 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical Abuse of Children
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: David Carter (UK) Date: 21 Jul 17 - 02:43 PM Please, do not think that this problem is confined to the Roman Catholic denomination. If its ie more common there, that is probably due to the (semi-) enforced celibacy of the priesthood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Iains Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:24 PM Jim. The point I was making was twofold: Father Flanagan who founded boys town came back to Ireland and severely criticised the abuse of children in institutions he visited. The Irish government villified him. This was in the 1940's. Claims of abuse are not new-gathering a believing audience is. https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/only-father-flanagan-of-boys-town-shouted-stop-to-child-abuse-in-ireland My second point is that the boystown Fr Flanagan founded was itself the subject of investigation under the Franklin affair. Many claims were made concerning abuse but subsequent court action found them to be baseless.Not everyone accepts this verdict. It may be pure coincidence but I find it hard to accept that whenever politicians are the subject of claims of abuse the subsequent enquiries seem to have all vestiges of credibility destroyed, long long before a case can be prepared. Are the allegations baseless? or creatively destroyed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:40 PM Sorry Iains Still don't get your point The Church and the State were hand in hand in this affair, and to an extent, still are. Accusations of abuse were treated with contempt and disbelief by the Authorities and the church hierarchy, even though many of both were well aware of what was happening Even parents didn't accept what was happening to the kids, so powerful was the influence of the Church Up to the present day, the State has undertaken to bear the financial burden of the abuses being exposed - some of the religioius bodies have refused to pay anything, even the wealthy ones, and taxpayers money is being used to fill the gap Films like The Magdelene Girls, and the one on the Industrial schools based on Patrick Galvin's trilogy did more to expose the facts than did the establishment A similar job was done in Canada with 'The Boys of St Vincents" DeValera's dream of Ireland couldn't cope with all this - brave investigative journalists did what the State should have been doing I honestly can't think of one prominent clerical whistleblower - though there must have been some. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: robomatic Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:34 PM Two great films of the recent past which involve some of these matters are "Philomena" and "Spotlight". Deserved award winners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:57 PM The Industrial Schools movie that Jim refers to is Song for a Raggy Boy. It's an excellent film. I can't remember who recommended it to me, but I suspect that it was either Jim or Martin Ryan. Iains posted a link to a very interesting piece about Father Flanagan (of Boys' Town) and his condemnation of the Industrial Schools. Please, take a look at it. Now, there's an interesting bit of church political intrigue in the Domspatzen matter. Gerhard Ludwig Müller was Bishop of Regensburg 2002-2012. Here's what the Wikipedia article on Müller says:
In 2012, Benedict XVI appointed Müller Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) [once known as the Holy Office, or the Holy Inquisition]. Müller's 5-year term was up in 2017, and Pope Francis did not renew his contract - i.e., Müller was sacked. And Müller did not take his removal gracefully. He complained about the short notice of the non-renewal, and chose to retire rather than accepting a new assighment. It will be interesting to see whether Müller will be another troublemaking "Cardinal without portfolio" like the renegade Cardinal Burke. Both Burke and Müller come from the old school, which believes in the "discipline" that appears to have been the rule at the Regensburger Domspatzen, along with a belief in obedience to top-down management. Trouble is, Burke and Müller don't like the guy at the top, and seem to be almost in open rebellion against Francis. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:15 PM Would recommend both of these highly There is a steady trickle of such films now; the most impressive being 'Mea Maxima Culpa' I can remember the time when such films would be met by massive protests and censorship Hopefully they will continue to treat the subject seriously rather than capitalise by sensationalising it Galvin's 'Raggy Boy' trilogy (thanks Joe) is worth reading as a piece of literature Among the first albums of traditional songs was his double album set, songs of Irish Rebellion - still have them. His published collection of songs published by the Workers Music Association remains a classic Sorry for the thread drift - thought I'd try on my other hat Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:30 PM Ake, the Catholic League is one of a number of right-wing Catholic organizations that act like they're official representatives of the Catholic Church. The group was founded in 1973 by Jesuit priest and Merquette professor Virgil Blum, and kept a fairly low profile in its early years. A new president, Bill Donohoe, took office in 1993 and has maintained a much more aggressive stance. It often seems like the League is a one-man operation, but it is supported by the extreme right-wing bishops of the U.S. Its office is on the same floor as the offices of the Archdioces of New York, but it has no official connection to the Archdiocese or to the Catholic Church. And it really pisses me off when news agencies go to Donohoe and ask him to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. This happens quite often. Why can't they go to a bishop, or to the National Council of Catholic Bishops? Early in the history of the Internet, the right-wingers grabbed up all the Catholic-sounding URLS and built websites on some of them. The most popular is Catholic Answers https://www.catholic.com/, which has a "team of apologists standing by to answer your questions. Then there's the Eternal Word Television Network, EWTN, which has cable TV stations all over the U.S. and a network of radio stations. All of these right-wing organizations speak as though they are official representatives of the Catholic Church. This has been a bit uneasy in recent years, because they aren't sure they like Pope Francis. The right-wingers control very few Catholic universities in the U.S. Most of the universities are older institutions run by religious orders that don't agree with the neoconservatives. Many of these religious orders have their own publications and other media. These religious orders make it clear that they speak for themselves, not for the Catholic Church. My favorite in America Communications, run by the New York Province of the Jesuits. I liked above to the National Catholic Reporter, which takes pride in being a "liberal rag." It is fiercely independent. Another independent Catholic publication is Commonweal Magazine. So, generally the way it is in the American Catholic Church, is that the liberals speak for themselves, and the conservatives claim to speak the absolute truth for the entire Catholic Church. After all, they really believe that only they have the truth. So, be careful of the Catholic League. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:24 PM Today a news article on the BBC implicates Buddists as not following a true path. Could someone do the honours and provide a link please. It's a pain in the proverbially trying to do so on a an android. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:40 PM Thanks Joe, I followed one of your links National Catholic Advisor. I found an article concerning the issue being dealt with on this thread. I am amazed that you can recommend this publication. It was a large article of many pages, but I read it through, they started by citing the abuse of a child...a little girl, by a member of the priesthood, from there they rambled on about how terrible paedophilia was. Not once in the article was the main issue addressed.....that this is not about paedophilia, but the sexual abuse of teenagers and young men by homosexual priests. Never mentioned in the who article? These people are IMO not in the business of "advising", but rather in "concealing"......they must know the statistics from the previous priest abuse scandals.....that over 80% of the victims are male between 12 and 17......That over 80% of male abusers of young boys had already had homosexual experience. Maybe I was unlucky in the article I picked, but I would appreciate your views on the piece, just follow your link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:00 PM So - if something is written badly, the information it carries is of no value?? Homosexuality has never at any time been linked to clerical abuse - that is part of your archaic hatred of homosexuals Give us a break Ake - can't we be allowed to discuss this topic seriously without your using it as a hate-soapbox? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:38 PM Am I the only one who finds it incredibly distasteful that someone should use the sexual abuse of children as a soapbox to attack a state of sexuality that is now fully legal and is is recognised as being as natural as being left-handed? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Jul 17 - 02:20 PM Ake, the National Catholic Reporter has had hundreds of articles on the subject of the abuse of children by clergy in the Catholic Church, all available at that link. Here (click) is a link to the most recent of many articles on the Regensburger Domspatzen. I believe that in a boys' choir, the boys are usually soprano, which means that they are reasonably young. But it really doesn't matter, does it? When an over-21 adult has sex with an under-18 child, it's a crime in most civilized parts of the world. You can access many, if not all, of the National Catholic Reporter articles on abuse under "Accountability" on their Website. The National Catholic Reporter is very critical of how the Catholic Church has mishandled the sexual abuse crisis all these year - and their position more-or-less matches mine. Here (click) is a sex-offender priest's story. It's very unsettling. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:54 PM Jim, I am "attacking" the sexual assault of mainly youths by adult men who happen to be priests. If these priests had been heterosexual and were assaulting young girls you would be screaming for their blood. You are a clumsy and ignorant debater, stick to ranting. You should find the words Racist, Fascist, homophobe if used often enough, will keep your head above water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Iains Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:17 PM Joe. The age of consent in the UK is 16years and has been for some time. The only exception until recently was for homosexual males where the age was 18 until recently. Now it is also 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_the_United_Kingdom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jeri Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM It isn't here. It varies by state. Of course, I haven't had a job where I had to know for some years. Age of Consent, by state |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:54 PM Iains is wrong, Jeri. There are important exceptions here. He hasn't done his homework. Nothing new. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Iains Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:18 PM well little sniper shaw hows about you enlighten us all or are you simply popping up to troll as you normally do when you have zilch to contribute. You are saying wikipedia is wrong. Possibly it is. It would not be the first time. Perhaps if you know so much you would care to tell us the specifics of its error. he age of consent (the legal age to have sex) in the UK is 16 years old. The laws are there to protect children. They are not there to prosecute under-16s who have mutually consenting sexual activity but will be used if there is abuse or exploitation involved. To help protect younger children the law says anyone under the age of 13 can never legally give consent. This means that anyone engaging in sexual activity with a child who is 12 or younger will be subject to penalties set out under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The law also gives extra protection to young people who are 16 to 17 years old. It is illegal to: take, show or distribute indecent photographs pay for or arrange sexual services for a person in a position of trust (for example, teachers, care workers) to engage in sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: SussexCarole Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM No one seems to have mentioned the mental abuse of children by the Catholic 'authorities'. Guilt, sin and more guilt - that's what we were made to feel about ourselves at our Catholic Primary school. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:45 PM No sniping, no trolling. You simply hadn't checked your facts. You said the only exception was for homosexual males, etc. etc. It wasn't the only exception at all and I'm glad to see that you corrected yourself in your subsequent post, which came after mine. Since 2000, it has been illegal for people in a position of trust to engage in sexual activity with children under 18. That is a very important exception that covers people working in a number of professions dealing with children. You got that wrong then you called me a troll then you corrected yourself. Weird. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Shakey Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:00 PM SussexCarole, if there was an up-vote button I would click it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: SussexCarole Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:25 PM Thanks Shakey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:29 PM I never got the guilt thing in my upbringing, or in my 16 years of Catholic education. Still, I don't deny that it exists - and it's a phenomenon that warrants study. Seems to me that it exists primarily in ultra-conservative institutions and families. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the severity and harsh discipline that is found in some religious schools. It seemed to me that it was common in the West of Ireland, but not around Dublin. It's a prevalent attitude in many dioceses in the United States, but not in most. Some of it seems to depend on the tone the local bishop sets; but some dioceses have a tradition of severity and the people want a severe bishop. In every Catholic parish I've belonged to, there seem to be a few sad-looking women who appear to be very pious; and they seem to keep having babies. I rarely see them with husbands. If the husband is there, he seems aloof, and uninvolved in caring for the children. Lately, the conservative women in our parish have begun wearing headcoverings, usually lace mantillas. I'm not sure what that's about. Most of these women, while conservative, are not the somber sort. But there's one young women who concerns me. She spends 15 minutes or more after Sunday Mass, kneeling on the concrete floor in the aisle - and she seems to be crying. So, I wonder what the deal is with her. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: DMcG Date: 23 Jul 17 - 02:41 AM I never got the guilt thing in my upbringing, or in my 16 years of Catholic education. Still, I don't deny that it exists That is my experience as well. I imagine my primary school of the very late 50's and early 60's was as orthodox as any - we always had the Angelus for example, had long rosary sessions and we all learned sections of the 'penny catechism' by heart - but we never got those "you are all sinners bound for hell!" diatribes: in fact we associated them with somewhat mad varieties of the more extreme Protestants. As for matters of sex: it simply didn't arise. Perhaps because Vatican II had happened before I reached senior school, but I recall no discussion of any sort of sexual matters outside biology lessons. What did arise was a much more generalised discussion about treating everyone with respect, with no distinction by gender. You can, perhaps, put this down to the teachers and school being repressed about sex, but for my part I didn't. Rather, I treated it as an important aspect of life, but one amongst many. One little scene to ponder, when I was at University and around 20. I was in the foyer area outside computer room with Sarah who was going to a party in that evening. She asked for help putting a necklace on and while I was doing so remarked I was the only male friend she had she would trust to do that. Maybe that marks me as an odd-ball, or repressed, or some such, but to me it was more an indictment of all the other men she knew, that 'a little grope' was somehow acceptable. Given the choice of the repressed or the gropers, I know which camp I would rather fit into. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 17 - 03:15 AM "well little sniper shaw hows about you enlighten us all or are you simply popping up to troll as you normally do when you have zilch to contribute." So far this tragic and potentially contentious discussion has been conducted with the minimum of personal abuse and a fair degree of dignity and gravity- Is it too much to expect that the victims of these events are treated with enough respect to not get this thread closed? "If these priests had been heterosexual and were assaulting young girls you would be screaming for their blood."" I don't "scream for blood" nor do I rant The same thing I asked of Iains goes for you Personal abuse aside, unlike you, I don't discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual crimes or Catholic or Muslin or Traveller or Irish crimes - a crime is a crime, whoever commits it. Nor do I try to make any of these anything other than the criminal acts they are. The Clerical abuse outrages have two distinct aspects. I've never believed the "few bad apples" theory" - far too many incidents and far too long a history. The celibate nature of clerical life may have something to do with it, but this abuse has gone hand in hand with centuries of power and influence wielded with draconian savagery - its weaponry ranges from divine blackmail to simple brute force and has been established by a Church that has been given access to children's minds from the moment they begin to think - I'm delighted somebody brought up "guilt" The Irish church (I grew up with the phrase "Holy Ireland" ringing in my ears) is on the skids - congregations have dwindled, the numbers of masses have been reduced and in some towns, no longer take place, and there is a recruitment crisis in the priesthood. And still the Vatican will not open its files to victims, Religious bodies will not pay legally demanded compensation and the victims of the savage MAGDALENE LAUNDRIES are still being described as "whores" and "the sweepings of the street". These crimes have never really been generated by sex - it has always been about the wielding of power in order to establish superiority and control over subjects. That power is coming to an end Education here is now a pitched battle, with the church fighting desperately to maintain its 90% plus stranglehold on education Yesterday it was announced that an inquiry is to be held into the use of nuns in the medical system (possibly something to do with a recently failed attempt to put Ireland's largest maternity hospital under the control of a religious body that believes pregnancy termination to be a 'mortal sin') - not to mention the deaths of women who have been forbidden treatment because "Ireland is a Catholic Country" (to quote a Galway Hospital medical attendant) I find it beyond belief that a notorious homophobe should attempt to turn this into another campaign against homosexuality (sorry - I lie, given past behaviour, I would have been surprised if it hadn't become an issue). Enough is enough Ake - homosexuality has been recognised as the nature=al state of being that it is - please try to keep up with what has been happening in the outside world for well over half a century. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Iains Date: 23 Jul 17 - 03:53 AM Jim. I had no intention of poisoning this thread. If Shaw wished to draw attention to further qualifiers concerning the age of consent, he had his chance but wished to merely make the point that I had not done my research. All legislation has minutae attached. The general premise about the age of consent being 16 was correct. It would be hoped that someone who claims to have been a teacher would be aware of the age of consent being lifted to 18 when one of those involved is in a position of authority over a minor. This qualifier is not in the mainstream and would not be known without a specific search. Shaw could have added this to the debate instead he chose to write"Iains is wrong, Jeri. There are important exceptions here. He hasn't done his homework. Nothing new. ". Now Jim is that a useful contribution or merely provoking? Amplification of this important legislation is welcomed, point scoring is not. His behaviour here towards my posting is typical on all threads that I participate in. The old adage "It is better to give than to receive" did not have shaw's puerile behaviour in mind. His sole purpose is to bully, goad,and divert threads. If you wish I can supply numerous examples from both him and his puny acolytes. Now let us return to this very important topic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 17 - 05:01 AM "I had no intention of poisoning this thread. If Shaw wished to draw attention to further qualifiers concerning the age of consent" It was your boorish bad manners I was referring to Iains - not your opinion I doubt if you are qualified to judge the reasons for another poster expressing an opinion - try to pretend the rest of us know as much as you for five minutes Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 17 - 05:55 AM There was not "legislation with minutae [sic] attached." The legislation was changed significantly in 2000 to protect children between 16 and 18 from sexual activity with people in positions of trust. That is hardly "minutiae." You said that the only exception had been for male homosexual activity. I'm glad that my post prompted you to correct yourself in the end, even with your customary bad grace. Perhaps you could refrain from making authoritative statements that are uninformed in future. We waste a lot of energy here checking the accuracy of what people say when they could have afforded us the good manners to check it for themselves first. Your current outbursts on three separate threads are boorish in the extreme and are uncalled for. It's about time you reined yourself in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:47 AM The guilt thing was very real at the schools I attended. The overall general drift was that we are all miserable wretches who need saving, but, at least, we were Catholics and had a game chance as long as we stuck to the rules. Naturally, anything at all to do with sex pitched you into severe danger of mortal sin. I can't think that I was especially unusual in living in a permanent state of guilty unease in consequence. The double whammy was that you then had to confess all your impure thoughts/impure acts to a celibate man behind a screen, who would occasionally entertain himself by requiring you to elaborate on the lascivious details of your transgressions. Even then I found the notion that you could rid yourself of several weeks of accumulated guilt by muttering three Hail Marys to be ludicrous. I kid you not - we were once told that the very best time to be run over by a bus was as you left the church just after confession. However, the silliness of it all is relatively benign compared with what happens in other religions. It doesn't make it right but it wasn't too hard to escape and, in spite of what Joe may think, I came out relatively undamaged and can laugh about it. But that isn't the same as sexual or physical abuse... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Iains Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:56 AM Well jimmy and chunderboy you both seem determined to wreck this thread(as usual) So let us look at some recent posting to see what fine fellows you are: Shaw a recent post,"Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling" (I suspect many would dispute that statement) Jimmy a recent post. "Now fuck off and provide some evidence" Shaw a recent post."Leave the Chardonnay for the kids and the Essex girls. About your level, actually. Someone's got to drink it I suppose. Oaky whites? I puke in your general direction." Shaw."You're a waste of space. And unfunny to boot."(definitely hit a nerve there!) Shaw your patronising, schoolmaster, know it all approach simply makes you look even sillier than you are. Now I suggest you both troll off and let the serious discussion continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 23 Jul 17 - 01:16 PM It seems to me that the "legal age of consent" does not come into this equation, as even the seventeen year old victims were sexually assaulter.....I don't think consent was given in any of the cases. Jim, This thread deals with "Catholic abuse of children"......over 80% of sexual abuse of young people in the Catholic Church is perpetrated against boys...by adult males many of whom admit to previous homosexual contact. The statistics are glaringly obvious....The Church itself is only guilty of some isolated cover ups and a stupid celibacy rule. The criminals as always are the perpetrators, who in this case are mainly homosexual. Now don't come back until you find some alternative cause of this very unusual type of abuse and why it is perpetrated by people with previous homosexual contact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:54 AM Perhaps you'd care to forget your homophobic instincts for a minute and contemplate the glaringly obvious fact that male priests have extremely limited opportunities to gain access to young girls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 17 - 12:11 PM I have yet to hear of any homosexuals who have a sexual interest in young girls.....or for that matter heteros who have a sexual interest in young men......You are clutching at straws. Estimates of homosexual presence in the priesthood range from over 20% to almost 40%...I find the higher figure unbelievable, but even 5% would be a massive over-representation. I advise you to join Jim in his hunt for an alternative answer to this vexing issue......Don't hurry back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:02 PM Estimates of homosexual presence in the priesthood range from over 20% to almost 40% According to what? "The Homophobe's Handy Desk Reference And Bible"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Shakey Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:06 PM It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay. Estimates range widely, from 10 percent to 60 percent. NYT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Shakey Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:10 PM http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm Meta analysis points to 1 in 3 These figures are really quite easy to come by |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:36 PM It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay. Yep, that's the word, all right. Unknown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Iains Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:29 PM By the fixation on the percentage of homosexual priests one would be led to assume they are automatically sexual predators. Sexual predators exist in all walks of life, the only significant factor is that as priests they have a greater opportunity to be predators by virtue of more exposure to potential victims. How many priests are homosexuals is a total irrelevance. The question to be asked is how many are predators. The answer is nobody knows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:40 PM Iains, we are discussing a specific crime here "Catholic abuse of children".....Nobody is trying to insinuate that all male homosexuals are predators. No one has yet come up with an alternative cause of Catholic child abuse, the evidence regarding the sexual orientation of most of the predators is pretty convincing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:45 PM Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana but I agree with that, Iains. The only thing I'd add is that priests may attract particular reverence from their flocks which may help them to better hide their activities. There's nothing special about priests in that regard. There are lots of people in well-respected positions who have similar opportunities. What is disturbing about the Church is the apparent predilection for covering it up once it's been discovered. The Church opens itself up to accusations of institutionalising the cover-ups, therefore the abuse itself. That's the issue. It would be really good to see an assertive, open, zero-tolerance approach to abuse from the Church. That is what we haven't seen and that's the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:56 PM Thanks for that very interesting link Shakey, I have taken the liberty of doing a "Blue Clicky" Number 0f Homosexual priest estimates |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 17 - 05:01 PM "It would be really good to see an assertive, open, zero-tolerance approach to abuse from the Church. That is what we haven't seen and that's the problem" But you can't stand the truth Steve, that has become obvious on many threads.......and you just hate the Church Do you expect us to take you seriously? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:06 PM Ake, Catholic priests are normally 24 to 26 years old when they're ordained. If the victim is a 16 or even 15 years old male or female, I might concede that a priest's attraction to that victim could be considered "normal," if inappropriate and most likely illegal. But if the victim is 14 years or younger, that's perversion. And there have been plenty of victims 14 years old and younger. Wikipedia has a good summary of the John Jay report on priest sex abuse in the U.S. The complete document is here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Raggytash Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:44 PM Having been educated in catholic schools I am aware of numerous individuals who did not conform to an accepted norm for teachers. From the Nun at infant school who liked to put small boys over her knee to spank them to some very dodgy christian brothers at my grammer school. I avoided the brothers like the plague and I would suggest they never tried it on with me as a punch in the nuts often offends. How many of my fellow scholars succumbed I do not know, but I suspect more than a handfull did. Personally I would have castrated anyone found to be guilty of such crimes ...... and I know that's not very christian of me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:23 PM What a stupid post, akenaton. The Catholic Church has been a big part of my life and it still is for many members of my close and extended family, including my parents, who are still battling on. I can write articulately and grammatically and I have priests and brothers to thank for that. I'm a scientist and I received a pretty good grounding in the basics of science at my secondary school. Whatever moral standpoints I now adhere to must have had their germ in my Catholic upbringing. It's the only one I had, after all. Looking back, I also see that I was exposed to the kinds of absurdities that I occasionally like to make fun of here. We Catholics were the only people who could get to heaven and masturbation meant hellfire. Stuff like that. No-one's ever managed to tell me what happened to all those poor buggers who ate meat on Fridays before the rule was relaxed. And no one-legged man has ever come home from Lourdes with two legs. But I found it easy enough to escape. I'm an atheist of the Dawkins persuasion, but I must confess that leaving Catholicism behind isn't going to get you beheaded even if your granny might go ballistic. I think that adherence to a religion and a belief in an impossible deity is infantile in the extreme. But anyone who wants to believe it is fully entitled to do so, no ifs, no buts. Catholicism is like all other religions in that it can only survive by catching people before they are sentient beings. I don't like that dishonesty one little bit and I think it damages people. But the current problem for the Church is that it is failing to demonstrate that it holds the moral high ground. Simply moving errant priests to remote parishes won't do. You'll be found out. Denying the dreadful abuses of the past by trying to rationalise them is disreputable. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Either you confront that in a straightforward, open and honest way or you risk being branded institutionally hypocritical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM ".and you just hate the Church" Who wouldn't hate an organistion that has covered up and facilitated the persistent rape of children for decades YOuu defend these crimes by refusing to discuss them Instead you use the thread as a soapbox to trumpet your hatred of homosexuals If are the best Church can offer in its defence it deserves to be brought into line and controlled These rapes have nothing to do with homosexuality - gays are no more prone to paedophilia's than any other section of society In fact most cases of paedophelia come from withing the family or from family friends - I believe you have something to say about "family values". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Jul 17 - 03:11 PM "over 80% of sexual abuse of young people in the Catholic Church is perpetrated against boys." The church is actually guilty of not removing the perpetrators out of being in the position where they were able to rape children They ignored the rapes until they became so obvious they could no longer do so, They then passed the perpetrators on to parishes where they were not known and could continue their little hobby When this became too obvious, they were shipped abroad where they could rape African children This was deliberate collusion, not just cover-up. The Senior Clergy kept this behaviour secret and threatened the parents who dared complain To this day, the Vatican has refused access to many of the documents that might bring closure to the victims and their families - a form of ongoing abuse. A number of rapists still occupy high office in the dying church It matters little that people like you continue to defend this behaviour - the church will never return to the position it once held - it is losing its influence in schools, congregations are declining and churches are undermanned by clergy - rightly so. As an atheist, I bear no ill will to believers and their belief - they are quite at liberty to do so without the malignant influence of the church Believers do not need the church, but it will be interesting to see how politicians in a declining system manage manage without divine support In a few years time the catholic Church as a body will be as dead as The Church of England That is to be welcomed Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 17 - 07:00 PM You speak too broadly, Jim. Yes, what you say is true for some locations. That didn't happen in my diocese of Sacramento, California. Priests who offended were removed from ministry, and victims were offered counseling and compensation. Offenses were reported to law enforcement authorities, and some of the offenders went to prison. In one neighboring diocese, Santa Rosa, the exact opposite happened. In the much-larger diocese where I grew up, Milwaukee, results were mixed - but most cases were handled reasonably well. That's about how the crime of sex abuse is handled the world over - sometimes it's handled well, sometimes not-so-well, and sometimes it's covered up. One would think that such a thing should never happen in a church. But it does happen - and when it does, it's a scandal. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Jul 17 - 07:22 PM "Yes, what you say is true for some locations." It happened in enough locations to be described as commonplace Joe In Ireland is has been accepted as having happened without dispute - you may find pockets where that was not the case, but what I described was commonplace - there are no reports of whistle-blowers siding with the victims and supporting their complaints The churches have been found out and have pleaded gui;ty - the government had ordered to pay some reparation and has agreed to foot a large proportion of the bill (which is being paid for by the taxpayer) Some of the church groups have refused to pay There is no dispute that the Church as a body acted to cover it up these crimes and continue to do so by refusing to pass on vital documented information. The major documentary on the scandal, Mea Maxima Culpa, was based on events in the U.S. All this is a done deal - all that needs to be decided now is whether the church should ever have access to people's minds and bodies ever again - the faithful are boting with their feet on that one, hence the empty churches and shortages of priests. It's more than a scandal - it's a crucial question on the trustworthiness of the church as an organisation and it's spread into education and to health care Had the referendum on same sex marriage taken place before the clerical abuse revelations, Ireland would still be living in the dark ages As it is, the threats of excommunication fell on deaf ears - hopefully any forthcoming votes on women's rights to choose will meet the same fate One religion schools and demands for baptismal certificates in order to be educated is the next in line The grip is well and truly broken This is an ecclesiastic earthquake - not before time Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 17 - 08:09 PM Too broad a brush, Jim. Take the offense named in the original post. It was first reported in 2010, hit the press again in 2016, and then again in 2017 - each time, people react as if this were a brand-new story. Most of the offenses happened before 1990. Of the 547 cases reported, 67 were instances of sexual abuse, and they took place over a period of 60 years. Two of the offenders were identified as priests who both died in 1986, the other 47 merely as "Catholics." And yes, the offenses were commonplace, and they happened all over the world. I've seen no evidence that clergy committed sex offenses at a rate higher than other men, but still it's a terrible scandal that such things should be done by clergy. And there is no doubt in my mind that the sexual abuse of children is a serious crime that should be vigorously prosecuted. But sex abuse of children is commonplace everywhere, wherever there are children. It happens in schools, sports teams, and youth organizations. Jim sez, as he has often said before: all that needs to be decided now is whether the church should ever have access to people's minds and bodies ever again I suppose the same should be said for schools, sports teams, youth organizations - and families. Institutions are stuck between a rock and a hard place if they report crimes committed by their employees or volunteers. They face mass hysteria, and they also face financial claims likely to drive them to bankruptcy as punishment for offenses they did not commit. Seems to me there ought to be a better way to handle such things. My diocese ended up paying $1 million to each victim, decades after the offenses; even though the diocese had "done the right thing" in the first place and referred the offenders to prosecution and paid victims $40,000 or $25,000. People are outraged by crime - and they should be. But it's also important to view things in proportion and remember that the vast majority of people (and priests) never, ever commit a crime. If we overreact to crime, we risk building a repressive society. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children From: Rapparee Date: 26 Jul 17 - 09:52 PM I count at least two dozen other threads on this topic. Doesn't anyone search the Forum before creating a new thread? |