCD, explains that "there are heterosexual paedophiles, there are homosexual paedophiles and there is no special link between homosexuality and paedophilia and that is the plain science of it based on epidemiology, which is my field. I wonder where the Cardinal got his information. I'd be happy to look at any new evidence he might have and review it from a scientific point of view."
    Also adamant that there is no link between paedophilia and homosexuality are Dr Joseph Duffy, clinical director of the Granada Institute in Dublin, which has treated priests who have sexually abused children; Prof Donald West, psychiatrist and former head of the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge, UK; and Prof Michael King, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, who has treated paedophiles and sex offenders.
    The greatest threat to children are heterosexual males, says Kennedy. Girls are five times more likely than boys to be abused, usually by their father, stepfather or mother's boyfriend. West says: "Most at risk are girls in the home." Research has shown, since the 1980s, that heterosexuals - 95 per cent of the population - are as likely as homosexuals to be sexually aroused by children.
    When boys are sexually molested, the predator is most likely male, but that doesn't mean he is gay. As Casey stats, paedophiles are attracted to children and many don't care what gender the child is. One theory, King points out, is that boys are more accessible to the sort of predator who seeks out children in parks because traditionally they have greater freedom than girls to roam.
    Are there more paedophiles among Catholic priests than among the general population? "Nobody knows," says King. "My own theory is that celibacy may be behind some of this, because we don't seem to get the same reports in other churches. It's only a theory that celibacy is a cloak that puts you in charge of children."
    Casey also suggests that some abusers were attracted to die Catholic Church because they knew it would give them access to children, and vetting procedures weren't good enough. The stereotype, which is true, is that paedophiles get involved in sports clubs, scout groups and church activities to get access to children. The other classic method is to culti¬vate relationships with single mothers.
    Paedophilia is a fixation where, for a persistent period of at least six months, the paedophile has sexual fantasies about children and a desire to have sexual contact with children that he cannot control. As Duffy explains, a classic fixated paedophile is so driven that to be prevented from harming others, he has to be kept away from situations where he can have con¬tact with children - families, schools, play¬grounds and so on.
    The paedophile isn't sexually attracted to adults at all - male, or female, "Homosexuality is irrelevant," says King. "These men are predators in general." Dibble gives the case history of a "true" paedophile who was molested by an adult neighbour, then did the same at age seven to his best friend, which lasted until puberty. When the best mate went on to have girlfriends, "this guy turned to younger children. His sexual development didn't move on". He entered therapy in his 20s, after being caught molesting a child. After a year in therapy, he molested his nephew, and was placed in residential treatment for two years. After his release, he got involved with a woman his age and eventually molested her two sons, and went to prison. "Even with an experience of an adult relationship, his sexual preference was for kids and he couldn't grow out of that."
    Paedophiles are interested only in children, whereas child molesters are opportunists who will satisfy their needs with anyone, regardless of age. The Vatican stated this week that 10 per cent of abuse cases it has dealt with have been paedophilia, and 90 per cent sex with adolescents. "Studies have shown that men have a low age threshold in who they are attracted to, saying, if they're really honest, that age 14 is no problem whatsoever," says King. "But these young adolescents cannot give consent."
    Many priests who have sexually abused chil¬dren have been treated at the Granada Institute since 1994. Duffy says many abusers prefer being with a child because it suits their emotional level. Others use sex with children as an abuse of power, dominance and control. Anger against women, due to rejection, is another "driver".
    As King and Casey suggested, the rule of celibacy may contribute to priests having non-consensual sex with children with impunity. Casey believes that some men may go into the priest¬hood before they have had a chance to develop a mature adult sexuality and are stuck in an immature stage of development. "Perverse reactions" may result, says Duffy when "intimacy, closeness and comfort are expressed in negative and deviant and destructive ways".
    A book by Karen Leibriech, Fallen Order, argues that celibacy forces people in religious orders to turn a blind eye to the misconduct of others. Kennedy agrees: "In a society with a rule of celibacy, normal heterosexual and normal homosexual activity is regarded as a lapse and is likely to be denied and ignored. That creates a culture in which other things -including paedophilia - may also be ignored * and denied."
    So, are religious abusers evil, or are they victims? King believes that "we have a horrible way of seeing paedophilia as evil. Paedophiles are not evil, they are caught in this terrible bind. I'm not excusing their behaviour for an instant, but we often forget about the paedo¬phile as a victim of circumstances beyond his. control." But what are the circumstances? "We have no idea what creates a paedophile," says King. And neither does the Catholic church.
    "This is a complex area full of unknowns, and work to understand it is still in its infancy
    says Dibble.

    SEXUAL ABUSE THE NUMBERS
    Less than 1 per cent of the general population are paedophiles and child molesters
    98 per cent of abusers of girls are men
    79 per cent of abusers of boys are men
    Most at risk are children aged eight to 12
    75 per cent of sexual abuse occurs within the household, mostly by fathers and stepfathers


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:57 AM

    We are at the moment discussing clerical abuse in the Catholic Church.
    Please stick to the issue in hand.

    My last post was simply to illustrate that abusers do not attack children at random, regardless of gender.

    That means that most of the abuse of teenage boys and youths in the Catholic Church, has been perpetrated by men of homosexual orientation.

    This is pertinent to our discussions, if we truly want to see rates of abuse fall.

    I have been reading in Ed's link, that Cozzens reckons that there could be 50% of homosexuals in the priesthood....."the priesthood is, or will soon be a "gay" occupation"


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:06 AM

    Sorry, that should read...."50% of the priesthood could be homosexual"


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:12 AM

    isn't it funny that in the folk music threads, I generally disagree a lot with Jim Carroll's views. Yet in the BS threads, and especially the sad repulsive threads about clerical abuse, I can do no more than agree with him wholeheartedly.

    Jim, don't keep rising to the bait. Akenaton is pulling your plonker. Why? Because reading his diatribe, it doesn't take a trick cyclist to see his suppressed tendency to homosexuality has not been admitted to even to himself, so his brain reacts by making him paranoid.

    As this is about power, domination of others and forcing your will, (a more specific aspect of organised religion) then it is quite normal that most of the abuse is against boys not girls. A man will see another man as a future potential threat to his alpha male complex, so needs to subdue the poor young lad.

    Nothing to do with being gay, just more to do with power lust.

    Oh, and depraved criminality, but that goes without saying, unless you are a Cardinal in denial about your colleagues.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 06:07 AM

    "We are at the moment discussing clerical abuse in the Catholic Church."
    It is you who persistantly make these threads part of your interminably squalid gay-bashing hate campaign - the article was in direct response to the claim of homosexuality being the cause of clerical abuse.
    It was you who quoted 'statistics' to back up your bigotry - prove them or are you once ab=gaing going to scurry away from them?
    "50% of the priesthood could be homosexual"
    Priest are celibate by their calling so what proof do you have to back up this claim that 50% 'could be' homosexual?
    Steamin' Willie - I agree about the suppressed homosexuality - let's see if we can't get him out of the closet.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:06 AM

    I don't know much about this person, his background and research seems impressive. There is some interesting information and articles on his site to stimulate discussion, for example this one:
    http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/1992-10-17-Sexual_Abuse_by_Priests.html

    His main site, it may be worthwhile to look around it:
    http://www.richardsipe.com/


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:11 AM

    Jim....The 50% was not my figure but Fr Cozzen's, as was the remark about the priesthood being a "gay occupation"....I wish you would try to keep up.

    I am quite unimpressed by the slurs against my personal sexuality, and hope readers of this thread are able to see them for what they are.....personal attacks from people who have nothing to add to the discussion.

    If we are serious about stopping clerical child abuse, we must understand who is actually perpetrating the crimes.

    This may be painful to those who hold your views on homosexuality, but I don't give a flying fuck for your synthetic pain......the real pain of abused youngsters far outweighs that!


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Peter Laban
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:18 AM

    we must understand who is actually perpetrating the crimes

    But we do, priests, members of religious orders (monks, nuns). And the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church has been involved in an extensive cover-up.

    That's what we are talking about is it?

    For your interest: Kate Holmquist's article in Saturday's Irish Times about the link between homosexuality and abuse :

    'There is no research to back it up'


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM

    Peter, I am prepared to accept that there has been "no scientific research done on homosexuality and paedophilia" as quoted in your link, but this was not true paedopdilia....was it?

    It was in the main, abuse of teenage boys and young men by adult men.
    We dont need scientific research to determine what that is, do we?

    It is called homosexual assault.

    I really dont understand why you people keep apologising for these criminals...you should be pleased to see them face the courts and make the church a safe place for young folks.

    There is no doubt that by allowing heterosexual, family orientated men and women into the priesthood(normality into the gene pool), the sexual abuse would all but disappear.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Peter Laban
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:57 AM

    There is no doubt that by allowing heterosexual, family orientated men and women into the priesthood(normality into the gene pool), the sexual abuse would all but disappear.

    Didn't you read or didn't you (want to) understand the article?

    Never mind, don't answer that.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:13 PM

    "I wish you would try to keep up."
    And I wish you would start to take responsibility for your bigotry.
    "personal attacks from people who have nothing to add to the discussion."
    You are the one who uses the plight of abused children to peddle your bigotry.
    Why should you think a suggestion that you might be gay is a 'personal attack' - not everyone shares your bigotry.
    You've read the research and had the percentages - live with them and stop evading the questions.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:52 PM

    The figures you quote are completely meaningless, as you are doing what you do in all these threads.....comparing real numbers with percentages.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:05 PM

    Akenaton reckons if they had family men in the church, abuse would disappear.

    mmmmmm...

    if my Aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.

    As I said, this is in the main not just a coincidence of sexually frustrated priests, this is about power alpha male syndrome. Controlling others.

    Most Gay mates I have can't handle the remote control on the telly, let alone control other people.

    It is because of the attitude of bigots that this has gone on for so long, and I mean generations. So for an ignorant bigot like Akenaton to perpetuate his hate agenda, it shows that if bigots are in denial, there is no answer to this serious problem.

    Or at least, as Einstein pointed out; You can't solve a problem with the mindset that created it.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Peter Laban
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:06 PM

    You're hardly in a position to take that sort argument A.

    I linked to an article which stated that there is no research to back up the statement that paedophilia equals homosexuality.

    You come back stating you're willing to accept "no scientific research done on homosexuality and paedophilia" . Which is rather a big twist of what was being said. I.e. that research fails to back up that (in effect, your) position.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM

    The figures given by the John Jay study in Boston speak for themselves.

    We could certainly do with a lot of OBJECTIVE research into homosexuality and clerical abuse, just as we need objective research into homosexuality and high HIV rates.

    Your "expert" Dr Dibble(no relation to Constable Dibble I hope), in response to Cardinal Bertone's comments said.....
    ""There is no research to back up what he said. Five per cent of the world's population is gay and to put "US" all in that category is appalling"

    Your "objective expert" seems to be a homosexual himself!


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:45 PM

    Even the 5% figure is wrong.
    2-3% is now universally recognised.

    For years, the homosexual activists tried to foist Kinsey's figure of 10% on society.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:31 PM

    "Your "objective expert" seems to be a homosexual himself! "
    Yeah - I assumed you'd work on the basis that only people with your agenda have a right to an opinion - pity all the other's in the survey backed him up.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:12 PM

    Akenaton
    So let's see what we've got.
    You don't like gays, you 'pity' them.
    You find a suggestion that you might be gay yourself 'insulting'.
    You deliberately and dishonestly manipulate the term homosexuality to equate with paefophilea, despite expert research and dictionary definitions.
    You accuse all gays of being potential paedophiles - but have no comment on the idea that, following your own logic, all hetrosexuals are potential rapists.
    You explain away clerical abuse as being down to homosexuality - despite research to the contrary.
    You reject (not dispute) any research that challenges your own bigotry.
    You appear to have no problem with the term 'bigot' - on the contrary, you appear to embrace it.
    On this basis, you reject the conclusions of a dozen field workers in the field of paedophelia on the basis that one of them is gay.
    That seems fair enough I suppose!
    You really do need help.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:46 PM

    Jim and Willie, I think you're getting a bit personal in the way you've addressed Akenaton.
    Please stick to the subject, and be careful not to be hurtful in what you say.
    Thanks.

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM

    Sorry Joe - will slow down, but I would point out that there are gays on this forum who might take offence at being lumped in with paedophiles.
    I'm off.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:31 PM

    When I was working, I had a coworker who was jealous that I was in charge of the office, not he. He tried a little campaign against me - making implications that I was gay. It put me in a bad position, because I am sympathetic to gay people. That being the case, how could I claim that somebody calling me gay was offensive? One time, he said something to that effect when we were in a car with two other coworkers. I responded, OK, I've got notes of what you've said, and now I have two witnesses. Say anything like that again, and I'll file a formal complaint."
    He didn't make any implications like that again.

    But anyhow, there's no reason to be hurtful in what you say here at Mudcat. Discuss the topic, and stay away from personal attacks.

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Smokey.
    Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM

    I can't see why the sexual orientation of the abusers is relevant. The only way to stop the abuse is to remove the opportunity.

    They couldn't be forced to, and church will never volunteer to do that, as the effectiveness of its conditioning process relies on influencing young minds, preferably from birth. (I would maintain that the overwhelming majority of Catholics never had one scrap of choice about it.)

    It seems to me that the only thing which has had the effect of actually reducing the abuse so far is publicity. Unfortunately the publicity will also push some of the abuse further underground.

    Sadly, I don't think it will ever be completely stopped.

    Teach your children well, is my advice.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:58 AM

    Peter, where did I say that "homosexuality equates to paedophilia?"
    That makes no more sense than saying heterosexuality equates to rape.

    Men are by nature, sexual predators. Jim maintains that all male heteros are "potential rapists" and this point was mentioned on another thread, but in society we are all under pressure to conform to perceived norms and the production, and raising of a family makes the suppression of these instincts easier.

    Homosexuals however, have in the large part no such constraints on their behaviour as can be seen from homosexual health figures and the figures on clerical abuse.

    When we try to buck nature and throw away the rule book, problems always arise.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:28 AM

    Ok, Joe, I hear what you say.

    However, if there is any other way of dealing with drip drip poison diatribe that insults the very existence of a large section of society please advise.

    Sadly, the topic is one that is impossible to comment on without upsetting some people. Akenaton has demonstrated his / her? bigotry in such a way as to make reasoned debate impossible.

    it is wrong to just stop posting as refusing to stand up to such people is how the world has got into messes in the first place. Blaming a section of society for the criminal acts of a few, often not even part of that section, has terrible precedents and I for one cannot and will not allow their odious views to go unchallenged.

    Fine if that is what they think. free society, everybody has a right to a view. But everybody has a right to draw the line somewhere and say I cannot respect, let alone see the view as valid.

    Akenaton's stereotyping of all gays as predatory potential paedophiles who need feeling sorry for.... Well, I hope your warning of not getting personal extends to warning Akenaton that many people, gay / straight / religious / not religious / ginger / short / tall / male / female ..... can easily be disturbed by reading such filth and wonder where the moderators are...
      Interesting distinction, but we're not going to get into the area of moderating objectionable thinking, even though it may be offensive to some groups. We will, however, continue to prohibit personal attacks.
      -Joe Offer-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM

    "Jim maintains that all male heteros are "potential rapists"
    No I don't , and it really doesn't help your case to distort what I do say in this way.
    I said that if your point is, as it has appeared to have been over at least three threads, that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles, then the logical conclusion must be that all hetrosexual men are potential rapists. I believe both claims to be nonsense, but that is how your argument comes across to me, and obviously to others, and has done on all the threads I have been involved in with you on this subject. Your dislike of homosexuality is obvious and it has turned several threads on clerical abuse into attacks on homosexuals, which has to be wrong.
    The evidence on the clerical abuse we are discussing, the study by the Irish psychiatrists, the figures on homosexuality, even the definition of the term paedophile, all point to paedophila being an abuse of children regardless of their gender. We are in the middle of an abuse trial here in Ireland where a father raped his children - his son and his daughter - that is paedophilia, nothing to do with homosexuality.
    The above article (which you apparently dismiss on the basis of one of the twelve psychiatrists having declared himself gay) points to there being no evidence of your claims; even the church, on whose behalf the claims were made a week ago, have disassociated themselves from it.It is obvious that the abuses in the church were acts of paedophilia, and were carried out irrespective of the gender of the victims.
    If there is any imbalance between male and female victims in the church, I have no doubt that this is down to the access that the perpetrators had to their victims - industrial schools like Letterfrack full of young boys under the care of priests - paedophilia is an opportunist crime.
    It is significant that the figures to date do not include the young women abused in the Magdalene Laundries; nor to we have the information on what happened outside the time limit or in the diocese not covered by the two reports.
    The only thing we know is that there has been a great deal of abuse committed over a long period of time by priest, agaist children in their care. I believe it is totally irresponsible to draw definitive conclusions on this.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Royston
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM

    Jim, Willie,

    As one of the people that might take offence from Ache, I appreciate your arguing this one out. But Ake is a troll best left unfed, I think. I have this picture of him relaxing of an evening with a nice dram of scotch (single malt, probably an Islay) chuckling away at all the reaction he provokes.

    I haven't read the whole of this thread - has anyone pointed out that most child abuse is of girls, by straight men - normally the father or a close male relative? What proportion of boys/girls are involved as victims of priests? It certainly won't be an all-male experience, I fear.

    It's the same old tired narrative of the bonkers bigots. There are some people with whom discussion is utterly pointless. At one Gay/Lesbian pride march in London in the '90s there were people wearing T-Shirts with the slogan - "Give us your kids: what we can't fuck, we eat!"

    Absurdly bad taste, but an excellent riposte to the equally absurd narrative that gay=paedophile. People who believe that are beyond intelligent discussion, so screw 'em.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Stringsinger
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM

    The only solution is to arrest the perps. (Or pervs.) Go up the chain of command to the top.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Peter Laban
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM

    has anyone pointed out that most child abuse is of girls, by straight men - normally the father or a close male relative? What proportion of boys/girls are involved as victims of priests? It certainly won't be an all-male experience, I fear.


    That has all been repeatedly pointed out by several people, complete with reliable research based sources. Ake chooses to ignore that kind of argument or dismisses it out of hand.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Royston
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM

    I was just reminded of something that a very dear friend explained to me - she is no longer with us, but spend half a lifetime as a family social worker.

    Adults abusing kids, aren't fulfilling a distorted need for sex with a partner - of the opposite sex for a heterosexual or the same sex for a homosexual abuser - but are fulfilling a distorted need for sex with a child. The power/emotional/psychological dynamic of that situation. Paedophiles are sexually fixated on children. They aren't defined necessarily as homo or heterosexual because they are disfunctional in adult sexual/emotional relationships. Age is almost their only consideration toward their victims. Gender is secondary. A paedophile will tend to act out his or her needs on any child it can get access to.

    A reason that paedophile priests might have had a disproportionate number of male victims is that they might have greater access to boys than they do girls, because the genders are pretty well separated in Catholic organisations. It seems a fairly obvious and simply understood proposition.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,mg
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:03 PM

    Some points..

    I have never read Ake say that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not remotely. Don't go putting words into people's mouths. This issue is complicated enough as it is.

    Second..I find it very hard to believe that a pedophile would not have a preference of either boys or girls. Do you truthfully think that if God forbid they were given a choice that some wouldn't lean towards one and others toward another?

    Third: I think we have to look not only what people are attracted to but what they are repulsed by..and that often can be women..due to awful mothers, or excessive religion or very strict training or early trauma or whatever. Take that into account. Some Catholics are terrified, absolutely terrified of the opposite sex. Some men are especially terrified of contact with women. And respulsed by the very tought of contact.

    Fourth: We know there are pedophiles out there in probably great number, thankfully not all active. But why oh why do we allow ten year old or twelve year old or five year old girls even dress in provocative ways? We are collectively nuts. And responsible for part of the problem..and especially we must all be vigilant with the problem of the mother's boyfriend...that is a whole other topic and a terrible can of worms and 10people will write in the next 10 minutes and say either my pit bull never bites or my boyfriend would never do that. Unfortunately, both things happen.   mg


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM

    To avoid the present dilema in the discussion, here is a good article that puts the issues and terms into perspective and correct research language....so we can talk a similar language and avoid spinning our wheels:
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,mg
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM

    Here is an NPR piece on Marciel. Creepy man. Now, Cardinal Ratzinger did act on him and pope JP II did not, despite what seems to be adequate information.

    Keep watching for this Cardinal Sodono. He seems to be a rat. mg

    http://www.wbur.org/npr/126116570


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Royston
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM

    @MG. If you haven't heard Ache say that homsexuality=paedophilia then you haven't been paying attention. He keeps repeating minor variations on the theme of (several times in this thread alone)

    "homosexuals do not have the constraints to their sexual behaviour that generally come with producing and rearing a family ....I say again they have thrown away the rule book."

    Which is a blanket assertion that all homosexuals (not some, or a few, or one) are unconstrained sexual criminals (in this context). In other discussions he says that "they all" can't or don't want to form relationships and are leading sad, empty lives. To mention but a few of his inane mumblings.

    You may find it hard to believe that paedophiles - when they act as such - are not acting out any form of adult (homo or hetero) sexual behaviour. That does not make the assertion inaccurate.

    Ed.T's link to that piece at University of California seems to explain that very distinction. You might do well to read it - carefully.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,mg
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:28 PM

    It does not say that all. It sounds to me like it might be referring more to promiscuity but I see no link to pedophilia there at all. I do not find it at all hard to believe that pedophiles are not acting out of adult behavior..I just never saw him link all homosexuals to pedophelia and I of course do not at all. This is serious business here and we don't need to misquote people, even people I personally I don't agree with. mg


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Royston
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:52 PM

    Oh mg, now you're being silly. When he keeps saying that on a thread about paedophile priests, what do you imagine he means?


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:05 PM

    "Some Catholics are terrified, absolutely terrified of the opposite sex."
    In Catholic countries like Ireland the Church made sex a necessary evil; outside marriage it was forbidden totally, inside marriage it was for the procreation of children.
    The crossroads dances, open-air dances that were one of the major forms of recreation in rural areas, were systematically broken up by clergymen who would go in smashing instruments and beating the participants - the reason given was that it was encouraging sin for young people of the opposite sex to meet unsupervised.
    Anyone persitantly caught at a dance would be humiliated by having their names read out at mass on Sunday mornings.
    One elderly lady we know had her eardrum burst by a priest for attending one.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM

    Few would say that RC's in France (a country of 62 million people of whom about two-thirds identify themselves as Catholics) were or are scared of sex, or even the opposite sex :)


    But, they do seem to have difficulty with recruiting priests these days:

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/20/world/international-uk-french-catholics.html


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

    just read Eds Link, written by Dr Gregory Herek a homosexual rights activist.
    His Bio does not mention his sexual orientation, but it might be interesting to find out.
    His CV is a catalogue of high profile defences of Homosexual rights issues.
    His article is hardly objective or accurate relying on studies by Kinsey, who could not even get the percentage of homosexuals in the community anywhere near correct.
    The points discussed are mainly personal opinion without any objective backing.....he contends that there is no way of telling whether a man who molests boys is homosexual or not.He also maintains that there should be no such crime as homosexual assault or paedophilia, rather, it should be termed "male on male molestation".....all this purely personal opinion and speculation.

    As I posted earlier, the big UK paedophile ring, which was led by one of the highest ranking Gay Activists in the country was exclusively homosexual and the victims exclusively male children.

    The vast majority of the abuse by priests in Boston, according to the John Jay report was against teenage boys and youths.

    When I was a child, a homosexual and a woman, in a "sham marriage" fostered twelve children.....ten boys and two girls.
    All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused.
    When the man was caught, he admitted the abuse, his sexual status and the status of his "marriage".....He was not charged (because of the scandal), but allowed to leave the district and no doubt continued his abuse elsewhere.

    Thank you Mary, I have never said all homosexuals were paedophiles...that would make me as stupid as those who make that charge.
    As I have said already, in this instance we are not in the main dealing with real paedophilia, but simple homosexual assault.
    The instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM

    "written by Dr Gregory Herek a homosexual rights activist."
    Once again you attempt to debunk somebody's work by describing them as an 'activist', as you did with the Dublin psychiatrist.
    You have persistantly taken an anti-homosexual line, sometimes a virulent one, so are we not within our rights to describe you as a homophobic activist, and filter everything you have to say through this description?
    "All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused."
    Once again, you are implying that paedophilia is the same as homosexuality - it isn't.
    As I pointed out earlier, there is a case here in Ireland of a father who raped his daughter and his son - no indication of homosexuality there.
    "The instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare."
    WHAT?
    The rape of children is paedophilia - not homosexual assault, even the most desperate of the abuse apologists accept this.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 04:14 AM

    A father who rapes his own son and daughter is obviously mad.


    "All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused."
    Once again, you are implying that paedophilia is the same as homosexuality - it isn't."

    No I'm not!.....I'm simply stating the facts as they happened.

    But these facts do suggest that child abusers differentiate on grounds of sexual orientation.
    This applies to hetero as well as homo abusers

    As Mary has said, please stop putting words in my mouth!


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:36 AM

    "
    No I'm not!.....I'm simply stating the facts as they happened."
    Then what is the point of putting it in this discussion - sorry - just another part of your mission agaist gays.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM

    Rather than others putting words in your mouth Akenaton, why don't you stop putting words in your own mouth?

    People are trying to have a reasoned debate here about clerical abuse of children, or paedophilia as it is clinically known. If you or anybody else wants to start a thread saying how Gay people are the root of all society's problems, then do so. I believe sites exist for you to do this. Some religious sites, Br*tish N*tional P*rty sites etc.

    A paedophile is not more a Gay person as a straight person. He or she is a paedophile. To make a sexual orientation distinction is an outrageous slur on many people. A rapist does not make heterosexual love a problem. Marital violence does not make marriage a bad thing. Clerical abuse does not make the church a bad thing.

    I have views on religion and especially organised religion that are not exactly complimentary, but I would never ever make clerical abuse in itself an excuse to wipe out religious organisations. I sincerely hope it will help people to question the infallibility of the church, but as an example not a root cause.....


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Lox
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:30 AM

    Is Ake still banging on about this?

    Bloody hell!

    You have an unhealthy obsession mate!

    Why don't you go and see a counsellor ... as least they'll feign interest and understanding.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:16 PM

    Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis (UCD). He received his Ph.D. in social psychology from UCD in 1983, then was a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. He subsequently served as a faculty member at Yale and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York before returning to UCD, first as a research psychologist and later as a tenured professor.
    An internationally recognized authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, hate crimes and anti-gay violence, and AIDS-related stigma, he has published numerous scholarly articles on these topics

    Biographical Sketch
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bio.html


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM

    Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind?

    Take a look at his CV....objective? certainly not.

    he also makes huge assumptions and presents them as fact.

    The only reason his work is allowed to stand, is that the rest of academia is shit scared of the fascist thought police.

    They are all highly visible in the media, entertainment, "liberal" academia.....and Mudcat!!   :0)


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,Peter Laban
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:35 PM

    That should make pretty clear any further discussion of homosexuality with A. is useless.

    Let's move on with the subject at hand.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,mg
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM

    A very importantn question is whether pedophiles are attracted generically to children, which people are stating, or if this is broken down in to boy preference, girl preference or either/all. Without scientific studies, and I have been searching and haven't found the defnitive one yet, we must assume that there will be specific preferences for boys or girls. mg


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM

    akenaton posted "Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind"?

    Reply
    So, is that the scale one would put forward to weigh professional (and non professional) research and opinion (even here)? If so, I suspect if you as closely checked out the personal opinions or activities of those whose research many here rely on...we would be stripped back to our own personal views....with no research to back up any logical discussion.

    There are statistics, research and professional opinion put forward as evidence... and even financed by... those who have a specific religious, family and anti-homosexual (or anti RC or religeous) perspectives or experience. Are we to rule their work out because of that? There are professions who have been quoted who have been censured by their profession for biased and poor research,some physciologists whose work is promoted here. BTW Dr. Gregory M. Herek is not one of these...but whose research is recognized by his professional community...regardless of his passions are outside his professional career)


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: mousethief
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM

    Ake: Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind?

    Unlike YOU?


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:00 PM

    I post MY opinions, backed by the results of specific, objective studies, the largest of these being the John Jay study into clerical abuse in Boston.

    Dr Herek presents his opinions, assumptions and huge leaps of faith, as fact.

    Whether I have an axe to grind or not, is of no importance to anyone.

    Dr Heric's axe is capable of cutting through the fibres of society and bringing it crashing down.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM

    Mary ....I have cited three cases, two very high profile, and one from personal experience, which suggest that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths, despite Dr Herics claim that victims are not selected according to the abusers orientation.

    He makes no logical argument in support of his claim.

    Jim cited the case of a father who raped his son and daughter, but I am sure this creature must have been severely psychologically disturbed, or affected by drug or alchohol dependancy.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM

    Ake, I'm wondering if you have read Dr. Herek's article thoroughly. Dr. Herek would agree that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths:
      The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
    So, certainly some molesters prefer boys and some girls (and some both) - but their focus is on male and female children, an orientation quite different from an attraction to male or female adults.If an adult male is drawn to have sex with a female child, would you call that normal?

    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM

    I found this 1964 Quaker perspective interesting...though on the drifting side of the discussion:http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/1964-quaker.html


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: GUEST,mg
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:50 PM

    What is normal for men with young teen at least girls is probably biologicaly normal but not socially or culturally OK I would hope. We also allow girls to flaunt themselves and they do not discriminate often as to whom...so is a "normal" man going to be attracted to a brazenly dressed and acting 14 year old who could make herself up to look 40? Yes, unfortunately. I think biology wants every single 15 year old to be pregnant..society does not.

    This is another whole can of worms. Bottom line is we have to have strong boundaries and be willing to impose them on both the men (or women) and the young people who don't realize the strong forces they are playing with in their attempts to be fashionable, popular etc. mg


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Jim Carroll
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:56 PM

    Some random thoughts.
    I really am having a little trouble with this one.
    To date Akenaton has used four threads on clerical child abuse as an opportunity for getting across his homophobic message.
    He has, on open forum, presented gays, on this thread and others, as disease-spreading perverts who have no control over their actions. This, I have to assume, includes the members of this forum who have stated that they are gay and have shown far more tolerance of his rantings than I would have been able to in their position.
    I can't speak for the US, but homosexuality has been partially legal in Britain since 1967, and was completely decriminalised in 1980, yet despite this he continues his (at least thirty year old) hate campaign on open forum, and once again uses the suffering of abused children as a platform. If, as has been suggested, he is trolling to wind us up, he has a disturbingly sick sense of humour, but if he is serious, he has real problems and should go and see someone to get mended.
    If this had been about race, and it bears all the hallmarks of the type of racism I have witnessed most of my life, I have no doubt he would have, at the very least, have been warned of his behaviour, yet so far, Steamin' Willie and I have had our wrists slapped and instructed that we have to be nice to him.
    Unlike some people, I'm not in the habit of running and wingeing to the site administrator, but I do believe that there comes a point when it is no longer acceptable for fanatics to use raped and abused children as a means of getting across a message that should, like the racism it so closely resembles, be nipped in the bud sharpish.
    As I say, I'm having a little trouble with this one.
    Jim Carroll


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM

    Does the John Jay report stand up to the rigis Ake test...a professional peer review test, is it unbiased, considering who funded it and supplied much of the information? Does it justify Akes conclusions as to homosexuality of abusers? You be the judge...From the NY Times

    "The report* contains a wealth of data about the nature of the abuse, its prevalence and the profiles of abusers. In hindsight, Professor Terry said, she wishes that the team had explored more deeply the sexual orientation of the abusive priests, whose victims were overwhelmingly male. Most sexual abuse victims in the general population are female.

    Other researchers have praised the John Jay study, but cite shortcomings.

    Because all of the data was provided by the nation's dioceses and based on existing files, for example, the John Jay team had no way to standardize definitions or know how the dioceses had chosen which information to include.

    ''This is the equivalent of a couple of good, interesting articles in a scientific journal,'' said David Finkelhor, a professor at the University of New Hampshire and another expert in the field.

    Professor Terry said she and her colleagues planned to publish peer-reviewed academic articles. ''This is the only database of a population of sex offenders anywhere in existence,'' although plenty of other studies look at samples, she said. ''There's a lot you can do with that.''


    *(The Report)
    The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors
    by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States
    A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice




    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/nyregion/public-lives-a-dispassionate-look-at-the-wolf-in-priest-s-clothing.html


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Ed T
    Date: 21 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM

    Interesting stuff from Dr David Finkelhor, From the Crimes Against Children Center, UNH



    http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV68.pdf


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:37 AM

    Jim....When i say that I believe there is selection by gender in most cases of abuse against children; and in the clerical case, of abuse against mainly teenagers and young adults, I am not being discriminatory.

    I believe this selection is made by both heterosexually and homosexually orientated abusers.

    People who molest babies and very young children (paedophiles) appear to be in a different catagory.....something beyond sanity.

    Is is important to make this distinction if we are to fully understand the clerical abuse problem.
    To maintain that it is a problem of "Catholicism" per se, is simply wrong.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM

    I am not about to suspend reality to fit in with your view of how society should operate Jim.

    The bias in Herek's writing runs through all of his wurk....that I have read.


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:58 AM

    Jim Carroll and Steamin' Willie, you bring up an interesting challenge. I criticized you when you insinuated questions about Akenaton, and you both countered that if you were not allowed to defame Akenaton, then he should not be allowed to present his allegations that there is a connection between homosexuality and child molestation.

    I think there's a big difference - your remarks were a direct, personal attack on Akenaton. His remarks do border on prejudice against homosexuals, but they are clearly what he believes quite passionately to be the truth. Rather than demanding that he be silenced, you have the freedom to gather and present evidence to refute his allegations. After all, what is the purpose of a discussion? - simply to defeat and silence your opponent?

    The two of you have said many things that I believe are a distorted view of Catholicism - would it be right for me to seek to silence you?

    I think the only way to effectively discuss a controversial issue, is to allow all sides to say what they think, respectfully and without personal attacks. Your insinuations don't add any proof to your position - they're just nasty insinuations.

    That being said, I have to say that I still disagree with you completely, Ake. You say that Dr. Herek's report is biased, but you do not specify exactly what it is that is inaccurate in Herek's report. Indeed, he appears to be very careful not to jump to conclusions on anything. He does agree with the distinctions you have made between those who molest pubescent and pre-pubescent children; and between those who molest male and female children. He does make one distinction that you fail to acknowledge: that molesters molest children, and normal heterosexuals and homosexuals have sex only with adults. Therefore, a normal homosexual who had not had sex with children, would seem to be as unlikely to have sex with children as a normal heteroxexual would be. In short, most people (whether heterosexual or homosexual) don't have sex with children.


    -Joe-


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: akenaton
    Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:13 AM

    Yes Joe, I take your point, but Herek has dedicated himself to a lifeswork in the defence of "homosexual rights" seemingly to the exclusion of every other facet of human behaviour.

    This would seem to make him more of an "obsessive" than Jim imagines me to be.

    I would maintain that to be involved in the defence of these "rights" issues to the extent that Herek is,(basically a powerful activist), makes complete impartiality impossible.

    I particularly dislike Herek's habit of, when he encounters a problem to his hypothesis, he simply calls it something else; for example the sexual abuse of teenage boys and youths that we see in the clerical cases, should be rebranded as "male on male molestation" giving the mistaken impression(in my view) that heteros and homos sexually assault young males in equal proportion.

    It is surely obvious that the large percentage numbers of homos in the priesthood, has a relation to the large number of boys and youths being assaulted?


    Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

    Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
    From: Joe Offer
    Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:59 AM

    Sorry, Ake, but your data does not compute. There are very large number of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in and out of the priesthood, who never molest a child.

    I think that means there is no need for a blanket prohibition against homosexuals, if most homosexuals are very unlikely to molest children.

    That being the case, you have to find other things that would indicate a likelihood to molest children, and base your screening on that criteria.

    HOWEVER, for as long as the Catholic church requires celibacy for priests, then I think it is foolhardy to admit men into the seminary if they are currently sexually active - whether those men are heterosexual or homosexual. And as long as the celibacy rule is in effect, I don't think it's a good thing for priests to ignore the rule and engage in sexual activi